Was This The Worse Campaign Strategy Ever?

In what will surely go down as the worse campaign strategy in the history of American politics, Rudy Giuliani was soundly defeated in Florida. After running what appeared to be a campaign to be the President of Florida, Mr. Giuliani had spent the bulk of his time and finances in Florida. In a campaign that was marked by an incoherent strategy and a less than enthusiastic candidate, the end should have been predictable. It’s odd how the MSM actually gave this hare-brained strategy a chance of succeeding, but such is the state of the media in America. Mr. Giuliani’s campaign is over after basically one primary, the last time anyone crashed and burned that quickly was the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WWII.

Giuliani's critics and supporters blamed his fall on the unconventional campaign strategy that focused more on collecting convention delegates than on notching early primary victories. Conventional political wisdom is that success in the early primaries produces momentum, which leads to later primary wins, which leads to delegates enough delegates for the party nomination.

"His campaign was built on the assumption that it could do it their way," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac University's Polling Institute. "The message back was `Don't mess with Mother Nature and skip Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.' It's tough to tout yourself as the most electable Republican when week after week you're getting beat by (Rep.) Ron Paul."[1]

While the reasons for his demise are many I think one of the major ones was his sheer arrogance. He truly thought he was smarter than everyone else in the room, I guess he wasn’t. Did Rudy really want to be President? I think he did so long as he didn’t have to work real hard at it. Never being the hard-charging campaigner, I think he just sort of expected it to be given to him. This is the second time he has had to quit in a tough election. I guess he isn’t as tough as he’s advertised to be. When the going gets tough, Rudy gets going alright. He gets going home.

Rudy had a lot of support so long as no one really knew him. He had early name recognition, but it seems the more people got to know him the less they liked him. As news of the real Rudy began to surface and the façade of 9/11 began to crumble, it’s clear the American public did not like what it saw. What the public saw was a vindictive, disloyal, opportunist who was not above throwing anybody under the train to get what he wanted. Despite warnings to the contrary his campaign believed that his early support was erosion proof. Once again the American political arena has slain another paper giant and left in its wake the ghost of elections past. I can’t wait to hear the blame sessions that are sure to come as this “strategy” is debated in the future. Not since the Iraq invasion will a strategy be more scrutinized and lambasted.

As of January 9, 2008, Giuliani had made 23 trips to the Sunshine state, according to the National Journal's Hotline. That total was almost three times more than Sen. John McCain, 16 more than Mike Huckabee, and seven more than Romney. Meanwhile, by some estimates, Giuliani spent more than $1 million in Florida-based advertising in 2007. Currently, the New York Daily News reports, he is writing $350,000-a-day worth of checks for his in-state ad campaign. Giuliani also has 50 campaign workers in Florida, although many have "accepted" the campaign's "suggestion" that they work without pay.[2]

So for all the time and money he spent in Florida Rudy got just one delegate. That works out to be probably the most expensive delegate in voting history. I hate to say it, but I think he would have done better if he hadn’t campaigned there at all. He certainly couldn’t have done much worse. So Rudy will return to his lucrative position at Giuliani Partners with its secret client list and will continue to parlay his “tough” image into millions of dollars and the Republicans will go on to nominate someone else. But what will we be left with by this campaign? Are there any larger lessons to be learned from the train wreck that was Rudy?

I think the biggest lesson learned is that most of America is tired of living in fear and if that is all you have to offer then they aren’t buying it. It seems even the Republicans are finally starting to at least begin the process of awakening from the state of suspended animation they were transported to after 9/11. Even the master of fear, Karl Rove would have a hard time selling that line this time around. The one thing about the Republicans though is that they are consistent and with McCain appearing to be their nominee the terror alert level is sure to be ratcheted up by his 100 year war rhetoric. While this may appeal to the rabid diehard chicken hawks, the rest of the country will have other issues on their agendas.

Thanks Rudy you proved why this strategy was heralded by so many as insane, because it was. And you wanted the American people to trust your instincts? Just like all your other “strong” suits this one appeared to be just as flimsy when placed under scrutiny. Not to worry though if McCain should win I am sure there will be a position opening up for you on his cabinet, maybe Secretary of the permanent 9/11 reminder commission?

[1] http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/466931.html
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/despite-open-field-giuli_n_81801.html

Read more!

The Politics of Rage and Hate

In what is sure to become his last ditch effort to gain the Republican nomination Mr. Giuliani is pressing forward with the politics of rage and hate that has endeared his Party to so many Americans. Speaking at a campaign event in New Hampshire Mr. Giuliani proposed expanding the war in Afghanistan with his own variation of the “surge” strategy. Also, Mr. Giuliani has released a new television ad with all the usual suspects (Osama, WTC, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) and he’s added a new one (Benazir Bhutto). In the ad Mr. Giuliani stresses the point that the world is in chaos and America needs a leader who is ready, ready for what it doesn’t say. Nor does the ad mention who has been the creator of most of this world’s chaos.

