RedState's mature approach to politics

Republicans only seem to like the media when it is eating out of their hands. Any outlet that dares to, say, actually do its job faces the wrath of the faithful.

And by wrath, I mean this measured, balanced, and useful approach:

As you know, the magazine Us Weekly will hit news stands this coming weekend with a hit job on Governor Sarah Palin.

Though Us Weekly claims that its coverage is very balanced, its cover features Governor Palin holding a baby with the headline "Babies, Lies, and Scandal."

US Weekly, which has been a promotional vehicle for Senator Obama's campaign, is in the tank for Barack Obama and will stop at nothing to ruin Governor Palin's reputation.

Please consider doing this: When you go to the grocery story this week, pick up a couple of copies of Us Weekly and deposit them on the shelves where the toilet paper is located.

When your party does not have a tradition of community organizers, this is what passes for responsible political action.

VIDEO: A Palin Primer - Ten Topics for the Week

There is a lot going on that involves Alaska governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Her public, and more complete, vetting continues in the media and in bloggers' basements across the country. Now that the holiday weekend has passed, here is a round-up of the information you need to investigate and discuss Palin this week.

Part 1:


Part 2:


[Please forgive the amateur nature of this video. I am, well, an amateur.]

1. Yes, Palin seemed to imply that the Pledge of Allegiance, particularly the “under God” phrase, was “good enough for the founding fathers.” The pledge was written in 1892, and the “under God” phrase added during the Eisenhower administration.

2. Yes, the Vice Chair of the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) said in 2007 that Palin was a member of the AIP before becoming mayor of Wasilla in 1996. The AIP’s goal is to force a vote on the legal status of Alaska, with the goal “to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.”

3. Yes, Palin served as a director for the Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service group, a 527 that could raise unlimited money from donors, and aimed to run a “boot camp” for female Republican candidates. John McCain has said that 527s are “a disgrace and they have to be eliminated because they're clearly in violation of the law.” Apparently, so is Ted Stevens.

4. Yes, Palin opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Ketchikan, but only after first supporting it, then opposing it and spending the money on other projects.”

5. Yes, while mayor of Wasilla, she raised taxes.

6. Yes, while mayor of Wasilla, she fired the librarian and police chief, saying, “I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla.” Both had supported her opponent in the mayoral election. Both agree that she never explained to the chief the reasons for his dismissal, saying only, “You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you.”

7. Yes, while mayor of Wasilla, Palin screwed up a sports complex land deal so badly that the city is on the hook for an extra $1.7 million because of it, cause cuts in city services and increases in fees.

8. Yes, as mayor of Wasilla, Palin registered $20 million in long-term debt for the city – around $3,000 per resident.

9. Yes, the Anchorage and Fairbanks newspapers, staffed with people who have watched her closely for years, question her selection and her qualifications to be Vice President.

10. Yes, Palin is involved in a sticky scandal involving her sister, her former brother-in-law, and the state Public Safety Director. She and her husband are accused of pressuring the Public Safety Director to fire the former brother-in-law from his job as a state trooper. When the Director refused, Palin fired the Director for failing to fill vacant trooper positions. Palin replaced him with a new director who lasted two weeks on the job before departing under a cloud of sexual harassment claims. She is due to be deposed before Halloween, and the results of the investigation could hit before Election Day.

There are some other stories – her daughter’s pregnancy; the timing of her first pregnancy and her marriage; the birth of her fifth child – but these are either of a dubious nature, or beyond the scope of civilized political discussion. In other words, her positions on sex education, a woman's right to choose, and related issues, are germane. But discussion of these personal stories should not be the entry point for discussion those issues.

It's not time to panic

Barack Obama has brought many new people into the political process, and he has reinvigorated the progressive souls of many who stopped participating. For a long-time pol like myself, it is easier to see the shifts and changes that Obama is exhibiting as normal progressions in a campaign. For the groups of people I mentioned at the start, changes in public financing or FISA feel like a betrayal, and it has shaken their faith. I am here to tell you not to jump ship or even put on your life vests. It is going to be alright.

