This is one of my favorite holidays. As a kid I used to love to be scared and would spend my days channel surfing for horror flicks and/or nights reading Stephen King novels. If you think any of his books are scary when read in a well lit area, you have not truly experienced any of them until you read one by candlelight in your bedroom with a skylight over the bed with no power. After one bad hurricane hit Long Island I read Salem’s Lot and didn’t sleep without having plenty of garlic and bibles on hand for months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%99Salem%E2%80%99s_Lot

While my taste in movies has changed since then I still love all the scary movies that get shown this time of year, and no I am not referring to political advertising. This would also be a good time to pay a visit to the Angry Alien web site (www.angryalien.com). The only thing that can make an already good scary movie better is by turning it into an animated version in 30 seconds with bunnies. Ok, my personal favorite short is the unbleeped Reservoir Dogs (“I am fucking deformed!”… “Fuck you, I’m dying!”). If you have never checked that site out, please do.

Speaking of movies and being scared, I am almost at a loss for what to say. Almost. As a Democrat and Met fan I do not think this election is over, though today is the last day that John McCain can spring an ‘October surprise’ on us. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise) John Kerry was certainly hurt by the Osama bin Laden video that was released on the Friday before the election. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video) I also know that certain events were planned for times that would hurt the Kerry campaign during that cycle. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would, for example, plan announcements on terrorism at the same time Senator Kerry would have a big rally planned. You may be thinking I am just paranoid and you are right; I am but that doesn’t mean I am not right. The long term success of these tactics is debatable but that it cost Kerry ‘free’ media time and impacted his campaign cannot. I was told more than once that an event would have been covered live had it not been for these announcements. The then Senate Majority Leader Frist did his part, too by scheduling important votes for times when Kerry was doing something else like raising money.

Back in October 2008, many TV stations are doing their best to frighten viewers and the McCain campaign is trying its best to scare voters. Barack Obama ‘pals around with terrorists’ and groups that support Obama are ‘destroying the fabric of our democracy.’ When you are in Senator McCain’s position you do not have many options, go negative or go home. We all know which course of action McCain selected. What amazes me is not that he is going negative or even that the ‘Bradley effect’ is rearing its ugly head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) but that people are actively rejecting negative ads this year. Most polls show that people do not like negative ads but if they didn’t work campaigns wouldn’t use them. The only argument that seems to make sense to me is that after eight years of Dubya/Cheney, nothing McCain throws at Obama sticks.

And that brings me back to Halloween. My favorite horror movie when I was a kid was Halloween (www.halloweenmovies.com). Michael Myers goes on a killing spree on Halloween but the best part of that movie is there isn’t much gore. It’s all suspense, or it is if you are 10. For years certain scenes haunted me but at some point I guess I grew out of it. I still watch the movie almost every year but Myers doesn’t scare me anymore. Now I just want to kick his ass. Maybe that’s how the electorate is starting to react to the GOP hate machine, we’re just over it.

As the election nears, the media & campaigns focus more and more on, what this year is a much smaller number, undecided voters. Personally, I see most of these people the way they were portrayed in the Daily Show Samantha Bee/Jason Jones skit from earlier in the week (www.thedailyshow.com). Seriously, what do these people need to make up their mind? After the longest presidential campaign in recent history, you really cannot make up your mind? Where have you been?

This post is not for them (clearly). There is another group, which is smaller still, of what I will call conscientious objectors. There are some people who will vote on November 4^th for third party candidates. Anecdotal stories may lead some to believe they have made a difference in past presidential races à la Ralph Nader in 2000 (a charge I agree with here but it could be an emotional response) and/or Ross Perot in 1992 (and I do not think he caused Bill Clinton’s victory, if anyone outside of the Clinton campaign helped Clinton it was George H.W. Bush himself). While every person has a vote, not everyone’s vote carries equal weight thanks to the Electoral College. The conversation about that will have to wait for another day but since it is the system we have, it is what we have to use until someone comes along with something better. Having said that, it is critically important that people in certain states vote. And I hope they vote for Barack Obama. Now I understand the protest vote and appreciate it. I do, however, think if someone lives in a ‘swing state’ and they choose to either not vote or vote for someone other than John McCain or Barack Obama, that decision is an irresponsible one.

Often I hear people say things like “Well, who we elect president doesn’t matter much because Congress controls the purse strings.” True. For many people, the position of POTUS is merely a figurehead. This is where Dubya comes in and will show why I think even conscientious objectors should vote for Barack Obama. We have learned many things from Dubya but I think the following show why who we put in the White House matters.

