Drinking the Sarah Palin Kool-Aid

When John McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate on August 29th, the campaign got a quick jolt of energy from the party's social conservative base, resulting in a momentary boost in the polls. This initial energy was met almost immediately with very pertinent questions about Palin's qualifications to hold the highest political office in the country. Since then, opinion of the governor has been on the decline, spurred on by her "Bridge to Nowhere" lies, the "Troopergate" scandal, her daughter's "shotgun weddin'", dead moose carcases, speaking in tongues, book burning, and a seemingly endless supply of public gaffes that would make Miss Teen South Carolina blush. As a result, the McCain campaign has seen a 5 percentage point lead in Gallup polling turn into a 9 point deficit.

So if McCain doesn't exactly have a Palin Problem, at best his campaign has seen zero net effect from her joining the ticket. The idea that Palin is not qualified to be President of the United States is hardly a matter of opinion. Holding office as governor of a small state and mayor of a very small town do not make an impressive resume. Say what you will about Barack Obama's lack of experience, but at least he has had experience at the national level. I would prefer a candidate with four years in the U.S. Senate to one with fifty years as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Public opinion seems to agree. 57% of those surveyed in a October 3 CNN poll said that Sarah Palin was not qualified to serve as president, compared to 18% who felt the same about Joe Biden. (It is interesting to note the very low number for Biden here. Almost any poll conducted about a candidate's likability, favorability, or readiness typically skews along party lines, with results usually falling between the 35% and 60% levels. Biden's 18% - compared to 80% who believe he IS qualified - is a staggeringly low number. This means a lot of Republicans swallowed their pride and admitted Biden is indeed prepared for the job and Sarah Palin is not.)

Certainly Obama's credentials can be debated. I would even feel more comfortable if he had one more term in the Senate. But when John McCain (the same John McCain who has cancer and would be the oldest president ever to take office) selected a first term governor of Alaska as his running mate, experience, for all practical purposes, was taken off the table. After all, who in their right mind would say that an already embattled first term governor from the nation's 47th most populous state is more qualified to lead the United States than a man who taught constitutional law for 12 years, was a state senator and community organizer from the third most populous city in the country, and served in the U.S. Senate for four years?

The answer, of course, is no one. No one in their right mind, that is. That hasn't prevented the radical right from not only coming to the defense of the flailing Palin, but from engaging on some sort of Palin worship that truly boggles the mind. Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt is currently working on a book entitled, How Sarah Palin Won the Election ... and Saved America. Another conservative pundit, Randall H. Nunn, had this observation: Sarah Palin is "quite possibly the strongest candidate conservatives have seen since Ronald Reagan." What? Not better than Reagan? So you can see the kind of derangement I'm talking about. That said, I give you my Top 7 Most Ridiculous Things said in Defense of Sarah Palin:

7. Palin is a "real person" and that qualifies her to be President. Ironically, Republicans seem to love Sarah Palin because there is nothing exceptional about her. When news of Palin's pregnant 17 year old daughter was announced, Republicans lined up to praise Palin for it. The pregnancy made Palin "a real person like all the rest of us" and "show[ed] the Republican Party is a real American party," according to two RNC delegates. Conservative pundit Frank Salvato more eloquently stated Palin's qualifications thusly:

At this, our country’s most critical hour, when irreverent forces – both foreign and domestic – strive to destroy our nation, we should all be thankful that a real American, with real life experience as a citizen and a patriot’s love of country, chooses to exercise civic responsibility.

You can almost hear "Battle Hymn of the Republic" in the background. New York Times contributer Judith Warner summed up the right's affection for "real people" over qualified people in her blog:

One of the worst poisons of the American political climate right now, the thing that time and again in recent years has led us to disaster, is the need people feel for leaders they can “relate” to.

Or, as Bill Maher less eloquently put it, "shit-kickers voted twice for a retarded guy they wanted to have a beer with and everybody else had to suffer the consequences." As long as the GOP continues to lose on the issues, they will frame this election as "The Real People" versus "The Elitists." Of course, the Democrats could just as easily frame the election as "The Smart People" versus "The Dumb People" or "The Wrong Ideas" versus "The Right Ideas," but they shouldn't have to. Being "elite" is not a bad thing, nor does it make one an elitist. No offense to all the "real people" out there (a group to which I also belong), but let's leave the job of governing the greatest power in the world to the elites this time.

6. Defending censorship. Michelle Malkin posted on her website an entry entitled, "The Bogus Sarah Palin Banned Books List," assailing an obviously phony list circulating the internet after evidence of Sarah Palin's desire to ban books as mayor of Wasilla surfaced. The problem with Malkin's rescue effort: nowhere does she refute the story that Palin tried to ban books, only that the "list" was a fake. And she does so with such self-satisfaction as to make one's stomach turn. Palin's book-banning is a story that I don't think has gotten nearly enough traction. She later tried to terminate the librarian who opposed banning books. After a public outcry, Palin backed down, claiming the librarian was marked for termination because she was friendly to her opponent in the most recent mayoral election. A couple of things to take from this episode. One, the book banning allegations have not been sufficiently debunked. Two, I seriously doubt there was hardcore porn on the shelves at the Wasilla Library. Chances are, Palin was seeking to censor books with an anti-Christian or anti-Conservative message. Three, you know you're small potatoes when you send a political payback message to the town librarian. I hope the janitors at city hall support Palin if they value their jobs.

5. The faux outrage over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment. Even though John McCain and other politicians have used the common expression, many claimed it was directed at Sarah Palin. Of course, Obama was talking about McCain's policies, not Palin, but the McCain campaign and the right-wing media went forward with the outrage anyway. Jane Swift, head of the "Palin Truth Squad," seemed to think it was crystal clear: "Senator Obama uttered what I can only describe to be disgusting comments, comparing our vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, to a pig." Swift also noted that "she's the only one of the four presidential candidates or vice-presidential candidates who wears lipstick." Well, that's good enough for me. Here's the entire right-wing thought process on this one (in your best caveman voice): "Palin say lipstick. Obama say lipstick. Me mad!!!"

Right-wing tough guy Sean Hannity maintained the faux outrage even after guest Mike Huckabee refuted the claim. September 9th on Hannity and Colmes, the clip of Palin's hockey mom/pit bull knee-slapper was played immediatly preceeding the Obama "lipstick" comment. After Huckabee explained the ubiquity of the expression, Hannity insisted that, "He's talking about Sarah Palin," and it's "naive and irresponsible" to believe otherwise.