I am not disappointed about Obama's choice to eschew public financing; I somewhat expected it, and I know it makes my a hypocrite. I think there is merit in some elements of public financing, which is why I was disappointed that the Supreme Court voided the Millionaire's amendment today. Obama has played new media and new methods of raising funds brilliantly. As a writer whose name I forgot succinctly put it, any adviser who suggested staying in the public finance system would be guilty of "political malpractice". It would be folly to give up our huge advantage in the fuel of political campaigns when we finally have one. (UPDATE: It was Norman Ornstein who said it. Thanks, Dave! h/t)

I am terribly disappointed in Obama's positioning on the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. I have been hoping and dreaming of a Thurmond- or Byrd-type filibuster, one for the ages, where a senator talks for two days straight until relieved by another senator, and so on, until this bill dies. I did not like the "triangulation" I sensed in Obama's nuanced statements on the bill. But we are not single-issue voters. We cannot be if we expect to win.

Democrats have made errors, for example, in taking African-American and gay voters for granted. The party sometimes acts like those voters have a natural home in the party, that they vote on only one issue (race or sexuality), and that they will stay. Those voters are more savvy than that, and while one issue may have more importance than others, it will not be the only issue upon which they decide.

Obama supporters, we cannot be single-issue voters, either. We cannot act surprised that our candidate does not embody perfection on every issue. He does not deserve our blind loyalty, but maybe sometimes we have to cut him some slack, too. He is out there working hard to broaden this coalition, so that our victory in November can be subject to no doubt. When he makes these moves, to the extent we are able, we have to stand by him. Surely we can pressure him to adopt our position. But if not, and when it is not an absolute deal-breaker, we have to keep the faith.

Remember what is at stake here. The future of Roe v. Wade depends on this election. The future of our loved ones in the armed forces depends on this election. The future of our environment depends on this election. The future of our security against economic threats and energy crises depends on this election. Keep your eye on the ball.

John McCain

To find out more about John McCain, click on the links below.

John McCain

Rules for Fighting Fair

On Super Tuesday, I volunteered as a poll observer at University Place School in Huntsville, Alabama. The polling location was in a hexagonal, cinder block gymnasium on an unusually warm and humid winter day. During my fourteen-hour day in that gym, I spied the signs of children all around me - four-square lines on the floor; chairs too short for me to sit in; rows of aligned dots painted on the floor for assigned seating; and elementary art on the walls encouraging students to stay active and eat healthy. Sometime during my interminable day, I discovered this:



and I was reminded that we adults seldom remember or exemplify the lessons we are trying to instill in our children. I think it is a worthy desire to want to live in a civil society. I believe the values of tolerance and freedom can exist together and complement one another. And I feel that as our road seems to inexorably lead to another argumentative presidential election, we should go back to what we learned in school about how to fight fair.

1. We find out the problem. In a civil society comprising more than one person, fights will happen. Fighting can sometimes involve violence, but most basically, fighting is about disagreeing. In elementary school, such disagreements were often one-word affairs. "Mine!" "Stopit!" "Jerk!" In the grown-up world, disagreements take on significantly more facets, complications, and baggage. They can refer to critical, even life-and-death, matters. Yet most often, as children and adults, we are reduced to puerile, off-topic rants about unrelated issues or events that get us no closer to solving the problem.

If we want to fight fair, and if we really care about the problem and solving it, first we must find out what the problem is, and leave everything else at the door. It is the first agreement that leads to the end of the disagreement. So much time and energy, so many column inches and diaries are wasted on the debris surrounding past and present conflicts. So much bad will is generated and maintained by the memories of past fights. To be successful, we must find the problem, isolate it, and focus our intensity and efforts like a laser beam on the problem itself. This goal relates directly to the second rule.

2. We attack the problem, not the person. This is the most violated rule of fighting fair. As children, our lack of maturity makes it easy to spin off into name-calling, pushing, temper tantrums, and grudges. We're supposed to be older than that now; we're supposed to be adults. There should be no threats and no blaming. Does this sound like an adult way to attack the problem of terrorism?

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child's play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

To summarize Jon Stewart's apt analysis: "So, Mitt, in order to avert a surrender on terror, you are going to ... surrender?"