1. The Supreme Court: The next president will appoint at least one (probably more) justices to the Supreme Court and that is a big deal. Justices do not always behave the way the person who nominated them would expect. That’s fine. The problem is that once they get there, they get to stay until they die (they all have excellent health insurance, FYI). Their decisions affect our lives (see DC v. Heller, good or bad it has forced DC to change its laws). I could almost stop there because it is just that important. Of course I cannot leave this topic without mentioning part of the reason we are in the mess we are in today, Bush v. Gore, which is why Dubya got to move into 1600 PA Ave, NW to begin with.
2. War: The War Powers Act (of 1973 I believe, it was a response to Vietnam) requires the President to go to Congress before they take the country officially to war. There are two caveats here, the president can send troops anywhere in an emergency (Reagan did it in Lebanon) and as Dubya and Cheney showed, Congress is much too easily manipulated. Make no mistake, if Gore had gotten into the White House we would not be in Iraq right now. They don’t call the president “commander in chief” for a nothing.
3. The priorities of the federal government: Yes, it is true that Congress funds the government but the Executive Branch has a lot of power. A lot of power. They have a lot more now than they did eight years ago, thanks to Dick “evil genius” Cheney. They set the tone with the people they appoint to their Cabinet and everywhere else. One Justice Department may enforce certain laws over others. My favorite example is the Violence Women Act, which the current DoJ does not consider a priority. This is a bill to help victims of domestic violence. During its passage a group, which sounds normal (is there any group that calls themselves ‘totally insane people for x’?) but isn’t opposed the bill. They are the Concerned Women for America. Totally right, wing nut jobs all the way. You can look into them. Their members now oversee the enforcement of this law. This is a very small example – as is former AG Ashcroft’s decision to cover the statues at the DoJ building but never think the federal government doesn’t impact your life. Trust your water? One of Dubya’s first acts as president was to try to change the standards for arsenic levels in your water. It was the only time George Will actually correctly summed up my position, which is/was that I would like our water to be as safe as possible. Don’t drink tap? You shower, brush your teeth, wash your clothes with what? A Britta? Or look at the EPA. How long was Christine Todd Whitman there? Not long because it was clear Dubya et al weren’t interested in the environment (and this was before the White House rejected their proposals on the Clean Air Act because they were sent in an email!). This is not just about climate change but what species we protect and quite literally how safe the air we breathe is.
4. Signing statements: in my social studies class we studied the Constitution. We learned that Congress passes bills and the president signs then into law (“I’m just a bill” is going through my head right now). Well, when s/he signs said bill s/he can add something to the bottom that clarifies or changes the meaning and practical implications of the legislation. Thinking maybe they taught that on a day you cut class? They didn’t. That’s because this doesn’t appear in the Constitution. President Reagan was the first president to use them much and before him they were primarily symbolic.

   “No United States Constitution provision, federal statute, or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
   

   Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves, although they are all published in the Federal Register. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself. There is a controversy about whether they should be considered as part of legislative history; proponents argue that they reflect the executive’s position in negotiating with Congress; opponents assert that the executive’s view of a law is not constitutionally part of the legislative history because only the Congress may make law.
   

   Presidential signing statements maintain particular potency with federal executive agencies, since these agencies are often responsible for the administration and enforcement of federal laws. A 2007 article in the Administrative Law Review noted how some federal agencies’ usage of signing statements may not withstand legal challenges under common law standards of judicial deference to agency action. ^[6]
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statements
   

    I consider myself a pretty well informed person but I had no idea this was going on until a few years ago.

1. Politicking v. governing: There is a BIG difference. People who are excellent campaigners may not be so good at governing and vice versa. George HW Bush was better at governing. His son is better at campaigning, and clearly it is where his interests lie. How many times have we read and seen how this administration has turned the DoJ into its own political police force? Hired/fired US Attys based on their personal politics? Granted every time we change presidents most political appointees change but they all are supposed to follow the law and Constitution not their respective parties.
2. Lastly, because number 3 is so important, privacy. I am a liberal. I like government. I believe it is there to do for us collectively what we cannot do for ourselves individually. I do not think 9/11 gives it carte blanche to do whatever it wants. I do not think they need the Patriot Act nor do I like the changes they made to FISA. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act created a court to hear the government’s arguments for why they listened to conversations without a warrant. Law enforcement agencies had up to three days of listening in before they had to consult the court and between its creation in 1978 and 2001 the court denied the government five times.

These are some of the lessons we have learned about the Executive Branch from Dubya. Oh, and if all that didn’t convince you that your vote for Obama matters I have two words for you: President Palin.