This phony "pig" controversy is made even more ridiculous by the fact that it's being feuled by the campaign of a man who actually joked about the physical appearance of a political opponent's teenaged daughter:

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

-John McCain, 1998

4. Palin's bogus foreign policy credentials. Perhaps the most hilarious defense of Sarah Palin is the idea that Alaska's geographic proximity to eastern Russia somehow gives her adequate foreign policy experience to be President. First, how does physical proximity yield experience? I live down the street from a hospital, but I wouldn't say I'm qualified to be a doctor. Yet Palin herself made this moronic claim, after the right began repeating it ad nauseum. Fox's Steve Doocy made the claim on Fox and Friends on August 29th (the day Palin was nominated), saying, "she does know about international relations because she is right up there in Alaska right next door to Russia." A few days later, Cindy McCain repeated it. Then John McCain said it. Even if Palin's foreign policy theory were true, it would only be helpful if the U.S. were to enter into a conflict with Russia (or, I suppose, Canada). As Palin will soon learn, there are 190 other countries in the world, many of which share no border with the United States.

3. Criticism of Palin = sexism. Let's get one thing perfectly clear: if Barack Obama had chosen Hillary Clinton as his running mate, no one outside of Alaska would know who Sarah Palin is. McCain certainly could have chosen Mike Huckabee or Sam Brownback if he really wanted to appeal to the Christian conservative base. He chose Palin because she is a woman, plain and simple. That is the very essense of sexism. But to hear the right tell it, it's not the selection of Palin but the often well-deserved criticism of her that is sexist. Rush Limbaugh claimed that the ethics investigation into Palin's firing of an Alaska State Trooper is "pure sexism." That's right. Investigating a woman is sexist, according to Limbaugh. The sexism claims don't stop there. McCain advisor Carly Fiorina cried sexism after the SNL's initial portrayal of Governor Palin (played by that chauvanist pig Tina Fey). Dick Morris was lampooned by Jon Stewart for his Palin-Hillary double-standard. Speaking of the initial Palin media frenzy, Morris claimed that "a man would never have had to go through this." Except several months earlier he essentially said that if Hillary Clinton couldn't take the heat, she should get back in the kitchen. The bottom line is that Sarah Palin is woefully unqualified to be President, and it has nothing to do with gender. Like the "lipstick on a pig" fake controversy, the phony sexist outrage seems almost choreographed by the McCain campaign and the right wing media. It's now beginning to look like Palin was chosen to allow the campaign to play the gender card.

2. Palin Derangement Syndrome (PDS). At some point shortly after the Republican National Convention, right-wing talking heads were dispatched with the identical message that critics of Sarah Palin - her experience, her intelligence, her political views or her campaign tactics - have no logical basis for such criticism. It's virtually identical to Bush Derangement Syndrome, an idea put forth to shield George W. Bush from frequently warranted criticism. It's the idea that any criticism of a Bush is spawned from irrational hatred of the man, not his actions, abilities or beliefs. Michelle Malkin was out in front of this one, first claiming PDS after news surfaced that a pregnant Palin had boarded a plane for Alaska after her water broke in Texas, hardly an obstetric recommendation. On September 12, John Fund of the Wall Street Journal cried PDS on Bill Maher in defense of Palin's embarrassing interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson. On September 18, Cinnamon Stillwell of The San Francisco Chronicle (yes, apparently it's possible to be named Cinnamon and not be a stripper) gave an ominous warning to PDS-stricken Democrats that "a public backlash over perceived media bias against Palin may be brewing." If that is the case, this brew is taking quite a while to ferment. It has been three weeks since Stillwell's prediction, a period that has seen the percentage of people that feel Palin is qualified to be President drop from 50% to 43%. So, if anything, Palin Derangement Syndrome more aptly describes those on the right who still feel Sarah Palin is a qualified candidate for national office. What PDS really is is an effort to group all criticism of Sarah Palin, warranted or otherwise, under the same umbrella and write it off as sheer lunacy.

1. Sarah Palin is more qualified that Barack Obama. Say what you will about Obama's relative lack of experience, but compared to Obama, Palin looks like a small-town mayor. Oh, well, yes, I guess that's what she is. Poor analogy. But check out some of these fanatical statements:

• McCain staffer Jill Hazelbaker: "She has a record of accomplishment that Senator Obama simply cannot match."


• Rudy Giuliani: "She had to make decisions....All Senator Obama has had to do is talk. That's all he does.”


• Rush Limbaugh: "She's more qualified than Barack Obama....He has not done one thing to qualify himself to be President of the United States."


• Randall Nunn of The New Media Alliance: "Governor Palin understands the Bill of Rights better than this Harvard trained elitist."

Much of the Republican's claim hinges on the idea that one must hold an executive capacity to be a great president. One need not have any experience in national politics, but being a state governor and having "executive" experience is really what counts. Of course, very recently we have enjoyed the presidency of someone who was governor for a longer period of time from a much larger state, coupled with vast executive experience at the corporate level. His name was George W. Bush, and we all know how that ended up. (in case you're unaware, Bush's approval rating has recently polled as low as 22%.) Republicans are now suggesting that someone not as qualified as Bush on the same experience assessment is somehow more qualified than Barack Obama. Good luck with that one.

More "Shady" Tactics by the GOP

You really have to admire the ingenuity of the Republican Party. When the typical assortment of innuendo, spin, demonization, ad hominem, flag-waving and fear-mongering aren't enough, Republicans get creative. This week Open Left and Think Progress both covered a story about a rather brash Republican smear campaign launched by embattled congressman Virgil Goode. The campaign ran an ad (video here) literally altering their opponent's physical appearance.

The Democratic challenger, Tom Perriello is portrayed in the ad as a bearded, swarthy, sinister character. What's the problem, you ask? Only that Perriello doesn't really look like that.

As you can see (above picture comes from Perriello's own campaign website), Perriello has light brown hair and what might easily be called a fair complexion. So who's that menacing rogue pictured in the smear ad? Well, it's Tom Perriello, at a time when he was unfortunate enough to be photographed with a beard. Run the pic through Photoshop, add an ominous soundtrack and voila! A friendly-looking white guy becomes Lucifer personified. Here's what I'm talking about:



Above are the doctored image and the source image side by side. But let's forget for a minute how they doctored Perriello's appearance and instead focus on why they did it. I think that is fairly straightforward. Most voters in Virginia's 5th congressional district probably don't know what Tom Perriello looks like. If Virgil Goode can make people believe that some dark, hairy weirdo with (gasp!) a foreign-sounding surname is coming from New York to depose their congressman, it's probably to Goode's advantage. One could certainly argue that physically altering your opponent's appearance in a smear ad might not be the most virtuous path to re-election. Time and time again, however, Republicans seem to get away with this garbage, and this year will likely be no different.

