Barack Obama and Michael Richards: When Worlds Collide

Hy·per·bo·le (hī-pûr'bə-lē) n.A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
[Latin hyperbolē, from Greek huperbolē, excess, from huperballein, to exceed : huper, beyond; see hyper– + ballein, to throw.]

Similarly: Barack Obama may be the best thing to come out of Illinois politics since Abraham Lincoln.

Some people might call Barack Obama the "flavor of the month" in the Democratic party right now. The rock star receptions, the media buzz, the hype, the book tour. He's got a lot of people singing his praises: from Oprah Winfrey to party strategists and newspaper columnists. Recent polls have placed him second or third in popularity with voters among those Democrats likely to run for president in 2008.

That he is still in his first term as junior Senator from Illinois and receiving such attention has many questioning whether he is too young or inexperienced to run. Others speculate as to whether this country is ready for a black man as its Commander-in-Chief. Some of us say it is about time.

Which brings us to a strange confluence of events: Obama delivers a well-received speech on Iraq and foreign policy to the Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs while out in Los Angeles, actor Michael Richards is banned from performing at the Laugh Factory and lambasted by his peers for his racist use of the "N"-word during a weekend performance.

Richards' use of the epithet was not part of his regular act. Unlike the legendary Lenny Bruce, Richards didn't use the word to deliver a homily about race and racism. Unlike the incomparable Richard Pryor, he wasn't trying to turn a mirror on us and expose the cracks in our society while making us laugh until we cried.

That Richards, while onstage, felt (or at least appeared to feel) that he could use the word without consequence reveals a distasteful side about the person most of us only know as Cosmo Kramer. What it reveals about us as a country is just as startling.

Barack Obama has a resumé most of us would love to possess. He is smart, articulate, well-educated, a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, community organizer and activist, state senator and now U.S. Senator. As this country still struggles to find a word comfortable enough to describe its black citizens, Obama is the walking definition of African-American. The hyphenate fits not because of the color of his skin, but the truth of his heritage: an African father and an American mother.

That he has captured the imagination of so many people, of such diverse backgrounds is encouraging. That he could mount a serious, run-to-win campaign for president is inspiring. And not just the hyperbolic sense of telling a child he could be president one day if...

Obama meets the Constitutional qualifications to be elected to the highest office. All other standards (foreign policy experience, military experience, was a governor, Washington-insider or -outsider) are politically-imposed and not just on Obama, but any and all other candidates. Forty-three men have occupied the presidency. In this country's history, there have been generals, farmers, lawyers, businessmen, a haberdasher, a bachelor, a Catholic, a really fat guy, tall men, short men, the handsome and the non-descript. But they have all been white.

So maybe, just maybe, 141 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, we are ready to seriously consider electing a black man to the office of President of the United States of America. And finally stop calling him "nigger."

Read Eugene Robinson's take on the story in the Washington Post.

The Toll Continues to Rise

Four more US soldiers died in Iraq. That brings the total for November to 45. We're halfway through the month and if this pace continues, sadly approximately 90 soldiers and marines will lose their lives.

Yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid said essentially we should stay the course, give the Iraqis about 6 more months to have their troops stand up and we can stand down. In the meantime, the Defense Intelligence Agency tells us that Iraq probably has about 6 months until all hell breaks loose.

At 90 servicemen (and women) a month, that means about another 540 will be coming home in body bags.

I don't know about you, but that is simply unacceptable. Perhaps Gen. Abizaid should have to place the calls to each of those families personally. Maybe then he'd get it.

The Washington Post has more on this story.

A Michigan-sized Mistake

There are some voters in California who remember voting for Proposition 13. It seemed like a good idea at the time. Property taxes were soaring and Prop 13 promised to bring necessary relief. It passed in 1978, but its real effects were not felt for several years to come. As property tax revenue shrank, California's state budget suffered. Former Governor Gray Davis can blame at least a part of his recall from the state's top office a few years ago as an after-effect of Prop 13. It seemed like such a good idea at the time.

In a few months, or maybe years, the voters in Michigan will realize what a gigantic goof they made when the approved Prop 2, the state anti-affirmative action constitutional amendment which may become effective as soon as mid-December.

In short, the proposition voids the use of affirmative action (by race, gender, color, ethnicity, national origin) in employment, education, and public contracting. The wording seems innocuous enough, and the second part of the proposal states that discrimination is also illegal too.

And to think it all started because little Jennifer Gratz and young Patrick Hamacher didn't get admitted to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Of course, they both could pinpoint their failure to get in to two minority students who did.

The university admissions process at any school is a maze which only a few students out of the many that apply are lucky enough to navigate. There are some shortcuts: if you're a Heisman-quality football player applying to a football school, if you're the re-incarnation of Wilt Chamberlain at a basketball powerhouse, if you are smarter than Steven Hawkings you'll probably get in, and if, as the song says, your daddy's rich and your momma's good looking, you'll probably get special consideration -- not for your brains, but daddy's dollars. The rest of us slog through the maze.

