Veterans’ Health Care Under Bush a Disgrace

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

It’s hard to think of a more nauseating spectacle than George W. Bush – draft dodging, chicken hawk extraordinaire – turning on his lachrymal glands for U.S. veterans. But as the country drew together on Nov. 11 for the annual national holiday to honor their fighting men and women, there was the commander in chief waxing unlyrically about the “inspiration” he has gotten from the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, his wide-eyes and rictus smile belying his solemn tone.

The media reported his words conscientiously but failed to add the apposite context, which as usual is important. Because not only did Bush and his cronies do the obvious and send the young men and women into harm’s way for a completely pointless war that has cost 4,192 American and over a million Iraqi souls to date, this “War President” has also overseen the calculated destruction of the thin safety net that helps veterans as they cope with the health problems brought on by war.

In 2005, only two years into the war in Iraq, Bush was widely condemned for his budget for veterans’ health care that fell well short of maintaining the levels of the years before, bearing in mind the huge numbers of new soldiers that were returning from war. In that year not only did Bush try to double the co-payment that veterans would pay for prescription drugs, he also proposed a flat $250 new fee for some veterans to use the health care. Even Republican Sen. Daniel K. Akaka warned at the time that this could put 192,000 people out of the veterans’ health care system because of the price hike. Later in 2005 it was revealed that the Bush administration had left a $1 billion shortage for veterans’ health care that had to be plugged by emergency supplemental funds voted for by Congress again.

In 2006, with discretionary spending apparently needing to be cut to deal with the massive deficit, the White House predicted a 16 percent cut in veterans’ health care, despite the increasing numbers of veterans needing the services. In that budget year Congress had to add another $2.7 billion to emergency funding to the Veterans Association on top of Bush’s budget.

Under the current Bush plan being touted, even though the number of soldiers needing treatment in veterans’ health care has been rising about 5 percent per year, in 2009 the budget would be cut again and kept at this smaller number until 2012. The hope is Obama will find a way around these disgraceful estimates and reevaluate the priorities of an administration that has lost any bearings they once had.

The effect of turning veterans’ health care from the most important of government responsibilities into an expendable superfluity has had painful consequences for the veterans of the U.S. Vast numbers of soldiers are returning with mental health problems ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder, but a study in the American Journal of Public Health estimated that in 2004, 1.8 million veterans were without health insurance, constituting 12 percent of all uninsured people in the U.S. The number of uninsured grew by 290,000 from 2000, Bush’s first year, to 2004, two years into his “war on terror.”

This year the Bush administration was even employing lawyers to fight a case that insists that mental health should be included in health care provisions for veterans. You did read that right: The Bush administration somehow doesn’t think mental health qualifies as a health issue.

On Veterans Day, Bush unsurprisingly didn’t mention his squalid record on looking after the veterans of his wars of ideology:

“I am committed to making sure that today’s veterans get all the health care and support they need from the federal government for agreeing to serve in a time of danger,” he said.

And the headlines read: “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day,” when they should have been, “Bush praises veterans on Veterans Day, while destroying their health care.”

There are many ironies to Bush’s tenure: some, like his IQ, are comical; some, like this one, are just tragic. Despite the Republican Party’s insistence that they are the party of patriotism and strength and “country first,” over the last eight years they have treated the veterans of their wars like every other group that infringes on their ability to stuff cash into the pockets of their rich friends. McCain’s plan was even worse than Bush’s: he wanted to privatize veterans’ health care, turn it into a market-oriented trust. Just imagine what would have happened during the financial crisis if this had happened. It’s time to fight the Republicans on their own turf and say the patent truth: they just really don’t care about vets or anyone else who isn’t rolling in money.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

Elephants in the Room: Hip-Hop Republicans Speak Out

By JERRY LAGUERRE, Editor

The term Hip-Hop Republican is one some would consider the definitive oxymoron. Hip-Hop is young, urban and cutting edge. The Republican Party … not so much. So upon first hearing the term several months ago on CNN.com, I almost fell off my chair. Were these people for real or was this some Saturday Night Live spoof?

Sure enough, it was real. It was as if I discovered that unicorns or mermaids existed. I had to find out who they were and how on earth could they infuse the message of hip-hop with the ideals of the Republican Party.

I honestly do subscribe to the theory of never judging a book by its cover. But to be perfectly honest, I have to admit sometimes I slip and find myself prejudging. However, it’s at those moments that something happens that will remind me why I should never, EVER jump to conclusions.

There are about 500 strong (with an age range from about 20-45) who associate with this movement in some form, gathered largely through social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace. With their numbers growing and their philosophy and message gaining respect, Hip-Hop Republicanism seems to be just scratching the surface of its potential.

My initial reaction as a young black Democrat is something that the people of the Hip-Hop Republican movement deal with on a regular basis.

“They think we’re frauds. They think there’s no way you can be a true hip-hop head and a Republican,” said Lenny McAllister, a 36-year-old community volunteer from North Carolina who is firmly entrenched in Republican activism and a contributor to hiphoprepublican.com.