Probably more disturbing than the utter lack of ethical constraint on the part of the Virgil Goode camp is the very blatant political fear-mongering this stunt represents. Republicans have often resorted to racist and xenophobic innuendo in political campaign ads. Why should this year be any exception. The dark, bearded and/or mustachioed and possibly foreign antagonist is an archetype whose connotations have been strengthened even more by recent U.S. history. Archetype? What archetype? Glad you asked.

There are the modern villains, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden:

Then we get into the realm of fictional and/or historical villains. Why not start with pirates:

Captain Jack Sparrow

Edward Teach (aka "Blackbeard")

Captain Hook

Captain Morgan

Then we move to famous cartoon villains:

Brutus/Bluto from Popeye

Stromboli from Pinocchio

Jafar from Aladdin

Captain Hook, once more

Duke Igthorn from Disney's Adventures of the Gummi Bears

Wario

And finally some archetypal villains of no particular classification:

The Sheriff of Nottingham

Count Rugan (aka, "The Six-Fingered Man") from The Princess Bride

"Evil" Spock

Andy from Pee Wee's Big Adventure

I guess my issue with this campaign tactic is not so much the dishonesty or lax ethics. What is truly disturbing is the idea that in 21st century American politics, a major party candidate feels the need to appeal to ignorance, xenophobia and racism in order to secure victory. Of course, even if Tom Perriello actually did look like Stromboli, that's still no reason not to vote for him. But evidently Virgil Goode doesn't think very highly of the voters in his congressional district. He believes these people are more likely to react to sinister images of his opponent than to vote on character or issues. In an election year that has seen a floundering American economy and two stagnant wars, that is an extremely cynical assessment of American political will.

On the September 12, 2008 edition of his HBO talk show, Bill Maher defined cynicism as it relates to the token nomination of Sarah Palin:

A real cynic is someone...who knows better but knows that the stupid people don't. They know what the dumb people don't but they know that somebody like that [Palin] can get over on the dumb people.

Virgil Goode certainly fits this definition of cynicism. Who knows? Maybe he's right. Maybe the best way to get elected to political office is to trick your constituency. One would hope, however, that this type of campaigning backfires on the GOP. One would hope for a voter revolt of sorts, where people simply say, enough already. We're tired of being talked down to. We're tired of being frightened into voting Republican. We're tired of Republicans assuming we hate foreigners and wierd names. Impeding this "revolt," unfortunately, is the fact that this Karl Rove style of campaigning usually works. As long as it works, I don't expect Republicans to stop employing it. So it's up to voters themselves to wise up. It really doesn't matter if Tom Perriello looks like a dark-skinned foreigner or whether Barack Obama has a peculiar sounding name. Here's a general rule you might want to follow: If Virgil Goode's attack ad makes you more likely to vote for Virgil Goode, then you probably shouldn't be voting.

Isn't It Ironic...

The many faces of John McCain

During the course of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain has reversed course on more issues than one can count. Today, however, McCain outdid even himself when he called for a suspension of his campaign to deal with the present economic crisis. Actually, I would assert that McCain's announcement to return to the Senate is really more irony than inconsistency.

Irony #1: Just last week, McCain, amid a catastrophic meltdown in the financial sector, claimed that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." Today, McCain referred to the same economic environment as an "historic crisis." While leaders like McCain and President Bush have ignored the economic warning signs for months, McCain now seeks to claim that he's the one out in front of this issue. That's quite a bold attempt, considering McCain and his GOP buddies were complicit in stripping our financial system of the very safeguards that are meant to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the first place.

Irony #2: The idea that McCain wants to suspend political activities to get work done in the Senate is, in a word, laughable. McCain has not cast a single vote in the Senate since April 10th. By comparison, Barack Obama has voted 99 times since Senator McCain's last vote. McCain has missed a whopping 64% of Senate votes since the 110th Congress was sworn in January of 2007, by far the most of anyone in the Senate. In fact, the only other members of the Senate missing more than 15% of votes either ran for president (Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Sam Brownback) or had severe health issues (Tim Johnson, brain hemorrhage, and Ted Kennedy, brain cancer). McCain hasn't felt the need to show up for work for five and a half months, yet now is calling on a suspension of the 2008 campaign to fix a failing economy his party was responsible for creating. I guess that might be funny is it weren't so reprehensible.

Irony #3: Last week, Senator McCain dismissed Obama's concerns over the crashing economy as "political opportunism." If that was indeed the case, McCain has taken that opportunism to a whole new level. By "beat[ing] Obama to the punch" as the Associated Press put it, McCain has in essence forced Obama to either suspend his campaign and risk looking like a Johnny-come-lately, or go ahead with the campaign and be seen as insensitive to the economic crisis. Jumping at an opportunity to put your opponent in a political paradox is the very epitome of "political opportunism".


I think Obama did the right thing in refusing to suspend the campaign. Of the two options, he chose the one that made him look like more of a leader than a follower. Plus he got in that little jab about being able to "deal with more than one thing at once." The ultimate irony - and the reason I believe McCain is taking this siesta - is that by going back to congress to "work on the economy," he won't have to answer as many difficult questions about the economy.

Ten Ways Democrats Can Avoid Losing Yet Another Election

Silver medalists (L-R) Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry

The Republican National Convention and the fervor created by the nomination of Sarah Palin has turned the 2008 Presidential Election into quite a barnburner. Barack Obama, who has at several times enjoyed as much as a 9-point lead in Gallup polling over rival Republican nominee John McCain, now finds himself in a virtual dead heat with the Arizona Senator.

This should be especially disturbing for Democrats, given that the political climate could hardly be better. An unpopular war, an unpopular president, a floundering economy and a skyrocketing national debt are just a few of the factors in the Democrats' favor. Coupled with the fact that the Democrats have nominated a fresh, exciting and change-oriented candidate in Obama, the Democrats should be burying an old, uninspiring, politically entrenched, retread of a candidate like John McCain. But they're not. Somehow McCain has convinced 45% of the electorate that he and the Republicans are the agents of change. He has convinced them that a woefully inexperienced Governor of very average intellect is qualified to run the United States. (Come on, John. We know why you picked her. You can stop pretending she's qualified now.)

So whatever the reasons are for the Democrats' current predicament, I believe there are ways they can recapture the energy of Denver and possibly win in a November landslide. So if I were advising the Obama campaign (no, seriously, are there any openings?), here's what I would propose:

1. Ignore Sarah Palin

Democrats need to treat Governor Palin as a non-entity. Much to my own surprise, the national media has shown thus far that they are interested in Palin and will not let her lies, scandals and outrageous views go unnoticed. But Palin is not the candidate. John McCain is rife with inconsistencies, bad policies, conflicts of interest, and deep-rooted Washington entrenchment. McCain not only is an easier target, but attacking him doesn't bear as much risk of backlash. Excessive questioning of Palin's credentials could lead some to feel she's being unfairly treated or bullied. Democrats don't want to make a martyr of a "good Christian" rural mother of five. Democrats need to treat Palin as they would treat a rumor about Obama being a Muslim: ignore it, or risk lending credence to it by addressing it. When Republican Senator Larry Craig called a press conference to announce that "I am not gay.... I never have been gay," people must have come away saying, "You know what? I bet he's gay." (of course, if Sen. Craig was gay, he could always visit Sarah Palin's church to get "converted.")

