A quick quote before the election

Well, life has caught up with my desire to write in the past month and a half, but I'll be writing more after the election about policy and politics.

As we head into election day, I leave you with this:
"Now to you men, who, in your turn, have come together to spend and be spent in the endless crusade against wrong, to you who face the future resolute and confident, to you who strive in a spirit of brotherhood for the betterment of our nation, to you who gird yourselves for this great new fight in the never-ending warfare for the good of humankind, I say in closing...We stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord."
-Teddy Roosevelt

Eastern Elites and Culture Wars

The attacks are so familiar, virtually every Republican repeats them with ease. They are so simple, even the least effective can use them and the best communicators can make them stick. The basic principle is: those rich, educated people living on the coasts know nothing about you; they want to run your life; they're the reason for your problems. Of course the attack is not really about regions; it's one of the Republicans' best class warfare weapons, pitting struggling workers against the party that wants to help them. Simply, it's how you hold together a coalition of business leaders and the workers and consumers they often exploit. You give the money to the businesses and spurn resentment among the masses. Resentment, I would argue, is about as effective as fear, which is to say very.

It's important to remember that this attack, once again, is not about region; it plays on the disparities in education level, standard of living and access to health care just as much as it focuses on religion and a fundamentally flawed definition of individual liberties. The reason I emphasize this point is because the Democratic party has programs that will alleviate many of the reasons for the underlying resentment altogether. The ability to win elections partly based on this attack has always been a motivation for the Republican party to not focus on the needs of the worst off, and, just as likely, work against those people's best interests.

My point is the argument does not need to be defended against. It needs to be defeated. It needs to be exposed for its ridiculousness so it can never again motivate a politician to work against the best interests of even the voters who put him or her in power.

The attack becomes even more ironic and tragic when one remembers the third, and often most influential, member of the Republican coalition, which is an intellectual elite whose roots are in Goldwater and Buckley, and who have always forced themselves further and further into an intellectual bubble whenever the Republican party gained enough power to ostensibly implement their inherently contradictory view of government. Yet, the leadership of the Republican party always has numerous of their disciples for one reason: their work at developing a core philosophy to define conservatism has attracted just enough Ivy Leaguers, just enough government majors and just enough intellectually curious people to add to their ranks. Enough to fill think tanks, stuff editorial boards, as well as cast votes on legislation. Bush 41 sent his son George to Yale for a reason; although I would argue they failed to impart the education I would expect of such a prominent institution.

Try as you might, you will likely never find a 10 second attack to effectively fight the "culture war." The goal of this Republican tactic is to distract. Once one engages in the argument, too often, they become an unwilling accomplice towards its effectiveness. It's not a war that can be fought to victory; it must be ended. Oh, the metaphors.

You end the culture wars by acting in defiance of its assumptions. You raise the minimum wage, lower taxes on middle and lower class Americans, provide mothers with day care, give children opportunity from pre-K to college. You keep religion as much as possible out of government, but equally diminish the derision that too often comes from those who have spent decades in the trenches of this political battle. You open campaign offices in the reddest states and districts and talk to as many of the people possible who have fallen for this particular ploy.

In short, this source of division can only be ended through a period of Democratic leadership, during which the policies being proposed now are put into effect; but the roots of that success can be implemented now, which to a large extent they are. The result is new combinations of states electorally in play, as well as different margins in states that remain easily defined.

For this reason, tactically, the Republican party really only has one option: double down on every possible culture war attack; find any source of division within the electorate. This falls perfectly into their grand strategy of tactical decisiveness regardless of changes in the contours of the field of battle. This is because, simply, their only other strategic option would be to truly run against President Bush, admit their failure, and develop new and innovative policies that meet the reality they have created. This would be smart for the future of the Republican party, but suicide for their immediate electoral goals.

So we know their plan. We know pretty much exactly how they're going to implement it. We know their motivations, as well as their desperation. We know America's economic and foreign policy position will make fewer voters susceptible to distraction.

One piece remains to set up inevitable checkmate. Thankfully, it's filled with enough irony to fit its consequence. The Democratic political and intellectual leadership, that so called eastern elite that has been a focal point of this particular engagement must stand down in the culture war. The battle is raging over how to save our economy and end the war in Iraq, where our inherent strengths provide decisive strategic advantages. Why waste the time fighting what could become an inconsequential skirmish in our victory.

Politics

Amid the absurdity of the past month, I feel like it's time to take a step back and talk about some realities of the politics of this election going forward. Despite the pace of the day to day news cycle, there is still plenty of time left in this campaign and a number of significant events to come. Given that, I'm not going to talk about lipstick on a pig or Bridge to Nowhere politics here. The simple reality is that that type of politics depends solely on the ability to go in front of the American people and defend the exact opposite position you know to be true. With that ability, you can drive Hardball, the Situation Room and O'Reilly. Given that fact, it is easy to see why the Republican Party, in its current form, will always be more successful in that environment.

Over a long period, the political structure of this campaign, I would argue, is a completely different story for four reasons: 1) the McCain/Palin ticket has few strengths, 2) the Obama campaign has out-played the McCain campaign in financing, 3) the Obama campaign has steadily muted the McCain campaigns messaging ability, 4) this campaign is no longer defined by the question of whether Obama is ready to be president.