Seriously? I know not all networks covered the campaign using the split screen to show the reactions but CNN (clearly they are the ‘best political team on television’ because all their commentators had laptops) did. I am no mind reader but I swear I could tell what John McCain was thinking, and it went something like (clear the kids out of the room, profanity is about to be served) That little fucker. I spent five years in a POW camp to have to run against this guy? He shouldn’t even be allowed to be here. I have proved I love my country. What has he done that makes him so great? Oh, he went to Harvard. Oh he can move his arms. Oh, his ideas inspire people. Oh, he’s going to make people believe again. What a crock. I hate him. Back in my day we worked for a living and when we walked 10 miles up hill – each way – barefoot in the snow, we liked it!!!

As I predicted, I did not win the lottery, nor was I struck by lightning and no, John McCain refused to take the high road that I thought would lead him and his campaign back to some sort of honor. He looked so peeved to be anywhere near Barack Obama that taking the high road was clearly never an option. That is too bad. John McCain has done a lot of things that make him deserve our respect but he just looks old and mean. Bob Dole had the same problem in 1996. Then a bigger problem was that President Clinton was really popular and it seemed the GOP ran Dole because it was ‘his turn’ not because he could win. We all got to know the Senator Dole that I saw around the Hart Senate office building back when I worked there. He had a sense of humor. I didn’t agree with him on anything but that’s never what you expect in this business. He was not the stiff, bitter, pissy old man his campaign let us think he was. And as someone who worked for President Clinton’s reelection, I thought it was unfair to him. The problem here is that the McCain campaign isn’t making McCain look bitter, he is. And I don’t think it’s a simple cosmetic thing, I think it is how he is. Ronald Reagan was a bad president, in my opinion. Just because he is dead does not mean I have to like him but he understood that to win people over to the idea he was able to govern was not to look bitter and pissy but to use humor. He did it well.

Then again, if members of my own party were leaving me like rats leaving the Titanic I might be bitter about it, too. Check this out: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/10/et_tu_gop_the_conservative_bet.html

First I read about Christopher Buckley endorsing Barack Obama and then basically resigning from the National Review, which is only, the conservative magazine his father started. That cannot feel good to McCain. Then you have the ever growing list of conservatives and Republicans who don’t think McCain can win and many have said not only is Sarah Palin a disaster but she should ‘put country first and remove herself from the ticket.’ And to think he really wanted Lieberman. I am not sure he even knows that much about Sarah, did anyone else catch that he said ‘Sarah certainly knows about autism.’ Why? Because her child has Down ‘s syndrome? Yes, all these developmental problems are the same.

Oh, and while I am feeling frisky, what’s up with the ‘Joe the plumber?’ If he was not a plant at that rally I will eat a hat. His story fit just a little too neatly into the sweet spot of Obama’s economic plan. As for ‘spreading the wealth around’ you know who knows a little something about that. You sure do. Her name would be Sarah Palin where they do have lower taxes and one of the state’s main income supplier is the federal government. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that the $1200 she sent everyone in the state came from those of us living in the lower 48. To the rest of the world that’s called ‘income redistribution’ and if a Democrat did it, they would be called a communist. As it stands, Alaska’s system looks more socialist than France (read “Letter from Alaska by Philip Gourevitch, www.newyorker.com, when a liberal mag like that calls you socialist, you probably are.

Back to ‘Joe’ – who was probably watching the baseball game if he was watching TV. I have come to hate the anecdotes candidates use. Usually because they are made up crap that I think wastes everyone’s time. This may not have been that but could John McCain have been more condescending to Obama and well, anyone whose head has not been up their butt for the last eight years? No, Mr. McCain you aren’t President George W. Bush (I so wished Obama had said, How long have you been waiting to use that line?). You are worse than Dubya. Sure he lied when it came to nation building and uniting the country but on most things his intentions have been clear from the get go. I don’t like him. History will judge him as one of the worst presidents ever but McCain is worse. He’s worse because he had a long record of not being a wishy washy, say-anything guy and he opted to run as someone else. That’s too bad, too bad for him anyway.

And kudos should go to Barack Obama. No politician wants to tell the public that they bear some responsibility in anything. It’s not OUR fault. We haven’t been asked to do anything really. The only people who have given anything up for the ‘war on terrorism’ – and those that have lost something have lost a lot – are the military fighting it and their families. The rest of us were told to shop. Right. Every time you spend a dollar, God kills a member of al Qaeda. Obama said that some of the current economic crisis was caused by people who live beyond their means. It was the first time in a long time that I have heard that and I hope he has more of it coming. Thank you Senator Obama.

So the debates are over and we are left to nothing more than crappy stump speeches and even worse political advertising. I don’t know who these ‘undecideds’ are, I just hope they decide to vote for Barack Obama.