2. Get the Clintons out there

Hillary Clinton may still be stewing over her narrow defeat in the Democratic primary, but she needs to get over it, and soon. I know the Clintons both spoke at the convention, and that's nice. But they need to really get busy for the sake of their party and to ensure that the Clinton legacy is not permanently dismantled by another Republican administration. The Clinton's have the ability to do the following:

• Appeal to Southern and moderate voters. Bill Clinton was successful in 1992 and 1996 because he was seen as a centrist and had credentials in the South. 2008 marks one of the extremely rare occurrences in American politics where there has not been someone from the South or the rural Midwest on either ticket. And Bill is in the rare position to say, "Hey, I know moderate. John McCain is no moderate."


• Bring Hillary loyalists to the Obama side. Hillary Clinton has scores of followers who appear to have been more interested in electing a woman than electing a Democrat. Hillary needs to show how similar she and Obama are and how distant the McCain-Palin ticket is from either of them.


• Attack Sarah Palin. Oddly enough, this parody on SNL made me realize something. Hillary is probably the only person who can attack Palin with impunity. At the very least, she is the position to be the most effective critic of the Alaska Governor. Despite the fact that Obama and Palin have both been criticized for inexperience, religious affiliations, family, patriotism and sex education, some on the right have argued that criticism of Palin is purely a result of sexism. Hillary has the ability to criticize Palin without being viewed as sexist and hopefully make American women realize that the selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate is itself a blatantly sexist act. (further reading on this here and here.)

3. Dumb it down a little

As the enthusiasm over Sarah Palin has demonstrated, Americans aren't going to be voting with their brains any time soon. That is the unfortunate reality for Obama, who is without a doubt a brilliant man. The Columbia University and Harvard Law graduate, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, and former Constitutional Law professor at the University of Chicago probably has the combined McCain-Palin ticket beat in terms of IQ points. McCain ranked 894 of 899 students in his class at the US Naval Academy. Palin attended four different schools, including two stints at the University of Idaho, before attaining her Bachelor's degree in communications. It's not that Barack Obama is too smart to be president. On the contrary, I would argue that one can't be smart enough for that job. His problem is that he's too smart for people who would vote for John McCain.

The average voter doesn't get that increased domestic oil drilling will have no immediate effect, very little long-term effect, and will get us no closer to developing cleaner, renewable energy sources. They don't understand that unregulated capitalism leads to the kind of economic disasters we are seeing this week. They don't see how blunders in foreign policy have eroded the global goodwill the U.S. has been building for a century. In essence, they don't understand cause and effect very well, and don't want some politician lecturing them about it. It's sad, but true. Obama needs to hit people with a barrage of "problem-solution" scenarios. There are plenty of problems that need solving, and people generally want a quick fix. Don't tell people all the most intricate details of a solution, how long it will take or how much it will cost. Just tell them it will work.

4. Focus on the economy

McCain this week criticized Obama, calling Obama's assessment of the crashing Bush economy, "political opportunism." Notice how McCain didn't say Obama's assessment was wrong, or offer any solution other than setting up a "commission" to study the current economic crisis. Imagine if the 9/11 Commission was formed as the planes were about to strike the World Trade Center. I'm pretty sure the planes would have still hit their target, just as a commission on the economy will not likely deter this current economic free fall. In fact, as Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch and AIG were collapsing, McCain reiterated his claim that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." The resulting echoes of laughter must have reached McCain's ears, as he quickly redefined these "fundamentals" as "American workers, innovation, entrepreneurship," bizarrely suggesting that criticism of the economy is akin to criticism of working people. See for yourself:

The point of course, is that John McCain knows next to nothing about the economy, and what he does know is wrong. For example, McCain's chief economic advisor and likely Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm was instrumental in ushering in a new age of financial deregulation and corporate loopholes. Obama needs to show who is responsible for the current economic meltdown, and let the American people know that, aside from the Iraq War, economic policy is where Bush and McCain are probably most similar.

5. Grill McCain on his houses

Various reports have concluded that the McCains own somewhere between seven and nine houses. The Obamas own one. This topic is not simply a personal attack and is very much fair game for the Obama campaign to use. For one, McCain is touting himself as the populist while calling Obama an "elitist." This is almost hysterical, given McCain's aforementioned real estate empire, the fact that he believes only those making more than $5 million are rich, and - hello??? - he's a Republican, the party that for decades has committed itself to making life easier for the super rich at the expense of the middle class. Despite these facts, McCain is still going to try to claim that he's the guy that supports the middle class. Obama needs to mention the 7+ houses whenever it is appropriate and often when it is not. People aren't that stupid. If someone with nine houses says he's in touch with the plight of the middle class, he's lying, and people will know he's lying if they know he has nine houses.

6. Grill McCain on his staff of lobbyists

For reasons unknown to me, John McCain has somehow been able to make a lot of people believe he is a "Maverick," an "Agent of Change" and someone who will clean up Washington. This is highly suspicious given the fact that so many current and former lobbyists are employed in key positions on McCain's campaign staff. Here are just a few:

• Rick Davis: campaign manager, partner at lobbying firm Davis, Manafort & Freedman.


• Charlie Black: chief campaign adviser, former chairman of lobbying firm BKSH & Associates.


• John Green: campaign liason to Washington, current lobbyist for the firm Ogilvy Government Relations


• Frank Donatelli: Deputy Chairman of the RNC, former lobbyist for McGuireWoods Consulting.


• Randy Scheunemann: foreign affairs advisor, registered lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia.

In fact, according to the website, Mccainsource.com, the candidate has had 133 current or former lobbyists working at various levels in his campaign, many sporting conflicts of interest with either the candidate or the country. And if McCain gets elected, what happens to these high-level lobbyists? They become high-level members of the President's cabinet or staff, giving lobbying firms people on the inside.

For Obama, this one shouldn't be at all difficult. People don't like lobbyists and they don't like hypocrites. By cramming his staff with the former, the Maverick has become the latter. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington put it this way: "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists."