So far, our candidates have resisted most urges to demonize the Republican Party and its supporters. They have defined the problems of our country as they see them; they have outlined their ideas for solutions; and they have highlighted how their plans differ from the proposals of their opponents. We Democratic partisans, we campaign supporters, we diarists and bloggers need to follow their lead. Fighting fair means keeping our eyes on the problem. It means no name calling, no threats, no making excuses, no failing to listen, no getting even. And it means doing this even when others do not.

Do you want to win, or do you want to win justly and fairly? If you are saying to yourself that the problems our country faces are too critical to make this distinction, or if you are asking yourself if there really is a difference, think. Why do we, and most right-thinking Americans, oppose the use of torture against our enemies? We oppose it because we do not want ourselves or our soldiers to be treated that way. We oppose it because it is inhumane. We oppose it because we do not want to be known in the world as a country that would do such things. All these statements boil down to one truth: we oppose it because it is wrong. We should not only fight the fights we can win. We must fight the fights that need fighting. And this is why we must do it fairly. Victory is hollow and meaningless if we don't fight fair.

3. We listen to each other. Fighting fairly is more than telling my side and waiting for you to agree, acquiesce, or give in. [Indeed, that is the way of the Bush administration.] We fight because we disagree, because we believe in something, and because we eventually want to agree. If we did not desire agreement and harmony as our default condition, there would be no incentive or impetus to fight in the first place. We must listen to those with whom we fight, even when they play unfairly.

Fighting fairly requires faith. We must believe that the people with whom we fight are what we strive to be, that they are sincere in their beliefs, and that they fight because they feel those beliefs are important. If we accept this and have faith, it makes it easier to fight fairly. No longer will we waste time on pettiness, on past quarrels, on scoring cheap points. Both sides will see the earnestness of the other, listen to what they offer, and find a road to connect the two.

If I only trust and listen to those who play dirty, then I do not really know who or what I am fighting. After all, I cannot disagree with you if I do not know what you believe or propose, or how it differs from my ideas and ideals. We must listen. We must seek out sources of information from those with whom we disagree. We must turn on our ears, even when our minds want to turn off our hearts to our opponents. We must listen, so that others will hear us. If we want to fight fairly, and if we believe things are worth fighting for, then we must desire a solution and a resolution to the fight. We will never achieve that without listening.

4. We care about each other's feelings. Perhaps politics, like revenge, is a dish best served cold. If we fight dispassionately and stoically, then we cannot be hurt when we lose. Perhaps, as stated earlier, the crisis of our country is so dire that it does not matter how we win, just as long as we win. Yet all of us are old enough to have been both winners and losers in this game, some of us many times over. We know that the losers do not get voted off the island. We must all live together in this republic once the current fight is over, and until the next fight comes. Fighting fairly means caring about how we fight, and caring about the feelings of others.

We teach our children to play fair, and most of us cite some religious or secular formulation of the Golden Rule when we correct their behavior. Then we mature, inherit the responsibilities of the world, and abandon this point of view. We're good, they're bad, and we must win while they lose because everything is a zero-sum game. But it does not have to be that way if we fight fairly.

Caring about the feelings of others while we fight is how we would want to be treated. It encourages future fights, meaning it allows people to have faith that the next time they disagree, they can fight fairly to solve it without animosity or hatred. It invites us to engage one another to solve the problem that started the fight; when the fight is over, we must return to being neighbors. And caring about others when we fight allows us to engage in rule two - focusing on the problem and not the person. If it is good enough for our children, why can't it be good enough for us?

5. We are responsible for what we say and do. When we fight fairly, we become a collective unit towards the goal we are seeking. The tactics we use to fight, including the words we say and write, are the weapons in that fight. We are all responsible for how they are used and what effects they have. If you believe in a cause or a person, you should want to fight fairly. It allows people to have faith in your sincerity, and it lends credence to your views. It engenders faith in you as a fighter. You will not be successful at winning converts if you do it unfairly. They will not be able to trust what you say now, or when the next fight inevitably comes.