John McCain is looking for a serious Hail Mary here. Last month he was in a similar spot. His campaign was at 4^th and long and he threw one, we now just call her Governor Palin, or Sarah to her closest friends (aka all of Alaska or 670,053 people in 2006). That play got him a first down but he’s back at 4^th and long and with only a few weeks left and one debate to go he needs to do something. Something amazing. When has that happened before? Being football season, I’ll go with a story from the 49ers.

In 1982 the San Francisco 49ers played the Dallas Cowboys in the National Football Conference championships. The Cowboys had kept the Niners out of the playoffs three times before and things were not looking good. Then with only 51 seconds left in the game and with the Cowboys leading by six Joe Montana, a late third round draft pick (no touch, average arm) and seventh string QB pick at Notre Dame (almost took a basketball scholarship to play elsewhere), did the unthinkable. He threw what’s now known only as ‘the catch’ to Dwight Clarke. Montana had three Cowboys when he veered to the right and threw the ball high. He said later he did not know Clark would be open just hoped his receiver would get to the ball. Clark thought it was too high for him to catch but catch it he did. In the end zone. For the touchdown. The Niners win and the crowd goes wild! (They went on to win the Superbowl that year, too.) Joe Montana, the guy who almost didn’t play football at all turned out to be the greatest quarterback ever. (Don’t agree? Don’t bother arguing with me on it. Nothing will change my mind. Nothing. Ever.)

The problem Mr. McCain faces is he is no Joe Montana. That doesn’t mean McCain doesn’t have options. He had options last month when he picked Sarah Palin. He would have picked Joe Lieberman if his party didn’t threaten to basically implode. He could have picked anyone who added substance to his ticket. He should have gone with his gut, which has served him very well in the past. Could have. Should have. Would have. Didn’t. Rather than pick someone he really liked and respected, Mr. Lieberman I am looking at you, he went with the political choice. Was it because she was a woman and would appeal to bitter (and brain dead) Hillary supporters? Was it because she was the quick shift to the right – like ‘the catch?’ Was it because she is a pit bull with lipstick? Who cares? He did it to please the base and energize his campaign. The good news is it did both of course he got that much needed first down by doing the very thing he promised not to do months ago and swore during the convention he was not doing: He put his campaign before his country.

But enough with the negativity. John McCain has a real change to set the ‘reset’ button on his campaign. He can do this without putting out a new economic plan or changing his stump speech, though I know he has not done the latter. He can do it tonight at the debate. I propose he start the debate with the tone he claimed he wanted to be the hallmark of the campaign. Now because I think this is a good idea, I will win the lottery while being hit by lightening before this happens but this would make a great opening statement (or closing statement, I think he should start with it but that’s just me).

“First of all, thank you to the great people at Hofstra for hosting this important event. Before we begin I would like to say something to the country. Thank you to the audience here and at home, thank you for watching and giving us your time. During the next hour and a half you will hear Senator Obama and I tell you why we think each of us would make the better president. I should tell you that before we get to that I want you to know how much I respect the man who shares the stage with me tonight. Senator Obama is a decent, patriotic American. I have been proud to serve in the United States Senate with him and it is an honor to have him as my opponent. A lot of things have been said about both of us over the course of this campaign and there is nothing I can do to stop that but I can tell you that you when you vote next month, I hope you vote for me because you think I am the best qualified candidate and have both the experience and best plans to lead our country. This election is about a difference in opinion. This campaign is about ideas and judgment, let’s keep it that way.”

My heart tells me he should also say something about how many new voters Obama has brought into the system and how that is a good thing – the upside for McCain is that it will make more right wingers go out and vote but it may be a bit much. I know I get carried away with the rhetoric. It’s kind of like a drug. In any case that’s how he should open the debate.

For the record, Barack Obama is no Joe Montana either. He’s more a Steve Young to Bill Clinton’s Montana. Without the Mormon lineage and affiliation or concussions.

(from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism)

Conservatism, One entry found.

Main Entry: Conservatism, pronunciation

kən-ˈsər-və–ˌti-zəm

Function: noun

Date: 1832

1.capitalized a: the principles and policies of a Conservative party b: the Conservative party

2 a: disposition in politics to preserve what is established b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change ; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)

3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

I have several questions about this as a philosophy and a political strategy. Clearly when candidates say they are conservative they are referring to 2 but even that definition includes a resistance to change, something the McCain campaign claims it is all about. How can he be both? Can anyone? Is this ‘change’ reference to George W. Bush’s policies? Is change needed because his policies were so bad that people who normally oppose abrupt change have, in fact, embraced something new as a result? Is this definition even relevant? It is from 1832. To get to the bottom of this I dug a little deeper.

This was one site I found, http://www.conservative-resources.com/definition-of-conservative.html — this page says the following:

Just like the definition of liberal, the definition of conservative can be divided into 6 key principles: