One of the first arguments that the PALIN / McCain campaign rolled out against Barack Obama, post-GOP convention, was that Sarah Palin had executive experience in government, as a small town mayor and governor of America’s least populated (and dispersed) state. Having lived for over 20 years in a small town about the same size as Wasilla, and having served in the local government there, I had a pretty fair idea of her background, based on my own personal experience. It’s almost laughable.

It’s still hard for me to believe that the vetters in John McCain’s campaign didn’t understand the scope or breadth of the TrooperGate scandal in Alaska when she was chosen to be his running mate. Now that the initial report on the affair has been released, we have a better view of how Palin wielded her power as governor, almost immediately from the time she assumed the office.

Time Magazine has already published an article based on the TrooperGate report. The full article is well worth a read, but try just these two paragraphs on for size:

…the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because it convincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palin administration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.

The 263 pages of the report show a co-ordinated application of pressure on Monegan so transparent and ham-handed that it was almost certain to end in public embarrassment for the governor…

The Time article paints a portrait of a state executive (and her husband) engaging in a clearly personal vendetta of almost Cheney-esque proportions. At first blush, the most apparent thing is that the Palinistas in her administration had absolutely no skill in quietly pursuing the personal vendetta.

Not only does this country not need another Dick Cheney in the VP’s office, but it doesn’t need amateurs at any level of federal government in these troubled times. The TrooperGate report should be the nail in Sarah Palin’s political coffin.

Unfortunately, that probably won’t be the case.

Man, this world is really topsy-turvy when I agree with David Brooks more often than not. Yesterday’s column again dissected the GOP and where it went wrong. I suppose for Brooks, as is the case for me, it is axiomatic that the GOP did in fact go wrong. He sees that their disdain for elites spread to a disdain for educated people, and he’s got it partly right. Except the parts about Sarah Palin. Here’s some of his column in the New York Times:

This year could have changed things. The G.O.P. had three urbane presidential candidates. But the class-warfare clichés took control. Rudy Giuliani disdained cosmopolitans at the Republican convention. Mitt Romney gave a speech attacking “eastern elites.” (Mitt Romney!) John McCain picked Sarah Palin.

Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch.

And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away.

What David Brooks misses here is that Sarah Palin is an affront to anyone who values education not because she employs the Joe Sixpack argument too much, but because of her own track record. She took five visits to four colleges and universities to get a degree, and then in the subject of journalism. I met a journalist from the Wall Street Journal last night at 30th Street Station here in Philly — he was covering the Obama campaign. The guy was proud NOT to have a journalism degree, but one in rigorous subjects like English and Economics.

Still, Brooks’ notion that the GOP harmed itself when it booted highly educated people from the party is right on target. I love this bit:

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

It makes me smile. That’s a lot of votes for the future for the Democratic Party. Doctors and Lawyers and Investment Bankers, Oh My!

I am so tired of this Sarah Palin quote. You can find it in stories going back a few days, but I’m taking it out of the CNN.com article from yesterday. The Sarah Palin line, which she’s used at several campaign stops now, is insulting to about 150,000,000 Americans. If there were more Americans who could work their brains, it would be insulting to them as well. You probably know where I’m going. Here’s the Sarah Palin quote from Cnn.com:

“I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America — as the greatest source for good in this world.”

Time to call Bullcrap on Sarah Palin. As we say in Philly to someone who constantly frets about one sports team or another, “Buy a dog!” Let’s forget the fact that both Obama’s books are essentially about how great it is America brought opportunity for Barack Obama, making your statement ludicrous, Sarah Palin. Let’s forget how Obama praised Hillary Clinton for making it possible for Sasha and Malia to enjoy expanded opportunities when they get older. It comes down to this: if you are so scared of the black man with the nice smile and who is so much smarter than you, Sarah Palin, buy a freaking dog.

As far as the riling up of the whack job wing of the Republican Party that has filled up the airwaves lately, and which that Palin statement above is a part, it looks like John McCain has finally gotten a clue. Let’s see, Gergen and Buckley and Bill Milliken and dozens of other REPUBLICANS, many of whom endorsed McCain in the primaries, are jumping ship partly because of the ugliness of the Palin/McCain campaign, and, of course, partly because McCain picked Palin. Here’s Milliken, former Governor of Michigan, from Michigan Live:

Milliken stopped short of saying he will vote for Obama, but said he differs with McCain on the Iraq war and his choice of Palin.

