Destroying the Country First Brand

First - this is a very political post. Buyer Beware. And for the record, this is a copy and paste of sorts from an email exchange with Alan and CK, as well as an facebook rant from a couple days ago, so with that out of the way, let's get to it...
Not surprisingly, the blogosphere has been abuzz with talk of the political after John McCain’s shocking decision to dub the mooseburger eatin’ VPILF "reformer" as his running mate for the election turned Soap Opera that is the 2008 political season.

Whether you agree with team red or not, the bulk of the conversation has been in agreement: Genius. At least, strategically speaking. We’ve heard the run down, conservative-as-can-be, card-carrying lifetime NRA member, mother of 5 including 1 special needs child and 1 about to ship off to Iraq, husband in the union, former beauty queen and high school super-athlete, dubbed Sarah Barracuda.

This is a strategic blunder of the highest order, and one that may destroy John McCain’s chance to become our next President. No question from the moment the choice was leaked, Palin would rile up the conservative base and add the first shot of energy into a McCain campaign that’s relied solely on attack ads and the daily news spin cycle to remain anywhere close.

But more to the point of why this was the wrong choice.

The one effective line of argument against Barack Obama was the question of experience. The McCain argument against Obama is basically that he’s an empty suit that will put the entire country in danger in these perilous times, as evidenced by the ad below.

But by putting Palin next in line for the presidency, he ruined the entire argument. They may charge otherwise, or make the absurd argument that she’s more experienced than Obama, but that argument rings true mostly with ideologues and 4th graders.

And you can see the issue already in his surrogates now. They're forced to say things like - "Alaska is the closest part of our continent to Russia, so it’s not as if she doesn’t understand what’s at stake here," (Cindy McCain and fox news) which is obviously ridiculous, or "[she] took on Ted Stevens, if she can take him on then she take on the Russians" (Lindsey Graham) which exposes the fact that she was the director of good ol' Ted's 527 group, or, possibly the most absurd, she's the commander and chief of the Alaska National Guard (although she doesn't have any say, nor is she even briefed, on foreign deployment).

So, Obama puts us at risk, but Palin doesn't? It puts himself and all of his surrogates in a terrible position, and one that will have journalists throwing their own words back at them throughout the remainder of the campaign. Also, it's put the age issue front and center (which actually had the most affect on polling over both race and gender).

But that’s not the most damning piece of this. John McCain threw his “Country First” brand out the igloo window by making a pick clearly marked more by politics and nothing to do with governing or keeping the country safe from the very same scary world that McCain presented.

One time. That’s it. That and one five-minute phone call was the entire extent of the McCain – Palin relationship before the pick was made. And apparently that is enough for John McCain to believe that she has the leadership skills to run this country during two wars, a feistier Russia, and an Iranian threat that caused the recent fear mongering ad from the McCain camp. One time.

Is he merely playing politics or is he choosing a qualified candidate to lead our country in the very real possibility that something happens to this 72 year-old, 2-time cancer survivor. The bulk of her political experience is derived from her time as the mayor of the town of Wasilla, Alaska and its 6,000 residents. 6,000. During that time she ran up a 20 million dollar debt, more than $3,000 per resident, because she wanted to build an ice rink. Literally. And one that brought the raising of city sales taxes and cost the city millions extra because of the mishandling of the land buy and ensuing lawsuits. And yes, then she became Governor of Alaska’s 600,000 people. That’s less than 1/3 the size of my hometown Dallas, TX.

And while there, in March of last year she had this to say about Iraq:

 “Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.”

Haven’t really focused on it? The centerpiece of McCain’s foreign policy, this surge, and you haven’t focused on it? And while she hasn’t taken much of an interest in Iraq, we’re supposed to trust her to face down Ahmadinejad in Iran, chase Bin laden into Pakistan, lead our military in Afghanistan, negotiate and back down Putin in Russia, and defend Israel and referee conflicts with Palestine. Yeah, thanks, but no thanks.

That’s the fundamental problem with McCain’s choice for VP, but add that to her ethics investigation, misrepresentation of her involvement in the bridge to nowhere (for it before she was against it?), her disbelief of both evolution and man-made global warming and her vetoes of wind power and clean coal projects in Alaska. Put that against her raising money for the politicians she portends to be against and firing employees of the city of Wasilla when she didn’t get her way, like the librarian who didn’t bend to Sarah’s call to ban books.

And maybe if McCain did more vetting, he may have found her husband’s registration with the Alaska Independence Party from 1995-2002, whose dinner plate issue is the secession from the United States. 

Now obviously, he didn’t pick someone he knew was ready to lead because he didn’t know her at all. So why pick her? It could be charged that in his contempt for Barack Obama and obsession with winning at any cost, it was more important for him to score political points. It can be said that he did the very thing he charges Obama with doing by putting his ambition in front of the country’s need for real leadership on the cynical notion that women are so dumb and politically unaware that they were voting for Hillary merely because of a chromosome rather than her stance on the issues. And this, this is the most offensive thing of all.

No question, Palin is a likeable figure and it’s good to see a woman on any ticket. But the biggest problem with the pick isn’t about Palin. It is clearly more reflective of the McCain temperament rather than any kind of that good judgment he’s attempted to sell. And in this time in our country, with huge economic hurdles to cross and foreign policy issues to tackle, the country will likely see this choice for what it is, a transparent ploy for a few votes, a meme that has the potential to destroy every bit of the brand McCain and his Rove protégés have worked to build into his country first imagery. And frankly, Obama is just too good of a politician to be defeated by these kinds of tactics.

Well, helpfully none of you take too much offense. I tend to get a little worked up by these sorts of things. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

*Post updated to reflect that NY Times is now reporting that only Sarah's husband, Todd, was a member of the AIP. It's unclear to what extent Sarah is related to the party.

Comments

[Cam Beck]

Why is it that everyone voting for Obama keeps saying that the experience argument was effective? McCain tried the experience angle in 2000 against GWB, and look where that got him.

It was not Obama's experience that caused him to be, perhaps, the most overexposed and overappreciated politician since JFK.

It was not his experience that had him leading in most polls.

It wasn't his experience causing people to faint at the chance to touch his robe.

Nope. Experience has very little to do with it.

Present company excepted, a lot of people have just started to pay attention.

I've been watching Obama since his run for the Illinois senate against (first) Jack Ryan and (second) Alan Keyes. But I know that, outside of Illinois and a lot of major periodicals, I'm in the minority.

And by the way, I said back then that Obama would run for President in '08 or '12, so let's tally up the score now. ;)

Point by point...
The "ethics investigation" is not the same as an ethics violation. If we bring that up against Palin, we then must also bring up Obama's shady real estate deal or his association with an unrepentant terrorist or McCain's association with "The Keating 5."

For the "Bridge to Nowhere," there may be an explanation for why she changed her mind. She was also FOR being on the ethics panel before she quit in disgust of the corruption she saw and rooted out as governor.

But let's not forget Obama's and McCain's changes in position about drilling or taxes -- or the war. (In the 2004 debates, Obama said he thought we had to win the war. Later, he decried the surge as an inevitable failure and called for unilateral retreat ... er... withdrawal).

As for global warming and evolution - many more people take Sarah Palin's side than you give the side credit for. That's pretty much a wash. The executive branch has very little say in the matter anyway, and McCain is firmly in your camp as to the cause of global warming (now dormant for ... what... 8? 12 years?)

The AIP is just considered an arm of the Constitution Party in Alaska, and while some have brought up secession, it is not in its official platform. IMO, Obama's association with Ayers is much more problematic.

[mack collier]

"This is a strategic blunder of the highest order, and one that may destroy John McCain’s chance to become our next President. No question from the moment the choice was leaked, Palin would rile up the conservative base and add the first shot of energy into a McCain campaign that’s relied solely on attack ads and the daily news spin cycle to remain anywhere close.

But more to the point of why this was the wrong choice.

The one effective line of argument against Barack Obama was the question of experience."

You're right Paul. Picking a woman with little experience as the VP choice does indeed hurt McCain's 'no experience' argument against Obama.

But at the same time, what has been Brand Obama from Day One?

Change.

How many times have we heard Obama say that 'now is the time'? In every speech.

Does the addition of a woman, in an historical nomination for her party, help, or hurt Obama's 'change' branding?

This choice has done four things:

1 - Has undermined McCain's chief reason for why voters shouldn't pick Obama.

2 - Has undermined Obama's 'change' branding.

3 - Has excited and energized conservatives.

4 - Has liberals crying that it's a strategic blunder.

Time will tell whether or not this works. I've seen and heard more than one person (republicans AND democrats) say that if the election ends up being about the past, Obama wins. If the election ends up being about the future, McCain wins. I think that's probably right.

The Palin pick clearly moves the republican party toward the future, while the pick of Romney or Liebermann would have definitely helped Obama focus on the past and his message of change.

So I think McCain made a pretty good pick. We'll see how it goes.

[Paul McEnany]

I'd agree that experience is not the thing that go him to where he is today, and it's at least questionable whether or not the argument was working if you look at Obama's negatives. But McCain had fought back in the polls and things were trending his direction after a month of the sustained "ready to lead" attack.

As far as the ethics investigation, no, she isn't yet charged with anything, but we do know she lied about it. And lied all the way up to the point where evidence came out that proved she lied about it. And now this morning comes more evidence of half-truths as her emails are released.

And the house thing, questionable argument at best.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/rezko_reality.html

If you charge Obama with the Rezco thing, you could also implicate Palin because of her relationship to Ted Stevens.

As far as global warming and evolution - you may be right if you're including the religious conservatives in the mix, but they're already voting for McCain. It matters in the moderate middle, where I can see this, couple with teaching creationism in schools, questions about banning books, etc. used to paint her as an extremist.

Either way, I think the point here, regardless of how she turns out, is the process in which McCain came to this decision. We know she was barely vetted and he only met her one time. We know nothing about her foreign policy world view, to the point where even McCain repeated that whole "Alaska is next to Russia" bullshit. It looks like political pandering and puts a dagger through the country first brand.

Mack- The point isn't what it does to Obama's argument, I don't think. People already see him as the change candidate, the pick is to just make themselves part of the discussion. And I get that there are many, many reasons why she makes a good pick. She does everything you said, she locks down the base, she takes a little of that change back, but the issue is (1) what she is not and (2) how McCain got to the decision. If the pick is seen to be cynical or political pandering, it hurts his message of country first. And after months of telling us how scary the world is, and how his number one criteria for VP is someone "Ready to Lead" it makes it all the more likely that the pick backfires.

[mack collier]

BTW watching Fox News now. They interviewed the editor of US magazine about the cover that you posted above, that boldly says 'Babies, Lies and Scandal'. The cover obviously implies that Palin has lied, and Fox asked the editor what the lies were. US finally admitted that the 'Lies' part of the cover referred to lies that BLOGGERS had told ABOUT PALIN.

This is exactly why I try to avoid political 'talk' as much as possible.

[Paul McEnany]

I actually didn't read the article, so wasn't sure what lies they were speaking of. You'll notice that I didn't mention the baby or her kids (other than as a positive to her narrative) because it drags down the debate. Obviously, the baby story is sexy and gets covered while the ties to Ted Stevens, flops on the bridge, and the lies she did tell, on the record, concerning whether or not she applied pressure on the subject of her abuse of power investigation get largely ignored.

But it sure sounds like you were implying that I lied about her record or her baby, which you'll find isn't the case.

[Paul McEnany]

Let me rephrase - not that I lied, but that I perpetuated the lie, rather, which also isn't the case.

[Cam Beck]

"As far as global warming and evolution - you may be right if you're including the religious conservatives in the mix, but they're already voting for McCain."

Paul... If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. Of the ones who were going to vote for him, they were going to do so "as the lesser of two evils," not as any fundamental agreement about his politics. But many declared that they could not in good conscience vote for him and would not.

In that scenario, you see that even if he captured 90% of their vote (which is debatable), he would not have motivated them to work for his election, which is what he desperately needed. Campaigning and advertising only goes so far. The grunt work in the Republican party is carried out by just those you disparage.

"Barely vetted" is a specious argument, and it's a standard that up until now has never been used for any VP pick by either side. What "barely vetted" means (to those who use it) is "I know next to nothing about her." That doesn't mean McCain didn't know enough to make the pick.

To be consistent with "America First," it's more important that it's the right pick, not one you know everything about. What we do know that she's nothing like Obama, the official bogeyman of the Republican Party, and in many respects the only reason McCain is getting a lot of his support from those who have been upset with McCain since CFR, his opposition to tax cuts (not to mention his rhetoric at the time), and his immigration bill.

[Paul McEnany]

"Paul... If you believe that, then you haven't been paying attention. Of the ones who were going to vote for him, they were going to do so "as the lesser of two evils," not as any fundamental agreement about his politics. But many declared that they could not in good conscience vote for him and would not."