Although Gratz and Hamacher were both waitlisted for admittance to UofM, each chose to attend other schools in the state system. Gratz and Hamacher are the basis for the last round of lawsuits that eventually ended up at the Supreme Court (Gratz v. Bollinger). In a 6-3 decision, Gratz and Hamacher kinda won. I say "kinda" because the Supremes sent the case back to District Court where that court could amend the UofM procedure for undergraduate admissions. (There is much more to this story than can comfortably be told here.)

Gratz apparently wasn't satisfied with that result and elected to mind-meld with black super-conservative Ward Connerly. (Connerly, who is black, hates black folk.) Together they cooked up a scheme to amend Michigan's constitution to outlaw affirmative action. Not just pass a law, but amend the constitution.

This past November, Michigan voters voted to do just that.

It seemed like such a good idea at the time. I'm still studying all the ramifications of this law -- which affects not only public education, but public contracting and employment. It will apparently affect young girls and women, by making Title IX unconstitutional. So if Jennifer played a sport and wanted to do so in college under the provisions of Title IX: tough noogies, it's
unconstitutional. Title IX provided money to girl's sports that were unfunded or underfunded in public schools and colleges, and made adjustments to men's sports to accommodate the women's inclusion.

If Jennifer wanted to start a woman-owned business and seek state contracts, she might have been able to use the provisions of set-asides to insure that she could compete with larger male-owned business to secure state government contracts. Not any more. It's unconstitutional.

And if Jenny was searching for a job in Michigan, she once enjoyed the protections of the state's laws which made discrimination illegal, but more importantly, guaranteed that she had to be considered equally with her male counterparts. Now her resume can be "86-ed" right alongside, Tamika's and Schlomo's and Red Cloud's, and Tran's and Mohammed's and Sanjay's.

Yet it seemed like such a good idea at the time. Thanks, Jennifer.

Fire Abizaid: It's Time For Him to Go

After watching Army General John Abizaid testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee, I think it's time for him to step down as the head of CentCom, the US Central Command. General Abizaid seems to prefer the status quo, and that, for the US and for Iraqi civilians, is unacceptable.

Abizaid was reluctant to consider any other options to help the military get a handle on the situation there. And that is disappointing. Abizaid said more troops wouldn't help speed a proposed redeployment plan, was reluctant to consider timelines with enforceable benchmarks as an option. Abizaid even insisted that the situation in Iraq was much better than it was in August.

To suggest that commander on the ground be removed is a harsh step. Our strategy for Iraq must change, and we need a new guy to make it happen. Until we bring on someone who is willing to consider every possible option, we are just wasting lives and time.

Read more about it at The Washington Post.

What Defines A Civil War?

Iraqi Police Linked to Mass Abduction
Read the full story at The Washington Post

I read the news today. Oh boy.
When armed gunmen entered the Ministry of Higher Education in downtown Baghdad, they pretended to be securing the area for a visit from "the American ambassador." They came wearing official looking uniforms, in a large convoy in vehicles with mounted machine guns. Men and women were separated, some were detained and apparently removed from the Ministry, some were later released. On the face of it, and in light of similar kidnappings recently, it's easy to call this just another case of sectarian violence. Or is it?

To live in Baghdad today, must be to live in constant fear. Every day bodies -- not just two or 3 -- but 20, 30, 40 at a time are found beaten, tortured and executed. Every day. Ride a bus to school or to the market, and you're likely to be blown to bits. Choose your method: road side bomb or a seatmate who detonates himself and sends you to meet your maker. Are you a baker by profession? You're a marked man, and not just by the flour on your apron. Drive an ambulance? Not for long. Thought about joining Baghdad PD? That's probably gonna get you killed. And probably before you've had a chance to don your uniform for the first time.

When do we stop calling this sectarian violence and call it civil war?

In an excellent article that first appeared in The Washington Post, April 9, 2006, James D. Fearon, Professor of Political Science at the Freeman Spogli Institure for International Studies at Stanford University, defines it as:

Civil war refers to a violent conflict between organized groups within a country that are fighting over control of the government, one side's separatist goals, or some divisive government policy. By this measure, the war in Iraq has been a civil war not simply since the escalation of internecine killings following the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, but at least since the United States handed over formal control to an interim Iraqi government in June 2004.

The Bush administration's hesitation to confront what they have wrought in Iraq, their "spreading of democracy," their nation building, takes it toll on the Iraqis daily. And their refusal to call it what it is, hinders -- no, prevents -- them from arriving at a solution to this terrible problem. Neither President Bush nor his Iraq Study Group will arrive at a solution until they acknowledge this painful -- especially for the Iraqis -- inevitable truth.

What defines a civil war? Iraq.

Can't a Brother Catch a Break?

From BET.com Black voters won one and maybe lost one.

