The “initiative” process, pioneered by Oregon in 1904, as a means of stopping corrupt and bribed legislators stalling needed reforms has been co-opted by the corrupters and bribers to STOP the Oregon legislature from making needed reforms.

Part The First

I haven’t written so much as an e-mail since October 14. Much needed vacation, although, in this case, it was more or less a “stay-cation.” Just the Oregon back country between here and Boise, Idaho (business convention).

So, I’ll intersperse this with Oregon pix, which turns out to be appropriate. This is the state that the [mystery benefactors]‘ little organization, Freedomworks* wants to buy with their stealth cash.

(* Founded as Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1984, after David Koch’s LITERAL purchase of the Vice Presidential slot on the Libertarian ticket in 1980 and walkout from the Libertarian Party Convention in 1984. The parallel Citizens for a Sound Economy FOUNDATION is now Americans for Prosperity. These are the two[?] main groups promoting the “Tea Party” movement.)

In part i, we’ll look ONLY at the state of Oregon, so that you can watch the dynamic, which is replayed in many other states. Had this been a picture book, this would be fig. 1. But, I PROMISE you, it will pay off in the end if you will take a moment to wade through this little explanatory opening:

Let’s start with a sticky wicket that all of our stealth political groups use as a specific kind of tax dodge. In IRS-ese it’s called a 501(c)(3), which is the portion of the tax code that deals with tax-deductible charities, like, say, the Red Cross or the Girl Scouts. They’re NOT supposed to politick on charitable organizations, since that would mean that your political contributions could be tax-deductible.

Sunrise over Boise, Idaho

So, they walk right up to the line as “non-partisan” public “education” organizations, like, say, the Heritage Foundation, or Freedomworks, or the Cato Institute. And the C3 contributions are fully tax-deductible. Like, say, the Red Cross or the ASPCA.

Got that? Good.

Now: very often, they have a twin organization called a 501(c)(4), which is a slightly different entity that CAN play politics. C4 contributions aren’t tax-deductible like C3’s, yes, but they DON’T have to reveal WHERE those contributions came from. Anonymous donations are OK, in other words.

If you want to promote, say, dolphin extermination, you might have a Yummy Dolphin Foundation, which is a C3, to “educate the public on the nutritive value of dolphins” AND you would have a C4 to engage in political campaigns to overturn bans on dolphin “harvesting,” which would have the same offices and the same board members, and probably the same employees as the “charity.”

Some groups have twins, which twin again, as in the Citizens for a Sound Economy, which becomes Freedomworks and Freedomworks Foundation, and the Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation, which becomes the Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation.

And so on and so forth, like political paramecia. In this case, the political petrie dish is Oregon. It isn’t just Oregon, or just Freedomworks. But here, out West, we’re just a little state, and these things show up in much sharper relief with a little daylight. Back East, the background noise tends to hide the outlines I’m about to limn here.

We begin: Outside of Springfield, Oregon

Who are we talking about?

Back in 2006, after the whole Howie Rich ballot initiative scheme played out, and tens of millions of dollars were spent, and local media in state after state (Arizona, Washington, California, Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Maine, etc. etc.) asked WHO the stealth funders of their TABOR and eminent public domain and “rainy day” funds and term limits propositions, measures, questions and initiatives finally were, the trail stopped at Howie Rich, and an incurious media stopped right there.

But, as the Center for Public Integrity’s “Takings” project found at the end, virtually all of the funds came from three entities, but they COULD NOT FIND OUT WHO THOSE ENTITIES WERE! They weren’t Howie Rich, though. Rich turned his attentions to South Carolina and his compatriots formed NEW astroturf groups (which is a story for another day), supposedly not associated with Howie.

That 501(c)(4) trick works quite nicely to anonymously slush funds into political campaigns. Only here, we’re talking about an anonymous government.

And that, my friends, is the issue: Is the initiative process a check on corrupt and bribed politicians, or do their shadowy masters now USE that selfsame system AGAINST state legislatures?

And who are these self-anointed masters? Who are our shadowy rulers, who hire the likes of Howie Rich and his sleazy political operatives to write their own laws in states that they do not live in? Imposing their “philosophy” on “We The People” when they don’t even LIVE in the states in question?

Is this “democracy”? Is this “self-governance”?

Here’s how rule by the Shadow Masters works:

The state legislature either passes something that the shadowy benefactors don’t like, or else, they want a law pressing their agenda, and a well-oiled operation springs into being.

heading to MacKenzie Pass from near sea level

Polling is done. A campaign of how to sell it is mapped out.

A “chief petitioner” is found. A “proposition” is minted and filed with the state. (Increasingly, the “chief petitioner” is a front person, to make it appear “grass roots.”)

A new committee is founded. And funded. A C3 and a C4 are incorporated.

C3 is the “charity.” When you give them money, you can write it off your federal income tax, like it was the Red Cross, or Goodwill Industries.

C4 is the “Inc.” and does the politicking. You can give them as much money as you want anonymously, and nobody can ever find out where it came from. Just ask the investigative reporters at the Center for Public Integrity.

the pass into Eastern Oregon

And a website goes up.

An army of “petition gatherers” is hired, generally paid PER signature. A certain number above the required number is gathered, using statistical analysis from prior modeling, etc. Very sophisticated stuff.

the road to the Painted Hills in John Day National Monument

Media companies are hired and the proposal goes on the ballot, with media buys, radio and TV production, printing and mass mailing, and even, with the Howie Rich stuff, audio-visual stunts (the Pig and before that, the “Trojan Horse”, guaranteed to get cheesy puns from the Yokel … er, LOCAL media)*.

[* Gee, that last one sure SOUNDS like the Tea Party FREEDOM bus tours going on at present. Don't worry. It's not an accident, or copycat: Howie Rich's Americans for Limited Government is a co-sponsor. See "By Their Pigs Ye Shall Know Them" for details.]

Painted Hills in John Day National Monument

This whole ball of snakes is like a baobob tree’s branches on an invisible trunk.

So, let’s keep it easy and Oregon:

A “new” set of twins was formed in Oregon in the spring of this year, called “Common Sense for Oregon.”

When you check the registration of their website, this is what comes back:

Domain ID:D155196414-LROR

Domain Name:COMMONSENSEFOROREGON.ORG

Created On:26-Jan-2009 22:29:37 UTC

Last Updated On:28-Mar-2009 03:56:24 UTC

Expiration Date:26-Jan-2011 22:29:37 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)

Registrant ID:GODA-058633060

Registrant Name:Ross Day

Registrant Organization:Chemeketa Community College

Registrant Street1:7831 St Charles St NE

Registrant City:Keizer

Registrant State/Province:Oregon

Registrant Postal Code:97303

Registrant Country:US

Registrant Phone:+1.5033041893

Registrant Email:ross@oia.org

Hmm. That OIA in the email address stands for “Oregonians in Action,” which makes sense, since Ross Day has been a paid employee of Oregonians in Action for many years now.

John Day National Monument sign

Indeed, Ross Day is credited with being “the author of measure 37″ — on which a big chunk of the Howie Rich 2006 campaign was predicated on.*

[* Please note: the error that the Center for Public Integrity made in their investigation was HUGE -- cluelessly, or arrogantly or just plain sloppily, the CPI decided to investigate "takings" -- thus, the "Takings Project" -- and missed the related term limits, TABOR, and other initiatives that the SAME GROUP was pushing. While their investigation was good, they fatally hamstrung it by DEFINING IN ADVANCE what they were looking for ("takings"), rather than following where the trail actually led. CPI has never corrected this error, and their reports invariably exclude as much vital information as they include. This is much like the ill-fated declaration of a "War on Terror" which ultimately is as futile as a war against sand. How you define your goals is of vital importance in determining what goals you actually achieve, or, NEVER LET YOUR WEBSITE DESIGN PREDETERMINE AND DICTATE YOUR CONTENT.]

The fact that Ross Day lists “Chemeketa Community College” as the organization is probably just a clerical error on his part, since it is unlawful for a state educational institution to engage in political activity, which is what “Common Sense for Oregon” does.

But let’s follow the trail, shall we?

From the Portland Oregonian [emphasis added]:

photo: Ross William Hamilton/The Oregonian

Meeting in Salem, (from left) Ross Day, anti-tax activist Russ Walker and former gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix discuss a cluster of new groups they’ve created to serve as a one-stop operation for conservative initiative drives.

Oregon conservatives launch nonprofits to push initiatives

By Dee Lane, The Oregonian

August 01, 2009, 10:00AM

Ross Day is a boyish, earnest lawyer who says his mission is to rescue the most powerful political tool that conservatives have in Democratic-controlled Oregon: the ballot initiative.

Day has joined forces with two of the state’s top conservative political activists — former GOP gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix and anti-tax crusader Russ Walker — to form a petitioning firm and an accompanying think tank aimed at providing a steady supply of credible ballot measures.

“I want people to feel good about the system again,” said Day. “I want to make sure it’s done right.

[...]

Day, previously an attorney for the property rights group Oregonians in Action, said he has long thought that the conservative movement needed to take a more sophisticated approach to ballot measures.

Last year, Day approached Mannix, who agreed to help him get the organizations off the ground. They set up three inter-related organizations — two non-profits and a political action committee — under the shared name of Common Sense for Oregon. By having the different entities, they can engage in a wide variety of political and policy work.