If there are people fighting with you that do not fight fairly, you must call them out for their behavior. Remember, it is about the goal, the purpose, the ideal - and not about the person. Calling names, seeking revenge, or spreading misleading statements will not help you in your fight. They discourage others from fighting fairly, they cast doubt on your motives, and they distract from what you are fighting for. If the fight is more important than the person, then fighting fairly is to your advantage. Criticize others when they don't fight fairly. Apologize and take responsibility when you fail to remember these rules. Encourage those who keep their eyes on the prize. If you are responsible for what you say and do, even when you err, you will earn the trust and respect of sincere people with whom you fight, smoothing the way for future agreements.

Following these rules and fighting fairly is difficult. We should do it because it complements our sincerity and earnestness. We should do it because we want others to treat us the same way when we fight. We should do it because we expect it of our children, for whom we should be exemplars. We should do it because it makes winning feel good, and losing feel tolerable. All these statements boil down to one truth: we should do it because it is right.

V3: On Obama in the rain

I have a lot of other things to tell, of making new friends and losing more weight and generally feeling better. But right now, I need to tell you about Barack Obama, me, and the rain that just would not quit.

Edwards for President; or, How To Choose a Candidate in Seven Days

I was sitting in my room and the news came on tv;
A lot of people out there hurtin', and it really scares me.

Love and mercy, that's what you need tonight;
So love and mercy to you and your friends tonight.

~~Brian Wilson, "Love and Mercy"

It was about eight in the morning yesterday when my friend Ed sent me a text from Buffalo and said, "Turn on CNN." My first thought was that Buffalo was on the news - he had been telling me about the severe winds, about how school had been canceled, and about how, dammit, he still had to work that day. In the few seconds more before the channel appeared, I wondered a few more things that might prompt Ed to direct me to the news today, but the news I saw was the last thing I was expecting. John Edwards was ending his campaign for president.

I am certainly a political animal; I am my father's son in that regard. But, as my friends will attest, I can inform without offending. I have never lost a friend over politics. So I am a true believer, but a reluctant proselytizer. Many would be surprised to learn that I have been with John Edwards since his first run for president in 2004. I thought the ticket was reversed that year; I stood by him and supported him in my forcefully quiet way until the present. Similarly, many would be startled at the depth of my support and passion for Edwards' campaign.

I wonder, when I saw him in Nashville two days before his withdrawal, if he knew then that he was ending his campaign. You could not tell from the passion in his speech and the fire in the crowd. I came home and signed up for a couple of campaign events locally that were supposed to occur today. And now, it feels like my significant other of four years has left me. And I have to find a date for next Tuesday's ball, or else I will be the only person sitting on the sidelines.

The kernel of an idea for this diary was a grand analysis of candidate positions; a three column chart on each major issue area, comparing and contrasting the positions of Edwards with Obama and Clinton. From this, I could call a "winner" in each policy area, and use that to determine where I would send my support - I am not sitting this dance out. I also wanted to highlight the differences in Senate roll call votes between Obama and Clinton in the last two years. However, I could hear in my head the criticisms of this approach, and I also became daunted by the sheer volume of information involved. I tried to focus only on the candidates' differences, but found there were few substantial policy contrasts.

In order to save my sanity, I turned to a thematic and idea approach. Which candidate shares the values and the passion of John Edwards to a greater degree? Which candidate has more truly innovative ideas? Which candidate has demonstrated the judgment and awareness to carefully select adviser to help administer the government? Ah...now we're getting somewhere.

During the beginning of my more in-depth analysis of policy positions, I consistently found more detailed, more creative, and more congruent ideas from Obama than from Clinton. One might want to argue that all the information on candidate positions is not available on their campaign websites, or one might want to refer me to other sources of information. My view is this: the campaign website is the primary vehicle of communication with the public. It is not limited by timed duration or column inches. If it is important to the candidate, it should be detailed on the website. Here is just a sampling of what I found.

Tax policy: All three candidate share support for restoring higher-income tax brackets to 1990s levels; extending and enhancing child tax credits; and rolling back Bush's tax cuts. But Clinton's policy speaks in generalities, with words and phrases I have heard before, over and over. Obama, meanwhile, offers substantive and fresh ideas. He proposes a Making Work Pay tax credit - $500 individual, $1000 joint - that could eliminate federal income taxes for 10 million lower income people. He also has actual ideas for simplifying federal tax filing. For example, the IRS could use information it already receives from banks and employers to send pre-filled statements to taxpayers for verification; ideally, filing federal taxes could be reduced to five minutes.