Here's why I think this:

1: Strengths and Weaknesses

Some days I think I completely understand the Palin choice. Other days it seems like the most absurd political decision I've ever seen. In the end, I believe it was made in such a hurry that the McCain campaign didn't really plan for the long-term impact of the choice. Sound familiar? So I'm not going to try to read their minds, but there are a few things I do know.

First off, the McCain campaign has two perceived strengths, ear mark reform and energy policy. These are the issues the McCain campaign is running on. There are other Republican strengths, such as gun control, but that is not an issue that the McCain campaign has pushed. The issue of ear mark reform is, for all his faults, an actual political strength of Senator John McCain. His Senate record generally upholds that idea. Senator Sarah Palin is another story, but like I said, who knows whether she will be seen as an ear mark reformer or not by election day. It really doesn't matter much.

Energy policy is a more nuanced debate that the American people have tried to ignore at all costs for decades. The psyche of this country towards energy policy has been driven by the Republican party position for most of this time. Despite its ridiculous, the phrase drill, baby, drill sounds pretty good to a whole lot of Americans. Senator Obama has, in my opinion, smartly shown a willingness to concede on the issue of off-shore drilling and accepted the fact that nuclear power is going to have to be a major part of a successful long term energy policy, as it obviously should. These are two very popular positions in this country.

OK, so that's pretty much it for McCain campaign strengths domestically. Let's get one thing straight: ear mark reform is a ridiculous topic to be discussing right now. Our total ear mark expenditures are minuscule in comparison to the waste by Halliburton, the tax breaks for oil companies, or the cost of fighting two wars while pretending to uphold our NATO responsibilities. Not to mention the fact that this so-called wasteful spending is the only thing that is barely keeping together an outdated and crumbling infrastructure. Anyone who thinks ear mark reform is the issue that will decide this election should turn off cable news for a week.

The Obama campaign's strengths are the economy over-all, health care, equal pay (an issue that smartly will be coming soon), education, and reforming Wall Street. If any one of these issues is the most important thing to a voter, they will much more than likely vote for Obama. Senator Obama has consistently laid out plans on each of these issues for the past pretty much 18 months. After eight years of the Bush administration, they are all now Democratic strengths, despite what some Republican strategist on TV tells you.

The economy over-all is the most important issue to most voters, which is why it is so preciously guarded by the entire Democratic party. Sometimes it's boring to say some variation of "George Bush is responsible for this problem and John McCain helped him" every single day that bad news about our economy breaks, but it is important and something that Senator Obama has smartly done since basically 2004, although obviously only more recently with respect to Senator McCain.

I believe that domestic policy will be the main driver of this election. That being said it is very important to note that Senator McCain has blunted, at least to a certain extent, any ability to take advantage of a timely bin Laden video or, god forbid, worse. Voters will have two possible questions to ponder: do I trust Senator Obama to deal with this crisis or would Sarah Palin be able to step in during this crisis. It is no longer clear how the proverbial October surprise would play out.

2: Financing

One of the Obama campaigns greatest successes has been in out maneuvering the McCain campaign with respect to financing. First off, if you've read anything about how the Obama campaign planned and executed its primary victory, you know they always make a back up plan for if their assumptions don't hold. As an example, their original plan was to win this election basically in New Hampshire. The Obama campaign's decision to forgo public financing and publicly tell the 527s to back off was just this type of forward looking decision making.

During the summer, Democratic 527s, almost completely, held off running the ads that drive day to day politics. But so did the Republican ones. Senator McCain, rather timidly, withdrew public support for Republican 527s, which are really only now gearing up. Likely, the Obama campaigns first plan would be to win this election easily without large 527 support, or to even make a deal with McCain to shut them down completely. But they always knew that if they couldn't do that, the Democrats have just as much money in 527s, ready to go. As we have seen, the political consequences of reversing your position on campaign finance are, as always, negligible.

So now the Obama campaign is going to raise who knows how much money and the Democratic 527s are going to flood the airwaves on every issue, likely with a number of over the top smears that some voters, none of whom I've ever met, seem to love. The Republican party's strength in smearing their opponent through ads has been run almost entirely by the McCain campaign, as their 527s are only now getting act together. I see this as a pretty outstanding head fake on the part of the Democratic ticket for a number of months.

3) Messaging

It's funny how now the term Swift Boating is used for just about any smear against a political opponent. This use of the phrase signifies an ignorance of a major part of the success of that particular political tactic: it was done by a group ostensibly not associated with the Bush campaign. When the McCain campaign goes out and basically calls Obama a sex offender, there is no question about who is making the claim, John McCain. The genius of a Swift Boat attack is that you could appeal to those people who love a good smear, while denying your involvement to all those independent voters who hate them.

So while the McCain campaign has directed day after day of the media cycle, the direction they have taken is as far into the gutter as any political campaign in the life times of pretty much anyone reading this. Worse smears have been thrown at opponents in the past decades, but none of them have been running every day in Ohio during a football game with I'm John McCain and I approve this message attached to them.