“I know John McCain is 72. In my book, that’s quite young,” said Milliken, 86, Michigan’s longest-serving governor. But he added, “What if she were to become president of the United States? The idea, to me, is quite disturbing, if not appalling.

Did you get that, Sarah? You are embarrassing Republicans. In part, you are embarrassing them with your lack of qualifications, but there are Republicans out there who think you dangerously riling the American pulic on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin. It may be that John McCain will join that group soon. Here’s what happened yesterday on the campaign trail when John McCain tried to dispute one of his supporters on the subject of Barack Obama. From Yahoo News:

McCain changed his tone Friday when supporters at a town hall pressed him to be rougher on Obama. A voter said, “The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight.” Another said Obama would lead the U.S. into socialism. Another said he did not want his unborn child raised in a country led by Obama.

“If you want a fight, we will fight,” McCain said. “But we will be respectful. I admire Sen. Obama and his accomplishments.” When people booed, he cut them off.

“I don’t mean that has to reduce your ferocity,” he said. “I just mean to say you have to be respectful.”

Presidential candidates are accustomed to raucous rallies this close to Election Day and welcome the enthusiasm. But they are also traditionally monitors of sorts from the stage. Part of their job is to leaven proceedings if tempers run ragged and to rein in an out-of-bounds comment from the crowd.

Not so much this week, at GOP rallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida and other states.

When a visibly angry McCain supporter in Waukesha, Wis., on Thursday told the candidate “I’m really mad” because of “socialists taking over the country,” McCain stoked the sentiment. “I think I got the message,” he said. “The gentleman is right.” He went on to talk about Democrats in control of Congress.

On Friday, McCain rejected the bait.

“I don’t trust Obama,” a woman said. “I have read about him. He’s an Arab.”

McCain shook his head in disagreement, and said:

“No, ma’am. He’s a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with (him) on fundamental issues and that’s what this campaign is all about.”

He had drawn boos with his comment: “I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.”

It appears that the McCain campaign has created a monster, a Republican side of the electorate that is rabid, that still shouts about “treason” and “traitor” and “kill him.” McCain tried to put the brakes on that runaway train, but he found that the brakes don’t work. History is going to blame McCain, certainly, but it is that weepy phrase by the woman in the race concerning Barack Obama, that she is “fearful” of the black man in the race, that is stoking the fires on this runaway train of hate, and history will note that also. At this point, there is only one solution for John McCain to gain his reputation back, to be able to hold his head up with confidence and pride the rest of his life. That solution has two parts, and they’re simple.

1. Replace Sarah Palin. The ethics report that condemns Palin’s actions is a good enough excuse. McCain claims that ever since the ethics complaint lodged against him in the Keating Five matter that ethics is one of his most important values. He needs to walk the walk.

2. In the debate perform a mea culpa about riling up the Republican base. McCain must praise Obama to his face about his accomplishments and the historic nature of his candidacy. McCain must assert that an Obama Presidency will be the Presidency of a good man. After doing this, McCain may continue to debate.

If McCain does this, he will have performed the closest he can to a game changer this late in the Presidential race. It may even win it for him. Of course, McCain’s handlers will never let any of this happen. But I don’t give this advice to McCain as a way of him winning. I am offering him a way to recover his good name for the rest of his life and for history.

Chris Buckley, son of one of the most important conservatives of the last 100 years, William F. Buckley, and a conservative in his own right, has decided to vote for Barack Obama. Buckley has known John McCain for well over two decades, and even defended McCain quite a lot during the Republican primaries. He’s now fed up with McCain, at least to some degree because of the recent campaign tactics. From Buckley’s column at The Daily Beast:

This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?

All this is genuinely saddening, and for the country is perhaps even tragic, for America ought, really, to be governed by men like John McCain—who have spent their entire lives in its service, even willing to give the last full measure of their devotion to it. If he goes out losing ugly, it will be beyond tragic, graffiti on a marble bust.

Oh, Chris, McCain may indeed go out losing ugly, with ugly tactics which will tarnish his brand beyond redemption. Part of that problem, of course, is the choice of Sarah Palin and letting her loose to crank up the scurrilous attacks. Former McCain strategist John Weaver also warns the GOP against the ugly attacks, carried out by both Palin and McCain:

John Weaver, McCain’s former top strategist, said top Republicans have a responsibility to temper this behavior.