After talking with Lenny about the blog, I understood that it was more than just a term, more than just music. The ideology of Hip-Hop Republicanism goes way beyond beats, rhymes and traditional Republican themes. It speaks more to how the Hip-Hop generation views the world.
“They view race differently. They view gender differently. They view limitations differently. They view the box as being something you can regularly jump in and out of it. You don’t have certain rules that other generations felt themselves having,” McAllister explained. “As a matter of fact you look at the youth generation throughout American history, it was generally those movements, especially the last 75 years that changed the dynamic of how America engaged.”

After interviewing McAllister, who does a weekly spot on “Fox News Rising” in Charlotte, N.C., and talking to Richard Ivory (who founded the blog about four years ago), I noticed a driving force in both men that proved to me how passionate they were about this cause.

Ivory, 30, founded the site because of former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele. While on the campaign trail in 2004, Steele centered his platform on urban issues. He received the backing of Russell Simmons and LL Cool J, and was dubbed a Hip-Hop Republican by The Washington Post. Steele was Ivory’s inspiration and in the years since, Ivory has learned that a number of young African-Americans also back the Republican Party.

“A bright spot for the Republicans is that most African-Americans under the age of 30 agree more on paper with Republican ideals than Democratic ideals,” said Ivory, citing a 30-page report from jointcenter.org, a national political and economic research institution whose work focuses on people of color. Ivory added that the reason why you don’t see more black Republicans is because of the stigma associated with the term, not because of a disagreement with policies.

There are 64,000 registered black Republicans in Florida, according to an Associated Press story published in August, and 3,000 black Republicans registered in Harlem, according to JoLinda Cogen, former Republican district leader.

Turns out black Republicans aren’t as rare as I thought. And even those who aren’t down with the movement are still tipping their caps toward it.

“Actually, most of the venom we receive comes from white liberals,” Ivory said. “The black community may not always agree with you, but they respect you once you’ve explained your opinion. Older black Republicans use to stay quiet. But we’re out constantly spreading our message.”

From being featured in publications such as, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, to radio spots for everything from NPR to Hot 97, a New York City hip-hop station, they seem to be popping up everywhere.

Their goal extends far beyond just letting people know that the Republican Party has a young, black bloc. They want to change the party from the inside.

“(Through our philosophy) we can bring about several changes,” McAllister said. “The diversification of the Republican Party, the inclusion of the Republican Party, the reinvigoration of the Republican Party within the core, energetic youthful voters (and using) free-market values and conservative principles to (address) the urban issues we face today. … (Issues) such as black-on-black crime … black under-education and underemployment in urban America. We can take a new approach and break the trends that we’ve been finding with Democratically-controlled city and state governments for the last 40 years.”

Ivory added that he never understood how some people could blame what they viewed as a white, racist government for their problems, but then look to that same government to fix those problems. “It starts from the community (not government),” said Ivory, who spends a lot of time working with Harlem’s underprivileged.

“Government can’t keep funding the same solution to problems that aren’t getting solved,” Ivory said. “I grew up in Richmond, V.A., and every year it was the same Democrats running the city. … Oftentimes the response is that people are in their situations because of racism and slavery. And I’m like ‘No, it’s not. Because why aren’t you in that situation?’ ”

Ivory and McAllister talk about how desperately change is needed in urban America. So I had to know, would either of these men be voting for Mr. Change, Sen. Obama? After all, they do share a common thread as African-Americans involved with community activism. And both men share an appreciation for the candidate’s charisma and ability to inspire.

“I support Obama historically. … But to me he’s too far left for me to support as a presidential candidate in 2008,” said McAllister, citing Sen. Barack Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, record on abortion and his history of voting “present” over 100 times as a state senator. “If he goes up for reelection in 2012 or loses and runs again in 2012 and he’s more center, it’s a different type of evaluation process.”

“I always look at it as, if I had a daughter who was very ill and there were two doctors, one very charismatic young doctor who has a great medical degree from an Ivy League school … who came out of nowhere and is getting a lot of attention, and another doctor who has been tested and tried based on his experience, who would I choose to save my daughter’s life?” said Ivory, who is backing Sen. John McCain mainly because he believes the primary issue facing America is foreign policy, not the economy.

Ivory pointed out that history has been unkind to many presidents. “Bush initially talked about unilateralism and letting foreign countries be. … Obama may find himself in the same situation as Bush. We may see ourselves in anti-war rallies against Obama.”

Despite backing McCain, both men admitted to feeling conflicted about not voting for Obama because of what his presidency would mean for the country from a historical standpoint. But at the same time, they’ve chosen to vote their conscience, which is something I can’t knock anyone for. I also can’t knock a true grassroots effort because it makes me think of what American politics should be. Hip-Hop Republicans aren’t about assimilation, but diversification.

“The older generation of black Republicans wanted to look like the party. We want the party to look like us,” Ivory explained.

Not only do both men expect the movement to grow, they also see it expanding to where it is a recognized voice among the Republican discourse – despite the party’s current unwillingness to embrace the Hip-Hop Republicans and similar groups – highlighting the party’s historically poor record of reaching out to minorities.

“I can’t even name the minority director for the Republican Party right now. Republican Party outreach to minorities is sad. It’s just a sad, sad story,” Ivory said.

McAllister attributes the problem to the party’s inability to grow their image outside of the ’70s and ’80s – which has put the party in the position it’s in now: staring at the possibility of the Democrats controlling the presidency and Congress. He believes that had the Republicans tried to engage young voters and diversify its image years ago, the brand name wouldn’t be so weak.