If you read Retha Hill's commentary on the results of the midterm election, you get the same old rhetoric about the Democratic party mistreats us, overlooks us and takes us for granted. Retha suggests that the democratic sweep in the midterms might just sweep some long-time members of the Congressional Black Caucus out with the post-celebration confetti. She goes on to posit that the Republican party had done well by its black constituents, giving them a "substantial toe-hold in the Republican Party. Since at least 1994, many African Americans have concluded that putting all our eggs in one basket no longer makes sense, and that true participation means having a seat at both tables."

As her commentary continues, she noted that, "Substantial numbers of African Americans sided with Republicans in Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio, and not just when the Republican candidate was Black." Retha? Honey? Were you watching the returns of the same elections I was?

For the record, Republicans put forward 8 black candidates in the 2006 election. Democrats, 41. Republican black candidates who won their races, zero. Democrats have elected the two black governors this country has seen (Doug Wilder and in this election cycle, Deval Patrick.)

If, as you note, black ministers endorsed George Allen because he supports a ban on same-sex marriage, they must have noticed that their man also likes to call black folk "nigger" and "Macaca (monkey -- even when the individual this remark was targeting was an Indian-American). If the Republican party is as welcoming to black voters as you suggest, just why didn't any, I mean not a single, f***ing black republican tell Ken Mehlman and the RNC that the ads against Harold Ford, Jr. had more than just a whiff of coded, racist, good ole southern strategy stink about them and they needed to be pulled. I've looked and I can't find one statement from black republicans on that count.

Michael Steele may have run a good race and picked up some key endorsements, too. But as you note, "in majority-Black Prince George’s County, 31 percent of the electorate voted for him, as did 21 percent of people in majority-Black Baltimore. Preliminary exit poll data show that Steele snagged 25 percent of the state’s Black vote." If Steele is such an appealing candidate, why didn't more blacks vote for him? [Author's note: I think you meant to write that 31 and 21 percents respectively of the black electorate voted for him. Regardless, it still ain't good news.]

Republican Party adviser Tara Wall. “It doesn’t benefit us as Black voters to give 90 percent of our vote to one party. We need to be able to come to the table and level the playing field and have a say in both parties.” Retha, Tara: the playing field isn't level, and y'all aren't welcome at the Republican table.

A little political history: there was a time when Yankee or New England moderates played a large role in the Republican party. They held fiscally conservative views, but were socially liberal. They were the antidote to the racist Dixiecrats of the old Democratic party. Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson changed that. Goldwater yanked the Republicans to the far right and the "southern strategy" (grab the votes of disaffected. southern, conservative, anti-integration, anti-civil rights whites for the Republican party) was born. Meanwhile, Lyndon Johnson's progressive -- damn, let's just call it what it was -- landmark Great Society, with its War on Poverty and Civil and Voting (ahem, let me repeat that, VOTING) rights acts empowered black America as never before. If blacks have been loyal to the Democrats, this is one hell of a reason.

And now the reason for the headline: After all their crowing over what a wonderful campaign Michael Steele ran, and how he is so good for the Republican party comes this: Ken Mehlman, current chair of the RNC announced he's stepping down in January. Republican after republican promoted their new "boy" Michael Steele for the job. Steele was not coy about his interest in the job when asked about it as he made the rounds on the post-election news talk shows. After all, he'd be out of a job in January and could step right in. And since most of the job is dealing with the media, he'd shown that he was articulate and engaging speaker. And as all of his supporters said, he'd put a new face on the Republican party.

Today comes word that the Republicans intend to tap Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida as the next party head. Martinez was just elected to the Senate in 2004. If he takes the job, Florida's governor will have to name a replacement. Martinez is a Cuban-American.

Can't a brother catch a break? Apparently not.

Rahm's Lullaby

Read the full story at The House That Rahm Built from the Chicago Tribune

Rahm Emanuel has supplanted Karl Rove as "the Architect" with the stunning Democratic sweep of House seats in the last week's election. But as the article by Naftali Bendavid in the Chicago Tribune makes clear, central to Emanuel's renovation of the party were a slash and burn, take no prisoners attitude that sometimes rubbed friends and foes the wrong way.

During the long sleepless nights of the campaign, Bendavid's chronicle shows us that Rahm's lullaby was not a tune you could easily sing and was likely to be laced with expletives, epithets and worse. But he got the job done.

Political junkies -- we know who we are -- will liken this up close and personal account to the documentary "War Room" about the Bill Clinton run for the White House in 1992. I hope Mr. Bendavid has enough information for a book. But his article will whet your appetite for now. A simply fascinating read.

A Plan of Action for Iraq

Washington Post: Pentagon to Reevaluate Strategy and Goals in Iraq
With the election over, Democrats in charge of the House and the Senate, and finally with Republicans saying, "Now you guys are in charge, so what are you going to do about Iraq?" It is time to answer that question -- or at least explore some options.