In addition, the trio formed a for-profit petitioning firm called Voice of the Electorate, which they also refer to as Vote Oregon. Day, working out of office space donated by Mannix next to his law firm in Salem, is the chief executive of both nonprofits and the petitioning company.

[...]

Common Sense for Oregon has already filed 14 initiatives and has another three in the works, although Day said the group won’t try to qualify all of them for the ballot.

Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense … Common Sense has also been running radio advertising and promoting a new “Golden Fleece Award” attacking what it regards as examples of wasteful government spending.

Earlier this month, Voice of the Electorate won the contract to gather signatures aimed at forcing a referendum on two tax hikes passed by the Legislature.

So far, the firm has received at least $200,000 from the business coalition seeking the referendum….

Yeah.

But let’s look at the Freedomworks connection here, because that’s the easiest thread to follow.

West of Mitchell, Oregon, East of the Ochoco Mtns.

This year, they started out in June, by gladhanding Teabaggers:

Two-days-until-Liberty-Summit-Sign-up-today!.html

by In the news

Thursday, June 4. 2009

Oregon Liberty Summit

Saturday, June 6

Salem, Red Lion

Sponsored by: FreedomWorks, Oregon Citizens For A Sound Economy PAC, Taxpayer Defense Fund, Taxpayers Association of Oregon, Cascade Policy Institute, Common Sense For Oregon, Contractors Association of Oregon, Oregon Patriots of Resistnet.com, 9-12 Project- Salem, Campaign For Liberty, Concerned Oregonians

Guest Speakers:

Russ Walker- FreedomWorks, Taxpayer Defense Fund, Oregon Citizens For A Sound Economy, Northwest Director

…

Ted Abram, American Institute for Full Employment, President; State Policy Network, FreedomWorks Foundation, Board of Directors

Ross Day, Common Sense for Oregon, Executive Director

Kevin Mannix, Common Sense for Oregon, Oregon Crime Coalition, President

Gee. Freedomworks in Oregon = Mannix, Walker and Day. Some of my long-standing readers might recall that I broke the story that Kevin Mannix (f0rmer state GOP chairman, GOP Gubernatorial and Attorney General candidate) was NATIONAL C3 Freedomworks’ highest paid subcontractor — you know, the one in Washington, D.C. where Dick Armey “runs” the organization? [See: "Kevin Mannix’s Dirty Little Secret" 7 March 2008, and Thursday, 8 March 2007: "Kevin Mannix FreedomWorks' Highest Paid Subcontractor".]

“Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense”

And remember who Freedomworks says they are. From their mission statement [emphasis added]:

Background Statement

Our values are deeply rooted in the philosophy of freedom found in the works of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, and Milton Friedman … Our commitment to overcome all obstacles is inspired by the leadership of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan [?].

The bold red are pretty hard-core libertarian — although, perhaps tellingly, there is no mention of the (Robert) Heinleinian strain of that philosophy of unfettered individualism, a/k/a “The virtue of selfishness,” as Rand once assayed in her essay. And, oddly, why all the secrecy and subterfuge? Why the mystery? At any event, for Oregon, our Ayn Rand Supermen representatives are presently Mannix, Walker and Day.

“Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense”

More than that, Day would not say.

From the 2006 tax return (a 990 Charitable return, which is a public record):

The Oregonian dug up another tax return (2005) and found that Mannix had received over half-a-million dollars, which they noted in their story about Mannix paying off all his late campaign debts in one day with about half a million dollars to run for last year’s open congressional seat. Mannix’s funky finances torpedoed his campaign, but he still ran some ballot measures (all of which lost).

“Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense”

Well, the 2008 tax returns have now become available for public inspection, and guess what? Kevin Mannix remains Freedomworks’ TOP C3 contractor for 2008 with $171,000. (Up from $85,000 in 2007).

Freedomworks’ 2008 501(c)(3) 990 click to download

But aren’t there 49 other states in the USA? you ask. Evidently not to Freedomworks. When not organizing Tea Parties, they’re up to their eyeballs in Oregon affairs. Take a look at who ELSE is on the Freedomworks gravy train (same tax return – FreedomWorks Oregon Director is Russ Walker, not Richard Walker. Clerical error by tax preparer):

Click for 2008 page facsimile (and note Dick Armey’s salary)

Yup. $131,032.00. Freedomworks’ Oregon State Director (the only state director listed) got more cash from Freedomworks’ C3, C4 and “other” than the Governor of Oregon for the same period — which was, according to multiple sources, $93,600.

Vail, Oregon (Near the Idaho Border)

That’s $37,432 worth of difference between privately legislating for Freedomworks and legislating as the highest ranking public servant in the state of Oregon.

“Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense”

(Of course, one supposes that Freedomworks expects Russ Walker to do MORE legislating than the Oregon governor. And, seemingly, he does.)

(no more information available)

One of the nice things about starting new C3’s and C4’s is that it hides your paper trail. Given that the standard practice is to delay filing the tax return until the last possible extension deadline (usually November 15 of the following year), don’t expect to see ANY hard financial data from a tax return on Common Sense for Oregon until (at the earliest) December of 2011. Convenient for the 2010 elections, don’t you think?

note the Orwellian “green” motif

of the logo; does anyone believe that

this color choice was an “accident”?

(Just in case you wondered why anyone would want to keep creating new C3 and C4 entities.)

On the Idaho border @ Ontario, Oregon

That’s two of the three principals of the “new” “Common Sense” group, Mannix and Walker. What about the third? Ross Day?

Glad you asked.

Well, aside from working for the evil state government as adjunct faculty at Chemeketa Community College (formerly the Salem Technical-Vocational School, until 1969) — as Day lists on the CommonSenseforOregonDOTorg website registration above, implying that the Community College is somehow involved or ENDORSES “Common Sense for Oregon,” inappropriately, as the lawyer who WROTE Measure 37 OUGHT to know — conservative/libertarian blog Oregon Catalyst tells us (note the date):

Ross Day leaves OIA. Begins private practice.

by In the news

Thursday, February 5. 2009

After many years of fighting to protect property rights with Oregonians In Action, the esteemed attorney Ross Day is heading to Salem to begin private practice including working for the Common Sense Committee. This also brings him closer to his family where he lives in Marion County. Ross has been a valuable partner to OIA and a dear friend to landowners across Oregon.

Posted by In the news at 07:30

That represents, as we shall see, a significant loss of revenue for Ross Day. From Oregonians In Action’s latest C4 tax return for 2006* (as is normal, the “extension” went to November 15, 2007, and OIA’s president signed it on November 15, 2007, as late as it’s possible to hold off on filing):

click to download the full tax return

[* NOTE: OIA comprises FOUR separate tax entities:

• Oregonians in Action, Inc. (501(c)(4) political entity)
• Oregonians in Action Legal Center (501(c)(3) charity)
• Oregonians in Action Education Center (501(c)(3) charity)
• Oregonians in Action Fund (501(c)(3) charity)

So that you can give to three of 'em and take a deduction from your federal tax return as a "charity." The rest of us then subsidize the activity by making up the shortfall in taxes. I continue to be AGAINST this scam by ALL parties. Politick on your OWN money, please. Not mine.]

Gee. Before the “perks” and add-ons, Day was making slightly LESS than the Oregon Governor. But with them, he made more, $108,822 — appropriate for the “author” of Measure 37, the “develop it all” initiative of 2004.

Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense

Now, there’s a lot more. I’ve followed Freedomworks’ money into the triumvirate of Kevin Mannix, Russell Walker and Ross Day. Tomorrow, we’ll see how that money moves back out. Or, perhaps, IN.

What’s important to note here is that:

1. “Common Sense for Oregon” was formed as a C4 and C3 organization this spring by two of Freedomworks’ highest paid employees, in the ONLY state that Freedomworks is channeling significant cash into.
2. That the third member of the triumvirate, Ross Day, is a long time well-compensated employee of an ideologically affiliated organization “Oregonians in Action” and a longtime “initiative” player.
3. That “Common Sense for Oregon” (typically) refuses to tell WHO is backing it, and
4. Oh yeah ….

“Common Sense for Oregon” has literally stolen the late Senator William Proxmire’s (D, Wisc.) well-known “Golden Fleece Award,” revived in2000 by the actually non-partisan and well-regarded Taxpayers for Common Sense, and, following this blatant act of intellectual (while legal) theft, are presenting themselves as ‘champions against government “waste” ‘ and big-time ethical operators.

Yeah. Right. Sure. Some kind of ethics.

National Audience: This is the drama being played out nationally and, for me, locally.

Oregon Audience: Regarding what you’re reading: Sins of Omissi0n? Yes.