7. Grill McCain on his flip-flops

Back in 2004, Republicans painted John Kerry as a flip-flopper. That, along with with smearing a decorated war veteran and "fixing" things in Ohio and Florida, helped the Republicans win a close election. McCain's flip-flopping is legendary. If there ever was an example of a politician that will say anything to get elected, it's this guy. More complete lists can be found here or here, but here are some of the highlights:

• Religion: McCain, who once called Reverends Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance," actively sought the endorsement of Paster John Hagee, an equally bombastic Christian ideologue. In an April 2008 interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous, McCain said it was a mistake to accept the Hagee endorsement, then later said he was "glad to have" it.


• Taxes: McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now he promises to expand those tax cuts, even amid an economic meltdown.


• Economy: In the midst of this week's economic debacle, McCain flip-flopped on regulation in less than an hour. He said "I don’t like excessive and unnecessary...government regulation." Later he said "Do I believe in excess government regulation? Yes."


• Immigration: McCain said in January that he would not vote for his own immigration bill he sponsored in 2006.

McCain's flip-flops are especially damning for his campaign because they almost all involve him flopping to the right. McCain the Maverick has built his brand image on bucking his own party, yet in the race for the White House, the GOP seems to have been successful in reigning him in. Obama needs to expose McCain as the master panderer that he is, essentially a political nomad loyal to everyone and to no one.

8. Indirectly attack McCain's age

Obviously Democrats can't explicitly call McCain "too old". They need to imply that he is too old. The two best ways to do that are to stress McCain's public gaffes (i.e., "senior moments") and his ridiculous aversion to technology. All political candidates make verbal errors over the course of a year-long campaign. McCain, however, has really outdone himself this election cycle. He has confused Sunni and Shia. He has mixed up his economic regulatory agencies. He said the Sunni awakening in Iraq was caused by the "surge," when that was not remotely the case. He claimed that Iraq and Pakistan share a border. (They don't) Recently, he started discussing Latin America and Mexico when a reporter asked him about U.S. relations with Spain. Whether these are merely "senior moments" or evidence of a deep lack of understanding we may never know, but either way, this is not good for McCain.

McCain's bizarre disdain for technology is not as widely reported as it should be. I'm not saying a presidential candidate must have a Nintendo Wii and a Blue Ray player before I will vote for him. But in the most industrialized nation in the world, is it too much to ask for the president to be able to use email? It's clear that McCain's technology gap could pose problems in November. As one GOP strategist put it, “If I were counseling John McCain, I would have him standing in line for an iPhone.” Again, inability and/or unwillingness to adopt technology that has been around for 20 years may not be to the benefit of McCain either as presidential candidate or as president. Since he has admitted publicly to being "illiterate," this illiteracy is fair game for the Obama campaign to use to paint the broader picture of a candidate that needs to be put out to pasture.

9. Get people talking about his temper

Most politicians and Washington insiders have known about McCain's nasty streak for some time. From obscenity-laced tirades on the floor of the senate, threats of physical violence aimed at political opponents, and even dropping the "C-bomb" on his own wife, McCain has proven to have a very short fuse. Apparently he once got into a Senate floor fight with a 95-year old Strom Thurmond. Needless to say, a hot-head in the White House is the last thing the country needs. While Obama can't explicitly attack McCain's temper, he needs to find a way to get it out there. In the debates, Obama should try to get under his skin a little and see if he can elicit an outburst. Hey, if Obama is lucky, he may even get a racist eruption from the Arizona senator. Cha-ching!

10. Remind voters that McCain is a Republican

Comparisons of John McCain to George W. Bush may be fairly accurate, but that strategy has seen mixed results for Democrats. According to A CNN poll conducted last week, only 53% of those surveyed felt that McCain would carry on the policies of the current president. If a McCain victory really means a third Bush term, the public isn't buying it. It's as though McCain has acheived a public opinion that more closely associates him with his self-invented "Maverick" brand than with his own political party. If Democrats want to win back the White House, this perception needs to change. The fact that McCain is fleeing the disastrously unpopular Bush presidency indicates that he knows Bush won't be an asset to his campaign. What the Democrats have to do is simplify things. Instead of endlessly dissecting Senate votes and policy positions, Dems need to put it this way: George Bush is a Republican. John McCain is a Republican. Therefore, George Bush = John McCain. While extremes certainly exists within political parties, what gives the major parties their strength is their unity on a vast number of issues. If McCain really had a 50/50 chance of bucking his own party, as Americans now believe, that would potentially fracture the Republican party as we know it. Anyone who believes the Maverick will come out once John McCain is elected doesn't understand American politics or political parties.

Look. John McCain is a Republican. If he wasn't, he would be running as an independent. He's not. He belongs to the same Republican regime that is on the wrong side of issues like Iraq, health care, the economy, the environment, abortion, gun control, and stem cells. He's a member of the same party that has crashed our economy and has erased any credibility we once had with the rest of the world. Most of the people that voted for George W. Bush will also be voting for McCain. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE REPUBLICANS!!!! There simply aren't enough Republicans out there (27% by recent estimates) for McCain to win this thing unless independents and moderate Democrats vote Republican as well. To prevent this from happening, Democrats need to stop making this about people and start making it about party. When you're dealing with an ill-informed electorate, as we are in the U.S., Republican = Republican is a lot easier to grasp than McCain = Bush.

Thou Shalt Not Rock

"Everybody Wang Chung tonight, my friends"

The nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has infused the McCain campaign with some well-timed Christian self-righteousness. Absent from this new holier-than-thou ticket, however, is the adherence to the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal." A rather amusing or perhaps disturbing theme in the 2008 campaign has cropped up in recent weeks. On multiple occasions, musicians have objected to the unauthorized use of their music in conjunction with the McCain campaign. Many have demanded that the Senator cease playing their songs or face legal consequences. For example:

Van Halen: While introducing Sarah Palin at an August 29th rally in Ohio, the campaign played "Right Now" without the band's permission. The band responded by saying, “Permission was not sought or granted nor would it have been given.”

Jackson Browne: On August 14th, the artist filed suit with McCain's campaign and the RNC for the unauthorized use of his iconic hit "Running on Empty." The song was used in a RNC television ad criticizing Barack Obama's energy policy. Browne's objections were based less on intellectual property violations and more on his desire to not be associated with the Republican party or John McCain.

ABBA: In February, the McCain was compelled not to use the Swedish group's 1977 hit "Take a Chance on Me" at campaign rallies due to licensing issues.

Theme from "Rocky": Also in February, the owner of the copyright to the popular theme song informed McCain that "Rocky" was not his to play. McCain continues to use the song at campaign functions.

John Cougar Mellencamp: In February, reps for the artist asked McCain the stop playing “Our Country” and “Pink Houses” at campaign events.