So the Hip-Hop Republicans are doing the outreach the party has failed to do. Ivory believes that the reason why Republicans are failing at outreach is not racism, but a lack of understanding in terms of how to go about it.

“They’re just not comfortable talking about [race]. But they have a responsibility to bring in people who are,” Ivory said. He believes the party shouldn’t be afraid of change because it has always been changing throughout its history. His philosophy: Republicans have some core beliefs that unite them, but it’s OK for differences among the group. He went on to talk about the Hip-Hop Republican movement having many different types of Republicans from conservatives to libertarians. And that’s the point – more ideas will result in more solutions.

“(Hip-Hop Republicanism) is not a moniker. It’s not meant to just be cute. It’s meant to show a growing movement of urban Republicans voicing diverse opinions that will impact the Republican Party internally and impact our communities externally,” McAllister added. “This is something that’s not going to go away. And it’s something that’s for the benefit of America. … The message of hip-hop is always about keeping it real and telling the story about what people are going through so that somebody can be the ambassadors to help move people past those challenges.”

With an Obama presidency apparently looming, McAllister stressed the importance of the African-American community not to become complacent. And Ivory believes that an Obama presidency could help strengthen the movement because it would force the party to examine itself and in turn, hopefully become more inclusive.

“There are some people who say a President Obama proves that affirmative-action is not needed. That’s the furthest thing from the truth. … We have black youths that are given up on in the third grade (in our public schools),” McCallister said, adding the fact that despite the growing number of black mayoral and gubernatorial leaders over the last 20 years, the issues in urban America remain the same. “He’s America’s president, not just black America’s president.”

Jerry Laguerre may be reached at TakingBackPolitics@gmail.com.

Where on Earth are These “Polling People?”

By AMANDA KOCH, Assistant Managing Editor

I’ve been waiting around for a long time now. I’ve been waiting for my chance to take part in a poll –

a political poll, more specifically. I have never been asked for my opinions by a recognized organization and frankly, I’m a little offended. What qualifies all these other people to be asked extensive, sometimes personal and, as I imagine them, intriguing and thought-provoking questions?

In the Oct. 20 issue of TIME Magazine there is a special report titled, “You. A Voter’s Guide.” When I read that I immediately looked around me, perhaps someone on the PATH train had been asked to participate. Surely, that “you” they referred to was not “me.” ‘They didn’t ask me anything,’

I thought to myself insolently. Like all polls they claimed around 1,000 likely U.S. voters were asked to participate. At the rate polls are released during the election year I should have been asked my opinion ten times already.

My surly mood deepened after reading the second page of the writer’

s thesis on how I think about politics. I learned I am a rational voter, which at first made me feel superior, but that quickly faded to indignation when I read their description. Apparently, as a rational voter I actively seek out information on both candidates, consider the positives and negatives of both and evaluate their interests against my own. Pretty smart strategy, right? Wrong. Passive, frugal and intuitive voters are less likely to make an incorrect choice, meaning picking a candidate who does not reflect my views. I guess they think all that information I am actively seeking out will confuse me.

I did learn some things from this poll, however. I learned Republicans always win the votes of the richest individuals, except for that time the richest voted for LBJ, although I feel the need to point out that in the 1964 column all five voting groups were for Johnson; Goldwater had a very poor showing. I learned that Independents generally go for Republicans too, which surprised me. I learned that in the last fifty years of all presidential candidates, Nixon won the popular vote by the largest margin of percentage points, which actually made me laugh. Americans have such good taste, right?

And when it comes to the candidates and their running mates now? Well, single women hate Palin, but love Obama so much it’s almost embarrassing. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats would vote for the Obama/Biden ticket if the election were today. And so would 88 percent of liberals, which made me laugh again –

this time at TIME magazine for differentiating between Democrats and liberals. And who likes Biden? People who seldom or rarely go to church.

In the end, I mostly approved of TIME’s likely voters and their opinions. It seemed they were a pretty accurate representation of what people in the U.S. are thinking. I am still pretty pissed though, especially after reading the pop quiz portion and realizing 15% of the respondents couldn’t tell you who the current vice president of the U.S. is. Really, these are your likely voters, TIME? Apparently they didn’t vote in the last election.

I’d still like to point out, however, that I have never known anyone who was asked to participate in a poll, and when I read the qualifications I think I’m a pretty good fit. This makes me a bit suspicious, but I’m still going to patiently wait until these polling organizations come to their senses and call my number.

Amanda Koch can be reached at amandarosekoch@gmail.com.

The Bailout Blame Game

By AMANDA KOCH, Assistant Managing Editor

This is why I get tired of politics. This is why I DVRed the debate and watched it at leisure over three days. This is why I sometimes prefer to actually work at work instead of reading the myriad of Web sites I feel obligated to keep up with on any given day. This is why, for the sake of my sanity, my benevolent brain processes the whining of politicians in such a way that all I can hear is Charlie Brown’s teacher speaking. The blame game.

I have news for everyone. The failed bailout bill is not the sole responsibility of the Democrats. Or the Republicans. Or Obama. Or McCain.

Minutes after the failure to pass the bailout bill, House Leader John Boehner said it was Nancy Pelosi’s fault the bill failed. He said her partisan speech before the vote made some Republicans change their minds.