At a certain point every lie gets you diminishing returns in politics. WMDs was a pretty damn successful lie, for all the tragedy involved in that statement. After revealing the truth so many times, Bush administration lies like, for example, Heck of a job, Brownie were less well received by the public. The McCain campaign's willingness to say anything to hold on for just one more day has destroyed their credibility with most people whose responsibility it is to cover this campaign, despite what they tell you.

The Obama campaign has messaged the exact same way for 18 months. It's a very simple and effective strategy based: 1) I'm Senator Obama and I'm running on change, 2) Here's what I mean by change, 3) Hit me as hard as you want, but know that when you go too far, as you inevitably will, I know how to take advantage. Everyone who has run against Senator Obama has tried to mitigate his ability to win the change question, but he has been so consistent that it always eventually makes them look pretty absurd. He has more recently gotten better at telling the American people what change means, but that was always an actual strength for people who saw him in, say Iowa or any primary state, for an entire speech instead of the 10 second clip on TV followed by a commentator saying, where are the specifics.

Really the only change in Obama's message for his entire campaign has been to add: let me introduce you to Joe Biden. Biden may not break through too often but he has passed every question that is most important for a VP choice easily. He's perceived as ready to take over. And he hasn't hurt Obama. I would argue that he will be pretty effective, from time to time, when he breaks through the cluster of the media cycle, and definitely on the ground. That's pretty much all you can ask for from a VP choice.

So the last part of Obama's messaging ability has been his counter-punch which has often been the most frustrating and exciting to watch. There are a number of phases that each opponent of Senator Obama has gone through. First, they under estimate him, then they realize that mistake and over react, then they implode and finally they throw the kitchen sink at him. Perhaps the McCain campaign imploded before over reacting by promoting Rove disciple Steve Schmidt before they chose Sarah Palin, but the McCain campaign, I would contend, is pretty bad anyways.

Obama deals with all attacks the same way, he repeats them to you. He knows in this era you will eventually hear them, so he figure it's better if as many people as possible hear how absurd it is from his own mouth. Despite the persistent idea that Obama is not funny, I would contend he's pretty good at mocking the ridiculous statements that are said about him.

4) The Question in the Voting Booth

One of the most unbelievable things about the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate is that it has taken away one of the biggest long-term strengths of the McCain campaign. For many voters, for a long time, there was a persistent question of whether Senator Obama was ready to be president. It was talked about day after day after day. Well, the answer is obviously that Senator McCain thinks so, if he's ready to promote Palin, so who am I to argue.

For many voters this simple fact frees them up to vote on any number of issues that are more important to them, most of which are Democratic strengths. I believe that this was probably the only calculated aspect of the McCain campaigns choice, because they likely had polled enough to see it wasn't going to be enough to win. They were probably right.

It can't be said enough that there is only one poll that matters, the one in the voting booth. Sometimes it's hard to remember that each person that enters the booth has an entirely different set of reasons for being there. Polls like to break people down into the exact opposite of what we are, which is, of course, individuals. The past month has shown how quickly the questions that seem most important can change from day to day and how often winning a daily media cycle is as likely to be a detriment as it is to be a help in the long run.

As long as the Obama campaign continues to maintain its dominance in these four key aspects of the political dynamics of this presidential election, he will win.

The Republican Party Hates Me

My one major take-away from the Republican Convention was simple: the Republican Party hates me. I know for many of you this seems has seemed obvious for eight to 30 years, but as a former Republican, and a long time McCain supporter (prior to the beginning of this election season), it came as a surprise to me. It came as a surprise because I expected the Republican Party would be trying to court my vote, rather than piss me off.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing they could have said that would have changed my mind during this convention. Yet, it is surprising how well they know this. My profile would be an educated white male, whose main issue is foreign policy and doesn't really think either side has it exactly right. I'm pro-choice, but abortion isn't an issue that I'm likely to vote on (although after this convention, you can just add it to the list).

More importantly though, I'm willing to listen. I've switched parties in the past four years and am not totally comfortable with all Democratic positions. I agree with the Republicans on stressing nuclear power, on the idea that teacher's unions are holding back progress in education, on most issues of free trade and am skeptical of both sides' plans to get us out of Iraq.

And like most voters in the middle, I hate negative campaigning. I hate seeing my candidate do it, and hate it even more when it comes from the other side. I think negative campaigning is for dumb people and I don't think I'm dumb. I've seen where the negative campaigning mindset leads while briefly working for McCain's 2000 campaign, and being stung by what happened in South Carolina.

Yet, at the Republican National Convention, which I watched closely, there was absolutely no effort made to woo my vote. All I heard was them trying to belittle every reason I support Senator Obama. They told me I was dumb for following a cult celebrity. They told me I was dumb for thinking that Obama being a community organizer is an extremely positive indication of his character. They told me I was dumb for thinking that we need a more reasoned direction in our foreign policy. They told me I was dumb for thinking that drilling isn't an answer to our energy problems. They told me I was dumb for wanting some real solutions to our economic crisis.