John Hall: The founder of the band Orleans and current New York congressman asked the McCain campaign in June to stop playing his song "Still the One." Hall also had to issue a cease-and-desist order to the RNC and Bush-Cheney in 2004 for the same infringement.

Frankie Valli: McCain attack ads were removed from YouTube after it was determined they used the classics "Can't Take My Eyes Off Of You" and "My Eyes Adored You" without a copyright.

Heart: Musicians Ann and Nancy Wilson objected to the use of their song "Barracuda" during the Republican National Convention, in reference to a former nickname of vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. The band's publishers sent a cease-and-desist order to the McCain camp and Nancy Wilson issued the following statement:

Sarah Palin’s views and values in no way represent us as American women. The song ‘Barracuda’ was written in the late ’70s as a scathing rant against the soulless, corporate nature of the music business, particularly for women. While Heart did not and would not authorize the use of their song at the RNC, there’s irony in Republican strategists’ choice to make use of it there.

There are several amusing aspects to all this. First is the idea that the McCain campaign thought they could get away with stealing music. In general, rock musicians are not part of the Republican base, and many (Neil Young, Melissa Ethridge, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Kanye West, The Dixie Chicks, Green Day, Cheryl Crow, Rage Against the Machine, Dave Matthews, Bon Jovi, Willie Nelson and REM, to name a few) have been extremely vocal critics of conservative policies. One could certainly include Browne, Hall, Mellencamp and the Wilson sisters on this list, which really begs the question, "Did they really think they would get away with this?"

Perhaps this was another way for McCain to sharpen his "maverick" credentials: "I'm John McCain, dammit! I'm a maverick, you see, and no one will tell me what songs I can or cannot play." Another theory is that the campaign just doesn't care if they violate copyright laws. Both theories are highly unlikely, however, given the fact that McCain has touted "protecting American intellectual property" on his official campaign website. To be honest, I couldn't tell you why the McCain campaign has shown such blatant disregard for intellectual property. All I can tell you is that at the rate he is currently alienating musicians, future McCain rallies may be a continuous loop of Donnie & Marie masterpieces.

That got me thinking a bit. In the past I have opined about the lack of conservative self-expression when it comes to bumper stickers. What about music? Where are all the conservative anthems? I stumbled upon this list of the "Top 50 Conservative Rock Songs" published by the conservative The National Review. Going through the list, you almost get the feeling this is a joke, written by liberals to underscore the lack of creativity and artistic fervor behind the conservative movement. Apparently, however, the list is meant to be taken seriously. Yet most of the songs listed simply allude to socio-political situations that conservatives have hijacked as their own: law and order ("I Fought the Law and the Law Won"), anti-Communism ("Cult of Personality," “Revolution,” “Right Here, Right Now”) family values (“Stay Together for the Kids,” “Wouldn’t It Be Nice”) and anti-idealism (“You Can’t Always Get What You Want”). Others are either misinterpreted by the author, obscure to the point of irrelevance or obnoxiously right-wing (“Why Don’t You Get a Job,” “Stand By Your Man,” “Capitalism,” “Get Over It”) And of course the list included songs by such "conservative" artists as Bob Dylan, The Beatles, John Mellencamp, The Sex Pistols, The Clash, David Bowie, and U2.

So this may be an issue to watch in the coming months. Will the McCain campaign:

A) continue to play pirated music at campaign functions and face fines and/or lawsuits

B) scour the earth for music with a conservative message

C) offer to pay for the rights to play these songs and hope the artists acquiesce

or

D) bypass the copyright process and play nothing but public domain John Phillip Sousa marches

Who the %!@$ is Sarah Palin?

Today, John McCain surprised many people by selecting Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Like most Americans, I did not know anything about Sarah Palin and decided to investigate. In a nutshell, she's young, inexperienced, a tenacious breeder, and by all accounts squeaky freaking clean. Oh, and she's a dead-ringer for Tina Fey.

But here's what I believe this all means:


Primarily, the selection of Palin addresses the GOP's need to lure women voters. Even if the specter of Hillary Clinton weren't looming over the 2008 election, the choice of a female running mate would still be seen as pandering to the female electorate. Because of the Hillary factor, the McCain camp is again reaping the benefits of a tightly-contested Democratic primary. Lingering Obamocity ("Obama" plus "animosity," it's a portmanteau) among Hillary supporters may lead some to vote for McCain in the general election, especially if he has a woman on the ticket. With Obama choosing not to put Hillary on the ticket with him, some of these women may feel that McCain got it right and Obama got it wrong.


Of course the timing of the announcement, and the selection of a dark horse like Palin has created the media frenzy (free advertising) that the McCain campaign sorely needed on the heels of the Democratic National Convention. The consensus, even among Republicans, is that the McCain camp orchestrated the surprise selection of Palin to maximize the media hype. Evidently, presumptive front-runners Tim Pawlenty and Mitt Romney have said they felt "strung along," "manipulated" and used only as "decoys" in the selection process.

Another reason to pick Palin is her energy policy. Being a pro-drilling governor of an oil-rich state fits well with McCain's own newly adopted drilling plans. Public opinion is also on the side of McCain-Palin, although in this case, the public simply has it wrong. Not only would increasing domestic drilling take years to have an appreciable affect on gasoline prices, but it would do very little to move us towards energy independence. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling, which Palin supports, would potentially lower global oil prices by $.41 per barrel. With oil currently around $115 a barrel, that means a savings of 0.3%. Not exactly a great savings. The DOE also states that "OPEC could neutralize any potential price impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an equal amount." Of course people want lower gas prices, but this is a case where the astute candidate will buck public opinion. The impact of increased domestic drilling would be minimal at best, and the tough reality is that high gas prices are likely essential to bringing about energy alternatives.


Of course Palin is a true Republican in almost every sense. She strongly opposes gay rights, is a member of the NRA and Feminists for Life, an anti-abortion organization. She opposed adding polar bears to the endangered species list because of the impact it would have on oil production in her state. She advocated teaching creationism in Alaska's public schools. Oh, and she's got that family values thing covered. She has done her best to add to the world's overpopulation problem by spawning five children, oddly named Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow and Piper. (suck on that, Tagg Romney!).


But in spite of her glistening Republican pedigree, I believe her selection as McCain's running mate may have had more to do with Obama's VP choice than anything. Aside from the aforementioned Hillary factor, I believe the selection of Sarah Palin was done so in large part to offset Joe Biden. The upcoming Vice Presidential Debate is scheduled for October 2, 2008 at Washington University in St. Louis. Joe Biden is capable of debating circles around anyone McCain chooses as his VP, and he won't pull any punches. Remember that Biden is the one who had one of the greater moments of the Democratic debates when he said of Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani, "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, and a verb and 9/11."