So, let me get this right. These Republican representatives thought this bill was a good idea. They thought this bill would help the economy. They thought it would help Wall Street and Main Street. They were convinced this bill was needed, and they were ready to vote ‘yes.’ Then Pelosi said this crisis was caused by the failed policies of this administration. So the representatives in question then crossed their arms, pouted their lips and threw themselves on the floor like a bunch of toddlers, and they refused to vote ‘yes.’ They voted against what they thought was right to really stick it to Pelosi and her partisanship. Well, if that’s true, I think that says more about them than Pelosi and her partisan speech, which, let’s face it, we all knew she was thinking, even if it never made it past her lips.

Democrats said it was the fault of Republican leaders because they failed to get their people behind it. Perhaps the Democrats have short-term memories, because they are the majority and had enough people in their own party to pass the bill without the Republicans. So, let me get this one right. The Democrats believe in this bill. They believe this is the answer to the financial crisis. They believe that if we don’t vote ‘yes’ for this bill now the economy will tank, even more than it tanked already, if you can believe it. Well, apparently the Democrats didn’t believe enough to really stick out their necks on this one.

According to Pelosi, Democrats lived up to their part of the bargain, lending 60% of their members to the ‘yes’ vote; not as many votes as they had, but 60% of their votes, and the Republicans didn’t live up to their part of the bargain. They didn’t provide their required percentage of votes. Let’s face it, Democrats didn’t want to throw all their votes in one hat, even if they really did believe this bill was needed, for fear that this whole concept would fail and it would be easier to blame them for it. They needed the Republicans votes to share the potential blame.

I don’t even want to get into the Obama and McCain blame game because I already have a headache, but I will anyway. Let me begin with this statement – how two Senators are responsible for the failure of a House vote is beyond me.

According to McCain, Obama obviously didn’t try hard enough to get the votes needed for this thing. Apparently, McCain didn’t realize more than twice as many Democrats than Republicans voted ‘yes.’ Doesn’t this mean McCain failed at getting the votes needed? Well, we’ve all heard about his school record, so I guess we can chalk this misperception up to the fact that percentages and math are just not his thing. And this is the guy who thinks he’s the linchpin to the whole bailout negotiation. Does he even understand math?

After the failed vote and McCain’s comments, Obama told McCain to step off, then said all Americans should be pissed that this happened at all, that this crisis was brought about by the awful policies of the Republican administration over the last eight years. Oh right, thanks, I totally forgot that a bunch of idiots got us into this mess and now we’re all going to suffer. Thanks for the advice, Senator. Care to share any other advice? Maybe I should be mad that a robber came into my house and stole all my stuff. You think so? Come back when you have something to say.

The fact is, some people thought the bailout bill was a bad idea. Some people on both sides of the aisle thought something was missing from the bill, whether it was Republicans who thought it called for too much oversight or Democrats who thought more help should be offered to people in foreclosure. Or some members from both parties who heard from their constituents that they hated the bill, got scared with elections so close to go against the voters. And I’m sure some thought it was simply a bad bill, and to them no bill was better than a bad one.

There is no one group or person responsible for this. It failed, and now it’s Congress’ job to go back and try to fix it so that a majority are happy with the final bill. That’s their job – getting a majority to reach a consensus on pieces of legislation. You’d think no one ever explained this to them; like it’s a new part of their jobs; something they’ve never had to do before. Stop pointing fingers, and stop whining. I’m over it. I’m tired of this blame game crap.

Amanda Koch can be reached at amandarosekoch@gmail.com.

The Battle of St. Paul: “Where’s George Bush, Karl?”

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

As I sat in front of the Mitsubishi television in the small living room of my mother’s condo in Central Jersey watching a promising IFC flick, the recent memories of Matt Kennard’s adventures at the Republican National Convention electrified my mind.

He came to St. Paul, MN looking for a collision between cops and cool cats; instead he collided with Karl Rove, John Bolton and Republican Yuppies. Matt is in his mid-’20s, hails from London and was among the best students at Columbia’s Journalism School last year. In Minnesota, he stood out like an American Paris. And, when he was reporting, he never held back – except for the time he froze before Rudy Giuliani.

“I just can’t believe that was him,” Kennard told me. “He’s a clown, man.”

Matt was blogging about the convention for the New Statesmen, a magazine in the UK. The essays he produced were brilliant; they captured the insanity of political junkies, star-fuckers and wannabe Republican operatives. What was left out of those essays was how Matt assimilated with the hippies, turned me into his Mexican intern and fought for the rights of the common man.

He did it all with a notepad, a pen and writing “cunt” on his notebook.

He called anybody he thought was part of the so-called “New World Order” a “cunt” or a “clown.” Matt showed up at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport with a large black suitcase, oversized Rivers Cuomo-esque eyeglasses (by Tommy Hilfiger) and tight shirts. He looked very Euro.

He called my cellphone the Sunday before the start of the convention to figure out how to order a SuperShuttle. Once I explained to him the process, he showed up at the house where I was staying, just two blocks north of John Ireland Boulevard. There he met the man who rented us his attic, walked up two flights and relaxed on an uncomfortable air mattress. I had taken the bed, since I got there first. We talked about our girlfriends, college and our pathetic careers as struggling journalists. We both decided he was worse off than me.