Cam, look at what I said. I realize he's gotten lackluster support from volunteers to this point, but that has as much to do with his own organization as enthusiasm. As far as money, between him and RNC, they've been running about equal (as their own strategist touted). But, he's been running at near 90% of republican support for a long time, the polls have been pretty steady. Not sure what that has to do with the comment about whether Palin's views on global warming are outside of the mainstream of the undecideds.

And while I appreciate you calling the vetting argument specious, that's BS. If the vetting process was not an issue, why the hell would McCain's own people have lied about it and pushed back so hard on the argument instead of standing up and telling the truth?

Secondly, it doesn't mean that I don't know enough about her, it's that the McCain camp didn't either, which has been proven again and again by their own admission. And frankly, I do think it's important that he puts someone second in line that he knows everything about because he is not taking only his political future in his hands, but all of our safety. And considering the amount of VP's that prematurely turn into P's, that's pretty important.

And frankly, it hasn't been at issue before because not many people hire for such an important position in such a lackluster fashion, unless Eagleton rings a bell..

And does he know if it's the right pick to lead (ie. not only politically) if he doesn't know everything about her?

You're stretching reason here, Cam...

[Cam Beck]

"by their own admission."

Source. I call for source.

[Cam Beck]

"Cam, look at what I said. I realize he's gotten lackluster support from volunteers to this point, but that has as much to do with his own organization as enthusiasm."

Nah. If you go where they go, you'll notice that they talk about "holding their nose" to vote for him, and they have been -- for years -- describing him as a RiNO - a Republican in Name Only. That's not an organization problem, it's a problem with his principles and his record.

[S.S.]

God, I love your blog. Will not give up your RSS feed for nothing!

[Cam Beck]

On a broader note - This is what I really hate about the state of republican (small-r) politics, and why I have abandoned voting nationally for either R or D as a matter of habit or misplaced sense of loyalty.

The saddest part is that I'm not sure there is anything that can be done about it -- the divisions of faction that encourage party members to circle their wagons no matter what. It may be something that is embedded in human nature like hedonism -- it may be that it can be overcome only by great exertions of will (of one entity or Another) that are unlikely to be exerted in a large body of people at the same time and for the same end.

Were it a Republican fingered in a corruption scandal like Obama has been with the Rezko thing (the link you provided, by the way, sets up all sorts of straw men), you know as well as I do that you'd be the first in line to shout "Corruption!" at the top of your lungs.

But you don't. Because Obama is "your guy."

Objectively, Palin has at least as much "experience" in government as Obama. Since you support Obama, it isn't really her experience you object to, its her views.

You wouldn't vote for her if she was secretary of state for 10 years and had tons of experience dealing with foreign nations (though, as SoS, her job would have been to carry out the will of the executive branch, not set its policy).

So the experience issue is just a cover. As is the vetting.

Obama could have picked Dennis Kucinich as his running mate based on his record (which is easy enough to look up -- no meeting required), and (though you may think it was a stupid choice) you'd still vote for him and try to justify it because McCain is 1) old, and 2) a war monger, 3) "anti-choice" and 4) whatever else Democrats tend to say against their opponents.

You're not alone. Most Rs and Ds are like this in some respect.

Yet, someway, somehow, though we disagree vehemently about the nature and purpose of the federal government, we treat each other compassionately as individuals -- but with respect for our capacity to reason and our right to do so on our own terms -- however misguided or dangerous we think the other's terms might be.

[Paul McEnany]

1- Source - here's on from Marc Ambinder about what they did and didn't know. There was another article about senior McCain aides leaking issues with the vetting process. Still looking for it, when I find it I'll put back up. Either way, we know they "vet" her the Wednesday before she was picked, and sent their vetting team to AK the Thursday before she was picked.

2. Of course there was lackluster support within the religious base, many didn't trust him, I'll give you that.

3.Cam, maybe it's time you back off on telling me what my opinions are and what I'd say or do in these hypothetical situations.

4. Equal experience? Put down the koolaid, there, Cam. Nice talking point, but not reality. When you hear the McCain's make the argument that she understands foreign policy because Alaska is close to Russia (literally), that should raise some red flags. She is experienced in some areas, but has not only had zero foreign policy experience, but hasn't even expressed an opinion on the matter(s). That is an issue whether you like it or not.

5. The Rezko. What exactly is your charge here? Because in a single post I didn't rail on Obama about Rezko, I'm not allowed to mention on ongoing ethics investigation? Riiiiigggghhtt....