It's not only that they told me I am dumb, they obviously genuinely thought so. They pretended like the media frenzy around Sarah Palin was anything new. As if I don't remember Rev. Wright, Bitter-gate, "for the first time in my life ..."-gate. They told me left wing bloggers were trying to destroy an innocent woman by finding facts about her. As if I haven't spent the past year and half seeing the "Obama is a Muslim" emails or reading right wing blogs that happily pass on any fantasy that might scare one more voter.

They pretended like I wouldn't notice when they continuously attacked Senator Obama, while laying out no new solutions that might show they've chosen a new direction. They pretended like there was any logic to the idea of them retaking Washington from themselves. As if their convention somehow existed in a time vacuum that didn't include the last eight years.

They lied to me about Senator Obama's tax plan. They lied to me about Senator Obama's record in the US and Illinois Senate. They lied to me about Senator Obama's energy plan. They lied to me about Senator Obama's health care plan. They lied to me about Senator Obama's views on foreign policy. They lied to me about the reality in Iraq. They "forgot" to mention there's a war in Afghanistan.

They told me I was sexist for wondering who the hell Sarah Palin is. They lied to me about the "Bridge to Nowhere." They told me I was unpatriotic for ever questioning America's perfection. They told me I should love their candidate based on one speech, but that I should dismiss mine because of hundreds of speeches, policy proposals and interviews. They told me the media doesn't need to talk to the possible future vice president, while unabashedly using the media to spread this message.

They tried to use Sarah Palin's family to make me relate to her character, while crying foul at any mention of her family outside their talking points. They told me John McCain was a POW every few minutes, while forgetting to tell me about his 26 years in Congress. They pretended like there is no person named Dick Cheney.

They blatantly tried to reignite the "culture wars" that were the first thing to push me away from the Republican party. As if any social issue is going to make me forget that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are about to be taken over by the government, as the Dow and dollar continue to drop. They blamed the Democrats for high gas prices. As if I don't remember who held secret meetings with energy companies that led us down this road.

They told me that experience isn't a big deal. As if I don't remember the last three months of them screaming at the top of their lungs, "no experience." They told me judgment mattered most, but wouldn't answer a single question about the judgment of the Bush administration, the judgment of the Iraq war, the judgment of Republican economic policies, the judgment of picking a vice presidential candidate in two days, or the judgment of vetting a potential future president of the United States.

Finally, they told me that the Republican party of the future is going to be the Republican party of the past by proclaiming Sarah Palin as their future. As if I don't realize this means a greater focus on social issues, a continuation of neo-con foreign policy and continued disregard for anyone who has need of help from their government. They passed the torch to a new leader, while bringing in the same handlers who ran their last two hate-filled campaigns. As if I can't recognize their tactics from South Carolina in 2000.

So I guess what I'm saying is (and don't take this the wrong way), I always knew they hated most of you. It came as a bit of a surprise to see how much they truly hate me. Well, I don't hate. Their example shows so well how that emotion clouds out reality and common sense. But man, I'm sure a whole lot more pumped up to beat the the hell out of them on November 4th!

Questions for John McCain

Talking about celebrities and politics, negative ads and the "low road" benefits no one; it seeks to discourage voters confidence in the system and, in the long run, depress voter turn out. It sparks anger on both sides, perpetuating the partisan divide and helping maintain the status quo. With that in mind, I got to thinking about the substantive questions that I want John McCain to answer; questions that would force McCain to make policy statements that would redirect the media cycle.

Although CW wisdom says that McCain is open to all questions and has actually been asked some tough ones, the reality is that his answers to an even marginally well thought question have provided some of the best examples in this entire campaign of the disaster that would be a McCain presidency, and the horrific risk involved in electing him.

So I've started a list of questions on a broad range of topics that Senator McCain should be forced to answer.

Foreign Policy

1. What specifically would you do differently from this administration to capture or kill Osama bin Laden?

2. How do you plan to work with the Pakistani and Afghan governments to secure the border of Afghanistan and decrease tensions between these two important allies?

3. Beyond adding two brigades, what is your plan for future NATO operations in Afghanistan?

4. Define victory in Iraq.

5. Do you plan to maintain the Bush Defense Department and Department of State or would you make major changes in the leadership?

6. You've said that troop reductions in Iraq would be predicated on conditions on the ground; on exactly which conditions would this decision be made and what measure would you use to judge satisfactory progress?

7. How do you plan to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians?

8. Do you have any non-military plans or ideas to force Iran to end its nuclear weapons program?

9. How will your administration help Lebanon's tenuous democracy?

10. Would you be willing to pursue direct diplomacy with Syria?

11. What, if any, plans do you have in or for Darfur?

12. What is your vision of future US/Russian relations?

13. How high a priority is pursuing better and more open relations with the Chinese?

14. Can you think of any US action that you would at least explore that could help the people of Zimbabwe?

15. A relatively bright spot in Bush's foreign policy has been its funding of AIDS prevention and treatment in Africa, what would be your policy in this regard?

16. Which, if any, foreign policy issues do you think you could pursue through diplomacy within the United Nations?

Trade Policy (I don't know know enough about this, unfortunately)

17. You've said you're for current and further free trade deals with foreign nations; during your presidency, which nations would you pursue such treaties with?