Oregon’s “secret legislature” uses several groups and we have had several “professional” initiative filers through the years, but I am paring it down to keep things as simple as possible. That the complexity in design is intentional, cannot be in doubt, most likely to KEEP reporters from tracking these endlessly politically incestuous relationships, as noted in the “Our Oreg0n” blog in May of 2006:

IP24 Judges by District and IP57 Eminent Domain – All tangled up with Oregonians in Action, Oregon Family Farm Association ($100,000 from Loren Parks this cycle), Oregon Citizens for a Sound Economy, timber interests, FreedomWorks and Democracy Direct. Loans every which way.

and, further down (just to give you a flavor):

Crazy PAC Coincidences

OIA PAC is making in-kind contributions of phone calls to the following cozy friends:

IP6 TABOR campaign

Larry George for State Senate

Ross Day

IP90 Jessica’s Law

PO Box 1304 in Silverton is soooooo popular. It is shared by:

Friends of Karen Minnis PAC

Oregon Financial Services Association (a PAC representing payday lenders)

The Speaker’s PAC

Friends of Gary George

Keep Our Daughters Safe Committee (IP51: Parental Notification)

The Leadership Fund (for Republican candidates for the Oregon Senate)

Majority 2006

Healthpac & Healthpac II (for IP112)

And so on and so forth.

The “initiative” process, pioneered by Oregon in 1904, as a means of stopping corrupt and bribed legislators stalling needed reforms has been co-opted by the corrupters and bribers to STOP the Oregon legislature from making needed reforms.

Oregon, just before the the Idaho border

This year, the shadowy masters of Freedomworks have decided to undo the entire state budget on a “no taxes!” basis, and guess what? That brand new company from brand new “Common Sense for Oregon” Mannix, Walker and Day “Voice of the Electorate, which they also refer to as Vote Oregon?

So far, they’ve raked in $550,000, hired ex-felons to petition and are being financed by a “new” campaign committee called The Stop Job Killing Taxes Committee.

WOW! Oregon tax referendum drive nets 125,000 signatures!

by In the news

Friday, September 25. 2009

Taxpayer Association of Oregon breaking news,

Picture: Grassroots coordinator Paulette Pyle speaks in front of a massive stack of referendum petition boxes. Left is Ross Day of Common Sense for Oregon. On the right is Russ Walker (Freedomworks) and Andrew Over (State Director Oregon GOP).

The Stop Job Killing Taxes campaign turned in an incredible 129,500 signatures (petition 301) and 126,183 (petition 302) which is more than double the needed requirement.

The rally at the steps of the Secretary of State’s office was led by Paulette Pyle a veteran grassroots activists [sic] and agriculture-forestry advocate.... Jeff Kropf of Americans for Prosperity Oregon Chapter spoke and said “It is wrong to raise taxes in a recession which will cost jobs at the same time when the state has five billion in reserves and is hiring new employees.” A chart near Jeff Kropf showed how private sector jobs dropped by over 70,000 while government jobs grew.

Russ Walker spoke on how over 10,000 Freedomworks volunteers helped circulate petitions and created a flood of volunteer signatures.” [...]

Oddly, Russ Walker didn’t seem to say anything about the petition gatherers that his brand new company was paid half a million dollars to hire for the petitions. But then, Freedomworks IS paying him $131,0oo per annum — maybe even so fast he can’t keep up with it — and he ought to put his employers’ interests ahead of his own pecuniary pursuits.

Unless, of course, they coincide.

Sunrise over Boise, Idaho. End of first leg of vacation.

And we still don’t know who the shadow masters actually are.

In 2006, using Howard Rich and his many front groups as a front themselves, three persons or entities attempted to act as a self-appointed legislature — a political star chamber — in dozens of states, from coast to coast, California to Maine. And they spent tens of millions of dollars to do so.

And we still have no idea who those three shadowy figures were. Right now, shadowy forces have decided to overturn the budget that the Oregon legislature painstakingly and painfully spent half of this year creating.

The special election is in January.

Perhaps it’s representative democracy, but I’d sure as hell like to know WHO it is that Mannix, Walker and Day are representing. Because that doesn’t seem like democracy at all.

More like oligarchy, or perhaps plutocracy, certainly a dubious sort of ‘representative’ democracy when you don’t know who’s being represented by slick ads, slick political operatives, and slick new companies, C4’s, C3’s and the rest of it.

Who elected the shadow government, please? And can I have MY vote back?

Mannix, Walker and Day: Freedomworks team for Oregon?

“Day refused to say who is giving money to Common Sense”

Day won’t say. No way, José. Say hey? No way. OK? OK. Day no se. Oy vey. Odelay.

(next: we follow the money some more)

Now, isn’t that a scary Halloween story?

Courage.

h/t to K.C. VanNatta

Although Kerry may eventually support a troop surge in Afghanistan he said that “before additional troops are deployed to the country, three conditions must be met: sufficient Afghan troops; reliable local partners; and enough development aid to buttress military progress.”

“Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the president should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative,” Kerry said.

Kerry also blasted Dick Cheney for accusing President Barack Obama of “dithering” on the troop decisions:

Click here to view the embedded video.

“After eight years of neglecting Afghanistan as vice president, Dick Cheney has now come out of retirement to criticize President Obama for taking time to examine assumptions before sending troops into war,” Kerry said.

“Make no mistake,” he continued:

“Because of the gross mishandling of this war by past civilian leadership, there are no great options for its handling today. One American officer captured well our lack of a strategy when he said, ‘We haven’t been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years. We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for one year eight times in a row.’ That is our inheritance.”

The full text of Kerry’s speech to the Council on Foreign Relations is as follows:

Thank you, David, for your kind introduction and more importantly for your terrific reporting over the years.  David’s most recent book, The Inheritance, makes the point that while President Obama took office with great promise, his predecessor left him with some very thorny problems and few good options.  And nowhere is that inheritance more fraught than in Afghanistan. On day one, this Administration assumed responsibility for a war heading from strategic drift to a dangerous decline.   Now it falls to all of us to get this right.

I recently traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan, the culmination of several months of asking tough questions and reexamining the assumptions that will drive decisions of enormous consequence.   I believe President Obama has been right to deliberate and take the time necessary to find the best policy.  And Americans are right to be asking whether the objectives are achievable and worth the sacrifice, questions tragically underscored by the deaths of 14 American troops and civilians in two helicopter crashes today.  Many of us know too well the price of sending troops into a war where the strategy hasn’t been fully thought through.  The responsibility never to put troops in that position lies not just with the President—though it is his principal decision—or the generals, but with all of us, as Americans.

What began as a fact-finding trip ended with several days of talks with President Karzai to resolve a dispute over the Afghan presidential elections.  You may have read that it takes Three Cups of Tea to make a deal in Afghanistan—well, let me tell you, it took us a lot more than that.  I came home with a fresh reminder of the extraordinary challenges we face, but also with the belief that there is a way forward.

David Sanger mentioned that in 1971 I asked the Foreign Relations Committee “how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”  Thirty-eight years later chairing the Committee, I keep that question very much in mind. This journey, however, begins in a different place. In September 2001, mass murder was plotted against us from Afghan soil, and we needed to remove the threat. With certainty, we all know why we invaded Afghanistan. It was not a mistake to go in.  We now have to choose a smart way forward so that no one is compelled to ask whether we’ve made a mistake in staying.

The easiest way to make a mistake is to tolerate a debate that sells our country short.   In recent weeks, politics has reduced an extraordinarily complex country in an extraordinarily complex region and a difficult mission to a simple, headline-ready “yes or no” on troop numbers.  That debate is completely at odds with reality.  What we need, above all, what our troops deserve– and what we haven’t had– is a comprehensive strategy, military and civilian combined.

After eight years of neglecting Afghanistan as Vice President, Dick Cheney has come out of retirement to criticize President Obama for taking the time to examine assumptions before sending troops into war.  This from the man who in 2002 told America that “the Taliban regime is out of business, permanently.”  I think this is the one time I wish Dick Cheney had been right.

But tragically, he wasn’t and he isn’t today, and that’s why we have to make tough choices about Afghanistan now.

Make no mistake: because of the gross mishandling of this war by past civilian leadership, there are no great options for its handling today.   One American officer captured well our lack of a strategy when he said: “We haven’t been fighting in Afghanistan for eight years.  We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan for one year, eight times in a row.”  That is our inheritance.

President Obama began his strategic reevaluation in March of this year, after he did what he promised to do and sent an additional 21,000 troops to Afghanistan—the most recent of whom just arrived in country.  Now he is wrestling with what comes next, with the knowledge that all options involve real costs and significant risks.

I believe if we redefine our strategy and objectives to focus on what is achievable as well as critical, and empower the Afghans to take control of their own future, that will give us the best chance to succeed.  Yes, legitimate questions remain about just what it takes to achieve our goals in Afghanistan.  Yes, Afghanistan is but one of a number of pressing national threats, challenges, and priorities.  The $243 billion price tag is staggering. And yes, many of our stakes there are indirect.  But make no mistake:  the costs of failure are very real.

In 2001, Al Qaeda maneuvered with impunity in Afghanistan. Today we have killed or captured many top leaders, and few remain there.  As a result of this reality, many Americans are legitimately asking, why commit our soldiers and tens of billions of dollars to prevent Al Qaeda from returning to Afghanistan, when they could organize the next attack from Somalia, Yemen, Frankfurt or even from an internet chat room?   People want to know, why stay in Afghanistan?  And especially, why consider an increase in troops?

First, we start from the premise that Al Qaeda remains at the center of our mission.   They still want to attack us, they are still trying to attack us, and we have interrupted plots globally over the last few years.  But it’s an awful lot harder to plan new attacks when they are boxed in, harassed, and living in fear.   We are, as we ought to be, committed to hunt Al Qaeda wherever they go.   Bin Laden and his deputies in Northwest Pakistan haven’t gone far, and to keep them on the run, we must prevent the Taliban – with long-standing ties to Al Qaeda—from once again providing terrorists with an unfettered Afghan safe haven, just across a border that many there view as mere abstraction. 

We must also remember that our Afghan mission takes place in the context of a global counterinsurgency. If we, the United States and our allies, are perceived as incapable of doing the job, I think it would help extremists recruit and raise doubt —not just in the region, but globally—about our resolve and our effectiveness.  And I can only imagine the many conversations Americans will have with leaders from around the world when you sit there and you say, “we have to do this” or “you have to do that,” and they say, “what are you committed to doing? And why should we believe that you are?”

Second, what happens in Afghanistan has an impact on Pakistan.  Pakistan is not only the headquarters of Al Qaeda today but could eventually become the epicenter of extremism in the world. We have enormous strategic interest in the outcome of the struggle in Pakistan.  It is a fragile democracy that is fighting a determined insurgency.   It has a full nuclear arsenal and a longstanding, sometimes violent rivalry with its neighbor, India.  While stabilizing Afghanistan is not going to solve all of our problems in Pakistan, instability in Afghanistan can only increase the risk of conflagration where the world can least afford it: next door in Pakistan.

Given the balance of our strategic interests, it should give serious pause to military and civilian strategists alike that the current balance of our expenditure between Afghanistan, where there is virtually no Al Qaeda, and Pakistan, where there is, tallies thirty-to-one. That’s why, regardless of what happens in Afghanistan—and especially if we want to reduce the need for boots on the ground over the long haul—it is vitally important that we intensify our support and improve our cooperation with Pakistan. 

So these are the stakes: preventing Afghanistan from becoming a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and destabilizing Pakistan and the region. The challenge is to establish realistic goals about how to do that. That starts with a clear definition of success.  I define success as the ability to empower and transfer responsibility to Afghans as rapidly as possible and achieve a sufficient level of stability to ensure that we can leave behind an Afghanistan that is not controlled by Al Qaeda or the Taliban.  

Absent any truly good choices, we must ask a simple question:  What is doable? 

Achieving our goals does not require us to build a flawless democracy, defeat the Taliban in every corner of the country, or create a modern economy—what we’re talking about is “good-enough” governance, basic sustainable economic development, and Afghan security forces capable enough that we can drawdown our forces.  

The truth is, we do need to maintain a sustained long-term commitment to the Afghan people, something we do in many countries around the world as a matter of securing America’s national security interests. Doing so gives them the assurance they need to reject the Taliban, whom most already despise.  But the nature of our commitment must evolve away from a U.S.-military dominated effort and toward support for Afghan institutions and Afghan answers.  And it only makes sense to continue moving forward if our commitment is reciprocated by the Afghans themselves in the form of improved governance and increased Afghan capacity—civilian and military—something that President Karzai and his Cabinet and I discussed at great length. 

That’s why the cornerstone of our strategy must be to empower and transfer responsibility to the Afghans.  That’s the whole ballgame.  Which means that we need to ask ourselves at every turn: “will this help the Afghan people take responsibility for their country?”—and where the answer is no, we probably shouldn’t be doing it. 

So how do we get there?  Our strategy has to be informed by two basic truths.   First of all, we can’t draw down large of numbers of troops today in order to shift to a narrow counterterrorism mission.  Second, we simply don’t have enough troops or resources to launch a broad, nationwide counterinsurgency campaign.  But importantly, nor do we need to. 

We all see the appeal of a limited counterterrorism mission— and no doubt it is part of the endgame.  But I don’t think we’re there yet.  A narrow mission that cedes half the country to the Taliban could lead to civil war and put Pakistan at risk.  Moreover, the hardest part of counterterrorism operations isn’t killing the terrorists, it’s finding them.   Developing intelligence assets and capabilities should be one of our top priorities because it lets us transition to a more limited presence that still safeguards our interests.  And I believe there are ways to set up various platforms and capacities to achieve that far more effectively than we are today.  But for now, we need boots on the ground to get that kind of information. 

On the other hand, we cannot and should not undertake manpower-intensive counterinsurgency operations on a national scale in Afghanistan.   Most experts say it would take 400,000 to 600,000 effective international and Afghan troops for a fully-resourced COIN effort.   That is not what General McChrystal is saying, but it is encompassed in many people’s thoughts of what they wish to happen in Afghanistan.   Fortunately, achieving our defined mission does not require such a commitment. We don’t have to control every hamlet and village, particularly when large non-Pashtun sections of the country are already hostile to the Taliban. Our allies, together with the populations of these non-Pashtun areas, which make up about 60% of the country—Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen, Hazara—can help to reduce America’s principal effort to the southern and eastern theatres—and limit it to major population centers.

We have already begun implementing a counterinsurgency strategy—but I believe that right now it needs to be as narrowly focused as possible.  We must be very wary of overextension.  And I am particularly concerned about the potential for us to be viewed as foreign occupiers.  Riding around in an armored personnel carrier, as I did when I was there, and seeing the faces through the window of Afghans watching these monster vehicles go by, you get an eerie sense of the disconnect that Afghans must experience.  It was an image I recognized from forty years ago—a stare that I came to know and understand.  Look—we are not the Soviets. We’re not there to colonize, to conquer, to remake Afghanistan in our image, or to impose an ideology on its people. But it is too easy for our well-intentioned presence to be misread, and for civilian casualties to stoke resentment and resistance.   The Administration is right to be deeply concerned by the reality that, as our footprint has increased, so has the number of insurgents. 

I am convinced from my conversations with General Stanley McChrystal that he understands the necessity of conducting a smart counterinsurgency in a limited geographic area—and I’m grateful to the General for his time both in Afghanistan and recently on the phone.  But I believe his current plan reaches too far, too fast.  We do not yet have the critical guarantees of governance and development capacity—the other two legs of counterinsurgency.  And I have serious concerns about the ability to produce effective Afghan forces to partner with, so we can ensure that when our troops make heroic sacrifices, the benefits to the Afghans are actually clear and sustainable.  

With that in mind, decisions about additional troops should be informed by an assessment of the following three conditions.

First, are there enough reliable Afghan forces to partner with American troops—and eventually to take over responsibility for security?  The quickest way out of Afghanistan for our troops is to speed up the training and mentoring of the Afghan National Army and police so that they can defend their own country. The current goal is to increase the number of trained Afghan National Army troops from 92,000 to 134,000 by December 2011 and General McChrystal reportedly is trying to complete that within the next year.  Key to that will be giving them as much on-the-job training as possible, as soon as possible.  Partnering with Afghans is also a crucial way to relieve the palpable strain of having foreign troops on Afghan soil. 

The second question to ask is, are there local leaders we can partner with?  We have to be able to identify and cooperate with tribal, district and provincial leaders who command the authority to help deliver services and restore Afghans’ faith in their own government.

Third, is the civilian side ready to follow swiftly with development aid that brings tangible benefits to the local population?  When they support our troops, Afghans need to see their lives improve.

General McChrystal himself has made clear there is no purely military solution and the number of troops misses the point entirely. His now-famous assessment said there is an “urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate.”    Ladies and gentlemen, McChrystal’s words hit the nail on the head.  And the key now is to make sure that civilian leadership guarantees that. 

The bottom line is that deploying additional troops won’t result in sustainable gains if the Afghan security, civilian and governance capacity isn’t there — and right now, as our generals will tell you, in many places, it isn’t.  Several were very frank that they were confident about the security side, but they also said their work will fail without an effective civilian strategy. Progress on this front is expected in the coming months with a significant influx of U.S. civilians and efforts to work with the Afghan government to implement reforms.

That’s why the right debate isn’t simply about how and why and when to deploy troops.  It’s not how many troops that matters most – it’s what they do.  The debate ought to be about how best to create conditions that foster progress in Afghanistan.  And you can’t have a serious discussion about numbers until you have answered these questions.

Under the right circumstances, if we can be confident that military efforts can be sustained and built upon, then I would support the President should he decide to send some additional troops to regain the initiative.  But let me be clear: absent an urgent strategic imperative, we need a valid assessment by the President and other appropriate civilian authorities – not just the military — that those three conditions will be met before we consider sending more soldiers and Marines to clear new areas. 

And it is important to remember that, even if President Obama gives the green light for more troops, as of now the military can only deploy one brigade roughly every three months.   According to our senior military leadership, by the end of 2010 we will have a good idea whether our strategy is working. So it is important to remember that we will have ample opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of this strategy as we go forward.

Progress on governance will be key, and we will have an opportunity to measure that.   When I arrived in Afghanistan, there was a real worry that an electoral deadlock would drift into an extended period of chaos that benefitted the Taliban.   Over several days of talks with President Karzai, I got to know him a lot better.  We spoke about our families and Afghanistan’s history, about his father’s assassination and his own journey home from Pakistan, and discussed his aspirations for the country and his concerns about the US –Afghan relationship; he voiced his worry that Afghan Pashtuns were being treated unfairly, and yes, we even vented over the frustrations of Presidential elections. 

President Karzai and Dr. Abdullah’s decision last week to agree to hold a run-off election shows that both men are willing to put their country ahead of politics.  But that result is not an end in itself.  It will only matter if we use it as an opening to strengthen our partners and fix the problems of governance. The truth is, the decisions made and actions taken in the weeks and months ahead will be what really give meaning to that moment.   If this is to be a turning point, we must strengthen the capacity of the Afghan government and insist that its leaders embrace lasting reforms. This must include addressing the problems caused by corrupt officials at every level of government. Obviously that won’t be easy, but it is essential to any chance of success.

To achieve good governance, we also have to redefine the Afghan government beyond Kabul. Just as US city and state governments are expected to deliver education, sanitation, and electricity regardless of who sits in the White House, the Afghan government has to have a face at the district and provincial levels. A more decentralized approach increases accountability and provides better services. 

We also need to respect Afghan heritage and work with the tribes.   I saw firsthand how powerful tribal elders can be in deciding the future of their communities.  We can be strict in using development aid, political support, and even the presence of troops to bolster effective tribal leaders and sideline those who are hostile or ineffective.  We stand to benefit greatly if we can build up a better tribal intelligence and personal network across the country, particularly in the Pashtun belt.  We have to incorporate Afghan cultural norms, such as local and tribal dispute resolution mechanisms, to help Afghans provide the justice and security they demand.  Amazingly, the Taliban actually have ombudsmen to hold their shadow government accountable to the people.   The legitimate government of Afghanistan cannot be less accountable than the Taliban, or we cannot be successful. 

If effective governance is to take hold—and I believe our mission depends on it—then our Afghan partners must tackle corruption at the highest levels.   The fact that the Afghan government has not prosecuted a single high-level drug trafficker damages all our other efforts because it goes to the question of credibility.   The narcotics trade – which generates about 90% of the world’s heroin and $3 billion a year in profits – not only fuels the insurgency, but also finances the corruption that corrodes governance. 

Effective governance must also respect women’s voices.    Afghan women’s groups have fought hard to have a seat at the table, and we should support these indigenous efforts because one of the easiest ways to empower Afghans is to empower Afghan women.

Hand in hand with better governance, we need to promote basic sustainable economic development, which persuades Afghans we’re on their side.  That means the international community must assemble and resource a real civilian strategy to build the base for a stable Afghanistan.  Until now, donors have lacked coordination, discipline, and a national plan.  Provincial reconstruction teams differ in their mandate, make up, and mission, with dozens of countries carving out their own chunk of Afghanistan.  That approach isn’t sustainable, and it just doesn’t work.  

A coordinated strategy of good government and economic development is central to any strategy for success.  In a counterinsurgency, the people are the center of gravity and winning their support is the heart of the battle.

Fortunately, the Taliban are far from an insurmountable force.  Their brand of extremism rose out of the ashes of the brutal Soviet occupation and America’s abandonment.  There was literally chaos at the time the Taliban took over.  But this is not 1996. Neither we nor the Afghans themselves will let the Taliban return to power. The Taliban do not represent a unified national movement like the one we faced in Vietnam, nor do they currently represent the kind of ethnic divide we faced in Iraq. There are only a few thousand hardcore, ideological, irreconcilable Taliban, about thirty percent of the total.  Many other fighters are motivated by anger at a Kabul government they see as corrupt and ineffective.  Others are essentially common criminals, using the Taliban cause to justify drug dealing, kidnapping, and extortion.  Still others simply seek a daily wage, or the safety of joining a movement on the upswing.  So, the Taliban is a loose confederation, with widely varying goals and motivations.   Many can be lured away by the right combination of money, diplomacy, reintegration into society, and smart outreach to Pashtun tribal leaders—including those who currently back the Taliban. 

If we can provide basic economic development, we will go a long way toward winning over the Afghan people.  Afghanistan is an agrarian society whose population is among the poorest on earth. Their needs are simple.  They are not asking for their society to be transformed overnight.    But they are frustrated by the slow, almost invisible, pace of progress.

Clearly development must be improved, but we have some notable successes to build on.  Today, 84 percent of Afghans have access to basic health care—ten times the number in 2002.  Infant mortality rates are down 22 percent. Under the Taliban, only 900,000 children were in school – and no girls. Today, over 6 million children are enrolled in schools, and two million are girls.  In 2002, Afghanistan had only 50 kilometers of intact, paved roads.  Today, over 2,700 km of roads have been paved and 80% of Afghans now live within 50 kilometers of the Ring Road, giving them access to markets, health, and educational facilities.  

These real successes tell us we need to seek out good Afghan leadership and invest in it; embrace a standardized, national approach for international donors to work together; and invest in Afghan-led programs like the National Solidarity Program.  

Our international allies have a crucial role to play.  The decision by NATO defense ministers to affirm an increase in military and civilian contributions is commendable —and long overdue. NATO ministers must now back up these words with a solid commitment – including new troops, trainers and development support.

Better integrating individual NATO countries’ efforts into a national, unified command structure would also help enormously.  The UN must also do more to better coordinate civilian efforts.

So here’s the bottom line: the United States cannot do it alone.  And there is something wrong with the fact that today we are borrowing money from China to provide security for Afghanistan, so that China can mine Afghan copper. We want all nations to trade with and invest in Afghanistan.  We also want their help stabilizing the country. 

What happens inside Afghanistan is important to our strategic interests.   But our goals and our mission don’t end at Afghanistan’s borders. No front is more important in our fight against international terrorism than nuclear-armed Pakistan—and chaos next door in Afghanistan would have enormous repercussions there.

We have a real stake in supporting allies in Pakistan and improving our relationship with the people. That’s why we committed to providing the Pakistani people with $1.5 billion for each of the next five years to build schools, hospitals and roads.  We need to make clear that we respect their sovereignty as we give Pakistan vital breathing space to deal with its difficult domestic problems.

These are serious challenges for Pakistan’s civilian, military, and intelligence leaders. Historically Pakistani intelligence services have used the Taliban as a hedge, and there is a real concern that that continues.  If we falter in Afghanistan, factions within Pakistan may well determine it is in their interest to strengthen their dealings with extremists.   The good news is that right now, many Pakistanis recognize that they face an existential challenge from within their borders. 

The Pakistani military has demonstrated firm resolve with its current offensive against the Pakistani Taliban in Waziristan and they deserve great credit for that. We need to be doing as much as possible to assist the Pakistani military as they go after domestic extremists. Nothing will do more to help tighten the vise on the remnants of Al Qaeda. America and the international community must reassure Pakistanis that tackling this challenge will lead to a lasting partnership with real economic and security benefits.

We should be reaching out regionally and globally to Moscow, Beijing, Delhi and Central Asia—and also to Tehran.  We should explore ways to cooperate with each of them, because each has direct interests in Afghanistan. 

None of this will be easy, but there is a path forward if we focus on what is achievable.  We can’t build a modern nation from scratch, but we can create policies that shift responsibility and resources to Afghans to build their own country at their own pace. 

Last week, I saw this firsthand when I took a helicopter ride from  Kandahar in southern Afghanistan to the fiercely contested Helmand Province. This area was once the breadbasket of Afghanistan, a place where agriculture thrived on irrigation canals built by American engineers in the 1950s and 1960s. Today, drug traffickers and insurgents have transformed it into the world’s largest producer of opium for heroin.

In the district of Garmsir, I met with 275 village elders who had convened a tribal shura in the courtyard of the district governor’s office. The elders told me that they were happy that our troops had brought a measure of peace to such a troubled place, where not long ago the Taliban ran rampant.

They were pleased to see better security. They were pleased with provincial Governor Mangal.  But they told me in no uncertain terms what they really wanted:   “We have no drinking water in my family compound,” one elder said. “No wells, no canals, and no infrastructure.”  In short, even in the midst of the conflict, what they really wanted was basic services —some improvement in their lives.

If we can help Afghans dig the wells and dredge the canals asked for by this village elder in Garmsir, then I am convinced that together we can marginalize the Taliban across Afghanistan.   This is a microcosm of what needs to happen wherever our troops are.  It underscores how much we need to strengthen our civilian assistance and develop a coordinated approach that targets our resources on the people and places where we can show measurable successes to the Afghan people.

We should remember the words of George Kennan, one of our wisest diplomats and a member of this Council for 59 years. His 1966 testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee was about another war, but it rings true today. He said: “Our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determining the political realities in any other country…  This is not only not our business, but I don’t think we can do it successfully.”

We need to stay focused on what we can do successfully:  Do what is possible.  Support our troops.  Choose the right missions.  Train Afghans and build capacity. Regain the initiative and reverse the Taliban’s momentum.

It is not our mission to determine the political realities of Afghanistan, and it shouldn’t be. That job belongs to the Afghans themselves.  But, with the right strategy–rightly debated, rightly defined, and rightly adopted– we can empower the Afghan people to choose their own destiny.  We can increase our leverage against extremists, strengthen the democratic government in Pakistan and ultimately do what we all want to do:  Bring our troops home.   Thank you. 

The full video of Kerry’s speech is available here on the Council on Foreign Relations website.

“In less than a year, with his inspiring messages of humility, dialogue and peace, President Obama has significantly lessened the tensions in the world, in the Middle East (University of Cairo speech), in relations with Russia, Iran, Venezuela,” Jose Ramos-Horta recently wrote on the Huffington PostInternet website. “President Obama’s conciliatory approach, the depth of his intellect and vision of peace, have won over many millions of people.”

Ramos-Horta is president of East Timor. He received his peace prize in 1996.

“By giving hope to the millions of disfranchised, the poor and the angry in Middle East, Asia and Africa, President Obama has begun to drain the swamp in which Al Qaeda and other extremist groups operate and recruit,” he added. “One should not underestimate the power of President Obama’s oratory and conciliatory approach; it has had the effect of, at least, rescuing many young and angry from sliding further into extremism.”

Maybe that’s why Al Qaeda denounced the awarding of this year’s Peace Prize to Obama. The Republicans and Rush Limbaugh, the de facto GOP head, piled on, claiming the honor is a fraud and an embarrassment.

The Democrats shot back, pointing out that the Taliban and Hamas also were in high dudgeon over the prize going to Obama. “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists…,” said a statement from Brad Woodhouse, Democratic National Committee communications director. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize — an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride — unless of course you are the Republican Party.”

Woodhousereloaded and fired again: “The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim.”

It’s not embarrassing to Limbaugh and his soul-mates who rule the Republican roost. You can’t shame them.

They operate by two simple rules. First, if Obama’s for it, they’re against it, and vice versa. Second, never, ever, give the president credit for anything, even if it means agreeing with America’s mortal enemies.

Remember Sen. Jim Demint’s perhaps too candid comment on health care reform? “If we’re able to stop Obama on this it will be his Waterloo,” the South Carolina Republican gleefully predicted. “It will break him.”

Handing Obama a world of Waterloos is the Limbaughite Republican M.O.

But the Limbaughites are scared stiff they met their Waterloo last November. They worry Obama is the future and they are the past.

Limbaugh bloviates. His “tea bagger” buddies whoop and holler. It’s just bluster.

The tea parties are more than Obama trash fests. They are group hug sessions for angst-ridden “birthers,” “deathers,” gun nuts, neo-Confederates, homophobes, religious bigots, union-bashers, loopy libertarians and assorted other right-wing crazies that make up much of the GOP’s base these days.

Of course, consequential presidents are always controversial. They excite strong passions. It was hard for the body politic to get too worked up over, say, Millard Fillmore or Chester A. Arthur.

It’s the great presidents who generate great fervor. Most Americans loved two of our greatest: Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But those who hated them hated them viscerally. “I should relish his groans and agonies if I could see him put to torture in hell or anywhere else,” a pro-slavery Kentuckian said of Lincoln. “He has chosen to become the representative of the Republican Party and as such I should like to hang him.”

Father Charles Coughlin, the anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi father of hate radio and Limbaugh’s spiritual forebear, loathed FDR. Coughlin accused the president of “leaning toward international socialism or sovietism.” I could retire if I had a dime for every time I’ve heard Limbaugh and his sidekicks call Obama a “socialist.”

It’s way too early to say Obama’s another Lincoln or a Roosevelt. But his election was consequential.

Meanwhile, I’m going to keep saying it as long as the Limbaughites – almost all of them white folks — keep denying it: they hate this president mainly because he’s not a white guy.

Nearly every one of the tea party goers is white. That’s not a coincidence.

The Limbaughites just can’t accept the fact that America elected an African American president. In desperation, they have tried to de-legitimize his presidency by claiming he’s not really an American. It’s a convenient way to slam him without overtly playing the race card. Of course, they say he was born in Africa.

Anyway, we history teachers are prone to use the past to help explain the present. The Limbaughites remind me of slave state whites in 1860. The election of President Abraham Lincoln that year signaled a big change was coming, a change the white supremacists despised: slavery was on the way out.

The white folks in 11 slave states seceded from the Union because they were sure that Lincoln and the “Black Republicans” were about to free the slaves. They lost the Civil War.

The Obama haters fear they are losing, too. They wait in mortal dread for other shoes to drop: Obama gets a health care bill. The economy perks up. The Democrats win big next November. Obama wins another term in 2012.

Berry Craig is the author of True Tales of Old-Time Kentucky Politics: Bombast, Bourbon and Burgoo.

We are being told to fear the swine flu virus, and then learn that the vaccine, which was supposed to be available in mid-October, won’t be ready for awhile.

It makes little difference anyhow, since about fifty million Americans don’t have health insurance and couldn’t afford the cost of vaccinations or treatment.

The ogres of health reform, also known as Republicans and the insurance industry, have already frightened Americans by spewing lies and hatreds no costumed kid could ever top.

The teabaggers, thousands of Americans dressed in work clothes but who seem to despise the working class, disgorge even more lies, half-truths, fear, and hatred, along with spurts of poisonous doses of racism and bigotry, since they have to blame someone for their own problems.

The minority party has long since ceased being the loyal opposition and are now just bitter and venomous cogs in the progress of society. These pseudo-patriot reptiles who have taken over the Republican party have further shown just how disloyal they truly are when they hissed at the President of the United States for winning the Nobel Prize and then cheered that Chicago lost the Olympics bid to Rio de Janiero. The increase of hate isn’t likely to level off soon.

Also not leveling off are unemployment, bankruptcies, housing foreclosures, and the problems caused by increased homelessness, all of which began increasing more than two years before Barack Obama became president. As long as the Party of No, with the assistance of Blue Dog Democrats, can block reform, don’t look for an eight-year-old wearing a devil’s costume to be the scariest thing around.

American taxpayers have doled out billions to banks, which have figured out new ways to scam their customers and clients. The taxpayers have also bailed out auto manufacturers who had frivolously spent more than a fleet of drunken sailors while not being able to figure out how to get their own operations in ship-shape competition.

Americans, who are struggling just to survive, are being tricked by banking, insurance, and investment portfolio executives who are wearing Cheshire cat grins while they continue to reap in millions in taxpayer-provided bonuses for being incompetent and inefficient.

The fear instilled by the 9/11 attacks led Americans to willingly yield some of their Constitutional rights, while pretending that such laws as the PATRIOT Act would protect them from further harm. The fear of the past eight years that has led to the theft of six Constitutional amendments is scarier than any costumed pirate.

Frightening is also having a mass media that prefer to do play-by-play reporting on the latest celebrity break-up or coupling, real or imagined, rather than looking into critical social issues.

Indeed, ghosts, goblins, and things that go bump in the night don’t stand a chance of competing on Halloween with the fear that now exists in our country. 

[Walter Brasch's latest books are Sex and the Single Beer Can: Probing the Media and American Culture and Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush. Rosemary Brasch is a former secretary, labor union staff grievance officer, college instructor of labor studies/labor history, and Red Cross national disaster family services specialist. The Brasches are syndicated columnists. You may contact them through www.walterbrasch.com]

In an interview that aired this morning on CNN, Senator John Kerry cautioned President Obama “against raising troop levels in Afghanistan, saying it would be “entirely irresponsible” to do so while the Afghan government remains in turmoil following national elections.”

Speaking from Afghanistan, Kerry, who is Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the U.S. should listen to the advice of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in that country.

“When our own, you know, commanding general tells us that a critical component of achieving our mission here is, in fact, good governance, and we’re living with a government that we know has to change and provide it, how could the president responsibly say, oh, they asked for more, sure, here they are?,” Kerry said.

Obama and advisers have “held five meetings in recent weeks to discuss U.S. strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as they continue to weigh a call from Gen. McChrystal for as many as 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan.”

However, complaints of voter irregularities have dogged the Afghanistan election and the United States’ mission there. At a press conference earlier this month, the top United Nations official in Afghanistan, Kai Eide said the vote was marred by “widespread fraud.”

The Independent Election Commission is expected to soon finish an audit and recount of suspicious ballots. The independent commission is a “constitutional body” that conducts “free and fair elections” in an “impartial way” according to its Web site.

Kerry warned earlier this month that he might be “be prepared to “buck” the Obama Administration if his “fact-finding leads him to conclude that Afghanistan could turn into another Vietnam.””

Via the NY Times:

“It’s smoke and mirrors,” Mr. Obama said. “It’s bogus. And it’s all too familiar. Every time we get close to passing reform, the insurance companies produce these phony studies as a prescription and say, ‘Take one of these, and call us in a decade.’ Well, not this time.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

The full text of President Obama’s Weekly Address is here. Give ‘em hell Obama…

Awww. It seems that somebody’s suggesting that he’s a racist a**hole. Who?

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww …

And his widdle feewings are all hurted. I mean, who would LIE about somebody and then suggest he’s a racist? Why LIBERALS, of course! Listen:

State-Run Media Scum Smear Rush Using Fabricated Quotes October 13, 2009 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Folks, also, I don’t know what to do today. I really don’t know what to do. The audio sound bite roster is, again, 95% about me. The reason for my indecision here is that — well, I’ve talked to you about this before. People lob attacks at you and when you respond to them they think, a-ha, we’ve hit home runs here. There’s so many outrageous, fabricated lies. There is a genuine full-fledged smear campaign being orchestrated by liberal sportswriters and picked up by other liberals in the State-Controlled Media that it’s breathtaking….

And all because he wants to be an owner of the St. Louis Rams of the NFL. OK. How about let’s listen to Rush literally writing “Barack the Magic Negro” on the fly, after engaging in an utterly disingenuous rationalization that since an LA Times op-ed used the term “Magic Negro” that Rush can use it, TOO, and even though all context is stripped of it (i.e. he’s using it in a blatantly racist manner, whereas the LA Times op-ed used it in an entirely different context) he tries to “preempt” criticism by screeching over and over again “The LA TIMES SAID IT, but the LIBERAL media will try to make it about me!!!!!!!!”

Er, that’s akin to hearing a plain-spoken physician telling a patient about troubles with his “a**hole” and then saying: “MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS USE THE TERM — IT’S CLINICAL!!!” and then calling an “opponent” an a**hole.

Either way, Rush is the poster boy for being an a**hole. And I want you to pretend that you are an NFL owner, having to face the media and the local players’ association after a weekend of hearing this, which Rush has already rationalized in advance (from December 29, 2008’s “Rush Limbaugh wrote ‘Magic Negro’ Parody”):

• Here is the audio where Rush “composes” the “hilarious” parody. (matches the transcript below)

From the transcript (courtesy of Media Matters) Limbaugh said this [emphasis added]:

Reverend Sharpton’s upset, you know, “Obama, where were you when we marched for justice in Selma?” and so forth. So clearly, it is a — I mean, it’s just remarkable to continue to witness the actual racism that exists on the left, using the term “Magic Negro” to apply to you white people who are supporting Obama. Singing a song in my head here during the break: “Barack, the Magic Negro, doo doo do doo.”

Rush realizes that he’s stepped over the line and begins weaving rationalizations, but continues supplying “lyrics” to his song:

Uh-oh, Dawn’s shaking her head on that. What are you saying, if I do that, I then will own the term, because I will be taking it above and beyond how it’s been used? Well, that’s what we always do here. We do parodies and satires on the idiocy and the phoniness of the left. We could throw in — yeah, we could put an L.A. Times lyric in there to make, you know, make it obvious who it was who actually used the term. I mean, don’t start telling me to shy away from this stuff. That’s why I’m where I am, that’s why I’m who I am, and for which I make no apologies. I’m very proud and happy.

And, lo and behold, the song is recorded on a CD by Paul Shanklin:

The song builds upon David Ehrenstein’s assertion in the Los Angeles Times that Barack Obama would serve as a “magical negro” to assuage white guilt. ^[1] The song’s lyrics explicitly refer to this:

“Yeah, the guy from the L.A. paper

Said he makes guilty whites feel good

They’ll vote for him, and not for me

‘Cause he’s not from the hood.^[2]

In the song, the singer impersonates civil rights/social justice activist Al Sharpton by using a megaphone while singing the song.

Now, if this were a big hit (and, leaving aside the theft of the music for a profit-making venture as noted yesterday), Rush Limbaugh’s lawyers would have an open and shut case for co-writer credit and half-royalties, were Shanklin merely an opportunist like, say, Dennis Miller, milking conservative bucks out of a political cash cow. But Shanklin actually works for Limbaugh on an occasional basis (since 1993):

Paul Shanklin (born 1962) is an American conservative political satirist, impressionist, comedian, and conservative speaker.^[1] A native of Memphis, Tennessee, Shanklin writes most of, and voices the characters for, the songs and satirical comedy segments used by conservative radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Mike Fleming. Shanklin first came to media attention after doing his vocal impersonation of then-President of the United States Bill Clinton for Memphis radio show host “The Big Kahuna”, Bill Young. Shanklin was brought to the attention of Limbaugh by announcer Johnny Donovan, and was first featured on Limbaugh’s show in 1993.

Title, tune, explicit instruction to put a “lyric” in about the LA Times? Al Sharpton? Rush Limbaugh wrote the song, and Shanklin finished it up. Limbaugh was then criticized for playing the fruits of the Limbaugh/Shanklin collaboration:

Use of the term on the Rush Limbaugh show

Political commentator Rush Limbaugh was criticized in 2007 for playing the song during his talk radio show The Rush Limbaugh Show.^[3] In response to reports about the controversy, Limbaugh defended his actions by noting that “If I were to think about Barack Obama being in any trouble — needing Secret Service — I would look to Clinton Inc. before I looked at me. Try that, drive-by media. Get that out there.”^[4]

A typically specious “refutation.” Come on: the use of the term “Magic Negro” 27 times in that broadcast by Limbaugh was not justified by Ehrenstein’s trope. It was Limbaugh finally getting to use the “N-word” with impunity after so many years of talking in “code.” All the bloviating and obfuscating in the world doesn’t change that. The added satanic fillip to this is that it lets racist Limbaugh accuse all “leftists” of being racist (and, therefore, by specious negation, Limbaugh ISN’T). No: Limbaugh’s delight in using the term “magic negro” and his inferred order that his sound-flunky come up with the song parody speaks for itself far more eloquently than any long dissertation or explication. It is what it is, Limbaugh’s “Trent Lott” moment, when the mask slips just a little more than Limbaugh intended. And Chip Saltsman’s mailing of the CD, and his defense meld it all into a perfect ball of snakes. Huck PAC (Saltsman was an insider on the Mike Huckabee campaign) understands the explosive nature of the issue well enough to have issued a non-repudiation repudiation today [emphasis added]:

December 29, 2008 – 04:44 PM Statement From Mike Huckabee by Team Huck PAC Hello Team Huck PAC- Chip should have been more careful in his selection of Christmas gifts, but no one who knows him would ever suggest that he in any way would purposely disparage other people. Chip knows how sensitive such issues are. It shouldn’t be the main factor in the RNC race….

(Er … sounds more like a defense of Saltsman than a repudiation of the ‘Magic Negro’ parody, doesn’t it?) Here is the audio where Rush “composes” the “hilarious” parody. I’m sure that Rush would welcome the same scrutiny by the media for his role in the “l’Affaire Magic Negro” that Don Imus received for his “nappy headed hos” gaffe … which occurred at precisely the same time that Rush was stuffing his overlarge foot into his over-larger mouth. Credit where credit is due.

I merely quote myself because there’s damned little to add.

Well, one thing: Rush skated on the “Magic Negro” controversy because “liberal” reporters didn’t bother doing their legwork. Just like he skated on the hillbilly heroin controversy because it was a “prescription” drug. Well, so’s cocaine, but if Rush bloviates long enough, the outright crime will go away. He’s learned that at some point: A rationalization a day makes the criminality go away.

back when he was stealing candy from babies

But I think he’s probably an idiot for even thinking that he had a shot at an NFL franchise. Why?

I can’t imagine the creepy zillionaires’ club of the NFL agreeing to the guaranteed migrane of endless race-baiting that Limbaugh would provide them with in endless scandals du jour — which is the actual point. According to ESPN, he’s been dropped (implicitly as toxic) by his partners from the bid to buy the Rams.

Listen to it and ask yourself, what do you think that the fan and media response to the Rams would be if Limbaugh made that statement on, say, a Friday before a big game?

No: even if many NFL owners are crypto-racists, they at least have the good grace to keep that stuff in private. No one would be stupid enough to say it in front of an open microphone. Because it’s bad for business.

Any business except Rush’s business, that is. Another Marge Schott, though, if an owner. Guaranteed. But nobody says the plain truth about the naked Emperor’s Faux Nooz clothes: yes, he’s indisputably a racist, misogynist and an a**hole.

Limbaugh and ghost writer Joseph Farah of WND

But to his fans, he’s just kindly old Grandpa Goebbels. Feel better, Rush?

Now, go burn a cross on some “magic negro”s lawn. It’ll make you feel better.

Just like it always does.

Courage.

PS: A special bonus, the famous mashup by WNNX-FM (Atlanta, GA), “I’m a Nazi.” Everybody thinks it’s a hilarious “parody” — just like Rush says the “Magic Negro” song was — except, of course, Rush. Talent on loan from God. (or maybe his chief rival?)

“This is a great job,” Clinton said in the interview broadcast Monday. “It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point.”

After the 2008 elections, Clinton accepted Obama’s offer to serve as his top diplomat.

Unless she challenged President Obama in the 2012 Democratic presidential primary, Clinton would have to wait until 2016 to run again if she changed her mind. She turns 62 on October 26.

Hillary Clinton also denied “that her voice is not being heard in the administration, and said it is not her style to try and be the center of attention.”

“I find it absurd,” she said. “I find it beyond any realistic assessment of what I am doing everyday.”

“Maybe there is some misunderstanding which needs to be clarified. I believe in delegating power. You know, I am not one of these people who feel’s like I have to have my face in the front of the newspaper or on the TV every moment of the day. I would be irresponsible and negligent were I to say ‘Oh no everything must come to me,’” she said.

“Now, maybe that is a woman’s thing. Maybe I am totally secure and feel absolutely no need to go running around in order for people to see what I am doing. It is just the way I am. My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interests of our country. But that doesn’t mean it all has to be me, me, me all the time. I like lifting people up.”

Clinton has been doing a wonderful job as Secretary of State. It’s no secret around here that I supported her in the primaries. I think she’s made a good decision however, not to run again.

But I’ve got to hand it to the Gipper for coming up with what was called the 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

I’d like to see our party modify it to read, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Democrat.”

Of course, Republicans trash each other. But in my native Kentucky, Democrats seem more inclined toward internecine strife than Republicans do. So far, that’s mainly been the case in the race for Jim Bunning’s senate seat.

Bunning is retiring. Polls and pundits suggest a Democratic pickup is possible.

Hence, Secretary of State Trey Grayson and Dr. Rand Paul – the top 2010 GOP primary contenders – are mostly practicing what Reagan preached. They are focusing their fire on one or the other of the two Democratic primary heavy hitters: Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo – a physician dubbed “Dr. Dan” — and Attorney Gen. Jack Conway.   

But Mongiardo came out swinging at Conway, who has had to hit back.

Dr. Dan’s campaign is spinning Conway, who is from Louisville, as a “a silver spoon Democrat” and a fancy-pants elitist because his family is well-heeled and because he went to Duke instead of the University of Kentucky as Dr. Dan did.

Pandering to pseudo-populism is nothing new in Kentucky politics. Fifty years ago, Gov. Albert Benjamin “Happy” Chandler gave us “Old Ankle Blankets.”

Kentucky governors couldn’t succeed themselves in 1959. Chandler, a Democrat, was backing a rival ticket against the Bert Combs-Wilson Wyatt team in the party’s gubernatorial primary.

Chandler found a 1920s-vintage photo of Wyatt, also a Louisvillian, sporting spats, supposedly footgear favored by rich city slickers. He dissed Wyatt as “Old Ankle Blankets.”

Combs and Wyatt swept the primary and the general election anyway. (Chandler’s grandson, U.S. Rep. Albert Benjamin Chandler III, a Lexington Democrat, is for Conway.)

In the old days, the Democrats were so strong in Kentucky that they won most elections even when they were feuding. But the era of almost total Democratic dominance is gone, maybe forever.

Kentucky is one of the reddest of the Republican Red States.

True, the Democrats have the governorship and the state House. The Republicans have just about everything else – the state Senate, both U.S. senators and four of our six members of Congress.

While President Barack Obama won big last year, Sen. John McCain, his Republican foe, claimed more than 57 percent of the Kentucky vote. He  carried all but 8 of the state’s 120 counties.

Thus, it would seem that party unity could hardly be more critical for the Democrats going into 2010. Yet Mongiardo is pounding Conway as if it’s the 1950s when the winner of a Democratic primary almost always triumphed in a general election.

Mongiardo is a genuine American success story. He was born over his Italian immigrant family’s little store in Hazard, deep in hardscrabble eastern Kentucky coal country.

But history – the subject I teach – shows that the circumstances of a politician’s birth don’t necessarily shape his or her politics. That’s likewise for where one earned a college degree.

No president did more for working stiffs like Susie and Diehl Vest, my Kentucky grandparents, than Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Bobo was in the old Amalgamated Clothing Workers; Granddadden belonged to the Painters union.)

The Roosevelts were New York patricians. FDR was a millionaire, a prep school grad and a Harvard alum. Yet it was on his watch that Congress passed the Wagner Act, which guaranteed workers like the Vests — devout Democrats who voted for Roosevelt four times — the fundamental right to unionize.

Like her husband, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt was to the manor born. She went to a posh girls’ school in England. Even more than the president, she championed the poor and powerless.

Like FDR, too, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts was a prep schooler, a Harvard man and a Democrat from a rich family. But like Sen. Humphrey, Sen. Kennedy always fought the good fight for working people – especially for those of us in unions.

Organized labor also endorsed Kennedy’s fellow Bay State senator for president in 2004 – John Kerry, yet another pro-union and pro-working class Democrat and a son of a wealthy family. Kerry is a Yalie.

On the other hand, few presidents were more anti-union than Reagan, whose birth could hardly have been more humble. He came into the world in his parents’ apartment above the local bank in Tampico, Ill. Jack Reagan sold shoes. His kid sold out the working class.

Anyway, I live in the same working class neighborhood where I grew up. I went to a public high school and to a public regional university. I teach at a public community college. My wife teaches at my old high school.

Calling Conway “a silver spoon Democrat,” doesn’t cut it with me (or my spouse of going on 31 years). When I size up candidates, I don’t look at their bank accounts or their family pedigrees. I don’t care where – or if – they went to college.

I look at how candidates stand on issues important to me as a trade unionist, a teacher and a member of the working class.

Conway and Mongiardo are good on my issues. Grayson and Paul are not.

I like Mongiardo, but I like Conway better. Some of my union brothers and sisters are Conway fans. Others are behind Mongiardo, and that’s fine with me.

But if Dr. Dan wins, we union members in Conway’s corner will be quick to plaster Mongiardo-for-Senate bumper stickers on our vehicles. Likewise, if Conway triumphs, organized labor will close ranks behind him.

We know what’s at stake. With Grayson or Paul — the son of U.S. Rep Ron Paul, R-Tex. – we’d get more Bunning and Sen. Mitch McConnell-style union-busting.  Grayson and Dr. Rand are disciples of the GOP gospel of greed.

Meanwhile, I hope Mongiardo – who is basically a nice guy – will lay off the  the Richie Rich and la-de-dah private college stuff with Conway. (If my kid has the grades, the ACT scores – and the scholarship money — to go to hoity toity Duke, I’ll be shouting the good news from the top of our nearly 60-year-old, two-bedroom wooden-siding-clad house.)

“Dan Mongiardo and Jack Conway are bright, intelligent, outstanding candidates,” says a Democratic Party activist from Paducah, where I teach. “They are the future of our party. They are going to need each other in future races.”

I’ll add a Presbyterian “amen” to that.

– Berry Craig is the author of True Tales of Old-Time Kentucky Politics: Bombast, Bourbon and Burgoo, a strictly non-partisan and mostly funny look at Bluegrass State hustings from Gov. Isaac Shelby to Gov. Ruby Laffoon.

The Dalai Lama said the award encourages him, at 74, to dedicate the rest of his life to the “promotion of human affection and compassion, and equality and basic human rights in Tibet, or in mainland China, or everywhere.”

Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, said at the ceremony that “unless we speak out for human rights in China and in Tibet, we lose all moral authority to talk about human rights anywhere in the world.”

While in Washington, D.C., His Holiness, the Dalai Lama also met with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Committee Chairman Senator John Kerry released the following statement today after meeting with the Dalai Lama:

“Today the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee welcomed His Holiness the Dalai Lama, continuing a close relationship that goes back more than two decades.  I am honored to exchange views with this Nobel Peace Prize winner.  He will always be welcome here.

“I am very pleased that President Obama has agreed to meet the Dalai Lama in December following his summit meeting with President Hu Jintao. 

“The members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee discussed a wide range of issues with His Holiness, including the Dalai Lama’s tireless efforts to forge reconciliation with China and advance the human rights of Tibetans through peaceful dialogue.  

“We also discussed global issues, including the threat climate change poses not only to the people of Tibet, but also to the 3 billion people who live in lands watered by the seven great rivers of Asia that rise in Tibet – the Brahmaputra, the Ganges, the Irrawaddy, the Salween, the Mekong, the Yangtze, and the Yellow River.”

These are common reactions when people see the real work being done to define the violent rhetoric today. There is a movement of people who are radical and think seriously of how to demonize then eliminate their opposition. The language of elimination is becoming very common. There have been public calls for the President’s death. We have a Facebook poll voting for or against the Presidents death. The Hate Radio hosts, from Rush to TV’s Beck and many more, are using increasingly radicalized speech in their programming.

Ann Coulter has famously used language that is eliminationist. After 9/11 in the New York Observer she said, “My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building.” The direct call for the violent destruction of an opponent is becoming more common. That remark was made in 2002 and was considered highly unusual. Coulter got her publicity.

Today comments are filled with calls for violent destruction. They are made nearly every day. Whether it is radio, a church, a meeting of radical militia groups or the internet sites calling for death and destruction it is there to be heard or read. In many cases it seems they mean every word. Rush may be a person more motivated by money and ego but Glenn Beck is a true believer. The Militia’s are true believers. Many church pastors or members are true believers. Unfortunately, many people are true believers.

This isn’t localized in the South or the West. This is everywhere.

Today a good friend who is 83, one of the most vigorous, intelligent men I know, told me that he was convinced that President Obama wants America to be lost. I could not have been more stunned. When legitimate conservatives begin to believe that the President consciously wants the country destroyed then there is a much deeper problem in America than I ever thought.

This course of thinking has evolved into mainstream thinking and language. I recommend two books.  “The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right”. Written by David Neiwert, an award winning journalist for his MSNBC reporting on domestic terrorism, it is detailed and eyeopening. To be honest for me it’s also stomach turning. His blog is Orcinus and worth a daily read. Secondly I recommend “Outright Barbarous: How the Violent Language of the Right Poisons American Democracy” by Jeffrey Feldman. Jeffrey is a friend and long time observer of the political scene. His blog ,The Frameshop, is famous for his insight to political communication.

We should all educate ourselves as portions of the rhetoric in this country become more filled with violent hatred. Without understanding the seriousness of the problem we cannot cope with it or change it.

(Crossposted from Polcampaign )

A top CBS News producer was busted Thursday for trying to shake down late night TV host David Letterman – threatening to expose the funnyman’s affairs with several female staffers in a movie and book.

Letterman’s big announcement last night, live on his show was perhaps a bit of not to be missed TV. I’m glad I did miss it however. It’s another one of those stories about men with some power acting like complete freakin’ idiots and then getting caught.

The CBS News producer arrested today, Robert “Joe” Halderman, 51, was a Emmy-award winning producer for CBS News’ “48 Hours.”