Casting Call

Some of my Facebook friends and I are currently engaged in a game to see who can successfully cast the inevitable movie about this Petraeus/Broadwell/Kelly/Allen thing. So far, I’ve seen votes for William H. Macy to play Gen. Petraeus and Drew Barrymore for Ms. Broadwell. I might prefer Julianne Moore for Broadwell; having trouble with the Petraeus character.

To us, of course, it’s just a game, but I don’t think there are enough buckets in Hollywood right now to catch all the saliva this drama is generating. Is it a soap opera or a spy thriller? “Homeland,” “The West Wing,” or “Revenge”? Oliver Stone must have his running shoes on for this one already. The story has just about everything you could want for a film treatment.

But I still have doubts whether, at bottom, it isn’t just a four-star soap opera. I really hope that’s all it is. I’m not looking forward to those congressional let’s-get-to-the-bottom-of-this hearings, at which all the sordid details of this incident, if that’s what we can call it, are dredged up.

As I said in earlier posts, I think the Obama administration’s handling of the Benghazi attack in which our ambassador to Libya and others were killed would get a flunking grade in Crisis Communications 101. The election is now over, and so should be the game of political football. That said, the administration still owes the country, and the victims’ families, a full explanation of what happened in Benghazi. I’d rather see the administration lay it out than Congress drag it out, along with the other juicy stuff, titillating as that may be.

Does anyone really believe national security was in jeopardy because of Petraeus and Broadwell? National security really is at stake as we inch closer to the Fiscal Cliff. Fixing that would be a much better use of time in Washington.

I Want It Done Yesterday

It never fails. The power goes out for tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or even millions – it doesn’t matter what the size of the thing is – and frustrated folks start taking it out on the evil power companies for not working hard enough to get the lights back on.

But let’s be clear. In terms of the geographic scope of the damage, the results of the Eastern weather phenomena this month rival what happened after the Japanese earthquake. Power line crews had to be brought in from all over the country to help with repairs. Some people had power restored pretty quickly; others still don’t have it. Some are without it while neighbors in the next block have it back. All recipes for frustration. As soon as the power line techs get the lights back on, they’re heroes. What were they when the customers were still in the dark? Can’t we cut the power companies a little slack in these situations? Easy for me to say, of course, as I sit in a heated home typing this.

Cut to this past week’s elections. A friend complained about how slow election officials were in counting ballots in a close congressional race and wondered who was running the show. Perhaps he forgot that in order to make things more convenient for people to vote, the absentee voting privilege was widely extended some time back. Here in California, many people waited till the last minute to return those ballots, not because they were undecided about Romney and Obama, but because of a long list of critical propositions. Though county staffs were beefed up way ahead of time, it still wasn’t enough to deal with the last-minute crunch of these mail-in ballots, which take longer to count. So convenience at the front end of the process meant inconvenience at the back.

Even for those voting at polling places on Election Day, lines were long, partly because, at least in this state’s case, the average voter spent a long time in the booth for the same reason – a long and complicated ballot. We’re all shocked by the stories about people waiting in line six hours to vote. You can already hear the sound of some politician pounding his fist on a podium demanding a full investigation of who dropped the ball. They shoulda done this, they shoulda done that.

At least it wasn’t the Middle East, where some voters stand in line never quite sure whether a bomb isn’t going to go off at the polling place. And God deliver us if we ever get a 90 percent turnout in this country.

No doubt, balls were dropped in some cases. But let’s say you’re on the receiving end of people’s frustrations. There’s always someone out there ready to judge you about how you do your business, and how they could do it much more efficiently than you if only they were in charge.

All I can say is that if there’s a new story in all of this, I haven’t heard it yet. Patience is not an American trait.

No Change of Horses

In 1864, when President Abraham Lincoln was at his most unpopular and running for re-election, his campaign slogan was “Don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” Whether you think invoking Lincoln here is appropriate or not, it appears the country has decided to hang on to Mr. Obama for another four years.

Even for Obama-haters, there are certain advantages to this situation. There’s no reasonable cause anymore for congressional Republicans to refuse to deal with him. For the next four, he’s what they’ve got. For Mr. Obama, there’s no reason for political timidity. He doesn’t have to worry about re-election. It opens the door to compromise – a relatively short time before the mid-term election for Congress – where the two parties could actually get something accomplished. President Obama did not win anything resembling a mandate; the Republicans didn’t substantially improve their position in Congress. It’s a wash, so there’s nothing to crow about, and crowing is a waste of time, anyway.

I have some requests for things both sides can work on going forward – after they pull us back from the “fiscal cliff.”

TAX REFORM. Mitt Romney had the germ of a great idea. The issue isn’t just about taxing the rich, which would only be a Band-Aid on top of old Band-Aids. Simplify the tax code! In the end, it will benefit everyone, taking a huge monkey off the backs of individuals and businesses alike. This is one of the keys to dealing with the deficit.

I heard a horror story on NPR this morning about something called the Alternative Minimum Tax, a regulation adopted in the 1980s to make sure wealthy people were paying their fair share of taxes. Apparently, the story said, this regulation was never indexed to inflation, and Congress has to “patch” it each year. If they fail to do so, the AMT could apply to incomes as low as $75,000 – which could mean an instant tax hike as much as 20 percent for the average middle-class family. This is one of the poster children for why the tax system needs to be overhauled – and soon.

IMMIGRATON. Solve this one once and for all. Do the best job you can sealing the borders. Then, come up with a national system that both recognizes realities and is fair to the people who’ve been playing by the rules. Mr. Obama, you promised to deal with this in your first term. You have another opportunity to make good on your promise.

HEALTH CARE. Just because Obamacare is the law, it doesn’t mean Congress and the President have to stop working on this issue. How about tort reform, for one thing? And maybe some real controls on insurance charges?

OTHER STUFF. If there’s time, why not work on getting rid of the Senate filibuster, abolishing the Electoral College, and take a whack at campaign finance reform so we don’t have to endure another election like this one?

These are all very difficult, but they can be solved if elected officials make up their minds to work together to solve them instead of posturing. The President – and the Congress -- have a real opportunity to leave a legacy.

Mr. President, if I may address you directly, enough of the electorate has decided that you are the more effective leader than Mitt Romney. So LEAD already! Get out IN FRONT of issues instead of letting them beat down your door. Put plans on the table before your opponents do. And hold more news conferences -- keep us updated; bring us along with you as you deal with these problems. We just told you we're on your side -- as long as it's the side of getting things done.

The Undecided Idiot

I am a big fan of Bill Maher, but I have to take issue with him on his opinion of undecided voters in this election.

Maher basically characterized the undecideds on a recent show as uninformed idiots. While I’m sure there are quite a few who fit that description, you don’t make it on NPR unless you have a brain cell or two, and I’ve heard their reporters talked to plenty of folks who are still on the fence.

Actually, it’s my belief that there is no such thing as a fence. I can’t stand fences, and I think most thinking human beings hate them. I make up my right away about most things. The only problem is, if you talk to me an hour later, I will likely have made a new decision the other way. What makes me change? Usually, it’s new information.

So here comes the first Presidential debate, which many pundits say may be the ultimate showdown between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. But what do debates accomplish? Detractors will say that they only tell us who’s the better debater. But that is no small skill, as an effective President has to be able to persuade, and persuasion is part of leadership. It’s another piece of information.

Some of us are waiting to see a train wreck: a gaffe, a stumble, an insensitive remark, or the betrayal of something the individual would prefer to hide. The fact is, both President Obama and Mitt Romney have been caught at these things already. Most recently, Romney has had to deal with the “47 percent” remark, but remember when Obama told the Russian he’d be more flexible after the election?

Information is one thing; of course, it’s all about what we do with it. Those who see virtue in having made up their minds for good will look for information in the debate that confirms their decision; otherwise, they’ll have to think of themselves as wishy-washy. Others may receive enough information to change their minds.

Yes, I’ve made up my mind about the man I think would make a better President, but I’m not ready to tell you, and I probably won’t be ready after Wednesday. There’s still time for new information – those final pieces of the puzzle -- to come along, and then I’ll do what I usually do, vote with my gut, which, all things being equal, has a pretty good track record at doing the right thing in these situations.

We're All Mutts

Our new president-elect, talking about the dog he is planning to get for his children,  said it might be a mutt like him. He was referring, of course, to his being of both black and white heritage.

Interesting thing about skin color.  Everyone calls Mr. Obama African-American,  but that’s because his skin is dark. I am no genetic expert, but could he not have as easily been born with a light skin, coming from a white mother? Then what would we call him?

For those attracted to the notion of racial purity, you’re going to have a long, hard search for it. We categorize people racially based on what we can see. But what about those factors we can’t see? I suspect that if we all had our DNA analyzed, we’d be pretty shocked at whatever went in to producing us. So there is really little basis for prejudice, at least according to standards like skin color.

Not that I’m in favor of analyzing everyone’s DNA right now. You can see where that road heads, too. Remember the movie “Gattaca,”  in which only those with no genetic defects got to be astronauts? The insurance companies would have a field day with such information.

