Flight of the Back-Clinging Monkeys

Roger Ruef

Campaign Watchdog

On the evening of January 25, 1998, at a little after 9:00pm Central Standard Time, I stood in my living room in Naperville, Illinois, a bottle of beer in one hand, a dish towel in the other, and my eyes glued to the television set. The scent of chicken-and-sausage gumbo wafted in from the kitchen, and the place was strewn with the remnants of good, hearty gathering of friends and well-wishers some of whom cared nothing about professional football but all of whom watched the television with me. Decimated mounds of snacks and cheeses filled the dining room table. Crumpled napkins, emptied soup bowls, plastic cups, and paper plates littered every horizontal surface‹all of them emblazoned with the official logo for Superbowl XXXII. (More below)
Click on image for more info
The Denver Broncos, whom I had rooted for almost since their inception in 1960‹the days of Lou Saban, Steve Tensi, and Cookie Gilchrest‹had scored a rushing touchdown with 1:45 left in the fourth quarter and had taken a seven-point lead. The Green Bay Packers had run the ensuing kickoff back to their own 30-yard line, then marched down the field with consecutive passes of 22, 14, and 4 yards from Brett Favre to running back Dorsey Levens. After two incomplete passes, the Packers faced a do-or-die fourth-down-and-six situation at the Broncos 31 with the game on the line.

I gripped the towel like grim death. I had watched the Broncos lose Superbowls before in 1978, the miracle year with Craig Morton at quarterback, when they were embarrassed by the Dallas Cowboys and in 1987, 1988, and 1990, when they were embarrassed by the New York Giants, the Washington Redskins, and the San Francisco 49ers, each point differential greater than the last. I¹d hung on to hope as they entered the 1997 playoffs as a wildcard team and beat the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Kansas City Chiefs, and the Pittsburgh Steelers to even make it to Superbowl XXXIIŠ where they entered the game as 12-point underdogs.

It had been a back-and-forth game, and now it came down to one play. Even now, I can picture the camera angle lengthwise down the field from behind the Packers backfield. Favre took the snap and dropped back to pass the Green Bay offensive line gave him time to survey the field he spotted his target and threw the ball across the middle to tight end Mark Chmura.

All of a sudden, out of nowhere came Broncos linebacker John Mobley from the right running full tilt toward the ball. He stretched out his hand as far as he could and tipped the pass away from Chmura, where it fell incomplete to the turf.

The Broncos bench erupted with cheers. They were one kneel-down play away from winning the game.

And I envisioned the skies above the city of Denver, where I¹d grown up, filled with monkeys flying off the backs of die-hard Broncos fans. The drought was over it had finally rained in Broncoland. The Broncos won their first Superbowl.

Which brings us to last night.

There¹s no comparison in import between the events. In the end, it doesn¹t matter who wins the Superbowl life goes on. Wars don¹t start, laws don¹t get changed, judges of questionable character don¹t get nominated and placed on the federal bench and Supreme Court, religious ideologies don¹t start dominating public discourse and policy, the U.S. Justice Department doesn¹t become subverted to political aims, science doesn¹t take a backseat to ideology and cronyism in the creation and enforcement of laws

So many things don¹t depend on who wins the Superbowl and are inextricably tied to who wins the race for the White House.

Yesterday, important majorities of my fellow American citizens rejected the politics of fear and otherness and embraced the first significant tectonic shift in the geology of American politics in many decades. They banded together to elect Barack Obama as the 44th president of the U.S.

I watched the early election returns on CNN at a pizza restaurant in Aspen. When they called Ohio for Obama, I allowed myself to hope. When they called Pennsylvania, I became filled with a sense of excitement and relief. By the time the polls closed in California, my fellow political junkie and traveling companion and I were back in our room. CNN called the election for Obama we popped the cork on a bottle of champagne we had chilled just in case and toasted the new era in American politics.

I am especially proud of a few of those in my political group BCC list who supported Obama with their feet and wallets. Mark, who was one of the first to contribute to the campaign. Bonnie and Alice (who don¹t know each other), who knocked on doors, made phone calls, and generally worked their asses off in Michigan and Wisconsin, respectively. Catherine, who worked for the Obama ground game in Chicago.