Throughout the election cycle, we heard about "cut and run" and "stay the course." Each seemed to be diametrically opposed to one another. But those slogans hardly describe the problem of finding a solution to the mess in Iraq. I don't profess to know all the answers -- heck, I don't know any of the answers -- but here is what I've been mulling over as possible courses of action.

First let's establish some baseline conditions that have to be established:

• The violence -- sectarian, insurgent, terrorist and other -- has to be contained and eliminated.
• A viable government must be established that will enforce national unity while recognizing ethnic, tribal and religious differences, and suppressing factional violence. This government must also be recognized by other governments in the region as well as the United Nations.
• Basic services must be restored to the populace. That is: food is plentiful and affordable; medicine and medical care is readily available.
• Utilities such as gas and electricity, services like water, sewers and waste management are all operational in all areas of the country.
• Second-tier services such as educational institutions are open to all who wish to attend.
• There is a system of providing news and information to the populace.
• The national economy is restored. Farmers can farm and sell their crops, oil can be drilled, refined and shipped. Goods can be imported and exported. The monetary system is stable.
• There is a national guard to defend the country against intruders. There is a police force to serve and protect the people. There is a legal system to enforce criminal and civil law.
• There is a codified system of justice which includes rules for a fair trial, appeal, and punishment.

Of course, there is more to nation-building than what is on my small list, but that would be a good start. Now to the options.

Let's agree that the situation in Iraq today is unacceptable. And, for the sake of discussion, say that our approaches to rebuilding Iraq will start from point zero: it's irreparably damaged and we must start over. Mind you, that I am not advocating any particular course of action, just mulling over some of the options.

Option 1: Turn Iraq into a US colony (Think British Empire)

To accomplish this option we need to re-invade Iraq, overthrow the Maliki government, secure the borders, and install a strong provisional government staffed by Americans. Americans would govern Iraqis. Americans would replace Iraqis and all foreign nationals as managing directors of all Iraqi companies, and hold all top management posts. Iraqis would provide the labor force.

To quell the sectarian violence, Iraq would be divided into as many provinces as needed to separate the various factions: Sunni, Shi'ia, Kurd and any other. The population would be relocated to the appropriate province of their ethnic background. They would be paid reasonable compensation for the inconvenience of the move, the loss of any property and start-up funds for life in their new home provinces.

The Iraqi police and the Iraqi military would be re-developed under US command, at first as auxiliary units with limited power.

All persons who cannot establish bona fide ties to Iraq, will be detained or deported. Those who are detained would live in a designated "detainee city" where they would be allowed to work and live, but not travel beyond the city borders.

Over time, some of the harsh restrictions would be relaxed, and eventually (20 years?) the US would relinquish control to a hand-picked government. US forces would withdraw, and the US would maintain "interests" in the country. A civil war or other form of unrest may occur after the US departs, but that seems to follow the natural course of colonialism. If the government is strong enough, it may withstand the unrest, otherwise there will be civil war.

Option 2: Choose to back one of the factions. Use the CIA and other covert operatives to create a viable opposition party to overthrow the Maliki government.

In this option -- similar to actions the US has taken in other parts of the world to de-stabilize or replace governments we didn't like -- covert forces (CIA, Defense, NSA, State) are used to infiltrate and support one of the sides, provide them with funds, arms, behind the scenes training so that the selected faction's leadership can do the dirty work of overthrowing the Maliki government. The regular US military forces would be withdrawn, leaving the undercover agents to operate freely. It doesn't matter -- in fact it may help the operation -- to announce a withdrawal deadline. The US troops could be re-deployed to some other areas in the region, so that when the "winners" surface, troops can be repositioned to support the newly formed "legitimate" government of the people. The new government would explicitly request the help of the US to maintain peace as the transition continues. That request provides cover for the US continuing to pursue its "interests" in the country.

Option 3: Encourage an allied country in the region to step in and maintain order.

This option is a variation of Option 2, but uses a third party, with full US support, to take over the country. The sole advantage here is that a regional solution might allow for more stability because it is a neighbor -- and not the US -- doing the behind the scenes manipulating. After withdrawing, the US interests in the country are limited, and the US would have to go through the third party to operate in the country.

Option 4: Give the existing Maliki government an ultimatum and a timetable, including a date certain when US troops, and all other support for the government, will be withdrawn.

The ultimatum is that the Maliki government needs to take control of the country PDQ (pretty damn quick), insure that all Iraqis, not just Shi'ites, are represented and protected by the government. The Iraqi army must be reconstituted, borders secured, violence quelled. If Maliki balks, the "or else" is that US troops leave immediately and the Iraqis can fight it out. The US should let Maliki know that should any other regional power (Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey) invade, we will not help defend Iraq.

If Maliki agrees to the ultimatum, the US will proceed to an orderly withdrawal, with border security becoming the primary mission prior to departure.

Will any of these options work? I don't know. All have their advantages and disadvantages. The problem with Iraq today is that the situation is so far out of control that there is no clear solution. The heavy-handed tactics of Option 1 make the US look like a greedy bully. The under-handed tactics of Option 2, leaves other countries around the region and world fearful and suspicious. Option 3 looks more palatable, but means we'd have to play favorites to pick a country that would do our bidding and support our interests. Option 4, or some variation of it is probably what we'll end up doing, but unless we are ready march out immediately if Maliki balks, it has no teeth.

The $64,000 question is: Which one would I choose I if were President? I'm not a hawk and didn't support this misadventure in the first place. But if pressed to choose, it's between Options 1 and 4. I would probably offer Option 4 first, and if that fails, invade again and start over. Option 4, try to work with Maliki government is the right thing to do. But forceably turning Iraq into a peaceful US colony -- and not just a military outpost -- may be the only answer at this point.

I just don't know. And so far, neither does anyone else in Washington.

Rumsfeld Should Publicly Apologize

We were hoping it would happen. Rumsfeld quit. Resigned. Was asked to consider an early retirement. Was given the old "Heave, ho! Man overboard!" It's about damn time.

Donald Rumsfeld owes the families of nearly 3000 US servicemen and women a public and detailed apology for their deaths. He owes the maimed and wounded and shell-shocked an apology also. He needs to tell them (and us) just what the heck we're doing in Iraq. It's time for a full accounting of this woeful misadventure.

If I could, Mr. Rumsfeld, here is what you need to say:

"I am here to apologize, my fellow Americans, for taking us into an unprovoked war in a country where we had no legitimate reason to be. I lied when said Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. I lied when I said Saddam Hussein was supporting Al Qaeda. I lied when I said we were there to provide stability in the region. I lied practically every time I opened my mouth.

In truth (or at least truthiness), I wanted to play master of the universe. I wanted to see if I could manipulate and control world politics. I wanted to play Risk, but for real, with real soldiers and guns and bombs. Going to Iraq was so that I could feel good about me, pump up my ego, be the unseen hand that moves the pieces across the game board.

After the first Gulf War, I wanted more. I was unsatisfied with the outcome. I wanted to march all the way to Baghdad then, but didn't get my way. During the Clinton years, I plotted and planned, and wished and hoped that if I ever got back into a position of power I would finish what I saw as a job undone.

Then came George W. Bush. This Bush was different than his father; he could be "handled." I could handle him. The perfect cover came when he -- well, all of us -- got caught off-guard with 9/11. But it gave me cover. While ostensibly going after Osama Bin Laden, I could execute my plan to play in Iraq. There was and is no linkage to Bin Laden and the War on Terror.

I lied to all of you. I have sinned against you. I have wounded you. I have killed you. All for my own selfish motives. But worst of all, I have gotten us into a mess and I have no way of knowing how to get us out. I am so ashamed and sorry.

To the families of the dead, I apologize. These are hollow words because they cannot bring your loved ones back. To the wounded and the battle-weary, I apologize. I put you needlessly in harm's way and damaged you physically, spiritually, emtionally and more. I cannot repair your broken limbs.

I am unworthy of your sympathy, and deserving of your wrath."

Change is coming

The dust has almost settled and as it does, the Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, and will, in a few hours, reveal that the Democrats also won the Senate. As a Democrat -- and a liberal one at that -- there is great reason to celebrate. Change is coming.

Other pundits (and heck, I'd like to think I'm just as qualified at analysis as they are) will tell us that the reasons Dems won is because it was because they ran to the center, putting up a slate of conservative and moderate candidates, because it was a referendum on George Bush and Iraq, that the Democrats didn't "win," the Republicans lost -- and lost because voters weren't smart enough to understand the issues, or only voted on their pet issues (stem cell research).

Maybe it's because the Democrats put together a smart playbook, that allowed them to present the strength of party -- it's diversity, it's progressiveness -- showcased against the status quo. Republicans like to cast Democrats as raving lunatics who don't have family values, aren't religious ("Godless," if you believe Ann Coulter-geist), are weak on defense, pander to terrorists, and worse. This election proved them wrong. Democrats come in all colors, are liberal, moderate, conservative, and all points in between. Some of us are religious and some of us not so much. We serve in the military, we serve in the Peace Corps. We are in business, large and small, we are in labor unions. We are your neighbors.

Democrats did well in this election because they were able to make their vision of change clear and it resonated with voters.

Day of Reckoning is Here

Voters often use the phrase, "We'll remember in November." Well, this year it appears that the Democrats not only remembered, but they showed up en force to make their point.

Pundits say it's all about Vietnam -- er, I mean Iraq -- but in truth, it is about a number of issues that have been piling on since 2000. The Bush administration is about to receive a kick in the pants.