***

Back in Manhattan, Matt lives in a horrible apartment in Harlem, in a building with 666 (seriously) as its address. At Columbia, he became known as the asshole who confronted Dr. Henry Kissinger. When the former Secretary of State came to the Joseph Pulitzer World Room last spring to be worshiped by weak-minded students, and feared by chicken-shits, I stood next to Matt when he asked Kissinger, “How do you sleep at night?” That sparked a back-and-forth between Strangelove and Matt. The biggest regret I have is not recording the moment. Kissinger called on another student after five minutes of engaging with Matt, who had blamed him for genocides in Cambodia, East Timor and Chile.

After we settled our bags in the attic, we walked 10 minutes to downtown St. Paul. I struggled to get a colleague to walk to the back entrance of the Xcel Energy Center to bring me my credentials for the convention. Finally, almost an hour later, my National Journal colleague, walked down with my press passes. Matt tried to get in – I felt bad he didn’t have credentials. Days later, I ended up giving him mine. Bu at the convention center that day, I walked by the media workspaces and found my way to National Journal’s headquarters.

(As I typed this, the IFC flick I was watching got really good—the two main characters were just talking about dating and sleeping with each other. The movie is, “In Search of a Midnight Kiss.”)

After I left the National Journal workspace, I called Matt and we met near the corner of Kellogg Boulevard and 7th Street. We walked into the Downtowner, where Kathy the bartender pampered us. By the look in her eyes I could tell she was taken by Matt’s not-so-thick British accent. Matt’s accent is less Gordon Brown, more Joe Strummer.

We had beers, talked about the police and National Guard in St. Paul, and made fun of ourselves making fun of Kathy the bartender. Matt had introduced me as his Mexican intern. He thought that was funny, so he told everybody who would listen that I was his Mexican intern. I didn’t care.

Matt was worried that if he got arrested, he would probably be shipped back to London. He was having problems with his Visa. Earlier that day, Matt had a run-in with Karl Rove. He captured the episode on video—Matt walking behind Karl, who was protected by Secret Service, asking him, “Are you a war criminal, Karl?” and “Where’s George Bush, Karl?”

The video was poorly produced, anti-climatic and all we had so far for our insignificant blog, TakingBackPolitics.com.

That night, we hopped on a taxi to First Avenue in Minneapolis to get some religion from Sammy Hagar. The concert was open bar – I drank lots of extra dirty martinis. Matt had plenty of whiskey on the rocks. Matt and I both became Waboists, named after Hagar’s Cabo Wabo tequila.

Here, Matt explains:
“I would just like to say that, yes, I was possessed by the Wabo; I’m not ashamed to admit it; the Wabo is a deep, mystical philosophy with roots in early Sino-Confucianism and Hindu metaphysics. It explores the complex and fraught relationship being existential ennui and tequila consumption in a way not seen since Sartre and Camus had their heads buried deep in a book sorting out the precursor to Waboism. Please let the man speak, and then join us, join us and the millions of others whom abide by the central tenets of Waboism, our best hope against the New World Order.”

***

The next day, the demonstrations kicked off around noon. The lawn in front of the Minnesota state capitol was taken over by all types of security officers, hippies, wannabe anarchists, legitimate protesters and Coca-Cola advertisements. A stack of plastic soda bottles was guarded by two officers wearing riot gear and carrying automatic weapons.

Matt and I spent the rest of our time in St. Paul looking for an epic battle – a clash between freedom fighters and the establishment. Matt urged the masses to take on the “clowns.” However, such a confrontation would never take place. The men in black had dominated the independent thinkers and troublemakers through intimidation. To cope with our disappointment, we spent our nights drunk and our days hungover, much like a modern-day Hemingway. The absurdity in St. Paul – the sad political ritual of Americana rooted in classism – was too much for us to bear. Alcohol was our cheapest painkiller.

***

At the Northern Lights Grill at Concourse D at MSP airport, waiting for a bacon cheddar melt, I drank an awful coffee. The bartender, who looked like his name was Butch, had a bad attitude; odd, considering it wasn’t even noon yet and I had an even worse attitude. I had just seen what the apocalypse would be like at a party the night before, where the Charlie Daniels Band had performed. Ironically, Charlie sang his terrible single, “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” at this painful party.

The Battle of St. Paul would not be. Score one for the Good Ol‘ Boys. This is Maverick time, now. Obama better put his mouthpiece on – and cover his groin – I suspect the hits from the GOP and the 527s will be aimed way below the waist.

As soon as the bartender handed me my breakfast, I thought to myself that if I were ballsy, I would order a dirty martini. Looking back, I wish I had.

When the plane took off I knew I’d never return to Minnesota. It’s bitterly cold in the winter and boring in the summer. And, besides, I don’t follow hockey.

Flight 1022 NW was now just barely above the clouds. The state looked like a Lego set – the Republicans, I’m sure, escaped just as I did. I thought about Matt and wondered whether he had whiskey on the plane. After the convention, I understood quite well why gonzo journos took so many drugs to report about these conventions. If you’re straight and alert, the circus of heightened political illusion takes over your mind. Look at me; if it hadn’t been for the dirty martinis, I wouldn’t have lasted one night in St. Paul.