There are others, I¹m sure, whose efforts I don¹t know about. I¹m grateful to them all and that gratitude won¹t dieŠ ever.

I wrote to a friend in Italy this morning that if the McCain-Palin ticket had won the day, the 232-year-old American Experiment would have been over. I truly felt that way.

What a joy it is to proclaim this morning that the Experiment lives on.

The Tangled Web of Trooper Gate

Roger Rueff

Contributor & Official Campaign Watchdog for Shirley
After eight years of watching the mainstream media sit up, beg, roll over,and lick the hands of the Bush administration, it¹s refreshing to watch themhold someone¹s feet to the fireŠ in this case Sarah Palin, whose statementson Saturday regarding the conclusions of the Troopergate report‹a bipartisaninvestigation (10 Republicans, 4 Democrats) into whether she fired PublicSafety Commissioner Walt Monegan because he wouldn¹t fire her formerbrother-in-law, a State Trooper named Mike Wooten, who was in a bittercustody battle with her sister were clearly false. (More below)

Falsehoods

On Saturday, Sarah uttered falsehoods to reporters about the Troopergatereport on several occasions. According to ABC, in a phone call with reporters: "Well, I¹m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing," Palinsaid, "any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to becleared of any of that." At a gas station in Pennsylvania, when asked to elaborate: "I'm thankful that the report has shown that, that there was no illegal orunethical activity there in my choice to replace our commissioner, so, nowwe look forward to working with the personnel board that the entity that ischarged with looking into any activity of a governor, the lieutenantgovernor, or an attorney general," Palin said. UmŠ not so much. What the report actually says is: "I find that Governor Sarah Palin Abused her power by violating AlaskaStatute 39.52.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act ...Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional... "The evidence supports the conclusion that Governor Palin, at the least,engaged in 'official action' by her inaction if not her active participationor assistance to her husband in attempting to get Trooper Wooten fired [andthere is evidence of her active participation.] She knowingly, as that termis defined in the above cited statutes, permitted Todd Palin to use theGovernor¹s office and the resources of the Governor¹s office, includingaccess to state employees, to continue to contact subordinate stateemployees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired. Herconduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act... "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue whereimpermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order toadvance a personal agenda." And about that State Personnel Board investigation... It was a gambit by theMcCain campaign‹and it sounds suspicious from the outset because Sarah hasthe power to fire anyone on the State Personnel Board that¹s investigatingher. (She had to file an ethics complaint against herself to make it happen.) [More below]

It turns out, however, that the gambit might well backfire (seeNEWSWEEK, below). TIME (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1849399,00.html): It was within her power to fire Monegan, even without cause, but it lookslike their might have been causeŠ just not the kind that¹s justifiable toanyone outside her immediate family. According to TIME: ³Did Governor Sarah Palin abuse the power of her office in trying to get herformer brother-in-law, State Trooper Mike Wooten, fired? Yes. Was the refusal to fire Mike Wooten the reason Palin fired Commissioner ofPublic Safety Walt Monegan? Not exclusively, and it was within her rights asthe states' chief executive to fire him for just about any reason, evenwithout cause. Those answers were expected, given that most of the best pieces of evidencehave been part of the public record for months. The result is not a mortalwound to Palin, nor does it put her at much risk of being forced to leavethe ticket her presence succeeded in energizing. But the Branchflower report still makes for good reading, if only because itconvincingly answers a question nobody had even thought to ask: Is the Palinadministration shockingly amateurish? Yes, it is. Disturbingly so.² NEWSWEEK (http://www.newsweek.com/id/163465): About that State Personnel Board investigationŠ The McCain campaign tried todo an end-run around the Troopergate investigation, thenŠ ³uh-oh.² ³Some weeks ago, the McCain team devised a plan to have Palin file an ethicscomplaint against herself with the State Personnel Board, arguing that italone was capable of conducting a fair, nonpartisan inquiry into whether shefired Monegan because he refused to fire Wooten, who had been involved in amessy custody battle with her sister. Some Democrats ridiculed the move,noting that the personnel board answered to Palin. But the board ended uphiring an aggressive Anchorage trial lawyer, Timothy Petumenos, as anindependent counsel. McCain aides were chagrined to discover that Petumenoswas a Democrat who had contributed to Palin's 2006 opponent for governor,Tony Knowles. Palin is now scheduled to be questioned next week, and thecounsel's report could be released soon after. "We took a gamble when wewent to the personnel board," said a McCain aide who asked not to beidentified discussing strategy.²

GOPs Always Win Because Dems are Big Crybabies!