“People need to understand, for moral reasons and the protection of our civil society, the differences with Sen. Obama are ideological, based on clear differences on policy and a lack of experience compared to Sen. McCain,” Weaver said. “And from a purely practical political vantage point, please find me a swing voter, an undecided independent, or a torn female voter that finds an angry mob mentality attractive.”

But, Chris, you should have seen this long ago. Remember when Obama predicted this plan of attack by the McCain campaign, long before the current economic crisis? Surely you remember, Chris. You should have known then that Obama was right, and you should have jumped on the bandwagon then. That you jumped on late, Chris Buckley, is a sign of your own limp judgement.

That’s the McCain advice as to how a candidate should run his campaing, and in the context of negative attacks. As is widely known and reported, all of John McCain’s ads are negative lately, and as is clear, Barack Obama is taking McCain’s advice, which he even features in an ad. Yup, he said John McCain is right, again. This time John McCain was right in 2000, before he flip flopped and became the King of Negativity here in 2008. Here is the video of the ad and the words of John McCain, from Nicholas Graham at Huffington Post:

MCCAIN: “Uh, I, I just have to rely on the good judgment of the voters not to buy into these negative attack ads. Sooner or later, people are going to figure out if all you run is negative attack ads you don’t have much of a vision for the future or you’re not ready to articulate it.”

As John McCain’s home state newspaper, the Arizona Republicn notes, McCain has said many times he is not going to take the low road, at least in the past and up until several moths ago, but he’s taking that road now, and the AZ Republic warns McCain’s strategy of all negative all the time might backfire for him. (Where have they been the last two months?) McCain is simply not respecting the voters, the real people who make the decisions, whether on Main Street or on some back road. Indeed, he’s not even respecting average people when they ask him questions, even in a live debate viewed by scores of millions of people in this country. Remember McCain’s response to Oliver Clark, the black man who asked about the bailout crisis at the Nashville debate? Here’s the line that sticks out, from the CNN transcript:

But you know, one of the real catalysts, really the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I’ll bet you, you may never even have heard of them before this crisis.

That line hit me at the time as a bit condescending. Now we know the full story, that it likely was condescending, and that Oliver Clark is a bit miffed. Here’s Oliver Clark, quoted by Michael Levine of MSNBC:

How did I feel about Sen. McCain stating “You probably never heard of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac before this.”

Well Senator, I actually did. I like to think of myself as a fairly intelligent person. I have a bachelor degree in Political Science from Tennessee State, so I try to keep myself up to date with current affairs. I have a Master degree in Legal Studies from Southern Illinois University, a few years in law school, and I am currently pursuing a Master in Public Administration from the University of Memphis. In defense of the Senator from Arizona I would say he is an older guy, and may have made an underestimation of my age. Honest mistake. However, it could be because I am a young African-American male. Whatever the case may be it was somewhat condescending regardless of my age to make an assumption regarding whether I was knowledgeable about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

This is more than condescension. It is blowback in a large sense, the consequence of flip flopping on core moral principles. Every politician says he trusts the voters, and John McCain has made that a theme of his public life. Now he not only doesn’t trust the voters enough to run negative ads 24/7, but he doesn’t even trust a voter face-to-face.

Hey, but maybe if Oliver Clark was a white guy McCain wouldn’t have said what he did. Or, heaven forbid, maybe McCain remarked about Clark’s lack of knowledge as a relection of McCain himself not knowing? OK, I won’t go that far. McCain’s disdain for Obama showing in his disdain for voters. That’s clear. The cause of his disdain being ignorance of what he assumes the voter to be ignorant of? I won’t go there. McCain is ignorant, though. He is ignorant if he thinks voters will ignore him condescending to them.

The Republicans and their followers are not showing good examples to our children, not with their disgusting campaigning lately that is provoking calls from their audiences of “traitor” and “Terrorist.” Of course, we shouldn’t trust Republicans on the subject of proper citizenship and good behavior. But let’s at least trust our schools.

In Chicago they are thinking of building a school for gay and lesbian students who are often bullied in their present schools. I suppose in a society coarsened by the ugliest of politics we can’t possibly hope for civility and citizenship to be taught in schools, but shouldn’t we try? Here’s the report from the Telegraph:

The Pride Campus of Social Justice High School would be open to all students in the city, and would probably end up being “majority straight”, said Arne Duncan, the head of Chicago Public Schools.

But it would provide a supportive atmosphere for gay pupils, using prominent gays and lesbians - including James Baldwin and Gertrude Stein - in its curriculum.

Bill Greaves, the city’s liason officer on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues, said the school would “make sure these people are not invisible in history”.

He said it was important that gay and lesbian historical figures were highlighted to give young gay people positive, successful role models.

Look, I have no problem teaching James Baldwin. I am teaching his Sonny’s Blues on Monday. I’ve no problems with gay pride days and I have nothing against finding a place where gay and lesbian students can feel safe. But can’t we just demand, more forcefully, students treating each other with dignity and respect? Isn’t that the real solution for our kids, for our society as a whole?

Yeah, this might actually save the lives of a few gay and lesbian students in Chicago. That’s a great thing. Still, the story makes me sad. Heck, I do blame the Republicans, who use any issue about gay and lesbian citizens as a divisive attack on our national civility. I suppose if you can’t teach Republicans to be civil, if their own Presidential candidate can’t even man up and look his opponent in the eye, then maybe any project of teaching kids civility would be a difficult thing. There’s the shame.

We know about her inciting calls from Republican dimwits of “Traitor” and “Terrorist” and “Kill Him.” She’s doing the pit bull in lipstick thing. But what else is she doing?

Well, her people denied recognition of the civil rights for gays she came out for in her debate with Joe Biden. Her office wasn’t working very hard, though. They could only write this little response about denying recognition of National Coming Out Day in Alaska. From The Petrellis Files:

Dear Tim,

Thank you for requesting a proclamation designating October 11 as “National Coming Out Day.” Unfortunately, your request cannot be granted at this time. If you have any questions please contact the Governor’s Office at (907) 465-3500.

Again, thank you for writing and best wishes to you.

Best regards,
Jessalynn Rintala
Coordinator for Constituent Relations
Office of Governor Sarah Palin

But the big work Sarah Palin did was clear herself of wrongdoing int he Troopergate scandal. That one is a developing story, with just a little tiny preview on Yahoo News. Of course, the real report will be tomorrow, and this isn’t doing anything but making Palin and the McCain campaign look foolish, as if they can send out a press release and make things right. Doofuses all.

Cowardice seems to be a theme today out there on the internets. First there’s John cole, of Balloon Juice, who rightly notes that John McCain had every chance in the world, 90 minutes of them Tuesday night, to bring up William Ayers to Barack Obama’s face. Oh, sure, I know both Obama and Biden are bringing up this theme, and they can’t use the “C” word, but Cole can, and I love it. From Balloon Juice:

John McCain is not man enough to own his shit. John McCain will not openly confront Obama with his smears and lies and innuendo. John McCain will not come out and talk about Ayers, he has to be asked. That is why he goes to places like Fox News, so he can be asked. What a coincidence.

John McCain is a coward.

John McCain would rather hide behind his wife and Sarah Palin than say it himself.

He would rather produce 2 minute ads that his campaign will never pay to air anywhere, and hope that the tire-swinging media will bring up the topic so he doesn’t have to do it himself.

John McCain just wants to throw shit out there, and “raise questions” about Obama, and hope his supporters connect the dots, because he is too much of a coward to directly push this toxic stew. He would rather hide behind right-wing bloggers, surrogates, and scummy websites staffed with wingnut welfare recipients like the NRO and the Weekly Standard.

John McCain had 90 minutes to bring this stuff up to Obama, to his face, and passed.

John McCain is a coward.

It’s a fun little rant. David Winer has a more studied work on the cowardice of the entire Republican Party. I’m thinking this is beginning to be a cinsistent theme, eh? From Huffington Post:

The hypocrisy of the Republicans is so caustic and damaging in so many ways I hardly know where to begin. But the thing that gets me most is this idea that they put “Country First.” What a crock. When they attack people who support their opponents, they’re attacking half of the country they say they love and supposedly put first. I’ve had trouble putting my finger on this for years but there it is. Love isn’t something you just talk about, it’s something you do.

Perhaps the biggest blast today is by David Frum, a McCain supporter and columnist for the conservative National Review. He blasts the Republican Party for focusing on Barack Obama with their negative attacks while failing to put forward a positive agenda. Here’s his article from the National Review:

American voters are staggering under the worst financial crisis since at least 1982. Asset values are tumbling, consumer spending is contracting, and a recession is visibly on the way. This crisis follows upon seven years in which middle-class incomes have stagnated and Republican economic management has been badly tarnished. Anybody who imagines that an election can be won under these circumstances by banging on about William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright is … to put it mildly … severely under-estimating the electoral importance of pocketbook issues.

We conservatives are sending a powerful, inadvertent message with this negative campaign against Barack Obama’s associations and former associations: that we lack a positive agenda of our own and that we don’t care about the economic issues that are worrying American voters.

. . .

Here’s another thing to keep in mind:

Those who press this Ayers line of attack are whipping Republicans and conservatives into a fury that is going to be very hard to calm after November. Is it really wise to send conservatives into opposition in a mood of disdain and fury for a man who may well be the next president of the United States, incidentally the first African-American president? Anger is a very bad political adviser. It can isolate us and push us to the extremes at exactly the moment when we ought to be rebuilding, rethinking, regrouping and recruiting.

Hey, it’s hard to argue with any of this. McCain is sending the women out to attack, and it is beginning to look like he’s simply afraid to confront Barack Obama on any issue whatsoever. The American people are not going to accept that. As Daily Kos notes, the GOP ticket is suffering in disapprovals compared to Obama dn Biden, and they’re only going to keep pushing those disapprovals higher.

As we move closer to the election, I’ve witnessed a phenomena that has only recently begun to make sense to me (by the fact that it doesn’t make sense). First, I have to hand it to my Republican friends…their tenacity in creating tangible talking points out of thin air is unmatched.

Let me provide an example before I attempt to draw the connection between the manner in which they analyze and strategize elections and the predisposition of some Christians to promote intelligent design over evolution.

Over at the National Review, flummoxed politicos are desperate to craft a salient narrative to leverage John McCain back into a position to win the election. What they fail to realize is that their lurching from one idea to the next is simply supporting the Obama mantra that John McCain and the GOP are erratic. Take a look at the following.

From Jonah Goldberg (Part One):

I have no idea whatsoever if there’s merit to this, and if there is how much merit, but lots of email like this:

When are people going to start talking about the REAL reason the markets are down - Obama up in polls. If I was McCain, I’d start telling people, “If you want to lose more money, vote Obama.”

From Jonah Goldberg (Part Two):

Now, it’s far more likely that the causation and correlation suggested by some readers is backward: the markets tank for non-political reasons and Obama does well as a result, rather than Obama does well and then the markets tank. Still, I think Pethokoukis’ point that Obama’s success may make investors more pessimistic about the future has some plausibility to it.

Finally, it sounds like this reader has it right (and I should correct a bunch of emailers who seem to think I was suggesting McCain blame Obama for the crashing markets, which I think would be ludicrous).

Jonah,

The suggestion that markets are down because of Obama’s rising in the polls shows a preposterous misunderstanding of economics, and McCain will be (rightly) pilloried if he tries to make that claim. I have no doubt Obama will be an utter disaster for business and economic growth/recovery in this country, but the markets are reacting to fact that unemployment is way up (and climbing), manufacturing numbers are way down, housing prices are still falling, credit has seized up, overnight funding is near impossible to acquire at anything but prohibitive cost, there continue to be real questions as to the solvency of financial institutions and their nightmarish balance sheets, etc. Just about every piece of data that comes back these days is negative, with the exception of falling commodity prices and a strengthening dollar, as Kudlow correctly mentioned last week. Companies growth prospects in this kind of environment are bleak at best, and the markets are reacting in kind. In addition, the ban on short selling of financials rolled off today, so some of the downward pressure that had built up over the past week released itself today.

We’ll reach a bottom of the market eventually, however–and I mean no disrespect to the previous e-mailer you quoted below–it’s naïve to suggest the continued hammering we’re all taking has anything material to do with the political zeitgeist.

