When Sen. McCain Zigzags, His Favorability Does Too

Senator John McCain treads a zigzag trail.  So they say he’s inconsistent and a “maverick,” wandering politically like an unbranded calf.

Consider:

On Meet the Press last month, the Arizona Republican blasted the U.S. Supreme Court for its Citizens United decision, which allowed creation of the so-called and largely despised “Super Pacs.”

 Such Pacs can accept unlimited and secret campaign donations from corporations, individuals, and other Pacs to create campaign advertising.

The Court’s decision was “uninformed, arrogant, naïve…and the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21^st century,” fumed Mr. McCain. He added:

 “I promise you, there will be huge scandals because there’s too much money washing around, too much of it we don’t know who’s behind it, and too much corruption associated with that kind of money.”

Terrific! We cheer the Senator. He expressed the feelings of a huge number of Americans who despise the Pacs for, among other reasons, the spurious attack ads they generate.

Then came Monday July 16.

That day Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island democrat, finally managed to have the Senate consider the Disclose Act he had authored. The measure would require Super Pac donors to reveal their names, thus remedying one major flaw of the SCOTUS decision.

The Disclose Act would eliminate the threat of corporations secretly and extravagantly backing candidates who would champion their pet—and possibly repugnant—causes once in office. It would eliminate the possibility of foreign governments hiding donations to beholden candidates under cover of phony “companies” with a name and address and nothing more. The Disclose Act would stanch what Sen. Whitehouse calls “the flood of secret money” which, he says, “threatens to drown out the voices of middle class families in our democracy.”

Given his earlier outrage over the decision that allows the Super Pacs, you’d think that Mr. McCain would support the Disclose Act.

But no. The glimpse we got was of Mr. McCain indistinguishable from his GOP- branded colleagues following their leader from Kentucky, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and stifling the Disclose Act debate.

Mr. McCain explained “the Disclose Act is closer to a clever attempt at political gamesmanship, than actual reform.”

Not terrific! We stop cheering the Senator.

Because even If what he said were true and the Act failed in some ways, wouldn’t it still  be better to have half of what we want and need than to have all of nothing?

But how can you stay consistently peeved at the Senator?

A few days later we see him rising and lambasting the ugly, ignorant attempt of Minnesota republican Rep. Michele Bachmann and others to label Huma Abedin as a possible spy of the Muslim Brotherhood. Some presume the Muslim Brotherhood is a U.S. enemy. Ms. Abedin is a Muslim and a valued and long-time deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. 

Mr. McCain told the Senate Ms. Abedin’s “character, reputation, and patriotism are attacked without concern for fact or fairness.” He said:

“To say that the accusations…are not substantiated by the evidence…is to be overly polite…. These allegations about Huma…are nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable citizen, a dedicated American, and a loyal public servant.”

Terrific! We cheer the Senator again.

Ah, but not everyone cheers. A fella named Wes Harris, an Arizona Tea Party leader, screams Mr. McCain must be recalled for defending Ms. Abedin.  The Huffington Post quotes, Harris saying the Senator is an “embarrassment”.

Harris proclaims, “Anyone that is a Muslim is a threat to the country and that is a fact. There is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. Go to hell, senator, it’s time for you to take your final dirt nap.”

Who dreams up this rancid nonsense? And where do bimbos like Harris come from? Think about it. Harris is not a member of the U.S. House, a haven of rampant foolishness. He’s not even from Minnesota.

Beyond that, how tawdry to personally insult a man like Mr. McCain. For five and a half horrific years, then Navy pilot McCain experienced the hell of imprisonment and crippling torture in Hanoi.  Among his other military honors, he won the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and the Distinguished Flying Cross.

Clearly Mr. McCain deserves respect. And those who criticize him for inconsistency and for failing to share our political beliefs and stands on issues do so while saluting a remarkably heroic American hero.

                                                                                       --Gus Gribbin

Sadly, Super Pac Lovers Win Again

To one viewing the Disclose Act debate in the U.S. Senate Monday night, July 16, it seemed preposterous that anyone could resist the logic of passing the hugely popular measure.

The Act’s backers skillfully laid out the facts and the critical need for passage while their opponents ignored the facts and ranted they were being subjected to a senseless “dog and pony show.”

Guess who won.

Naysaying GOP troopers of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader from Kentucky, effectively prevented a vote on the measure. They did the same next day.

 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island democrat, put forward the compromise Act in March. When the Senate finally considered the proposal on July 16, it had 28 co-sponsoring Senators and more than 220,000 on-line citizen co-sponsors.

A Curb on Donations

The Act would require outside political groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to report the expenditures to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours. Importantly, it would require groups like the so-called Super Pacs to identify their big-money donors.

Polls indicate that a broad swath of Americans—Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike--want action to curb Super Pacs. It’s widely believed that they corrupt political campaigns.

Here’s why:

 In its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court gave certain Political Action Committees (PACS) a new freedom. If the Pacs did not give directly to candidates, parties, or other PACS, they could accept unlimited funding from corporations, unions, other PACS and individuals. They could use the money to, for instance, pay for campaign advertising, movies, and such.

And

As it turned out, the donors to these newly freed “Super PACS” do not have to reveal the names of corporate or individual donors.

Corporate Camouflage

Also corporations can make secret donations using phony “shell” companies as cover. That way the public cannot learn the source of noxious ads plugging noxious policies and particular candidates. One danger of this is that foreign governments might form shell-companies to shield donations intended to influence U.S. elections.

Beyond that, consider that  big-time donors like the fabulously wealthy brothers  David and Charles Koch, owners of the second largest privately held company in the nation, and Sheldon Adelson, CEO of the Los Angeles Sands Corp., don’t contribute tens and millions of dollars to political organizations  for fun.  They want something for their money.

And although the public may not know who is behind the Super PAC ads for a given candidate, the candidate surely knows. He will be expected to show his  gratitude later.

What’s more, as Sen. Whitehouse says, “The flood of secret money unleashed by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision threatens to drown out the voices of middle class families in our democracy.”

Protection against Special Interests

The Senator says the Disclose Act would, “uphold every citizen’s right to know where this secret money is coming from and whom it is going to, and will help protect the interests of middle class families from the special interests who already have too much power.”

What’s wrong with that?

In the GOP view, plenty. Super Pacs are Republican favorites. That’s partially because the best funded, most successful Super Pacs are products of GOP luminaries like the Kochs. And those smarmy Pacs shower their blessings on those who protect them.

So the GOP champions secrecy even though the record shows the GOP once screamed and yelled for disclosure and transparency in campaign financing.

                                     ---Gus Gribbin

Skip the News? You'll Miss the Drama

              At the Fourth of July party, the lady sitting opposite us overheard the words “New York Times.”

“I would not read that paper,” she interrupted. “I don’t want to read foreign news. I want to read local news.  Local news! “

“Ahhh…” I began to reply…but she was sashaying out of the room.

She’s right, of course. The Times overflows with overseas coverage. But I had a rejoinder. (And what are blogs for if not for firing off rejoinders?)

 “How,” I’d challenge her, “do you tell foreign from local news these days? And besides, foreign news contains the stuff of suspenseful drama.”

We Need Local News

Yes, yes, I know local news is crucial. It’s truly important to know what’s going on around you. And it’s clear that knowing what’s going on locally can enable news consumers to react to hometown events. That’s one reason people pursue local news.  And okay, there’s hardly anything at all we can do about events in Syria, Yemen, or tottering Greece and Spain.

Yet consider that what’s occurring in Iran, the Euro Zone, and England (home of naughty Barclays bank) could impact the U.S. economy, the economies of other nations, the U.S.  Presidential campaigns--and ultimately your bank account.

 Therein lays the drama.

A Little Imagination Please

Imagine the goings-on in, say, Iran and England as a novelist might.

The plot: Iran’s the protagonist. It is a nation smaller than Alaska

  A white-bearded religious tough in a turban and medieval robes rules the country, and he’s managing a fight with the world’s most powerful countries. Iran is out muscled and staggering from hard economic blows to its breadbasket. But it’s hanging on, stretching hard to grab a weapon that will—like Popeye’s dose of spinach--give it a knockout punch. It would make Iran mighty.

Iran’s foes see it reaching for the weapon. They yell,” Surrender now or we’ll hit harder and harder.”

 But Iran refuses. It’s not only stubborn; it’s smart. If it can keep absorbing the punishment, it might wear out its enemies. And if it can taunt them to lose patience and hit with everything they have, they will surely also hurt themselves. They will likely damage their own economies, restart a huge recession, and upend one of their chief foe’s presidential race. Everyone in the United States will be affected.

Who will win the war of wills? Suspense builds.

New Story

Turn now to England. The plot there:

 Barclays, a too-big-to-fail bank, is the main character.

 As the story begins, Barclays is pictured frowning and crumpling copies of email printouts. Barclays knows detectives have the originals, and the originals show the bank has manipulated interest rates and possibly adversely influenced some $350 trillion worth of financial instruments in England and elsewhere.

Barclays is in trouble. It faces endless interrogation, and it’s almost certain its cronies in the United States will reveal how they figured in its schemes, further implicating it.

Readers see Barclays as surrounded in mystery. Here the novelist deftly weaves in the ideas of Joe Nocera, a New York Times columnist. Nocera notes that Britons who learned of Barclays’ violation of law and “abuse of trust” are in an “utter frenzy.” He says Barclays’ big bank buddies in the United States, including JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and others are being investigated.

Outrage in the Offing

 “Which means,” he writes, “there is going to be a lot more opportunities for Americans to become outraged over this scandal. And maybe, finally, the will to change banking once and for all.”

It’s clear as the novel progresses that if banking is finally changed, that affects everyone in the country.

At this point in the tale, the novelist splices in facts the Times’ Nathaniel Popper gathered. Popper adds new characters. He portrays Baltimore city lawyers fighting in court against the world’s big banks. The lawyers accuse bankers—some call them “bankstsers”—of cheating Baltimore when the city borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars.  The city’s resulting losses helped create the need to fire employees and curtail certain needed services.

The moral of both stories is that foreign affairs can and does influence local citizens.

Fantasizing aside, it has been plain for many, many months that the monetary situation in the Euro Zone threatens the United States. Unless Europe’s leaders properly aid money-shy Greece, Spain, and possibly Italy, the United States and other nations could re-run the Great R.

We know from experience how a big recession hurts all in local communities.

                                                                              --Gus Gribbin

Joe Nocera’s column titled Libor’s Dirty Laundry appeared on the Op Ed page of the July 7, 2012 print edition of the New York Times.

Nathaniel Popper’s report headlined Rate Scandal Stirs Scramble for Damages ran on page one of the July 11 print edition of the Times.

Court Says Lying's Okay? Oh My!

         “The world hates a liar!” Mom shouted at the fibbing preschooler.

 At the time, the little guy was possibly the foremost liar on the east coast—maybe the nation. What he had done this day was tell neighbors that his policeman father had been shot.

 The result of that creative burst—the sympathetic hugs and cries of "Dear god!” and “Good heavens”—so pleased him that he kept sharing the news. Meanwhile the phone at his home began ringing with calls of condolence.

An Embarrassed Mom

When the little liar’s embarrassed mother finally go t off the phone, she promised him that his completely healthy dad would deal with him when he got home. The boy learned that was the truth.

Today the kid might argue that the U.S. Supreme Court said lying was okay. He could cite the June 28 ruling in the case of United States v. Alvarez.

Xavier Alvarez, a Los Angeles County resident, confessed to lying when he claimed he had been a Marine and had earned the nation’s highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor. A California court convicted him for violating the Stolen Valor Act, which outlawed falsely claiming to have won military honors.

A Law Goes Down

Alvarez appealed, claiming he was merely exercising his First Amendment right of free speech. The High Court agreed. It ruled the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional.  The Court said, in effect, that the government could not penalize untrue statements and to attempt to do so would require establishing a tyrannical “Ministry of Truth.”

The court’s ruling highlights a fact: Laws often allow actions that ethics forbids. And as Mom knew, lying, in the vast majority of cases, is ethically taboo.

It’s possible to see the practicality of the Court’s decision while sympathizing with the view that scumbags who demean military honors and insult the nation’s bravest heroes should be punished.

 Beyond that, however, any ruling that excuses lying is arguably wrong.

Applying the Rule of Reason

Harvard professor Sissela Bok, has written what critics call a powerful and seminal work titled Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. The Swedish-born author’s authority on the topic is worth heeding. Her logic is impeccable.

She writes, “We have…seen the erosion of public trust as lies build up into vast institutional practices.” She adds, “When trust shatters or wears away, institutions collapse.”

In this campaign year, we hear office seekers contradicting their opponents “facts,” distorting non-partisan studies, and making promises they know they can’t keep. And the public merely shrugs. We hear such remarks as, “Politicians are all alike. All liars.”

Why do we let politicians and public officials get away with false claims and statements?

Mistakes Are Understandable

 Certainly, politicians and officials will make mistakes in speeches and interviews. Unintended error is not lying. A lie is a statement intended to deceive, and we must make office holders and office seekers accountable for such statements. Lying to us is just not fair.  Political distortion and government lies and cover-ups are too corrosive.

Philosopher Bok explains:

“Voters and candidates alike are the losers when a political system has reached such a low level of trust. Once elected, officials find that their warnings and their calls to common sacrifice meet with disbelief and apathy, even when cooperation is most urgently needed. ... And the fact that candidates, should they win, are not expected to have meant what they said while campaigning, nor held accountable for discrepancies, only reinforces the incentives for them to bend the truth next time, thus adding further to the distrust of the  voters.”

So pay attention Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney and you other pols:

 If you’re saying something untrue or now saying the opposite of what you said before, you had better make it clear that you aren’t lying but had an honest change of heart. You owe us the truth. Nothing but. And we’ll examine your words.

 Besides think what your Mom would say if she caught you lying to us.                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                        --Gus Gribbin