I am deeply disturbed that Hillary Clinton not getting the Democratic Nomination. I think it is indicative of our country's obsession with beauty, selecting the younger, more attractive candidate over the wizened, experienced one. (There’s a special place in hell for you Roger Ailes[See sidebar]) And, I am deeply concerned about Barak Obama’s ability to lead the country, because of his lack of experience. To me this all harkens back to JFK, young, vibrant, attractive, inexperienced Senator, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis….. And, coming from Wisconsin with anti-gun political leanings, I found it incredibly racist on his part to characterize all rural whites as angry and clinging to their guns. Oh, that’s right, it’s not politically correct to indicate that a black person might be racist, intentionally or not. Still this indicates a prejudice against 2/3rds of the American constituency.

HOWEVER….

Pitching a Hissy-Fit

For Democrats to vote for McCain simply because their candidate is nothing more than tossing a quasi-idealistic tantrum, in effect saying, “I didn’t get my way, so I am going to vote for the candidate who will keep things the same as what I hate now, just to show you all!”

All week long “Morning Edition” has been running an expose that included a poll about those who are going to jump ship and vote Republican. The percentages from the poll haven’t been revealed, but the content is frightening. People are considering voting for exactly what they don’t want in order to show their dislike of the outcome or the primary, not what will advance their needs the most in the next administration. I didn’t get may way --- waaaaahhhhh!

So let’s do what people tossing a tantrum rarely do and that is to look at the impact of our tantrums. Let’s look at what voting for McCain will really mean, starting with the thing that will impact us most, the economy. I’m in the camp that believes that a vote for McCain is a vote for continuing what we have presently seen which has driven us into this culture of business deceit (i.e. foreclosures spawned from the greed driven voodoo of mortgaged backed securities). Particularly revealing of McCain’s mindset is his contention that protecting the economy means bailing out Bears Stearns, who, at the very least, is in trouble for making bad business decisions and at the worst acting in a criminally irresponsible way.. However, he is against helping homeowners, who we are finding were often victims of the kinds of corporate entities of the Countrywide, Bears Stearns ilk. Does this sound like a guy who has your best intentions in mind; a better choice than Obama? At one point this year McGain indicated that he in fact needed more education on economics, but why? He has big biz cronies to tell him what to do.

Obama, on the other hand, wants more accountability on the part of big business for their actions, such as subprime loan practices, even if it means government regulation (See Sidebar). Hey, it worked for Roosevelt. In short Obama understands that this past eight years has created a culture where big business has carte blanch approval from the government to victimize the consumer for the purposes of profit.

When it comes to Iraq, Obama acknowledges that $2.7 billion per week (unaccounted cash to big biz cronies of the Neo-Cons) cannot be sustained has in fact hampered our countries security to protect ourselves from terrorism coming out of Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has a plan for redeployment.

McCain on the other hand makes broad, unsubstantiated, statements that drive at our fears about how it would be much more costly for us to pull out of Iraq. That’s what they said about Vietnam and it didn’t happen, communism did not conquer the world as argued. In fact, in less than a decade after leaving Vietnam, KFC opened stores in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) and just last year opened stores in Hanoi. Vietnam is clambering for western style capitalism via tourism. We should have sent in The Colonel instead of the 1st Infantry. Might have saved us 58,000 American lives. Same with Iraq, we pull out, and the Iraqi’s will have less motivation to settle their own form of government employing violence. They won’t have an invading army to fight. McCain has also claimed that the U.S. problem is that we “have no plan to deal with success.” Yah. Just look at how successful Iraq has been so far.