18. How would your economic policy help stop the decline of the US dollar?

19. Would you increase funding to the FDA and other agencies in order to better test imported food and other products for contaminants? Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

Education

20. Would you increase, decrease or maintain at current levels funding for the Department of Education?

21. How do you plan to reverse the increasing education gap between the US and our economic partners and competitors?

22. Are you in favor of funding increased early childhood education? Is this currently included in your budget estimates?

23. What is your policy towards federal research funding of universities?

24. Regardless of what you think the federal government's role should be in the questions, do you think children should be taught Intelligent Design in school?

Energy

25. What are your plans to build the necessary energy infrastructure to achieve your goal of decreasing US dependence on foreign oil and promote renewable energy technology? Is funding for infrastructure development included in your current budget estimates?

26. Within your renewable energy goals, which technologies do you think show the most promise, and what specifically do you know about how they work and what part they could play in your plan's success?

27. What are the specific reasons for current or future subsidies to oil companies?

28. What would be your policy with regard to nuclear waste disposal?

29. With impending dramatic increases in home heating costs this winter, do you have any plans to provide Americans with economic relief?

Environment

30. Is it your opinion that the federal government's official policy should be that global warming is real and a threat, and, as such, should be a priority of your government?

31. Do you have plans to pursue an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? What would you envision the framework of such a treaty would include?

32. Do you believe that FEMA has been sufficiently reformed since its response to Hurricane Katrina? How would FEMA work better under your presidency than it has over the past four years?

33. President Bush has listed the fewest species ever on the endangered species list, while ignoring government scientists in the process; would you continue his policy towards America protecting endangered species?

Social Issues

34. As president, would you make a desire to overturn Roe v. Wade be prerequisite for consideration as a Supreme Court justice nomination?

35. What is your policy towards equal pay? Why do you think women currently get paid less in the work place for the same work?

36. You've said you don't believe in a quota system of affirmative action; is there any affirmative action policy that you would pursue as president?

37. Do you believe English should be the official language of the United States?

38. Regardless of the federal government's role in the matter, is there any gun control that you would support?

Military

39. How will you work to decrease the number of suicides of US soldiers and veterans?

40. Do you believe the current Veterans Administration is living up to our nation's duty to support all of our veterans' mental and physical health needs?

41. You've said that you would have used more troops for the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq; as president, what level of troops would you have sent to Iraq for the past five years?

42. Prior to 9/11, one of the priorities of the Defense Department was transforming America's military for the 21st century; would this be a goal of your administration's Department of Defense and in what areas do you see substantial changes in the structure, technology, combat readiness, and force projection of our future military?

43. As president, would you work to close Guantanamo Bay's detention facility?

Economy

44. How much impact do you believe the federal government has or can have on the US economy?

45. Do you believe that more regulation is necessary within the credit and banking industry? If so, which specific regulations would your administration pursue to ensure more transparent and effective business practices?

46. Do you believe Alan Greenspan was a successful Federal Reserve chairman in his final two years?

47. If the economy worsens further, would you be in favor of another round of stimulus checks for lower and middle class Americans?

48. In which sectors of the US economy do you see the potential to bring the economy out recession, real or potential?

49. Are you in favor of government intervention to save failing banks? If so, would you differentiate between small banks and large ones when deciding on whether to grant government assistance?

50. Is there any general economic theory that you guides your policy views?

Health Care (don't know enough here either)

51. What percentage of income do you believe middle class Americans should pay for health care?

52. Where do you see potential for decreasing health care costs and increasing the neediest Americans' access to health care?

The McCain Campaign

53. Has there been any change in your policy towards employing lobbyists within your campaign?

54. In what, if any, way is your campaign working to increase turnout in the 2008 election?

55. Do you believe the management of your campaign provides any indications on how you would run the White House?

Open Government

56. Are there any aspects of the Bush administration that you would have the Justice Department investigate as president?

57. As president, would you allow high ranking members of your administration testify before Congress when asked?

58. Which, if any, specific policies would your administration pursue towards greater transparency within the Executive Branch?

59. Would you use executive signing statements to alter the meaning and impact of legislation?

60. Would you maintain the majority of Bush administration political appointees within the federal government?

The John McCain I Knew

For many Americans Colin Powell's trip to the UN solidified their support for the Iraq war. I needed no such reassurance. John McCain supported the war and so I felt comfortable and confident. In 2002, it seemed unimaginable that John McCain would follow President Bush blindly. Those of us who campaigned for McCain in 2000 fought on the front lines of the first battle to stop the Bush regime.

I don't want to get into the details of the decision to support the war: the influence of September 11th and politics, the capitulation of Democratic critics, or the silencing of dissent by the media. I was a victim of and accomplice to all of that.

What I do want to talk about is the tragedy of post-2000 John McCain. This is not to say that the reality of pre-2000 McCain is as impressive or positive as I felt it was when I supported him, but instead to show how cold heartedly and cynically he betrayed those who eight years ago looked to him for leadership.

What many don't remember is that John McCain was actually the first person to fight against what has become the Bush Machine. Many, if not all, of us in that campaign understood exactly how horrible a president Bush would be, although, to be honest, we couldn't have known the true magnitude. But his lack of imagination and downright stupidity were obvious to us from the start.