Instead of choosing a candidate that may actually last a few rounds with Biden, he chose someone with no experience in national government and no chance in a face off with Biden. In my opinion, the McCain campaign is hoping the presence of a 44 year old mother of five across the stage from him will either make Biden "go easy" on her or be seen as a bully if he doesn't. I know that is a cynical and probably sexist assessment, but I absolutely believe Biden will now have to ratchet down the vitriol or his wit, candor and years of debating experience may backfire on him.


While the selection of Palin has it's advantages for the Republicans, the one major drawback is possibly enough to offset them all. Palin's age and inexperience essentially mean that attacking Barack Obama on the same perceived weakness is now off the table. In fact, one could easily argue that Obama's eight years in the Illinois state legislature and nearly four years as a U.S. Senator easily trump Palin's six years as a small-town mayor of Wasilla, Alaska (pop. 5,469) and two years as governor of the nation's 47th most populous state. But in choosing Palin, either McCain believes he is immortal, or he is willing to concede the argument that Obama lacks the experience necessary to be President of the United States. Clearly McCain is not immortal. If elected, he would become the oldest first-term president in U.S. history. Oh, and his recently released medical records were able to be squeezed into a mere 1,173 pages. So yes, choice of VP does matter, especially in the case of John McCain. His choice to forfeit the right to attack Obama's inexperience is, in my opinion, an egregious error.

Tina Fey look-alike notwithstanding, I think the choice of Sarah Palin as running mate will be one John McCain will ultimately regret.

Right-Wing Delusions: The Liberal Nazi

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

Recently my girlfriend forwarded me an email from an extreme right-wing friend of hers. You know the guy. They guy who thinks Liberals are the scourge of society and that all of society's problems can be solved with some good old-fashioned Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy. So "that guy" distributed an email which was presumably a clever attempt to associate modern American liberalism with the German Nazis of the 1940's. The email was in the form of a letter to executed Nazi war criminal Julius Streicher from none other than the Führer himself. Written from beyond the grave, this Adolf Hitler is getting the last laugh, because although the United States aided in defeating Hitler in WWII, Americans have since incorporated many elements of national Socialism into their own government. The text of the "letter" can be found here.

The letter levels an assortment of allegations at the American left, many of which are patently false or downright ludicrous. The letter accuses a recently re-elected president (presumably Bill Clinton) of "affirming the legitimacy of exterminating infants during birth" in an effort to equate liberal views on abortion to Hitler's use of mass extermination. Obviously, Clinton did not advocate the extermination of babies "during birth," and if, as it appears, the author is referring to a woman's right to an abortion, it is an extraordinary reach to compare abortion to an orchestrated genocide. Also in the letter, Hitler praises Americans for banning smoking in many public places and teaching of the dangers of second hand smoke. Presumably, the "real" author of the letter ascribes to an austere libertarian ideology, where even government's involvement in matters of public health is seen as an iron fist of oppression. There is also a ridiculous claim that gun-control laws are proposed, not to curb violent crime, but rather to control the masses.

Essentially, the objective of the letter is to locate a few areas where Nazi policy and modern liberalism more or less coincide, in a thinly-veiled effort to compare American liberalism to Nazism. Of course, a more didactic approach would have been much more thoroughly researched and contain less generalization and grasping. What the letter amounts to is cheap ad hominem attack on liberals that doesn't stand up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Conservatives and Libertarians, and all opponents of a functioning government, need a way to portray government as inherently evil. Luckily for them, history has given us the Nazis, or National Socialist Party. The fact that the Nazis considered themselves socialists is convenient for anyone who seeks to quickly and easily attack any kind of social program. Whether it is universal healthcare, welfare, public education, food stamps, public works projects, they are all seen as a slippery slope to socialism, and inevitably, rampant Nazism. Of course, this is a ridiculous conclusion for one to draw. There are countless examples of free nations with socialized medicine, education, transportation, etc. And believe it or not, citizens of these nations have NOT lost basic human rights as a result of social programs. Their leaders have NOT engaged in genocide nor have they engaged in campaigns of world domination. In fact, many of these nations enjoy a quality of life greater than or equivalent to that of the United States.

The flimsy premise or ad hominem name-calling aren't even the most disturbing elements of the "letter." Probably most unnerving is the fact that this is yet antother attempt by conservatives to downplay their own ideolgical ties to fascist regimes by painting liberals as the modern-day Third Reich. While fascism may have a few fleeting elements in common with liberalism, much of the neo-conservative playbook is taken from the most fundamental tenets of fascism. Nazism especially, was a far-right political movement, characterized by opposition to communism, extreme nationalism, military domination, xenophobia, authoritarian leadership, and opposition to liberalism. Of course, the slight similarities between Nazism and liberalism (essentially, a functioning central government) are enough for right-wing pundits to have a field day with Nazi-Liberal comparisons:

• Ann Coulter Compares Obama to Hitler
• Bill O'Reilly Compares Huffington Post to Nazis
• Bill O'Reilly Compares Daily Kos to Nazis
• Charles Krauthammer Compares Obama Berlin Speech to Nazi Rally
• Michael Savage Compares "Progressive Movement" to Nazi Soldiers
• Michael Savage Compares Democratic Rep. to Nazis
• Glenn Beck Compares Al Gore's Fight Against Global Warming to Hitler's Fight Against Jews
• Michael Savage Compares Hillary Clinton Speech to Hitler, Goebbels
• Glenn Beck Compares Al Gore to Nazi Propagandists
• KSFO Morning Show Portrays (Jewish, Liberal Billionaire) George Soros as Nazi Sympathizer
• Glenn Beck Compares Hillary Clinton Health Care Plan to Nazi Infanticide
• Conservative Pastor Compares Stem Cell Research to Nazi Genocide
• Glenn Beck Compares An Inconvenient Truth to Nazi Propaganda
  

Anyway, you get the point.

This is a very fascinating article I found outlining the 14 fundamental characteristics of fascist regimes, from Hitler's Germany, Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy, and others.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=britt_23_2

You don't have to get too far down the list before you start to see very striking similarities between fascism and modern American conservatism, or more aptly, neo-conservatism (although fascism also shares a much with 1950's McCarthyism).