The IFC movie was almost over and all I could think about was, “Where’s George Bush, Karl?” I haven’t had a dirty martini since I last saw Matt.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.

The Turbanless Taliban

By MATT KENNARD, Columnist

I don’t want to get too much into the whole debate around Sarah Palin because it gives her credit she doesn’t deserve. She is the American Taliban: evolution is a myth, abortion is wrong even in cases of rape and incest, climate change is not man-made. She’s Alaska’s answer to Osama bin Laden, except maybe her kids are more fecund.

She is depressingly doltish, and speaks with a squawk that riles my innards, its inflections acting like a knife to my cerebral cortex.

She is a nonentity and is aware of the fact, as are the puppet masters in the Republican Party. She was chosen to get Hillary voters on their side, so the Republicans could con America into another eight years of corporate rule. It is a cynical ploy and certainly is not “country first,” but why is anyone surprised? It’s not like the Democrats aren’t playing the same game, although they are mini-me to the Republican Satan, it is true.

But the anatomy of the whole propaganda effort after her appointment is interesting. The Republicans must have decided to get a ‘Hockey Mom’ – a euphemism for narrow-minded provincialism – but realized that because she is completely unqualified and startling stupid, they would have to shield her from criticism by inventing a storm of outrage about liberal elitism and misogyny if anyone questioned her slim record.

It was all over the news channels straight away: everywhere there was this outrage at these liberal sexist elites who were dumping so much shit on this poor defenseless woman. But I searched in vain for it. I listened to all this stuff on Fox News and CNN and then turned to the newspapers like The New York Times and tried to find this mocking misogyny, and it wasn’t there. There was literally nothing aside from a few – literally one or two – remarks about having five kids and being VP might be difficult.

The whole thing was made up, and it worked; it put the Democrats on the back foot and they ceded a lot of ground to the Republicans. If you look at all the hours of invective wasted on this topic, no one who is accusing brings up any examples; that’s because it was a completely made-up episode that had been planned before she was even appointed.

Appoint the dumbo, then make everyone feel sorry for her, was the modus vivendi. And even though this is see-through, you never hear it from the Democrats because the Republicans control the debate so much that even drawing attention to this is not permissible.

And how disgusting it is that the Republicans will assume the vernacular of feminism and equality when they have dedicated so many decades to destroying both. But in the mixed-up, shook-up world of American politics, where truth gets buried beneath the semiotics devised by the powerful to keep the rest of us shielded from the truth, when will liberals just stand up and say, “You’re dirty scum!” when the Republicans turn the political arena into a sewer and get by through acting like rats?

Sarah Palin is within ‘a heartbeat’ of the American presidency. There is a good chance McCain will win in November, and owing to the fact he is 73 and not of great health, there is a considerable chance Palin will be the most powerful person in the world within the next eight years. After eight years of George W. Bush maybe that isn’t as scary as it should be, but it is still scary.

The fact that the Republicans have sacrificed the security of America by making this buffoon the VP-elect, is a naked display that they will do anything to get elected. McCain, I suspect, laughs about this idiot in private and Cindy is thought not to like her, which is no surprise.

While Obama’s advance is also a great leap forward for black people in this country, Palin does nothing of the same for women. In fact, by electing a medieval barbarian, who happens to be a woman, to the VP position, this is really a stab in the heart for the feminist movement. If after two waves of the feminist movement and a hell of a lot of struggling, the first woman to get her hands on executive power is Palin, then what does it say about us?

Palin fulfills all the stereotypes of the misogynists; she is a supplicant to an older man, she is as thick as pig shit, she is a backward Taliban and she married another dumb bastard too. The only thing that isn’t a misogynist’s dream is that she’s ambitious. I’m being unfair though.

It’s not her fault she is a misogynist’s dream—she’s just a puppet. But it is the fault of the Republican Party that they chose a woman like this as the first VP candidate – it shows what they really think of women. Far from the Democrats being the sexists, the Republicans are sexist for giving this creature up to the rest of the world as an example of womanhood in the U.S.

Because this has been a cynical public relations ploy, it is likely to die out any second. Palin’s star will wane and she will go back to Kabul – sorry, I mean Juneau – and read her picture books with her grandchild – sorry, I mean child – and fizzle out in the vortex of nothingness from which she emerged so unceremoniously.

Americans should be up in arms that she has been carried by the media for so long, however. She should be laughed out of the shop. How does anyone ask her a serious question without cracking up laughing? I am not exaggerating when I say I would rather trouble the brain of my 12-year-old next-door neighbor about foreign policy than Palin. At least he hadn’t been taught by rote what to say, and might understand a bit of what he was saying.

When the Republic of Rome fell and gave way to the dictatorship of Caesar, there were signals; the Republic of America could fall too if the Republicans are allowed to claim another victory and install the turbanless Taliban. Fascism won’t wear jackboots when it comes to the U.S., it never looks the same, but it could hunt moose and have stupid glasses.

Matt Kennard can be reached at MattKennard@gmail.com.

McCain Call Gone Awry

By CASEY HYNES, Correspondent

John McCain’s senior strategist and campaign manager spoke with reporters this morning about the Republican presidential nominee’s response to the White House’s proposed bailout of the country’s troubled financial system. Steve Schmidt, the senior strategist for the campaign, and campaign manager Rick Davis emphasized McCain’s concern that the plan could cost taxpayers up to one trillion dollars, and that it would give unprecedented, and largely unchecked, power to the Treasury Department.