The McCain 2000 campaign felt like a political insurgency against a new despot in our party (at the time, needless to say, I was a Republican). Bush was riding to power on the wings of the extremists whose influence most of us McCain folk were working to throw out of not just our party, but the entire political debate. His "agents of intolerance" line was one of the proudest moments of the process, for me at least. His campaign was fun, inspiring, fulfilling, and the most demoralizing experience I have had in politics...until I watched as McCain transformed over the ensuing years into that exact type of politician we had worked so hard against.

By 2002, the irony of McCain's "maverick" title was not apparent to me, especially as he fulfilled a seven year commitment to reform campaign finance laws with McCain-Feingold. Just before the war in 2003, I felt completely confident that McCain was not parroting administration talking points when he said: "There's no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there's no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators" (Hardball, March 24, 2003).

It was at this time, just preceding the Iraq war, really that McCain's transformation truly started. Perhaps to a man who had been in the Senate as long as he, the 2008 election no longer seemed that far away; or perhaps he, like many (and at times myself), was so spooked by the September 11th attacks that he turned blindly away from all that he knew and had learned about foreign policy in favor of the comfort of unthinkingly following a leader not up to the task.

Regardless, it was at this point that he began to lie to the American people and begin a six year campaign to deceive and distract the American people in order to maintain the small hope of achieving his long held dream of becoming president. Supporting the president during the 2004 campaign, McCain sounded nothing like the man whose inspiring and ultimately futile surge in New Hampshire in 2000 had almost transformed the Republican party.

Unbelievably, the history of McCain's capitulation and betrayal is clear on virtually every issue of importance over the past eight years. He has surrendered to the Republican party line, either out of political convenience or ignorance, on the Iraq War, relations with Iran, US torture policy, tax policy, judicial independence, selling out to oil companies, covering up administration lies and law breaking, and, of course, his "greatest legislative achievement," campaign finance.

I cannot put in words how thankful I am that the Democratic Party has finally nominated a man who I am willing to follow, though better informed by my past mistakes, and who, also unbelievably, has the right position on every single one of these issues, FISA notwithstanding (let's just not get into that discussion here). Senator Obama's presidential campaign pulled me out of the political confusion and darkness of being betrayed by the last leader who I believed in.

A Middle East Peace Policy for the 21st Century

For it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.
-Eleanor Roosevelt

The inauguration of a new president in January 2009 will provide a singular moment in international relations, a point in time where it is more likely than ever that thoughtful, fair and direct diplomacy can have a dramatic and positive impact throughout the Middle East. Currently, most of the debate in the presidential election surrounds diplomacy with Iran and withdrawing from Iraq. While these issues should be top priority, for progress in either area a larger context must inform policy makers' perspective and a plan must be put in place for the future.

Below I give the central themes of what I think a successful Middle East Peace Plan for the 21st Century would look like.

Goals:
For any plan to be legitimate, it must have clear goals to provide an impartial measurement of success and failure. These goals must provide a basis for moving forward with specific actions. The goals for a 21st Century Middle East Peace Plan are simple:

Short Term Goal: Political stability throughout the Middle East

Medium Term Goals: Diminished Iranian Influence, Increased Egyptian Influence, Diminished Tensions in Israeli/Palestinian Conflict, Political Development in Lebanon, Decreased International Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, Development of Good Governance Throughout the Region

Long Term Goal: Democratization

The short term goal of political stability throughout the region is important because it is also the fundamental goal of every government in the region, ally and enemy. While it will require working with and sometimes supporting governments and political figures who are anathema to many of our political and moral values, it is a necessary first step towards successful diplomacy. If a government feels threatened by instability within or instability in surrounding nations, it will be much less likely to be willing or able to trust, be honest and take educated risks, which are all vitally important for successful diplomacy.

The medium term goals are more specific and center around targeted areas where progress is both possible and a logical progression from the development of increased political stability. Each one independently furthers peaceful prospects in the region; while as a group they represent dramatic positive change.

The long term goal is perhaps the most controversial. Not only is it counter to the desires of numerous governments throughout the region, it could also be seen as a diplomatic extension of neo-con foreign policy. It is not. It is, and has always been, the most effective and constant foreign policy of the United States, to further democracy when possible throughout the world. This goal is furthered by finding the specific instances throughout the plan when political and diplomatic leverage can be used to further openness, good governance and democratic systems within every government of the Middle East. It need never be forced.

Timeline

Initial Actions: Actions taken or begun within the first year of the next presidency.

1)Begin Direct negotiations between the US, Syria, Lebanon and Israel with the short term goal of settling the issue of the Golan Heights and ending Syrian political interference in Lebanon, and the long term goal of normalized relations between Syria and Israel, as well as Lebanon and Israel. While this would require tough choices by all involved, it is a very real possibility that a deal could be struck where Israel agrees to give up the Golan Heights and Syria agrees to stop funding Hezbollah in Lebanon, while allowing a strong UN peacekeeping force to guarantee the security necessary for Lebanese political development.