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Believe it or not, a central issue in the 2008 election will be Barack Obama's alleged lack of patriotism. From his lapel pin stance to his wife's misconstrued "pride" comments, Republican's will actually try to have Americans believing that a career public servant would actually run for president of a country he despises. They did the same thing with John Kerry in 2004, and got many people believing that the draft-dodging Bush-Cheney ticket was somehow more patriotic than a decorated war veteran.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

While conservatives have fought ardently for the right to bear arms, they have not been so zealous in other areas. The Bush Administration has rolled back habeas corpus, a fundamental right dating back to 1215 and the Magna Carta. A 2002 administration memo stated that the 4th Amendment has no application to "Domestic Military Operations," which could mean almost anything. Republicans have also fought for increased privacy and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that helped the government execute Bush's warrantless surveillance program.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

In perhaps the single most prolific and comprehensive moment in conservative scapegoating, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell most famously blamed liberals, feminists, gays, lesbians, secularists, pagans, the ACLU and abortionists for the September 11th attacks. Similarly, conservatives have also found it convenient to blame immigrants and Muslims for many of America's woes. In fact, the examples of conservative scapegoating are so numerous and so ridiculous that I'll only share a few of the more insane examples here:

• Michelle Malkin blamed illegal immigration for the 2007 California wildfires


• Glenn Beck blamed 2007 California wildfires on "damn environmentalists"


• Michael Savage blamed sex-change operations for the Columbine school massacre.


• Ann Coulter faulted Darwin's theory of evolution for creating Nazism


• Rush Limbaugh blamed liberals for America's obesity epidemic


• Culture & Family Institute spokesman blames Abu Ghraib prison scandal on gay marriage


• Newt Gingrich claimed "liberalism" was responsible for Virginia Tech shooting


• Bill O'Reilly blames the poor for Hurricane Katrina

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.

George W. Bush famously stated, "I am a War President." This seemed to indicate that war would be the central identifying characteristic of his administration; it has. By declaring a "Global War on Terror" and coining the vague classification "Enemy Combatant," Bush laid the groundwork for United States to be in a perpetual war against anyone, with potentially anyone being a wartime enemy of America. Bush set the precedent for "preemptive war," meaning the U.S. no longer even needs a good reason to start a war. God forbid if Canada ever looked at us funny.

5. Rampant sexism.

While I wouldn't exactly consider conservative to endorse "rampant sexism," they do generally wind up on the less sexually equal side of many arguments. Most notably, conservatives staunch opposition to reproductive rights and homosexual marriage are enough to clearly place them on the more sexist side of the aisle.

6. A controlled mass media.

While the U.S. media is certainly more free than in many countries throughout the world, there are certainly areas where government is not doing what it can to promote a free press. Despite the emergence of the internet as a varied source of information, the so-called "mainstream media" has become more consolidated in recent years. Deregulation of media corporations has been a cornerstone of conservative policy, leaving much of the mainstream media in a very small number of hands. Also, former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (not surprisingly) revealed that conservative-leaning Fox News Channel receives daily talking points directly from the White House.

7. Obsession with national security.

This one is a no brainer. The whole "9/11 changed everything" argument has been used to promote a pseudo-police state in the U.S., where Americans' phone calls and emails can be monitored, toothpaste is confiscated, babies appear on a "no-fly" list, In addition to granting themselves the right to spy on Americans without obtaining a warrant, the Bush administration has even gone as far as to monitor the meetings and communications of anti-war groups.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

The union of government and religion is a clearly conservative trademark. Probably the most notable cases of this intermingling of interest exists within the public school system, where many states have made it mandatory to teach intelligent design and unlawful to teach anything but abstinence as sexual education. Republicans have for several decades enjoyed an alliance with the Christian Right, which has helped them win elections while helping religious organizations have more influence in government affairs. Not surprisingly, Christian leaders David Kuo and John DiIulio claimed that the Bush White House pandered to Christian groups for political benefit, without actually taking their concerns seriously.

9. Power of corporations protected.

What will probably be seen as the trademark of Reagan-era conservatism is the enormous, unchecked power corporations have gained. Corporations enjoy lower taxes than at virtually any time in the nation's history, while trade agreements have allowed them to profit more by exporting American middle-class jobs overseas. The Bush White House has also made sure that defense contractors are not held accountable for failures and even criminal behavior in Iraq. The most clear-cut example can be seen in our current mortgage crisis. President Bush has supported a bailout of Bear-Stearns, while opposing assistance for troubled homeowners, calling defaultees "irresponsible." Bush has also made sure to fill his cabinet with industry-friendly executives, essentially installed to ensure that the regulatory bodies they are meant to oversee don't perform any regulation at all. This all leads to a class arrangement typical of fascist regimes, with most or all of the power concentrated in the hands of a few leaders and large corporations, and a deepening divide between the haves and have nots.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Another conservative hallmark is the opposition to organized labor. While conservative claim to stand for the middle-class working man, they have for decades fought to weaken the power of unions. Of course conservatives will never actually outline their opposition to labor, but it is no surprise that unions simply do not endorse Republicans. Check out the website of the AFL-CIO, whose latest tally of union endorsement shows a Democratic candidates pitching a shutout. John McCain's own website doesn't contain any mention of organized labor, but labor's eternal nemesis, free trade. McCain believes the U.S. "should engage in ... efforts to reduce barriers to trade," and admits that "globalization will not automatically benefit every American." (no sh*#!)

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

On numerous occasions, most notably at NASA and the EPA, Bush administration officials have edited the work of scientists and scholars to downplay information that might be harmful to Republican allies, i.e., polluters. Meanwhile, conservative pundits deride almost all university professors as elitist, liberal eggheads that are brainwashing our youth.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

See: U.S. prison population. Part of the conservative ideology is the idea that people are basically all bad or all good. The "bad" people need to stay in prison and cannot be rehabilitated. Ex-convicts don't deserve the right to vote even after they have served their time. Since only "bad" people misuse guns, we needn't make laws that restrict the right of "good" people to own guns. That's the gist of the conservative stance on crime. Demonize drug offenders, statutory rapists and other fringe-criminals, while Bush commutes the sentence of convicted perjurer, Scooter Libby.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

See: "Heckuva job, Brownie." It's not surprising that cronyism and corruption go hand in hand. George Bush's "buddies" Mike Brown, Alberto Gonzalez, Karl Rove have all been involved in scandal, and have all been forced to "spend more time with their family." For Christ sakes, Bush tried to nominate his personal attorney (Harriet Miers) to the Supreme Court! I'm surprised he hasn't tried to nominate his family practitioner to the office of surgeon general.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Leave it to conservatives to usher in a new age in American politics where only 28% of Americans are "Very confident" that votes will be counted accurately nationwide. Conservatives have fought to oppose laws requiring paper ballot receipts and upheld antiquated voter ID laws. Conservatives have invented a voter fraud epidemic that does not exist, the purpose of which is to challenge the voting rights of qualified citizens. Yet as we have seen with the caging lists in Florida, inconsistencies with exit poll results in Ohio, and the mass disenfranchisement of minority voters, there is not a voter fraud epidemic, but an election fraud epidemic, one which at nearly every turn has mysteriously helped the Republican candidate.