“I think it wouldn’t be unfair to describe us as the 9/11 generation, because how we handle this is going to say something about us in history,” Mr. Giuliani said in his speech.

The push comes as some of Mr. Giuliani’s Republican rivals are questioning how his background as mayor of New York City gives him national security or foreign policy experience — questions Mr. Giuliani may not have allayed Wednesday when he told reporters that the United States had some troops “under U.N. command” in Afghanistan (when in fact the United States has some troops there under NATO command).

Military officials said last month that the NATO-led security assistance mission in Afghanistan had about 40,000 troops, including 14,000 Americans. Separately, the United States military has 12,000 other troops conducting specialized counterterrorism missions. Charles Hill, Mr. Giuliani’s chief foreign policy adviser, said that it was the American-led troops that Mr. Giuliani wanted to double, but that the rise could be gradual.

Mr. Giuliani’s new campaign advertisement — which will be broadcast here and in Florida, as well as nationally on Fox News — contains images of Muslims with rifles; explosions; a bloody man; Benazir Bhutto, who was recently assassinated in Pakistan; and the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.[1]

Will this guy stop at nothing to become President? Now we are the 9/11 generation, as if to say everything we do will be couched in 9/11. The sad part about it is that for too many of our fellow citizens this has been true and this has led to an assault on our personal freedoms, our constitutional rights, and the world community. How many of these crack pots do they think they can get elected with the politics of fear? After 8 years of Bush, do they really think that American is looking to elect another one of these “the sky is falling” nuts? If the best campaign slogan you can come up with is “Be very afraid”, I think maybe this isn’t your election and someday soon won’t be your country.

My hope is that the first thing the next President will do is to lower the US threat level. After 8 years of being on red, maybe it is time to dial it back a little. While I am not advocating returning to the lax standards of security pre-9/11, I am saying that we have allowed fear of the unknown to go unchecked for too long. We must wakeup from the nightmare and stop fearing every little thing that goes bump in the night. We will never be able to do this, if we allow our fears to be stoked by Mr. Giuliani and his ilk. This line of “You are in danger and I am the only one who can protect you” is the same logic he tried to use to extend his term as Mayor. If the choices are an America with Rudy Giuliani as President or the terrorists, I am not so sure I wouldn’t be better off with the terrorists. How painful can getting your head cut off be? As one famous patriot so eloquently stated, “Give me liberty or give me death”. If nothing else the last 8 years should have shown us that the way these clowns want to protect us is with cameras, wire-taps, and by shredding the constitution; no thanks fellas I prefer the following sentiment. “It is far better for a man to go wrong in freedom than to go right in chains.”[2]

Freedom like so many of life’s cherished gifts will not be missed until it has been lost. The greatest freedom one has is the freedom to decide what one is willing to die for. Mr. Giuliani may promise safety, but at what cost? I personally do not believe we as a nation are any safer today due to the policies of George Bush than we were seven years ago. Yet, despite approval ratings in the high twenties, Mr. Giuliani wants to out-Bush, George Bush. What is this guy smoking? The Mayor of 9/11 needs to go back to his rip-off consulting firm and allow America to get past the nightmare of 9/11 and move forward into a new day.

If the Iowa caucus taught me anything, it is that America is ready for change and in a big way. If you aren’t a part of that change I am afraid you will be left behind. I don’t know if there is enough sentiment to take the White House and government back, but it can no longer be ignored. The journey to take back America has begun. It is now time for all of us to decide. Do we continue to cling to fear and hatred of the past or do we get behind the change and move towards a better future? The choice is ours. I pray we choose wisely.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/us/politics/03giuliani.html
[2] http://thinkarete.com/quotes/by_teacher/Thomas%20H.%20Huxley

Read more!

The Huckabee Yelp

As the Baptist preacher, turned governor, turned Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee continues to rise in the polls, it will be very interesting the imaginative ways the Republican establishment will use to derail his candidacy and still maintain its strangle hold on the evangelicals who are flocking to him. In just two short weeks we have been treated to new revelations concerning the “man who would be king”. There was the “pardoned rapists” story, the unelectable story, and now the release of private letters written by Mr. Huckabee while in Arkansas. The Republican dirty tricks department is in full-throttle mode and as his numbers continue to increase the tricks will get dirtier and the tone is going to get meaner.

As Mike Huckabee gains ground on his rivals for the Republican nomination, opponents have quietly begun highlighting the slew of ethics issues the social conservative faced during his political career in Arkansas.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found Huckabee trailing only Mitt Romney — and by less than the margin of error — in Iowa, where the primary season kicks off with Jan. 3 caucuses.