OK, to argue that the ascension of Obama in the polls is responsible for our crashing financial system requires the suspension of reality. Now in fairness, I have to note that Jonah, in his second posting, dismisses the notion offered by the emailer in his prior posting. At the same time, this has seemingly become standard operating procedure for my friends on the right. Again, there’s no fault in testing trial balloons; though there is folly in releasing the ones that don’t merit a moments consideration. Doing so gives them an air of legitimacy that fosters more of the same.

Here’s the problem…all too often GOP operatives establish an outcome (the preferred fact or belief) and then they create a hypothesis to support it. Clearly this isn’t out of the ordinary with regards to scientific study. Virtually every hypothesis has at its origin some level of belief that it may be true, which leads to its testing. The problem with many on the right is that their bias and partiality leads them to corrupt the construct in order to rig the results. In other words, the scientific method is an acceptable construct when it yields the preferred result. Should it refute the optimal outcome, the kitchen sink must be tossed at it in order to discredit it.

That brings me to the connections between those who oppose the theory of evolution in favor of creationism or its most recent stepchild, intelligent design, and those who would put forth an intellectually dishonest explanation to further their political objectives.

Let me be clear, it’s a free country and we’re all entitled to attempt to influence others with whatever arguments we choose to employ. The problems arise when the credible and convincing means to measure the validity of a theory are cast aside in deference to ideological intransigence. You see, when an individual can dissect the Bible into those portions they accept and those segments they set aside…all the while maintaining the infallibility of the process and the indisputable nature of the conclusion…fiction has been elevated to a level commensurate with fact.

Even worse, there is no rational or reasonable means to compel these believers to abandon their arbitrary assertions in favor of a fact driven formula. Once this rejection of reasonability is rejected relative to religion, the distance to its dissolution with regards to other disciplines is easily abridged. In the field of politics, once dogma is allowed to dethrone dutiful deduction, extremism is enabled.

Hence, the efforts to assign arbitrary attributes to Barack Obama is the epitome of embracing this elusive equation. Not only does this promote discord, it precludes its resolution. Before it can be corrected, the quintessential question must focus upon uncovering the underlying motivations.

As I watch John McCain and his minions grapple with the prospect of defeat…and the fear that imparts…it supports my suspicion that terror management is at the core of our conundrum. Terror management posits that we humans are prone to obsessing upon the fear of our mortality and acting to diminish it.

As such, religion and the promise of an afterlife is a strategy to assuage the anxiety. Those predisposed to acting from fear are therefore susceptible to strategies that allow irrational ideations to override objective analysis. When confronted with fearful events, the instinctual reaction is to resort to the suspension of reason in order to construct a place of comfort.

Unfortunately, this behavior has an “imprinting” quality such that it is self-reinforcing the longer it persists. In the political realm, it is manifested in a refusal to allow or applaud alternate avenues of governance. The Clinton presidency is an excellent example. There is little doubt that his tenure was a period of relative peace and prosperity…and yet many on the right refuse to recognize as much. These individuals often argue that the time a president is seated in office isn’t the essential measure of his merit…or they prioritize other considerations…such as morality in the case of Clinton.

Here’s the problem. This approach isn’t applied consistently. Ronald Reagan receives credit for his time in office as well as for a number of ensuing years. Questions of morality, such as his having been married twice and his silence on the AIDS epidemic, are ignored. Shades of gray are danger zones and the pursuit of black and white…regardless of either’s availability…is the ultimate safe haven from which to view the world. With the passage of time, the GOP and its pliable and therefore palatable propaganda becomes the only amenable world view…facts be damned.

Doubt is equated with death and it must, therefore, be banished. Science, though seemingly certain, is still too slow in providing a palatable domicile from which to proceed. To embrace it is to risk the possibility that one’s earthly existence could end before it can afford acceptable answers to free one from fear. A retreat to the malleability of irrational ideations is the only avenue by which one can construct an illusory and idyllic island, insulated from the unmovable manifestation of mortality.

Death is certain; political suicide is optional. Come into the light my GOP friends…I promise it won’t kill you. Besides, you’ll still have heaven as a backup, right?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

There are times when I’m sure the United States won’t survive the remaining days until we elect our next president…let alone the day after. As I watch the McCain campaign succumb to increasingly divisive acts of desperation…fomenting fear and animosity by directing innuendo at ignorance…I can’t help but question the recklessness of his ambition.

If the role of leadership is to advance our societ