During the call they explained that McCain is speaking with colleagues on the Hill to determine “what kind of mischief can go on when these lawmakers get their hands on a trillion dollars” coming through the system. The Arizona senator wants to insure that there are clear guidelines for oversight and accountability in the plan, and advocates “unprecedented transparency” as the bailout unfolds, according to Schmidt and Davis.

Officially, the conference call was supposed to address a new ad from the campaign, titled “Chicago Machine.” The ad is meant to raise questions about Democratic nominee Barack Obama’s connections to certain members of the political establishment in Chicago, including Mayor Richard Daley. Schmidt criticized the media for not investigating more of Obama’s “friends in Chicago,” including William Ayers, who has admitted to carrying out terrorist attacks as a member of the radical Weathermen underground organization.

Schmidt also blasted The New York Times as a “pro-Obama machine” that has repeatedly gone after McCain and his vice presidential running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, but has done no serious vetting of the Illinois senator. “Whatever The New York Times once was, it is today not by any standard a journalistic organization,” Schmidt said.

He went on to say that the Times is “100 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be.”

Casey Hynes may be reached at casey.hynes@gmail.com.

Hockey Mom for Veep

By EUGENE MULERO, Correspondent

I met several hockey moms when I worked in Morristown, N.J., about four years ago. It was a breezy, yucky late-November evening and they were across from the town square, with their hockey-playing sons, asking for donations. The hockey season was fast approaching and the players needed money to buy new uniforms. These hockey moms were in their 30s and 40s. They had short hair and seemed like the type that are active in civic activities, such as the school board and town council.

I remember thinking how dedicated they were. I went back to the newsroom and worked on a political story for my newspaper and forgot about the hockey moms.

Fast-forward to last week: A hockey mom was on TV. Every channel had her on. I never before heard about her, and since I’m pretty plugged into national politics, that meant she couldn’t have been that important.

After researching this hockey mom, I realized I was right. Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) had been the mayor of a small town. She was against abortion rights, even for women made pregnant by rape or incest. She believed in creationism — so much so that she advocates it be taught in public schools. She said the war in Iraq was “God’s war.” She doesn’t believe global warming is man-made and she doesn’t support stem-cell research. She is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and, before I forget, she also is a hockey mom. She actually listed “hockey mom” as a qualification to be our vice president when McMaverick first paraded her to the public.

I can see why McMaverick picked her as a running mate. She pleases the social right; she’s not bright (just clever in debates) and she appeals to disgruntled women who look down at Ivy Leaguers and tree-huggers. She’s the hockey mom with five kids that has a NASCAR dad for a husband who is governing one of the most overlooked states in our country. (Think about it: When was the last time you said you were heading to Alaska?)

And what should really be frustrating to voters is that the McMaverick camp (run by Karl Rove) is not letting Palin go on any of the “hard-hitting” news shows. She’s not scheduled to make appearances before George Stephanopoulos or Tom Brokaw. Chris Matthews or Charlie Rose won’t get to pick her brain. Nevermind The New York Times editorial board. Nope. She may just appear on the Bill O’Reilly propaganda hour. And, if Access Hollywood or The Tonight Show with Jay Leno come calling, she may be allowed to go on, only if there’s a “no-tough-question-rule” established.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE), Obama’s vice presidential pick, just got grilled by Brokaw on Meet the Press last Sunday. Palin, who says she’s tough enough to take on corrupt Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) – which is not true – is not tough enough for the Meet the Press treatment. And if she can’t do Meet the Press, can she confront foreign leaders in the Middle East, career generals from NATO or the American public?

Maybe … if all they talk about is hockey.

Eugene Mulero may be reached at Eugene.Mulero@gmail.com.

Obama and McCain Will Always Have Paris

BY CASEY HYNES, CORRESPONDENT

With recent numbers indicating that the presidential race is tightening in national polls, it seems John McCain’s campaign is gaining momentum toward the end of a turbulent summer. In recent weeks, ads lobbing attacks at Barack Obama have been fast and frequent, perhaps the most notorious of which was the “celebrity” ad that cast Obama as a popular public figure who is unprepared for the presidency, comparable to pop star Britney Spears or hotel heiress Paris Hilton.

Much has been made of the ad, including the assumption by some news organizations that it suggests that Obama is superficial, certainly not to be taken seriously as someone who is ready to lead the country. Whether or not this image will play with voters in November remains to be seen, but perhaps more importantly, the ad reflects an unfortunate tendency toward the trivial in this campaign and reinforces the notion that both of these men are out of touch with the people they seek to lead.

Despite the rather serious issues facing the country in this election, including an unpopular war, a struggling economy, an increasingly unstable situation in Afghanistan and rising health-care costs, the media has given extensive coverage to campaign issues that seem unlikely to affect whether or not a candidate is prepared for the job.

Stories have abounded about Obama’s workout schedule and whether or not he is too thin to be commander-in-chief. Given the gravity of this election, it seems almost laughable that stories like this would be given much play, considering that there is likely much to learn about someone who is relatively young and promises to bring a fresh approach to the political scene. But these stories do receive attention, much to the chagrin of the McCain campaign, which has shot back by dubbing Obama “The One,” and criticizing the media for a love affair with the younger senator.