But opposition research files on Huckabee’s ethics stand at the ready, and their contents have begun seeping into press releases.[1]

The only way for the Republican establishment to discredit Mr. Huckabee and retain the evangelicals they will need is to attack him on two fronts. The first will be to question his ethics and try to expose him as a hypocrite (as if in the Republican Party that would be a deal breaker); using this method it would appear that the candidate self-destructed, he really wasn’t a “true believer”. The second front will be to attack him as being “too liberal” on social issues, this would include immigration, taxes, and social spending. By using either of these two weapons against him the Republicans can smear the candidate, but still maintain the “moral” high ground.

What the Huckabee candidacy has exposed is the lie that has been the lynchpin of Republican politics since Nixon’s campaign, the lie is that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives share commonality of views and issues. The truth is that they don’t and the destruction of the Huckabee campaign will expose it for all to see. While the fiscal conservatives have always needed the social conservatives, it has always been a one way relationship. The fiscal conservative candidate would pay lip service to the social conservative agenda and they would be allowed to speak at the nominating convention, but then after the election the fiscal conservatives would go back to business as usual. That business of course is to turn on the public faucet for the wealthy to fill their pails at the public’s expense. This game has been played out in election after election.

What no one counted on was that a “true” social conservative would ever get the nomination; this is the fly in the ointment. It is ok for Republican candidates to pander to the social conservatives to get their votes so long as the social conservatives remain on the fringes. The problem with pandering to the lowest common denominator is that every cycle requires you to offer more, so if you are pandering to bigots, racists, and intolerant people the line keeps getting lower and lower. The rhetoric has to get nastier to satisfy the mob. Up until now, the fiscal conservatives have been able to feed the “monster” and still remain viable in a national election. Sure there have been the occasional social conservative candidates, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and of course Pat Buchanan; but they have always polled low enough to not raise any alarm. Usually, the fiscal conservatives could present a candidate who could project himself as a “true believer”, but this year is different.

This year you have a pro-life Mayor who committed adultery, a Mormon Governor from a liberal state, and a secular Senator with no ties to the social conservatives; it couldn’t get worse for the fiscal conservatives. The rise of Mike Huckabee should have been predictable for the Republican strategists, but of course due to their arrogance of intelligence they believed that they could continue to roll out the “perpetrators” and continue to keep the social conservatives inline. You keep stoking these fires and someone is bound to get burnt. The Republicans, using the Karl Rove play book, have stoked the fires of the social conservatives with their phony “value” issues until now there is a flame that is threatening to consume the rest of the Party. The social conservatives are now ready to exert a larger influence over the Party than ever before, now they want one of their own, a true believer.

The previous social conservative movements have all been orchestrated by the fiscal conservatives to imitate a real movement, but it was always under the guidance of a fiscal conservative masquerading as a social conservative. Mike Huckabee represents the day of reckoning for the fiscal conservatives. He has recognized the “frailty” of the current crop of wannabes and has rushed in to fill the void. To the chagrin of the Party establishment his message is playing better than the “anointed” candidates and it scares the hell out of them. They know that on the national stage Mr. Huckabee will be vulnerable to all types of attacks and would probably lose in a landslide. The thing about the message of hate and intolerance is that it may play well to the Party base, but it doesn’t play so well to the nation as a whole.

So, as the deconstruction of Mike Huckabee plays out it will be interesting to note the role of the media in his downfall. The Republicans will use their trusty friends in the fourth estate to write the stories that they have leaked. All of this will be done of course in the interest of the public’s right to know, if only they were as forthcoming with all of their candidates.

[1] http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/7000.html

Read more!

When Lying Isn’t Lying

While I will admit that most if not all candidates sometimes have trouble with the truth. They have a tendency to overstate positive and understate negative facts concerning their records. We, as the voting public are aware of these liberties with the truth and have accepted them as part of the political process. Most voters are not that concerned with exact figures or facts so long as the candidates overall message or point rings true. Here is where a certain Republican presidential candidate is having a problem, Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be overstepping the occasional missed fact and figure tolerance that we allow candidates. In what appears to be a deliberate campaign of false facts and figures, Mr. Giuliani is churning out incorrect data at an alarming rate.

In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views...All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong. And while, to be sure, all candidates use misleading statistics from time to time, Mr. Giuliani has made statistics a central part of his candidacy as he campaigns on his record.[1]

It is one thing to mistakenly recite a figure that is incorrect, no one can be expected to remember every fact or figure concerning an issue. Even if that issue does concern the candidate’s own record, we all make mistakes. The problem with Mr. Giuliani is, even after the figures have been proven to be false, he continues to stubbornly use them in spite of the fact they are wrong. This indicates to me a certain lack of character on the part of the candidate, if he continues to use false information to prove a point then it calls into question the truth of the point. It also calls into question the basic truthfulness of the candidate. I’m sorry Mr. Giuliani if you’ll lie about some stupid fact on the campaign trail, would you not also lie about Iran’s WMD capabilities? It makes me wonder.