6. And you're right, I wouldn't vote for her even if she had all the experience in the world because I disagree with her views. But again, you're talking about my own views, not the point I was making, which is that her lack of experience, AFTER how big of an issue McCain made the experience issue, makes the pick look cynical, which harms McCain's brand.

These other points are simply arguing against something I'm not arguing, apparently (much like you accused those horrible lefties at factcheck.org).

And not that it matters, but I'm not sure if you caught Mike Murphy, Peggy Noonan and Chuck Todd talking when they thought the mics were off. Regardless of views, sure sound like they were making the same point I was making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrG8w4bb3kg

[Cam Beck]

"3.Cam, maybe it's time you back off on telling me what my opinions are and what I'd say or do in these hypothetical situations."

Don't get testy. It's a speculation based on what you (politically) choose to talk about and what you choose to ignore. You don't claim to be objective, Paul, and neither do I (I just claim to hate everyone more or less equally). If you have evidence to the contrary, I'll gladly look at it... but the larger point is that most people are like this. It isn't specific to you, and it isn't specific to Democrats.

"4. Equal experience?"

As far as her term in elected office? Yep. It's all relevant, no matter how much Obama's team and his minions want to disparage the responsibilities of being mayor of a small town and a governor of a state with fewer people than Dallas. The fact is that Obama's in his first term as a junior senator from which he displayed absolutely zero leadership and even less wisdom and foresight. And his record in the Illinois state legislature is scary. Leave Rezko out of it.

"5. What exactly is your charge here?"

Against whom?

"AFTER how big of an issue McCain made the experience issue, makes the pick look cynical, which harms McCain's brand."

It depends on the audience. For once, McCain was not trying to please Democrats and the media with this decision, and that pisses them off to no end.

That Republicans are acting as if it will make a difference in how McCain the President governs is the bigger farce. He is still McCain -- his historical record speaks louder than his current words and any bones he throws to his party's base.

"And not that it matters, but I'm not sure if you caught Mike Murphy, Peggy Noonan and Chuck Todd talking when they thought the mics were off."

Are you referring to the "political bull***t remark? LOL! All national politics is bull***t. What's amazing isn't that they said it, but that it took them up until now to realize it. Do they think Obama -- the agent of "changiness" picked a seasoned Washington insider for some other reason?

"These other points are simply arguing against something I'm not arguing, apparently"

Some of that wasn't even directed at you. If you look at the beginning of one of the comments, I started with, "On a broader note..." to express my general displeasure about political discourse and objective, reasoned analysis. I was not addressing any specific point you were making, but the broader problem that, in my estimation, spurred you to raise it to the exclusion of all else.

But it didn't have to be you, because people do it all the time. It just happened to be here because I read you regularly. You got the brunt of my venting. Sorry, but this is the stuff conversations are made of.

[Paul McEnany]

(cam said)"You don't claim to be objective, Paul, and neither do I (I just claim to hate everyone more or less equally)."

few comments earlier...

(cam said)"Objectively, Palin has at least as much "experience" in government as Obama."

Hmmm....

(cam said)"As far as her term in elected office? Yep. It's all relevant, no matter how much Obama's team and his minions want to disparage the responsibilities of being mayor of a small town and a governor of a state with fewer people than Dallas. The fact is that Obama's in his first term as a junior senator from which he displayed absolutely zero leadership and even less wisdom and foresight. And his record in the Illinois state legislature is scary. Leave Rezko out of it."

Again - I don't think anyone is saying being mayor is irrelevant to her qualification list. As I said, she racked up 20 million in debt and raised taxes while she was there. I certainly consider those facts relevant. It also gave her a chance to fire a librarian for not banning books and a police chief for "intimidating" her. I agree, this is all relevant information. And as a stepping stone position, yes, it does have relevance on the plus side, too.

But, my argument on experience isn't just about number of years, it's about professed positions, world view, the ability to pass a competence threshold on the issues that we care about. We don't know what she thinks about health care, russia, iran, iraq, afghanistan, stock markets, education, nafta, and on and on. That is part of what happens during a national vetting process. You answer tough questions about your positions and are expected to be fluent on an extremely broad range of topics. Being mayor of Wasilla doesn't excuse her of that. Nor does the governorship.

And considering the McCain campaign is refusing all interviews and it's unclear on when, or if, she'll ever give them, that should raise a flag of whether or not she is experienced enough to be the big P.

On the video, I was referring to the fact that all three, including Murphy (McCain's chief strategist in 2000) called it a cynical pick. As far as Biden, Obama obviously picked him for political purposes, as it is always the case. But he didn't abdicate his responsibility of picking someone people would trust to be President in a crisis (which inherently will be the case when a President dies, for whatever reason).

And last of all, I think we can definitely agree that the political discourse in this country is 90% ridiculous. The two party system pigeon holes people into unhappy marriages, but they tow the company line in the name of winning. I sure would love for the parties to splinter, giving us a larger selection. Seriously, how would it be worse if we said f the primaries and just threw all those guys out there and said may the best man win? They can all battle it out down to two (whether that means R vs. R, D vs. R, L vs. D, etc.) then have a run-off to see who wins. Seems like we might actually cut through some of the ridiculousness...

[Cam Beck]

"professed positions, world view, the ability to pass a competence threshold on the issues that we care about. We don't know what she thinks about ..."

We should have plenty of time from now until November to sort that all out. Just because not everyone is aware of them doesn't mean they don't exist. -- but to boil down "experience" to "world view" kinda makes my point. Her world view is why Republicans love her and are finally excited about this election.

(And I DEFINITELY have problems with the world views of the two guys at the top of the R and D tickets... so by that standard, neither is qualified)

Here's something else to consider... For a long time Republicans have believed that the party bosses were no longer representing their interests. There was a "glass ceiling" of sorts (no, not that one) that the grassroots organizers couldn't break through to get their voices heard. On the other side of the glass ceiling, the grassroots folks saw scandal after scandal by a bunch of old guys who came to believe their position of privilege entitled them to favors.

To Pubbies, Palin represents the one who broke through that glass ceiling. Someone who challenged the corrupt party bosses and won -- fulfilling the hopes of the party faithful. We'll see how well that perception holds out over the next two months. No doubt, if it's going to break, a presidential election will break it.

But McCain did something smart at the convention when the delegates were putting together the platform -- He didn't get in their way, even when he disagreed (like past candidates have).

That, in addition to picking someone who is by all visible accounts more conservative than McCain, has got to assuage the fears of the delegates and activists.

Whether the platform is "right" or "wrong" is really beside the point. It's supposed to document the views of the people to guide the politicians, not the politicians to rule the people.

"And considering the McCain campaign is refusing all interviews and it's unclear on when, or if, she'll ever give them, that should raise a flag of whether or not she is experienced enough to be the big P."

Now we know: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=5747205&page=1

It was just a matter of time.

"called it a cynical pick"

Well... I'm a cynic, so like I said, the amazing thing is it took them this long to realize that politicians do what they think will win the election (and Democrats are no different). Does that destroy the "America First" brand? Not conclusively. He would not be a good steward of the trust he was given as the nominee if he picked someone who didn't help his chances. It's a sad commentary, but the fact is there are a lot of people who pick the strangest reasons to vote for or against someone.

"Seems like we might actually cut through some of the ridiculousness..."

I heard an argument not too far back that made a lot of sense. The Federal Election Commission is geared toward protecting the interests of the two major parties. To be objective and fair, all candidates who have gained access to the ballot in enough states to theoretically win a majority of electoral votes should be allowed into the debates, so that the people can better see their choices.

This polling crap that they pull is self-fulfilling anyway. You see it all the time among those who share small-l libertarian tendencies... "Oh, I'd love to vote for candidate x, but he can't win so I'm going to vote for the (R or D) candidate."

In 2000, I decided that it's not my responsibility to look into the future and figure out what everyone else is going to be doing with their vote. That's "above my pay grade," you might say. So I'll just vote for the people who best represent me, as far as they can be found on the ballot.

If no one is acceptable, I'm not going to vote for one of the two tickets if neither can satisfactorily represent me, because the end result is a government that can't represent me.

[captain flummox]

From a more distant view this campaign is a fascinating exercise in persuasion. On one side a veteran, on the other an adored challenger some consider a mystery choice. Undercurrents of race and gender inclusion. And cagey shifts in strategy. Change and experience in a tug-o-war, in many cases, very unprofessional and biased media coverage, and celebrities chiming in because they can't help themselves, sometimes seeming to trivialize the whole process. Now, the denouement, where candidates on the attack risk tarnishing their own images in the process. Just fascinating.

[bg]

Vote Nader.