But when you realize how little separates us,  it’s just too hard to maintain old attitudes that are based on, well, nothing,  really. So as one great American said not long ago, “Can’t we all just get along?” In the modern world, we’re going to find that we have to in order to survive. Barack Obama’s election is one big step toward getting us used to the idea.

There, now I’ve said it.

Time For a Purge

As the Republicans try to figure out why their man lost, they should find out who the architects of that loss are and get rid of them. Whose brilliant idea was it to tap Sarah Palin as a running mate for John McCain? I heard from a good source in Arizona that he was livid when they told him Palin would be his VP choice, but he went along with it, figuring that was at least one of his paths to victory. But if he didn’t want Palin , then who did, who backed them up, and why did McCain let himself be victimized? Was it the same group of geniuses who told him to suspend his campaign after the economic crisis exploded? 

I don’t think these were entirely his mistakes, although he let himself go along, and that’s mistake enough. But clearly, the people pulling the strings screwed up. Sarah Palin wasn’t remotely qualified to be a vice-presidential candidate and should never have been put in that position. In her defense, she made the best use of what she had available, but it wasn’t enough, and in a way, she was victimized, too.

We’re all very interested right now in finding out who is responsible for our economic meltdown. But who is responsible for the meltdown in the GOP campaign? To paraphrase John McCain, we should know their names, so that they aren’t around to screw up the next one.

Now that the election is over,  Republicans have the time to do a little navel-gazing. What will it take to make the Grand Old Party grand again? It seems to me that a grand old purge is in order.

There, now I’ve said it.

It Had to Happen

I don’t pretend to be eloquent enough to provide any useful comment on the historic nature of what has happened tonight, neither the dramatic acceptance speech of our new president-elect, nor the gracious concession speech of the man who was defeated.

All I can say is that I have the strong feeling that Barack Obama’s victory was just plain necessary. We needed his election not only to galvanize this country, but to send a powerful message to the rest of the world that things are finally different here.

Our challenge is to be realistic about what this election means. By himself, Barack Obama cannot dig us out of the pit into which we have sunk. He can wave his wand, but it’s doubtful the Red Sea is going to part. The nation’s voters have expressed enormous confidence in him. But he puts his pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us; he will make mistakes, and many of us may find ourselves upset with him from time to time, just as we have been with his predecessors. Circumstances may prevent him from delivering on his campaign promises. Sure, he may get us out of the war in Iraq, but may have to plunge us deeper into the war in Afghanistan. All we can expect is that he brings his personal qualities and intellect to bear on the problems we face going forward.

But it’s fair to say that the big difference is that from here on in, we’re going to be paying attention. For the first time in a long time, this will be a participatory democracy. And just like Barack Obama’s election, this is a necessary development. We can no longer allow the special interests, whether they be lobbyists or PACs or corporations or associations, to lead us and our representatives in Washington around by the nose. We can no longer live narrow, comfortable little lives, assuming that someone has our back. Barack Obama isn’t going to save us by himself, and it would be unfair for us to seek that of  him.  What we can reasonably hope for from him, however,  is leadership.

There, now I’ve said it.

Distinguished Company

So the economy’s in the toilet, your portfolio is close to worthless and your retirement age is now 124. But at least in one respect, you’re on an equal footing with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, and you’re just as powerful as the President.

They only have one vote, just like you.

Of course, it all depends on how you use it. It’s a really important thing, and not all of us take it as seriously as we should. Do you vote a certain way because your family always has, or because your spouse or your best friend vote that way, or even because of the opinions of Keith or Rush? Or do you make up your own mind?

How about “sending a message?” It seems like a forgone conclusion that Obama will win California, but I have a relative who wants to send a message to him that he’s not entitled to a mandate, even though that voter believes Obama is qualified to be president. Then there’s the issue of having Democrats in charge of everything and the presumed need for checks and balances. If the Democrats do win, don’t worry. They’ll have no money to spend, and if they want to raise our taxes, well, we don’t have enough to pay them anyway, do we?

I think you should vote for the candidate you want to fill a particular office -- even if that candidate doesn’t belong to a major party. You’re going to hear a lot about “throwing away your vote,” but true throwing away is, of course, not voting at all. If you vote for the person who is really in line with your views, you’re sending all the message you need to send.

Where I live, there’s just too much stuff on the ballot. If you really take this voting business seriously, it’s work. You have to study the candidates and the issues, especially if there are all those no-means-yes and yes-means-no propositions facing you. Sometimes I just don’t have a clue, but I never flip coins or do the eeny-meeny-miny thing. I just leave those items blank. I feel that I’m not qualified to vote on something I really don’t understand. Usually, those are the least important things I just didn’t get around to reading about.

The great thing about this election is that the electorate is finally paying attention. I have a strong feeling that whoever wins the presidency won’t be able to get away with very much, because too many of us will be watching.

This is really an historic moment for voters, whether you’re doing it for the first time or you’ve been at it for decades. It would be a real shame if you had the ability to participate and didn’t. Heck, you can be right up there with Bill and Warren. Or Keith and Rush. Or Barack and John. And even Sarah.

There, now I’ve said it.

When Losing Is Winning

I really like John McCain. I actually think he is more qualified to be president than Barack Obama.  Still, I hope the Republicans lose.

McCain doesn’t deserve to be beaten, but the GOP, as presently constituted, needs a wake-up call. I consider myself a Republican, but it seems the so-called base of the party has a problem with anyone who holds a moderate or balanced view, or penchant for seeking common ground with opponents, or respect for intellectual capacity and breath of knowledge. 

Most McCain-watchers have for years appreciated his independence, his willingness to reach across the aisle, and his insistence on transparency in government. But then they told him he had to do something to appeal to his party’s base, and presto, Sarah Palin, who is given all this credit for energizing the party. But how many has she alienated? How many are insulted by the notion that this is the best the Republican Party can come up with as a vice-presidential candidate? Why couldn’t they let McCain be McCain, and why did he allow himself to be manipulated? You can’t get me to believe that he willingly chose Palin as his running mate. It just doesn’t compute.

It seems all the GOP has left is this “base,” because everyone else who might be attracted to the party has been shown the door. And it’s not the door to a big tent, but to the doghouse.

Perhaps a Republican defeat next week would lead to a badly needed rebuilding of the party. Maybe this time, Republicans will learn that its time to find a new base on which to build.

There, now I’ve said it.

From Powell's Mouth to God's -- and Obama's -- Ears

If Barack Obama ever needed the hep of a 700-pound gorilla, he got it on Sunday with the endorsement of former Secretary of State and retired Gen. Colin Powell.

Powell praised Obama’s calm, patient and intellectual approach to problem solving. He said it’s time for a generational change and a fresh set of eyes on the challenges this country faces, and noted that Obama’s election would help patch up our reputation in the rest of the world.

He wasn’t rejecting John McCain so much as the Republican Party, saying the focus of the GOP campaign has become narrower and narrower, and that the party needs to change direction. His feelings about his party certainly aren’t new, but perhaps this endorsement will make its members sit up and pay attention.

As for Sarah Palin, he gets it; the vice-president’s primary job is to be a spare president, and Palin is unqualified, in Powell’s judgment, to do that job. But when is Palin going to get it? Sorry to break it to you, Governor, but there’s a great gulf fixed between “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday night!” and a State of the Union address.

As for Obama’s ears, the cartoonists and now even the candidate himself have had a lot of fun with the organs seemingly borrowed from Alfred E. Newman. But will Obama use those ears to listen? Clearly he isn’t going to be able to pursue a classical liberal agenda in the current economic climate. The government is too busy with the bailing cans to think about spending any new money – there is none. Campaign promises are so much air; it’s the qualities the candidate brings to the table. After this crisis passes, he'll need those qualities to deal with the next one.

There, now I've said it.

Fighters and Boxers

In the boxing world, sometimes it takes three fights between the same two rivals to determine who’s the better of the two. There are fighters, and then there are boxers.

John McCain is the fighter. He swings and tries to score on his opponent, not caring much about style – and he occasionally connects. Barack Obama is the boxer. He doesn’t usually throw knockout punches, but scores points with style and deftness.

If you watched Wednesday night’s debate, you saw McCain score points by painting Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal, which he is. McCain made convincing arguments about cutting federal spending. But can either of these guys actually come up with a radical new plan to fix the economy? That would have been the knockout punch, and it didn’t happen in that debate.

Obama had the clear advantage on health care, and McCain’s lame attempts to link him to reputed former terrorist William Ayers fell flat. As for Joe the Plumber, I don’t think he worked very well as a debate device, but with all the publicity he got, he should be able to buy his own business after all.

I did find Obama’s answer on appointments to the Supreme Court. It sounded an awful lot like he would employ a litmus test, and I agree with McCain, who said it should be all about the qualifications of the nominee. So how does he explain Sarah Palin?

With McCain, you can always tell where he stands by his facial expression and body language – he may be a good fighter, but he’s a terrible poker player. It’s not as easy to read Obama. Do you prefer passionate or inscrutable?

The pundits can pund all they want, but in a boxing match, it’s up to the three judges to come up with the official score – and the commentators are sometimes left with saying, “Where did that come from?”

In spite of all the polls, it’s clear to me that this race is not over by any means. Just like those at the press table at ringside, we’re going to have to wait for the judges’ decision next month.

There, now I’ve said it.