An example of Mr. Giuliani’s departure from the truth is his oft repeated prostate cancer figure. According to Mr. Giuliani, if he were in England and had been diagnosed with prostate cancer his chances for survival would only be 44% as opposed to the US where his survival chances would be 82%. This is quite a disparity and one that would be worthy of noting to contrast the state of health care in America versus Britain, the only problem is the figures are not true and Mr. Giuliani knows they are not true. The actual figure is 74.4% in the UK, a difference still but not the great disparity being touted by Mr. Giuliani as fact. Even after the figure had been debunked, Mr. Giuliani continued to quote the figure and use it in advertising. Isn’t this the same type of behavior that was exhibited by the current administration when confronted by facts that did not support their positions?

Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist who once worked for Mr. Giuliani, said he doubted that the issue would hurt him politically.

“When he talks about New York, people see it,” Mr. Luntz said of Mr. Giuliani, “and they feel it, and if a number isn’t quite right, or is off by a small amount, nobody will care, because it rings true to them.”[2]

Here’s the deal Mr. Luntz, no one would begrudge a candidate a little fudging, but these are not small discrepancies on an occasional basis, this is a regular conscious misrepresentation of the facts. So, because he is talking about New York facts suddenly become irrelevant, he can spew out any information he chooses no matter its basis in fact? I don’t think so, I believe that the general public will care even if the Republican base does not. It seems that Mr. Giuliani believes that since no one has called Mr. Bush and his cronies on their lies, no one will call him on his. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Giuliani must believe in the adage if you throw enough crap on the wall some of it is going to stick.

Dear Mr. Giuliani, if you don’t know your facts please stop quoting them, obviously math was not your strong suit. The American public is not being served by your misrepresentations and you are not projecting a presidential image, in fact it appears to be more fake know-it-all. When a person continues to spout information he knows to be false it is no longer a mistake, it is lying. No matter what the spin, it is lying. If you are willing to spread lies to advance your campaign, what else are you capable of? Mr. Giuliani seems to be running the same campaign Georg W. ran in 2000, remember the passionate conservative that lied his way to the White House, lied his way into war, and now wants to lie his way into history. When is a lie not a lie, when it comes from a politician, then it is just business as usual.

For more information on prostate health and the work being done I have included a link to a website for more information. Thank you Dr. Krongrad...

Krongrad Institute

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/us/politics/30truth.html?pagewanted=2&hp

Read more!

Why Mitt Romney Should Not Be President

I normally do not make it a habit of coming out against a candidate, I have from time to time brought to light a candidate’s inconsistencies or outright lies but rarely have I made the case against a candidate. This will only be the second such case, the first was Rudy Giuliani because he is running on a misleading and often times false set of circumstances concerning 9/11 and his role in the Bernie Kerik fiasco. In the case of Mitt Romney I am willing to once again demonstrate a basic character flaw which is so entrenched in my opinion it should disqualify him from being elected President.

The deadly character flaw that Mitt Romney suffers from is a lack of courage to lead. America is at a crossroad and the last thing we need is a President without courage and leadership, because the direction and many of the steps we will need to take are not going to be popular and will not be consensus builders. For most of Mr. Romney’s adult life he has avoided the courage of leadership, eventhough he has been in leadership positions. It is one thing to be in charge, it is far different thing to be a leader. Someone in charge merely puts into place the positions and ideas of others, rarely venturing out of the box to express or enact any real change. Our country is in desperate need for real change, not someone who has made a life following and maintaining the status quo.

Civil rights became an even more insistent issue, when boycotts and violent protests over the university’s virtually all-white sports teams broke out at away games. The Mormon Church at the time excluded blacks from full membership, considering them spiritually unfit as results of a biblical curse on the descendants of Noah’s son Ham. (During their training, a fellow missionary of Mr. Romney took notes that read: “All men were created equal — No,” followed by “Sons of Ham. ”)

A handful of students and prominent Mormons — including the Arizona congressman Morris K. Udall and his brother Stewart, then secretary of the interior — called for an end to the doctrine. Some Mormons hoped the pressure would persuade the church to abandon its exclusion of blacks, just as it had stopped endorsing polygamy.

Mitt Romney had walked in civil rights marches with his father and said he shared his concern for racial equality. But neither publicly questioned the church’s teachings.[1]

During the earth-shattering struggles of his time, Mr. Romney repeatedly chose to remain on the sidelines while others took the lead and now he wants us to believe that he is a leader. Where was your leadership Mr. Romney when the country was going through the previous struggles that defined a nation and a generation? An example would be the exclusion of blacks from his Church, Mr. Romney would have us believe that he was against it, yet nowhere publically did he speak out against it, even though being the son of one of the most prominent Mormons in the country he had a platform to do so. But Mr. Romney chose to play it safe and go with flow supposedly secretly wanting the Church to change its doctrine of exclusion.