While the quagmire that is Iraq is one facet of the problem for Bush, the economy, corruption (read that as Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Foley, even Hastert), taxes, stem cell research, are others. But the real problem for Bush and Co. is that they have been smug and self-righteous throughout their tenure. The Compassionate Conservative never showed up. Uniter not a Divider did not unite, just divide. The Decider-in-Chief can't make a decision. That's why he's staying the course. But the rest of us are fed up and ready for a change.

While throwing out the Republicans from the House and the Senate will not solve all the problems, it does two things: one, send a message to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue that We the People are not satisfied with his "my way or the highway" approach. Mr. Bush and his cronies are not the smartest folks in town. It is high time that they reach out to bigger brains for help in resolving the problems that face us. Two, supplant those who would be enablers -- Congressional Republicans -- with some new faces and ideas, people who are willing to build bridges, not burn them. Try new solutions, not just pooh-pooh them.

I don't expect magic, just change. A more reasonable solution to Iraq won't come instantly. But I do think the Democrats will be more open to vigorous discussion of how to fix that dreadful problem. And if it means that they have to threaten to cut off funding for Mr. Bush's caper in the Crescent, let them.

Mr. Bush mistook a majority for a mandate (and thought mandate meant ultimatum), and that was never case. Perhaps this election will remind Mr. Bush that he -- temporarily -- is the leader of all Americans and he is accountable to all of us, not just his Republican Christian Conservative right wing base. We have had enough. We want change and accountability. And we want it now.

Dear Election Fairy,

I have been a good Democrat all year (and last year, too!) I know that in 2004 I set my sights just a little too high -- but could you blame me? After we came so close in 2000, only to have the Florida's Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court dash our dreams. But anyway... I know that was in the past. This year, my wish list is more realistic. Please see what you can do to deliver on these modest requests, and I'll save any big ones for 2008.

First, I'd like to see the Democrats pick up enough seats to take control of the House of Representatives. I know that 16 is the "magic" number, but do you think you could manage maybe 30 seats? Okay, anything over 16 is just great. (And if you could do you think you manage a change in NM-01? Let challenger Patricia Madrid defeat Heather Wilson? I know it's a special request, but it would mean a lot to me.)

Second, I'd like the Democrats to win 6 or 7 new Senate seats. That way we could control the Senate too. And if I could ask for some specific winners -- folks who could use your special help -- could you work on Harold Ford in Tennessee, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jim Webb in Virginia? Could you send Conrad Burns packing?

And if it's not too much to ask, can we get a majority of governorships in the hands of Democrats?

And one last thing, before I forget... and this is a little tricky: do you think you could just check and make sure that folks who vote electronically have their votes accurately recorded and counted? I know you don't really handle the technical side of things, but if you could just make sure there's no hanky-panky, three-card Monte, Loosey Goosey, Hickory Dickory Dock, Rub-a-Dub-Dub, then I'll keep the huffin' and puffin' and blow their house down to a minimum.

Thank you, Election Fairy. I'll be leaving a delicious assortment of treats out for you. And if you don't mind, I'll stay up until the returns are in.

See you tomorrow night!

The Dukes of Haggard

Ted Haggard was fired from his church over the weekend after their investigation -- still on-going -- confirmed that he had committed some "sexually immoral acts." Haggard sent his congregation a letter that was read to them at Sunday services "confessing" his sins. In particular he speaks of his "dark side" and giving in to some "repulsive" behaviors throughout his adulthood.

Reading between the lines, the former head of the National Association of Evangelicals seems to be confessing to be gay all of his adult life and trying to suppress it by marrying a woman and having five children.

I wonder if he gets the irony of his situation: this staunch opponent to gays and gay marriage would be leading a much happier life if he was open to his authentic self -- a gay man -- and married to his authentic partner -- another gay man.

I hope his former congregants will look deep inside themselves and ask whether all this vitriol over gay rights is worth it. A gay man led them, convinced them to join his church, ministered to them on Sundays, fellowshipped with them at other times, joined them in matrimony, baptized their children, laughed with them when they were happy, cried with them when they were sad, helped them bury their dead. They liked him, they followed him. If they answer truthfully the answer would be, "No, it's not worth it."

Morning Quickie: It's the Economy, Stupid

Yesterday the Bush Administration was tripping over each other to congratulate themselves for the quarterly unemployment numbers; at 4.4 percent, it's a new 5 year low. And they cheered for the 92,000 of new jobs that were created during the quarter.

But if you worked for Ford, GM, AOL, Intel, or any of the hundreds of other companies large and small that laid you off and thousands of your fellow employees, ar you cheering? If you snagged one of the new jobs -- most likely at a pay grade lower than what you left -- is this the news that will make you vote for "Stay the Course?"

As President Bush and company hooray over these numbers, please remember that in 6 short years we've gone a from a budget surplus to a budget deficit of record proportions, borrowing from foreign companies (particularly China) has increased massively, we spend over $40 billion every day in Iraq (money that has no direct return on investment to the US and nothing indirect either), outsourcing of good jobs continues, the housing market is in trouble, and although the stock market cracked 12,ooo, a number of analysts feel its pace is unsustainable.