Instead of taking a sharp and effective aim at Obama in the “celebrity” ad, where they have control of the content and can get their message across, the McCain camp ultimately led the eyes of the nation back to Spears and Hilton, as if the two have not received enough undue attention as it is.

The ad, for those who have not seen it, paints Obama as “the biggest celebrity in the world,” a declaration highlighted by throngs of people chanting the Democratic candidate’s name. The narrator questions whether Obama is ready to lead, and criticizes his stance against offshore drilling to address the nation’s energy crisis. A USA Today/Gallup poll indicates that Americans favor offshore drilling by a 2-to-1 margin after seeing gas soar to more than $4 a gallon this summer. Both candidates had said they opposed increasing offshore drilling in the past, but remained open to the possibility as costs rose.

While the McCain camp was right to target their opponent on a pressing issue that has dominated the news throughout the summer, the message seems weakened by the use of Spears and Hilton in the ad. It may have been that they were trying to play up the image of Obama as overhyped, big on talk but very short on action. It’s a theme they might do well to run with, since there are many lingering questions about the senator. His former political rival Alan Keyes has compared him to the wizard in the “The Wizard of Oz.”

During an appearance on “Fox & Friends Sunday,” Keyes described Obama as having been “hyped by the Democrats as something he’s not.” That was in 2004, but it’s a notion that continues to ring true for Obama critics in 2008.

McCain campaign spokesman Rick Davis may have alluded to this point in regards to the “celebrity” ad. He told CBS that “the focus on events and activities is much more something you would expect from someone releasing a new movie than running for president.” Neither campaign was available for comment for this article.

While this theme does warrant attention in what looks to be a tight race for the White House, the campaign would have been wise to drop Spears and Hilton from the ad and focus on Obama’s weaknesses. The use of the two celebrities was no doubt going to draw attention, but the forthcoming focus that has been placed on that aspect of the ad takes away from the seriousness of other possible implications.

There has been talk of McCain being the first of the candidates to go negative, despite both men having pledged to run campaigns free of the negativity and the sense of “politics as usual” that people are tired of seeing. Still, it seems almost inevitable that harsh attacks will be thrown from either side as the country heads into the final stages of the election. That McCain should be seen as the first to go negative, however, will not play well for him with voters who claim to be fed up with the old ways of Washington.

The question of whether or not Barack Obama is ready to lead the country is a worthy one. Whoever takes office in January faces tough tasks that will take more than eloquent promises and grand rhetoric to solve. Obama has been big on talk of hope and change. Based on recent polls that have the two within a few percentage points of one another, however, he has not effectively argued that he is up to meeting those challenges. But if the media is sympathetic to Obama, McCain has to get his message across in a smart and effective way that maximizes his time on the air, right?

The “celebrity” ad in some ways seems to have been a gamble. To an extent, it may have resonated with voters; the idea of Obama being on the level of Hollywood stars who look good but haven’t shown that they have much else to offer may raise concern for those who are looking for real answers rather than hype. However, the focus on Spears and Hilton, and the negativity of the message, also allowed Obama to dismiss it by saying he doesn’t pay attention to John McCain’s ads.

Not surprisingly, Hilton took advantage of the publicity after the ad was released and shot her own video spot in response. After calling McCain wrinkly and white-haired, and assuring the country that she wasn’t promising change “like that other guy,” Hilton unveiled her “all of the above” energy plan in the spoof. The heiress suggested limited offshore drilling with strict environmental oversight, and tax incentives for automobile manufacturers to create hybrid and plug-in cars. CNN reported that Republicans used Hilton’s tongue-in-cheek ad for publicity and to push for a plan that would call for offshore drilling. Even though it’s difficult to take anything from the Hilton spoof seriously, her compromised approach may actually be what’s needed to solve a serious issue, the solution to which currently seems bogged down in partisan politics.

It has been widely reported that moderate and independent voters will decide this election. If Paris Hilton represents a more balanced response than either of the presidential candidates, perhaps both of them should reconsider their energy platforms. Although a gallon of gas has dipped in some areas below $4 again, Americans are still paying considerably more than they were four years ago. The energy issue is not going away and both need to demonstrate that they can address the problem effectively, which may mean leaving open possibilities their parties have claimed to be against.

Reaching that middle ground among voters has become a sensitive area for both Democrats and Republicans. Both campaigns have tried to paint the other as elitists and out of touch with the problems faced by average Americans.

The debate was heightened last week as McCain stumbled when a Politico reporter asked how many houses he owns. In June, Karl Rove suggested Obama was an elitist, and described him as “coolly arrogant,” according to ABC News. Last week, the Obama campaign got to return the favor, casting McCain as a millionaire steeped in Washington traditions and unable to appreciate the plight of the middle class.

Americans are looking for a president who is ready to dig in and take action on issues like gas prices and energy independence. Both candidates must be able to demonstrate that despite their personal wealth and success, they can relate and are ready to wrestle with the nation’s biggest concerns.

To hear the rival campaigns tell it, Americans can choose between an aloof and out-of-touch millionaire or a vacuous celebrity. Well, at least we have Paris Hilton to fall back on.

Casey Hynes may be reached at casey.hynes@gmail.com.