In this article that I cited Mr. Romney states that how things are done in his church is by God’s intervention, well that’s all fine and good Mr. Romney but you might consider when your “Church” violates a commanding principal of God to maybe join another church? If my church begins to teach the doctrine that women are not spiritually fit to become members it is the time that I as a member must make a decision, to follow God or to follow my church. In this case I am not given the choice of doing nothing, because doing nothing is a choice.

Most of the missionaries, though, were also relieved that their service meant a draft deferment. “I am sorry, but no one was excited to go and get killed in Vietnam,” Mr. Hansen said, acknowledging, “In hindsight, it is easy to be for the war when you don’t have to worry about going to Vietnam.”

Mr. Romney, though, said that he sometimes had wished he were in Vietnam instead of France. “There were surely times on my mission when I was having a particularly difficult time accomplishing very little when I would have longed for the chance to be serving in the military,” he said in an interview, “but that was not to be.”

While many Mormons — and eventually, some of his fellow missionaries — enlisted, Mr. Romney got a student deferment after returning from France. When the draft lottery was introduced in December 1969, he drew a high enough number — 300 — that he would never be called up.[2]

The other issue where Mr. Romney again showed a lack of courage was the question of the war in Vietnam. I’m sorry but I just have to ask; besides John McCain was there any Republican politician that went to defend the country they now hope to lead? So the best the Republicans can offer the country is another long list of chickenhawks, defenders of the war only because they or their ilk will never have to fight in it. What a sad state of affairs for our country. Mr. Romney not only chose to take a deferment, he again uses the disingenuous response of I really wanted to go, but. Mr. Romney if you really wanted to go there would have been nothing to stop you. Take for instances the former professional football player Pat Tillman, he really wanted to go and he went. He left all the comforts and privilege and chose to stand up for what he believed in. It eventually cost him his life, so don’t disgrace the memories of all those who did choose to go and fight with that weak kneed answer.

Mr. Romney has never shown the strength and courage of his convictions, even now on the campaign trail he has stood for something different from when he was a governor. Can our country afford another President who says one thing and does another; I for one do not think so. Courage is not something you get from your relatives, either you have it or you don’t and Mr. Romney does not seem to have it. If he does he has not shown it, which in my opinion makes him not qualified to be President.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html?pagewanted=3&hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/15/us/politics/15romney.html?pagewanted=3&hp

Read more!

Kerik: A Millstone Around Giuliani

Bernard Kerik, onetime darling and partner of Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani, is about to be indicted by a federal prosecutor for a list of offences that include tax fraud, corruption, and conspiracy, my how the mighty have fallen. Mr. Kerik was Mr. Giuliani’s hand-picked Corrections Commissioner, Police Commissioner, and would have made it to the upper echelons of the government were it not for someone finaling doing a proper vetting on him. Even after the debacle and embarrassment of submitting him for Homeland Security Director, he continued to remain a partner and earn a substantial salary at Mr. Giuliani’s consulting firm.

Federal prosecutors are scheduled to seek a grand jury indictment on Thursday of Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, on a list of charges that include tax fraud, corruption and conspiracy, according to people who have been briefed on the case.

The grand jury, sitting in Westchester, has been hearing evidence about Mr. Kerik for more than a year as part of a broad federal investigation into a variety of allegations, including his acceptance of $165,000 in renovations from a contractor who was seeking a city license.[1]

Now while I am in no way suggesting that Mr. Kerik’s legal troubles cast any aspersions towards Mr. Giuliani’s honesty or integrity, I already had my doubts about that, it does cast aspersions on something that is of vital importance to a country that he wants to be president of. Despite his campaigns rigorous denials to the contrary, the Bernard Kerik case does demonstrate a lack of judgment by their candidate. They can attempt to color over this issue, but Mr. Giuliani’s judgment is now in question. These two men have been inextricably linked since 1990 and so for Rudy to now claim ignorance is beyond the realm of common sense. What does that say about this judgment if he can be so closely linked to this man for all those years and he did not know of his involvement in dubious business deals?

By his own admission Mr. Giuliani has stated that one of his greatest strengths is his ability to surround himself with the right people, able and qualified. My question is, if one of your greatest strengths is suspect, should that not also cast doubts on your other so called strengths? As hard as he tries to run from the embarrassment that his friend Bernie has become, Mr. Giuliani will have to face up to his monumental lack of judgment. He was even pushing to have Mr. Kerik nominated for Homeland Security Director, this is a cabinet level appointment and is an indicator of the type of people Mr. Giuliani would nominate to his own cabinet, not to mention the appointments that don’t even require confirmation. Can this country afford another administration filled with party loyalist and incompetent hacks in positions of leadership? How many Alberto Gonzales and Michael D. Browns are enough?