The unemployment numbers represent a national average. Across the country, what I'll call "grass-roots" unemployment -- the state of your local economy is what will impact your vote. If you're one of the thousands who lined up for 200 jobs at a candy store, or are facing seasonal unemployment, end of the year lay-offs, or a just an uncertain future, you're in the grass-roots economy. And you're more likely to vote for change.

Family Values and Values Voters

The story is just beginning to unfold, but if true, the allegations against Rev. Ted Haggard, former head of the National Association of Evangelicals, have to leave so-called "values voters" reeling.

Ted Haggard has admitted to buying meth and supposedly throwing it away. And he has admitted to contacting his accuser, a gay male escort, for a "massage," but claims he never had sex with him.

The details of Haggard's involvement with Mike Jones will become clear in time. But we need to remember that Haggard -- as part of the Evangelical inner circle -- made regular (some have described weekly) conference calls to the White House to discuss policy issues (say, an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment?). He was one of the high and mighty determined to bring their version good old-fashioned family values to every household in America whether we wanted it or not. To protect us from the travesty of the gay lifestyle.

Every Sunday pastors of the religious right gather their flocks to preach not just from the good book, but from the dictates of the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and other similar groups. These same preachers encourage their congregations to patronize certain shops, read certain books, watch (or boycott) certain television shows, attend particular rallies, and vote for certain candidates or initiatives because as a born-again, evangelical Christian it is the moral thing to do.

How does one continue to denigrate and discriminate against homosexuals when your leader consorts with "the enemy?" How can you rail against gays and gay marriage when one of your national leaders is on the "down low?" How do you follow someone so willing to cast the first stone against others for the very same "sin" he commits?

If your political convictions are controlled by someone whose moral predilections are suspect, what do you do? Just who do you vote for when your pastor is caught with his figurative (if not literal) pants down? Is this a case of do as I say, not as I do? How do you reconcile your belief in a pastor who says gays are immoral and won't go to heaven, when he is in an illicit gay relationship? How do you follow his orders to walk the "holier than thy neighbors" path, when he goes astray? If he has violated his own tenets, how do you trust opinions and dictates of others like him? What secrets are they hiding?

Religion and politics don't mix. Like oil and water, it is difficult to keep the suspension going. Religion is a personal, private matter (no matter how public we try to make it.) Politics is public business. If Ted Haggard didn't know that before, he knows it now.

Long Day's Journey Into Election Night

Tuesday will be the longest day of the year. A long day at polling places across the country and a long night as votes are counted and recounted and contested and challenged. We may know in the early hours of Wednesday morning what the make-up of the new Congress will be.

Democrats are poised to reclaim at least the House of Representatives, if not the Senate too. If voters speak their minds about the fiasco that is Iraq, the Democrats will take over. No less a prognosticator than Stu Rothenberg sees the Dems grabbing 6 senate seats and taking over the Senate as well as the House.

Expect President Bush and VP Cheney to present some new terror threat -- probably happening on Friday -- elevating the "threat" level to DefCon Catastrophic; they'll also announce the arrest of the number two man in Al Qaeda in Iraq; and showcase some project to demonstrate rebuilding of the country. But remember, they will also ignore the looming (if not already active) civil war there, the increasing targeting of US troops, and ineptitude of the so-called government they've installed there. But voters won't be fooled.

If voters do nothing more than vote their emotions -- not consciences, but emotions -- on Iraq, the Republicans are not going to fare well. No matter which side of the philosophical debate you support, for or against the war, it is nearly impossible to look at the numbers of service members killed last month, look at the faces as they are remembered on the evening news, look at their families grieving and not feel that enough of this carnage is enough. If "stay the course" means more coffins and more wounded, voters will just say no.

Tuesday the Senate and House will change hands. Tuesday will be the end of "stay the course."

Stay the Course, Rumsfeld and Cheney Jobs Safe

VP Dick Cheney and Defense Sec'y Donald Rumsfeld can each breathe a small sigh of relief. Their jobs are safe for now. President Bush has given Rumsfeld the "thumbs-up" sign despite calls for his resignation from both Republicans and Democrats. And Cheney gets a big vote of confidence too in spite of the Iraq quagmire he helped create.

It seems that the new Bush Administration strategy of renaming the "stay the course" policy into "modify to win" doesn't apply to Rumsfeld or Cheney. The sobering casualty list for October reports 105 US military personnel dead and 700+ wounded. In one long, sad month families and friends in cities large and small have said farewell to flag-draped coffins. They have rushed to the bedsides of their injured, and prepared for the weeks and months and years of rehabilitation.

Not Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld have offered anything other than lip service to changing Iraq policy. And while firing Rumsfeld or removing Cheney would not directly prevent another war death, it would be something more tangible than the doublespeak we're being served.

President Bush has always planned for this debacle to be inherited by the next president. So in his mind there is no need to remove the incompetent architects of this mess. They can all stay the course until January of 2009, and then ride into the sunset, convinced that they brought stability to the Middle East, routed the terrorists, and made the world a safer place.

They didn't.

"Sorry" always seems to be the hardest word.

Sen. John Kerry, (D. MA) just apologized for his misstatement made on Monday. Thanks, John for finally coming to your senses and realizing nobody -- and I mean nobody, nowhere -- got your joke. That was lesson one.

Lesson two -- and the more important one, the one that politicians everywhere seem to be too hard-headed to learn whether by personal experience or by example -- is fix problems right away. Nip it in the bud. Avoidance only makes your problems last longer. Had Mr. Kerry simply apologized right away this whole fiasco would have fizzled away quickly.

Now the best thing for Mr. Kerry to do is lay low until after the election. If he continues to speak out or campaign for any other Democrat he will continue to fuel this thing and do more damage to Democrats running for election. Silence until after November 7 is his penance.

Hey, John Kerry! Please SHUT UP!

For an educated man, John Kerry can say some dumb things. At the wrong time. To the wrong people. And compounds his errors with his "explanations."

A classic is the oft quoted, "I voted against it, before I voted for it." Now we have a new one:

''You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Mr. Kerry was speaking at Pasadena City College to a group of students (who are clearly visible standing near him at the podium). And there is no reference to President Bush or anyone else in the Bush Administration to link them to the so-called joke. Kerry's reference is to the students about studying hard so that they can avoid having to enlist in the military because their other life options are limited.

Like so many of the students in Kerry's audience. these soldiers, marines, seamen, and airmen are young men and women, who are serving in this war to earn money for college, to put food on the table for their young families back home, to learn new skills and find new directions for their lives. Some of these young people don't come from families with the means to send their kids off to college -- even one as affordable as PCC. (Tuition and fees there range from $8400 to $13,ooo for nine months. Serving two or four year enlistments in the Army would cover part if not all of those expenses.)

Hispanics, African-Americans and other minorities know that service in the military can provide a leg up in the civilian world. The military was desegregated long before much of mainstream business in the north and south. But let us not paint too rosy a picture here, without reminding ourselves -- and Mr. Kerry especially -- that the military draft grabs far more young minorities who cannot apply for deferments, extensions, or other favors to avoid service. And in wartime, he who cannot pay for someone else to take his place at the front line finds himself facing insurgents, IEDs, snipers, kidnappers, suicide bombers and other potentially life threatening agents.

Mr. Kerry would like for people to think he meant Mr. Bush is dumb and his dumb policies are what got us stuck in Iraq. However Mr. Kerry lacks the ability to speak straight-forwardly. And his "smart mouth" gets him in trouble time after time. Further, instead of just saying, "Boy did I just say something really stupid and insensitive. I'm very. very sorry," he compounds the gaffe by trying to dance around it and spin it into something else.

Mr. Kerry, I'm a Liberal Democrat and I am asking you -- no, begging you -- to please shut up. You are not helping. Don't try to explain this anymore. Don't campaign for any Democrats, no matter how dire their races are. Go home, close the door behind you, draw the blinds, pull the shades and hide under your bed until November 8. I'll apologize for you:

Senator John F. Kerry, (D-MA) would like to apologize for the callous and insensitive remarks he made on Monday while speaking at Pasadena City College in California. Mr. Kerry erroneously suggested that students who don't study hard and achieve in school end up in (the military) in Iraq. That was simply a wrong characterization of the makeup of the US armed forces. He is extremely sorry for the remarks. What he meant to say was... um, well nobody really cares what he meant to say. Mr. Kerry has been sent home by the DNC where he is to remain until well after the election. Mr. Kerry is no longer allowed to speak to anyone except for his immediate family within the confines of his home. Again, the Democratic Party and loyal Democrats everywhere extend their apologies and unabashed support to the fine men and women of the US military. Thank you.

Republican Party Games: When I Said... You Heard....

Everyone in the Bush Administration -- all of those who support it are playing a new party game (or is that Party game?) called "When I Said (Fill in the Blank), You Heard... This week's version ends with "stay the course."

To play with your friends, just follow along:

President Bush: When I said "Dick Cheney's gonna shave a horse," you heard "Dick Cheney said 'Stay the course.'"

Dick Cheney: When I said "Tony Snow's got a rock hard torso," you heard "Tony Snow said, 'Stay the course, even more so.'"

Tony Snow: When I said "It's hard to play golf in Scottish gorse," you heard "Karl Rove said, 'Stay the course.'"

Karl Rove: When I said "I was Woodward's secret source," you heard "Condi Rice said, 'Stay the course.'"

Condi Rice: When I said "He's pretty cute as far as Lords go," you heard "Donald Rumsfeld said, 'Stay the course, bro.'"

Donald Rumsfeld: When I said "Stay the course, I meant it. So just back off!"