Government reform: The three candidates agree on verifiable paper trails, ballot security and election auditing; restricting the revolving door for agency officials and lobbyists; and using technology and the Internet to provide more government transparency and data-sharing. Clinton proposes a Public Service Academy - four years of paid college education followed by five years of service. It is a quality idea, but hardly innovative. Want something new? Try Obama's Sunlight Before Signing - all non-emergency bills presented for his signature will be subject to a five-day public comment period before he takes action. How about 21st Century Fireside Chats? Obama would mandate that Cabinet departments hold regular broadband town hall meetings.

LGBT issues: John Edwards was the run away leader in his efforts for equal and fair treatment of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgendered people. Edwards visibly supported civil unions and other arrangements that would provide equal standing for the more than 1100 federal rights related to marriage to straight and to same-sex couples. He opposed a constitutional amendment to define marriage. He wanted to expand Medicaid to cover HIV+ people; to increase funding and support for the Ryan White Act; and to encourage age-appropriate sexual education and science-based prevention. Clinton and Obama have each made public statements supporting equal treatment of the LGBT community, but both need to step up the written and verbal commitments to rise to the level of support from John Edwards. Obama took a step in this direction by addressing equal treatment in front of a predominantly African-American audience. But more than words are needed.

I can go on - rural America; nuclear proliferation; civil rights; Africa; trade relations - but the pattern is the same. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton strike all the right chords when singing about the major issues our party and our country face. They have white papers, press releases, and speeches that say all the right things and stroke all the right constituencies; this is expected. The difference is in the quality, innovation, and freshness of the ideas. This is more than just "change": who can change the climate of Washington, or who can change the course of our government.

Barack Obama has shown the charisma and the inspiration to bring people together to follow him. And if you are looking for "change" in this election, he represents it to a far greater degree than Hillary Clinton. He is worried about health care, and tax burdens, and external threats, and education. But on each of these topics, and more, he hits the right notes and then embellishes them with trills and arpeggios. I have not seen sufficient evidence that Clinton is flexible enough or open enough to tackle old issues and emerging threats with a keen and fresh eye. Obama has the creativity and the vision to see beyond the same solutions to the same problems.

This is my analysis, and this is what works for me. Hopefully - maybe - it is helpful to you. The candidate who comes closer to the passion, the ideals, and the perspective of John Edwards is Barack Obama. I will be voting for Obama on Tuesday.

Should Mother Nature choose the president?

clipped from talkingpointsmemo.com

Norris says McCain too old for president

APRIL CASTRO
AP News

Campaigning for Mike Huckabee, actor Chuck Norris said Sunday that Sen. John McCain is too old to handle the pressures of being president.

"I didn't pick John to support because I'm just afraid that the vice president would wind up taking over his job in that four-year presidency," said Norris

As the first Southern primary, South Carolina was supposed to be friendly territory for Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister.

"We obviously wanted to win and we really thought we would win," he said. "The fact of Fred Thompson's being in the race took some votes that we would have most likely had."

Huckabee also blamed late snowfall in parts of upstate South Carolina.

"The snow not only froze the streets of the Greenville-Spartanburg area, the votes kinda stopped once it started snowing," he said. "That was an area we were looking forward to having a significant vote margin."

Further down in this article from Talking Points Memo, Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee lamented the affect of weather (and Grandpa Fred) on his vote totals in South Carolina.

Especially today, on the formal celebration of the life of Martin Luther King, it is worth noting the cavalier attitude we seem to have towards democracy and voting rights. I am not old enough to remember the bulk of the struggle for women and minorities to secure the right to vote. But in a country that considers itself the modern torch-bearer for democracy, in a country who nicknames its president the Leader of the Free World, in a country where thousands have died in the Middle East so we can ostensibly enjoy the freedom to shop here at home, it startles me to see the basic act of democracy so tattered.

Weather should not affect elections. If more South Carolinians really wanted Gov. Huckabee to win, it shouldn't be his bad luck - or a reflection on him - that they were too lazy or not intrepid enough to brave the weather in order to vote. It is troubling enough to deal with the variables of computerized voting versus hand counting, of polling places running out of ballots, of citizens actually turning away in Nevada because of half-mile lines to vote. It is likewise disturbing that dozens of votes were found to have been miscounted in New Hampshire, despite the fact that the recount did not change the outcome. Do you want your vote to be the one that is not counted?

So I guess my beef is not with Mother Nature. It is with our particular flavor of democracy. The tradition of Tuesday voting - harking back to the days of farmers' markets, and when most citizens would be "in town" to vote - needs to be retired. We need weekend voting, multiple day voting, voting by mail. Ask Oregon - mail voting has been tremendously efficient and effective, and very impervious to fraud. Austin always had multiple early voting sites throughout the city when I lived there. Unless you were away on business for three weeks solid, there was no excuse for failing to vote.

After all that has been given by so many for our right to vote, shouldn't it be more protected, more cherished? A vote should not be minimized because one could not get off work...because one could not get a ride to the polls...because one had a sick child on the one day of the vote...because weather depressed the turnout of an entire area of a city or state.

Mad libs vs. Pee Wee's Playhouse

[Sen. John McCain, former Gov. Mitt Romney, and former Sen. Fred Thompson (l-r), point out how they have never seen former Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a man's suit before.]


I didn't listen to my mother; when she told me not to yell at the television, I did anyway. I was annoyed and disappointed at how Fox ran tonight's Republican debate. The audience was allowed to be too boisterous, and the whole she-bang came off sounding like a pep rally.

Because there was so much audience interaction, it was easy to see the Republican keyword machine in action. More times than I can count, candidates were interrupted in mid-sentence -- often in mid-topic-sentence -- by applause from a vat of Florida Republicans who heard the special words. Whether it was "terror" or "Vietnam" or "Hillary" or [insert your word here], they gave themselves away by applauding the keywords too quickly, often before the candidates had time to assemble them into complete thoughts. Did a Republican invent Mad Libs?

However, in my house, the opposite was going on. It was like Pee Wee's Playhouse here - whenever the keywords were uttered, I screamed at the television. I yelled down the hall to my mother. (Well, what can I say, the baseball game is still in the early innings as I write.) I was troubled to see how easily manipulated that audience was. They cheered for hating Hillary; they cheered for hating immigrants; they cheered for hating Muslims; they cheered for hating poor people.

I prefer my debates to be debates, and for the most part, the Democratic affairs have come off much more professionally and informative-ly. I don't want the audience to cheer or moan like someone just hit "Bankrupt" on Wheel of Fortune - it just encourages the candidates to give empty applause lines. And I don't want questioners to manufacture disputes. I want to know what candidate A thinks about an issue. And then I want to know whether candidate B agrees or disagrees, and what candidate B would do differently. Lather, rinse, repeat.

We might be favored in the coming election. But I was scared by what I saw tonight. I was scared to think that so many people are still caught in the headlights of Republicanism. The worst part is, it's not just them that will be run over by the oncoming truck - it's all of us.

Really??!?

clipped from www.msnbc.msn.com A Secret Fax—And an Ethics Slip Newsweek May 7, 2007 issue - Sen. Barack Obama vows to bring a "new kind of politics" to Washington. But a copy of a 36-page fax from Obama's Senate office, obtained by NEWSWEEK, shows that the rookie presidential candidate, riding the biggest wave this side of his native Hawaii, needs to keep a sharp eye on the details of his own campaign. Senate rules and federal law forbid the use of official equipment—such as faxes and phone lines—to conduct campaign business, which was what Buford was doing last Thursday when she faxed Obama's political "call list" to the senator's personal aide at a Columbia, S.C., hotel. A copy of the one to Obama was slipped, anonymously, under the door of a NEWSWEEK reporter. But the sender clearly knew the ethics rules. The accompanying note, written on hotel stationery, said of the fax: "Unbelievable, USS, office, phone, long distance, staff, etc.—for political." With all eyes on Obama, he needs to watch out.

Like the title of a recent Saturday Night Live news sketch, Really??!?

I travel for a living. You can't find a hotel anywhere anymore that will identify the room number of a guest. Did the staffer with the fax stalk Newsweek's Fineman to find his room and "slip" this under the door?