Mr. Giuliani waved off the dissenters. “I believe that the skill I have developed better than any other was surrounding myself with great people,” Mr. Giuliani wrote in his 2002 book, “Leadership.”[2]

If Mr. Giuliani wants to run on his record and his ability to surround himself with “great people”, then the American people have a right to examine his claims. In the case of this claim it does not hold up to inspection. One of the things that I find so troubling is that when Mr. Giuliani inserted Mr. Kerik’s name for Homeland Security, he and his staff were at that time well aware of Mr. Kerik’s seedy connections to the mob and a host of other dubious facts. Having this information did not deter Mr. Giuliani from submitting his name for consideration. So did he think that the White House would not vett him or did he think that with this White House it wouldn’t matter what his past entailed. Either way it brings up questions that he has not fully answered.

In Mr. Kerik’s case, by the time Mr. Giuliani recommended him for the federal job, his administration knew that Mr. Kerik had acted on behalf of Interstate Industrial. It also knew that he had drawn criticism for a range of other incidents, from sending detectives to search for his lover’s cellphone to using officers to research his autobiography.[3]

Mr. Kerik was not some misguided bureaucrat seduced by the trappings of power, on the contrary Mr. Kerik has a long history of questionable decisions and unsavory relationships. Rumors have dogged him since his days as a NYC detective and continued to follow him through his meteoric rise to the gates of power. I find it incredulous that his one-time mentor was oblivious to these rumors and refused to verify their veracity. Are we now to believe that someone capable of making such a monumental mistake in character is capable of leading a nation during its most troubling times? I don’t think so, thanks to Mr. Bush incompetence is no longer in fashion for the office of Commander and Chief.

"But when you look at the combination of the mistakes and the correct decisions I've made, I think if I made the same balance of those decisions as president of the United States, the country would be in great shape," he continued.[4]

Prior to Bush, Mr. Giuliani might have been able to get away with this logic, but hence Bush it seems anemic and flimsy. How we allow politicians with feeble records to run on those records unchecked is beyond me. We allow war heroes to be lambasted publically, but ignore the flawed records of suspect politicians. I don’t know what we have become, but woe to those who call evil good and good evil.

[1] http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/federal-charges-expected-against-kerik/index.html?hp
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/us/politics/03kerik.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308340,00.html

Read more!

What Is A Hero?

What defines a hero? Today we use the term so loosely; I think it has lost much of its luster. Dictionary.com the online dictionary has this definition - somebody who commits an act of remarkable bravery or who has shown an admirable quality such as great courage or strength of character.[1]

Today we use it to describe athletes, politicians, and movie stars based not on their deeds, but on our perceptions of their deeds or on the media hype. For some reason we are a country of hero worshippers, we punch out heroes like so many “Krispy Kreme” donuts. We crank them out with little regard for who or what they really are. They are made heroes not for their bravery or strength, but more for their marketing value. The funny thing though is that we are just as quick to knock them off the pedestal as we are to put them on. I think that is because they were never real heroes in the first place.

I am writing this post today to discuss the meaning of hero in America because there is a Republican running for President that is using the hero mantle and I wonder if it is deserved. The reason I question the merit of it in this case is because if we use it to define those who have not demonstrated the characteristics of a true hero, then we cheapen it for those who do rise to that level. The man that I am speaking of is former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani; Mr. Giuliani has created this image that he hopes to ride all the way to the White House. The question I think, is does this well crafted image accurately portray a hero?

Before we begin, let me give my definition of a hero. I do this because I refuse to allow the MSM or Madison Avenue to determine for me what heroism is. Remember at onetime O.J. was a hero. To me a hero is someone who is willing to stand up for what he believes in, even when it is unpopular to do so. A hero is willing to sacrifice his own well-being and maybe even his life for others. A hero does the right thing even when he is afraid. A hero is still a hero in the mundane common things of life. There are other qualities, but I think these will do for openers.

Let’s see how America’s Mayor stands up to the test. Before 9/11, Mr. Giuliani was not a popular mayor and his political fortunes were waning. He had been the author of some unpopular policies and had alienated many in the city through his callousness.

Mr. Giuliani’s eight-year mayoralty was a balloon deflating before Sept. 11.

He had stirred a racial tempest by tearing into the reputation of an unarmed black man who had been killed by an undercover police officer.

The mayor had an affair and announced at a press conference that he would seek a separation — without informing his wife.[2]

Prior to 9/11 Mr. Giuliani’s conduct hardly rises to the level of heroic. He had been an adulterer and had led a police crackdown that some felt had unfairly targeted Blacks and had led to increased police brutality. Then that faithful day arrived and suddenly he was transformed into a hero.

That walk north, the spareness of his words and his passion became the founding stones in the reconstruction of the mayor’s reputation, transforming him from a grouchy pol slip-sliding into irrelevancy to the Republican presidential candidate introduced as America’s mayor. The former mayor has made this day the centerpiece of his presidential campaign, aware that millions of Americans hold that heroic view in their collective mind’s eye.