While Israel giving up the Golan Heights would be a dramatic concession of a strategic asset, 21st century warfare no longer makes the Golan Heights the prize it was throughout the last half of the 20th century. Of much greater value to Israel would be taking away from Hezbollah their base in Lebanon. While the Syrians have shown little reason to be trusted, a UN force with a mandate to protect the political leadership of Lebanon, patrol the Lebanon/Israel border, and train the Lebanese army would provide essential tools for the always burgeoning but constantly undermined Lebanese government to take hold.

The dispute over the Shebaa Farms will have to be decided as well.

2)Dramatically increase engagement with Egypt as a political and diplomatic leader in the Middle East. To not see the potential for Egyptian leadership in the Middle East is simply to never have learned the history of Gamal Abdel Nasser. Egypt's current independence from much of the Middle East is a consequence of their 1979 peace treaty with Israel and the fact that Egyptian political leadership has found it easier and safer to stay out of Middle Eastern politics whenever possible. While Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was dramatic in 1979, for much of the region, normalization has become a de facto reality, even if not expressed in public by political leadership. This barrier to Egyptian influence has been greatly diminished.

Which means what is stopping the Egyptians from once again becoming prominent actors on the Middle Eastern stage is the fact that it's dangerous and they see little benefits to them. Yet America is able to provide numerous benefits to Egypt, not to mention the billions of dollars we currently give them in aid. A great deal of leverage can be obtained with Egypt through trade negotiations that would be helpful to numerous growing Egyptian business interests.

In the short run, Egyptian leadership could be a partner in Lebanese and perhaps Palestinian political development. In the long run, Egypt would provide a much safer counter weight to Iran than Saudi Arabia and Iraq currently do. This is not to say that Egypt is necessarily an example to the world of good governance, tolerance and respect for human rights; it is not. Yet Egyptian government and especially culture are more educated, in parts progressive and forward looking than any other area of the Middle East.

3)Push Turkey to legislate and enforce the laws necessary to qualify for EU membership, while at the same time convincing EU allies of the benefits and necessity of ratification. Specifically, Turkey needs to guarantee the civil and political rights of all secular and religious groups, as well as individuals of Kurdish ancestry. This would represent a dramatic, but not unpopular or impossible, step forward in Turkish political development, while simultaneously showing their good faith in pursuing EU membership. It would also diminish one source of instability in Iraq, the conflict between the Kurdish north and Turkey.

4)Establish an elite Middle East Peace Corps. Currently, the Middle East is likely the most dangerous region in the world to work, which has led to a brain drain the likes of which perhaps only the nations of sub-Saharan Africa truly understand. In order to balance against this emigration, it is necessary to provide strong incentives for people, humanitarian groups and good government experts to flock to the areas most in need.

Through a Middle East Peace Corps, the United States could train people in the specific tasks necessary for targeted projects of humanitarian aid, infrastructure development, political development, good governance workshops at all levels of government, and education. While safety would be a top priority, these will be dangerous jobs that require substantial compensation. Even still, a call of service to further US foreign policy goals through humanitarian efforts is one that many Americans will answer, and which would in the long run help reestablish US standing throughout the world.

5)Negotiate and Enact a strong and ambitious treaty on climate change. In the long run, America and our allies will never truly have any real leverage in the Middle East unless we begin to end the world's dependence on Middle East nations as a source of oil. While this goal will likely not be achieved for generations, a climate change treaty with dramatic emissions reductions and penalties for missing periodic target emission levels will send a strong signal to the nations that depend on oil for power that their future does and will depend on them acting in good faith with their neighbors and the community of nations.

Future Actions: Actions taken within the last three years of the next president's first term.

1)Begin direct negotiations with the Iranians over a broad range of issues, including the development of nuclear power and weapons, interference in Iraq, funding of Hamas and Hezbollah, and belligerency towards Israel. Negotiations with Iran can only be successful if a number of necessary steps are taken to begin to diminish Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq.

Yet Iran is not a natural leader of the Arab nations in the Middle East, nor has it ever been. The current Iranian rise in influence can be derived almost directly from their defiance of the United States since the revolution in 1979. By working towards all of the initial actions in this plan, this defiance of the US will begin to diminish in key areas of Iranian influence, including Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. With Egypt as a once again emerging player in Middle Eastern politics, Arab nations and people will begin to have a choice of strong leadership in defiance of the radical tendencies of Iran and Saudi Arabia.

A more isolated Iran will likely be more dangerous in the short term, as it has long worked to emerge as a regional superpower. Yet, if incentives, support and guarantees of political stability can be used as the proverbial carrot of diplomacy, it is very possible that Iran can be, at minimum, stopped from engaging in any overt acts of aggression throughout the next four years, and, in the best case, begin on a track towards normalizing their relations with the world.

Any plan for peace in the Middle East will surely have diplomacy with Iran as the linchpin, upon which success will ultimately be decided.

2)Withdraw the vast majority of US troops from Iraq. There are not words enough to describe the danger, difficulty and absolute necessity of withdrawing US Troops from Iraq. In short, Iraq diminishes our military readiness, costs billions of dollars needed at home and in other areas of the region, is a source of resentment for millions of people throughout the Middle East and constant propaganda for our worst enemies.