Oh, and Senator Obama? You messed up. Don't do it again. I don't want anyone to mess up - I want to see a clean campaign run on ideas and merits.

The Diet Coke Presidency

It is hard to believe that six years have passed since W. was inaugurated and our country began its descent into Hell. I'll grant you, it was titillating during the Clinton years to wade past Limbo and dabble our toes in the Second Circle (lust). But W. and his entourage have created an express lane to the Eighth Circle and beyond, stacking up a lifetime of sins in only half a dozen years, or roughly the length of a Mel Gibson movie.

But six years is a long time in both the practical and the institutional memory of a country, and it is difficult to think back to the time when there used to be more than one issue on the table; a time when policy and substance were roots for debate, and not partisanship and slander. I'd venture to say even some moderate Republicans yearn for the days when we could actually get things done.

The Hundred Hours notwithstanding, it has been little ado about nothing since 2001, and I think it is easy to see that most of America has been lulled into a sense of comfort with an impotent government - or at least an impotent legislature. We go to bed at night wrapped in a blanket made of faux security, believing that as long as the government talks the hard line, we will be "safe," and all the other issues will take care of themselves. And while the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, but so does a journey of a thousand errors. When a critical mass has failed to stand up and stop the incremental annexation of our rights, we all look up six years later in shock at how many steps into the journey we now are.

With the exception of the War on Terror (tm), little progress has been made on any other front, leaving critical domestic and foreign issues to wither on the vine. And W. has been satisfied to keep it that way. Sex sells, and fear wins. Does the average American (read: non-Kossacks) have any idea of the administration's policy on welfare? Health care reform? Job creation? Trade relations? Diplomacy with non-Middle Eastern nations? Tax code upgrades? Higher education? Labor-management relations? Corporate governance and taxation? Decaying infrastructure - roads and bridges? (Feel free to add your own to the list.)

I miss those days, and I bet most Americans do, too. The problem is in the meaning of the word "miss". I actually remember the days when issues were important, and when we weren't single-minded and double-barreled in pursuit of one issue to the neglect, even exclusion, of all others. Most Americans miss those days in that they cannot recall them so long ago, so they forget there was once a time when great leaders had great debates about great issues; when neither candidate was a bed of roses, nor were they piles of slop; when whether D or R won the election, our country would probably still be in pretty good hands. And those days aren't as long ago as they may seem.

W. made us accustomed to getting less when we thought we were getting so much more, the best of both worlds. He would steer us right on the main issue - national security - and we were free to give up worrying about the other issues, confident that his paternal instinct and constitutional values would lead us to the promised land. Too many abdicated their roles as citizens when it became too hard to fight back. And maybe we walked right into a trap.

Maybe we do not give Those Who Shall Wish Us Harm - the terrorists - nearly enough credit. Our government's imagination was not broad enough to visualize planes crashing into buildings. What if the next terror step is hiding in plain sight? What if the approach is to take advantage of a belligerent yet bereft president and his misplaced values to undermine the entire nation at once? Is it so hard to imagine? Terrorists focus our attention and our money on Iraq and global security; they use the passions of the sitting president to exacerbate the situation to the neglect of all other issues; and our nation slowly dies from internal bleeding.

What has sparked this stroll down Amnesia Lane is the rapid-fire announcements of four candidates for president in the last week - Sens. Obama, Clinton and Brownback, and Gov. Richardson. While each announcement contained boilerplate drivel, each also focused on specific issues, and issues other than Iraq or national security. Without a clear heir to all of W.'s policies, foibles, and fraud, there is a genuine chance for real issues to hit the airwaves again. With the class of much of the Democratic field, there is a prospect of lots of meat and little mud. The orphan issues that have been ignored can receive the love and attention (and money) they so desperately need.

And so in spite of the extreme imbalance of power generated by the administration, for the next two years we are stuck with W. and his Diet Coke Presidency. He pledged to take out all the bad, unhealthy, and inconvenient things, and replace them with just one sweetener that will actually be better for us. In the end, we miss the other ingredients that weren't so bad for us in moderation, we are not that much healthier, and we have this bad taste in our mouths.