Political leadership is an uncertain alchemy, an admixture of the symbolic and substantive and the visceral. In times of consuming trauma, psychologists and historians say, a leader must speak with a trusted voice and sketch honestly the painful steps to safety. A leader must weave a narrative of shared loss while acknowledging consuming anger.

All this Mr. Giuliani accomplished, mourning the dead, comforting the grieving and cheering the living even as the police and the National Guard moved in. His critics have lambasted the rescue failures at ground zero and argued that his inattention before 9/11 cost lives.

But his performance shone brighter for the implicit comparison with President George W. Bush, who initially appeared — fairly or not — frozen in his chair, listening to second graders read as a nation came under attack.[3]

While putting a face on the tragedy that was 9/11 was important and compared to the President his performance was admirable, but heroic? To me heroic were the guys who ran into a building where two planes had just crashed, heroic were those people who sacrificed themselves so others could reach safety. Standing calmly in front of a camera away from the danger in a dusty suit to me hardly rates heroic. Of course we have to contrast his performance to the deer caught in the headlights performance of George Bush and a desperate people might say it was heroic.

I would have probably let that one go, but then there was another side of Mr. Giuliani that emerged during the crisis that many do not know, he wanted to extend his term as mayor. He even got 2 of the three candidates to acquiesce to his demands. Rudy became drunk with power after 9/11, does that sound familiar? Granted it was a national emergency and suspending the election scheduled for that day was prudent, but to assume that you are the only one who can marshal the city through this crisis is the bane of Mr. Giuliani and that is his ego. Do we really want another ego-maniac in the White House, someone unable to see his own shortcomings?

But this fusion of personality with a wounded city had an underside. Mr. Giuliani became convinced that he was New York’s indispensable man. He tried to overturn term limits and run again. Failing that, Mr. Giuliani wanted to extend his term three months.

“It was a very dangerous idea,” said Mr. Schwarz, the former corporation counsel. “The knight on the white horse is always indispensable in his own mind.”[4]

All of us have our flaws and I would never for one minute assume that we will elect a flawless person to be President, but we have been down this road before. The fine staged-craft persona of a take charge leader and hero coming to the rescue. I didn’t like the original version, so I’m in no hurry to see the sequel. The world we will inherit from the first hero will be too dangerous and divided to elect another in that series of “bring it on” and “we are winning” from Republican type casting.

No, I don’t see a hero here. I see someone who has taken a tragedy and is trying to ride it for political gain. I don’t know what his qualifications for President are, but being a hero is not one of them…

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21giuliani.html?hp
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21giuliani.html?hp

Read more!

Are Republican Candidates Racists?

After the debacle of missing the Republican debate hosted by Tavis Smiley at the HBC, Morgan State University by the four front-running Republican candidates it would be easy to dismiss their failure to participate as racism. Many pundits and bloggers have made that connection, with many saying that unlike their good friend Bill O’Reilly these candidates still believe that the “negroes will not be well-behaved” and there is a difference. I think to take this tack is to misunderstand the state of racial affairs in America. With the stakes as high as they are and with the spotlight beaming on race relations thanks to our friends in Jena, La, would any candidate be stupid enough to be so blatantly racist? Maybe, but I doubt it, so what is the answer to them being willing to ignore the black voters of America and not worry about backlash?

I am afraid the true answer is much more frightening than the easy answer. Many people believe falsely I think that the opposite of love is hate or racism, but I disagree. I think that the opposite of love is indifference. Indifference says that I don’t care if you live or die just don’t bother me. In the story of "The Good Samaritan" the other travelers didn't hate the victim; they just didn't care enough to get involved. Unfortunately, this is the attitude of many of the “core base” of the Republican Party and it was expressed by their candidates in their refusal to participate in the debate. It isn’t that they hate, they just really don’t care.

This attitude of indifference is most profoundly directed at Blacks and immigrants, but it is also directed toward anyone that doesn’t share their religious and moral beliefs as well. By their refusal to participate in the debate the candidates and the Party by proxy sent the message that the Black vote is irrelevant; you people don’t matter. Your concerns are not our concerns. We will ignore you and hope you go away. These are the people who want to keep us divided and easy conquered. They use subtle code words to express their displeasure with the way “liberals” have allowed the country to be commandeered by Blacks and other minorities. They would rather we return to some historical nirvana when the “white privilege” went unquestioned, when Blacks and minorities knew their places. When they were seen and not heard.

I am sure these candidates did not want to have to answer questions about Jena, voter suppression drives, and other issues that affect minorities. By not allowing themselves to be questioned on these issues the candidates sent a message to their base that these questions were unimportant and not worthy of their responses.

It is a common belief among Republican pundits and campaign staffers that Blacks will vote overwhelmingly Democratic and therefore to lobby them would be a wasted effort. They speak as if Blacks were some mindless group of voters who are not independent enough or intelligent enough to weigh the issues and vote accordingly. Many also believe that Blacks for the most part don’t vote anyway so the cost/benefit numbers don’t add up. The cost being possibly alienating their “base” and the benefit being gaining a few million votes, obviously these staffers have forgotten how close the last two elections have been. In a country divided as we are, every vote is going to count.