Iraq is not a stable nation at this point, but has reached a level of security not seen in many years. This provides the best opportunity of the past five years to begin phased withdrawal, likely over a two year period. The goals of this withdrawal policy should be to get the most US troops out as fast as possible, while guaranteeing the security of the Iraqi government, reacting to terrorist threats and attacks, and, most importantly, ensuring as best possible that our withdrawal is not seen in Iraq and throughout the region as abandonment that equals our initial invasion in hubris and devastation.

Second Term Actions

1)Convene a regional peace conference with the goal of normalized political and trade relations between all Middle Eastern nations, most importantly Israel. In the long run, this is likely the toughest challenge in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as well as the most important to maintain as a goal. To some day strike this deal would be a coup for peace and progress throughout the world. While it is only one of many sources of instability, anger and violence in the region, it has proven the most sustaining and intractable.

2)Elimination of OPEC's ability to act as a cartel through bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. With peace comes trade; and with trade comes the desire to talk and the ability to listen. While eliminating OPEC may be impossible, diminishing its influence and securing concessions for free trade from OPEC nations may, in the long run, be very possible. Creating and maintaining a stable, secure and fair market for oil should always be a priority for US foreign policy.

3)Pursue direct and multilateral diplomacy to enact treaties that reward good governance and democratization with strong trade and political incentives. This effort should focus initially on creating democratic systems within individual communities in an effort to build the political infrastructure necessary to enact successful, sustainable and, most importantly, peaceful democratic political reform.

Obama's Consistent Position on Faith

For those who find themselves turned off or "deceived" by Senator Obama's faith-based initiatives proposal today, I would direct you, once again, to his second book, "The Audacity of Hope," page 221 in the hard copy version:

And one can envision certain faith based programs -- targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers -- that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems and hence merit carefully tailored support

Perhaps Senator Obama's view of the separation of church and state is different from yours, but make no mistake about it, he has a very clear and thought out position from which he has never strayed: government can work with religious organizations on targeted secular programs; government can not discriminate between religious and non-religious organizations in administering these programs; and any money allocated to religious organizations can not be used to proselytize or fund religious activities.

Not surprisingly, Senator Obama did not focus much on his faith based initiatives during the primary campaign. If you need me to explain why, I think there may be some other lessons about politics we'll have to start with first. Regardless, this has been an issue that he has spent a lot of time thinking and writing about throughout his public life. I would urge you to read through his chapter on Faith in "The Audacity of Hope," because in there he talks about how he has waded and stumbled through many of the most difficult issues in our church and state debate.

The conclusion that Senator Obama has come to is that religion informs the positions of a vast amount of voters and to not recognize this is both unfair to them and not politically viable. He understands that there are certain points in all debates that are informed by religious belief where compromise is impossible, which is why he writes (page 222):

Still, between those who believe that life begins at conception and those who consider a fetus an extension of the woman's body until birth, a point is rapidly reached where compromise is not possible. At that point, the best we can do is ensure that persuasion rather than violence or intimidation determines the political outcome -- and that we focus at least some of our energies on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through education (including about abstinence), contraception, adoption, or any other strategies that have broad support and have been proven to work.

Rarely have I found a politician who understands the debate about religion in this country better than Senator Obama, and who genuinely wants to do what he can, where he can, to ease the tensions between the two sides. He knows there will never be a time where pro-choice activists and pro-life activists agree with each other on the issue of abortion, but he also knows that beneath those strongly held opinions are a number of issues where general consensus is easily reached and progress is possible.

Too often the debate about separation of church and state in this country seems to be a debate between engaging the most religious voters and engaging the most secular. Whether that is the intention of the politicians is besides the point, because the way they have framed their arguments fits them all too easily into one of these two categories. Senator Obama seeks to disarm this fallacious dichotomy by engaging a convergent set of moral principles that are informed by the set of values of both those most stridently secular and religious.

And for those who want to go to the extreme and call Senator Obama someone who seeks to impose any religious idea or set of values upon all of us, I would point you to one more quote (page 226):

I thought of Sasha asking me once what happened when we die -- "I don't want to die, Daddy," she had added matter of factly -- and I had hugged her and said, "you've got a long, long way before you have to worry about that," which had seemed to satisfy her. I wondered whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure what happens when we die, any more than I was sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang. Walking up the stairs, I knew what I hoped for -- that my mother was together in some way with those four little girls (he's talking about the girls killed by the bomb in the Birmingham church in '63), capable in some fashion of embracing them, of finding joy in their spirits.

I know that tucking in my daughters that night, I grasped a little bit of heaven.

This is a man who is constantly seeking to find ways to bridge the gaps between between secular and religious views in the American experience, both in his personal and public life. If we're ever going to get beyond the demoralizing debates between the James Dobsons and Christopher Hitchens of this country, we need more politicians like Senator Obama, who are willing to put the thought and energy into their policies to find room for us all.

By the way, for those who question how important an issue faith is for him, I would point you to the fact that his chapter on faith in "The Audacity of Hope" is two pages longer than his chapter on the constitution :)