I shortened this a bit. My first draft of this blog entry, summarily compared McCain to Obama, but it got long and begin to move away from my original message about the danger of Hillaryites switching to voting McCain because their candidates lost. Suffice it to say that danger in a vote for McCain lies in that it will be a vote for the status quo. To see this compare Obama to McCain for yourself, but don’t rely on the media, or even me, filtered by their particular slant. Go to places like On The Issues. Org where you can see simple factoids about each candidates stance. It will be a sobering exercise in why pulling your vote from the Democrats to the Republicans will be an extension of Bush’s Administration in a lot of ways.

You may not get exact what you hoped for by voting for Hillary, but you will get a lot more than if you vote for McCain. Besides, if nothing else, Obama has proved to open a ear to his constituency. In the beginning of his campaign, I found his rhetoric to be feckless oration, “word fog”: as I heard one disgruntled Hillaryite called it. But, he listened and changed. And I believe that he will continue to listen and act, and hopefully have the right people around him to guide him toward getting results

Time to Unify

Time for us Dems to unify and stop being self-righteous cry babies. Get behind our candidate, monitor and pass him information about who he should appoint to guide and help him. Stop focusing on single issue items and look at the whole picture realizing that if Obama gets elected, you have a better chance of influencing government to your needs than if McCain gets elected who is embedded in the Neo-Con paradigm

Democrats have lost the last two elections on narrow margins. Convince everyone you know not to cave into emotional principles of apparent idealism, such as voting for McCain out of Primary Election disappointment, or voting for Nader, simply because you think that will give your opinion a voice. As if a newscaster is going to announce, “Patti Jones of Omaha voted for Nader to register her political ideals and unhappiness at the primary. We are so chagrined at your disappointment, Patti”

Get on top of who Obama wants to surround himself with and get the message to him to do what you want. Tell him flat out, that you wanted Hillary, but will back him if you feel he will represent enough of your needs. Then if he’s elected, continue to send him messages. He’s inspirational, and even if he isn’t the best candidate, he’s better than the alternative: fragmenting the vote so that McCain wins!

Despite my really, really thinking that Hillary was the better choice and my misgivings about over self-ambitious, partially racist, feckless orator, Obama, I am willing to look at the overall picture and realize that punishing Obama because i didn't get my way in the Primary isn't really going to get me what I want. Still it was so, so wrong...Waaaaahhhhh!

No Nader Is A Good Nader

Given that the Democratic side of the race has collapsed into a single candidate (Obama) and how the last two Presidential elections went, I think that addressing the issue of Ralph Nader’s running for Presidency is important. Don't get me wrong. I am truly in line with his politics, but I don't believe he can pull off what he preaches. He has not "Executive Office" (Mayor, Governor, President) experience and has a tendency to piss people off. Not a good way to get things done.

Take poll at bottom of page

If you feel as I do that since he has no viability as a candidate, that this renders his candidacy to being self-gratuitous and self serving, which is fine if it didn’t damage Democratic candidates chances of winning; then please contact him and ask him not to run at info@nader.org. (For those of you who were counting, that last sentence had six dependent clauses in it) Below is a boiler plate message you can send him, if I happened to catch you on a less than inspired day. If you want the Republicans to win, then I suggest you send Nader a donation.

Nader Letter Boiler Plate

(Feel free to copy and paste at will)

Dear Mr. Nader:

Despite the admirable social conscious aspects of your politics, I have to ask you to consider not running for the President of the United State. My request is not a reflection on your politics or what you stand for, but a simple pragmatic desire to avoid the lesser of evils. Truly there is no chance you can win, and a vote for you will steal away needed votes from the party that can come the closest making desperately needed changes. A vote for you will tantamount to a vote for status quo, a vote for the Republican Party and for why? Public discussion? It’s that's already happening!

I know running for President fills your own personal ambitions and brings people to your organization, which in turn helps you sell books. However, given the veracity of your candidacy, it appears that this is a bit solipsistic and I know you don’t want to appear solipsistic. If you truly care to move the country in the direction of change as you say you wish, you will stay out of the race and let those who can (albeit not as fast as you want) make those changes.

Please, Mr. Nader, show the country you care viable change and consider staying out of the 2008 Presidential race.

Sincerely and hopefully,

{Your Name}