Finally, I think another important element in all of this is what the “base” of the Republican Party must be that their candidates can be this indifferent towards a large group of Americans and it does not bother them. If appealing to your base means ignoring blacks and minorities, then what are the priorities of your base? More and more of the Republican strategists believe that the black vote can be ignored in favor of cultivating the southern and rural white voters, these same voters who split with the Democrats over civil rights and abortion. Obviously, they believe that there are enough of these voters to overcome any impact black voters may have for the Democrats. Besides, these guys are trying to win primaries and let’s face it there won’t be many blacks voting in Republican primaries. I think it would be hilarious if all the mindless black voters switched parties for the primaries and voted in the Republican primaries, wouldn’t that be fun?

It is unfortunate when politicians are pandering to the baser nature of humanity instead of seeking to educate and promote unity among all Americans. The reason racism is still alive and well in America is because no one really wants to end it. Right now it serves too many purposes for too many people, both black and white. Maybe someday the truth of who and what we are will finally penetrate our hard heads, but until then. I can’t wait to see how whoever the Republican nominee will be try to spin this come general election time and what self-respecting black would allow themselves to be used to sell the spin. Our politicians should be demonstrating to all Americans how to embrace the diversity of the country, not how to run from it, because guess what we ain’t going nowhere.

Read more!

The Best Government Money Can Buy

(This is part 1 of a 4 part series)

Here is an example of how the candidates on the Republican side want to balance the budget. As usual they want to take from the poor and working class Americans to give to the rich, instead of doing a top down economic model they want to use a bottom up model. This will continue to reallocate the wealth of the nation from the bottom to the top, as it has been going for the past few decades.

“We will require agency heads to present five to up to as much as 20 percent reductions in their annual budget,” Giuliani says in one ad, titled “Will Do.” “It’s the only way to reduce spending . . . I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful spending in Washington.”[1]

I have never understood why spending money to improve the lives of the poor, improve the quality of our food and water supply, and providing quality public education is considered wasteful; while giving money to corporations is considered worthy. We must change our priorities from corporate welfare and the military industrial complex to the quality of life issues for all Americans. We will never be able to provide government by the people, for the people until we remove the corporate influence from our political landscape. This will be very difficult due to the fact that for some ungodly reason corporations were given the status of personhood for the purpose of legal standing. With the 1886 Supreme Court decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific, the personhood of the corporation began and with it came the death knell of we the people by the people government. Here is how one great American put it.

"Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."[2]

To read this, one could imagine that it was written recently by an attorney familiar with the recent corporate malfeasance cases or the recent Medicare prescription drug debacle, but you would be wrong. This was written over 140 years ago by Abraham Lincoln, and they have turned out to be prophetic. Through a series of maneuvers corporations have won personhood in some sort of surreal alter reality. Corporations are not people; they never have been and never will be. The goal of a corporation is to reflect the collective investment goals of its shareholders, because of its legal fiduciary function as prescribed by law. Because of this singular goal all other pursuits are non-existent, pursuits that we as humans ascribe a moral value. Corporations are not bound by any moral codes of behavior and hence are able to pursue their only goal profits at the expense of all other goals, even if this creates harm or death to others. This is evidenced by all of the corporate scandals, death, and mayhem visited upon us by the pursuit of profit margins and share price. Let’s not be fooled despite those feel-good corporate image commercials, corporations do not have a conscience to express.

What does all this history have to do with democracy today you may ask? It is relevant because we are expecting corporations to behave like citizens and people and they cannot. Because they have no conscience to prick, to expect them to stop using their money to influence and buy government officials because of our outrage is foolish and naïve. Make no mistake it is not just the Republicans that do the bidding of the corporations, it is the Democrats as well. There does not seem to be a shortage of corporate lackeys taking their turns at the troughs of corporate money. These corporations have poisoned our political dialog and have short circuited our democracy. Until both parties get serious about reigning in the corporations we will just be spitting into the wind with any talk of political change.

How is it possible that the majority of Americans can be against a bill or a policy and yet that bill or policy still goes forward? As long as we continue to allow money to pollute our system, we have no democracy. It is funny how others can see what we have become so blind to. It is not cultural or racial why others in the world do not want our democracy; they see the hypocrisy of it all. They recognize that corporations will reign over the people, that the pursuit of profits will create an immoral entity that will overrule the will of the people.

I believe that to return to government for the people, by the people we will need to begin to reform our system. I propose beginning in 3 areas, while these are not cure-alls they will atleast begin to reverse the current trend. Please continue to follow this series for my proposals.

---

[1] http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18453.html

[2] http://www.uuworld.org/2003/03/feature1a.html

Read more!