The self-destructive streak in certain Republicans as power slips away is truly remarkable.  Or perhaps Tennessee is so in the grips of decades-old good-old-boy thinking that this type of behavior is not seen as reprehensible or outside the norm.

Is Saltsman just some anonymous buffoon?  Well, he’s not anonymous.  He was that national chairman of Hillbilly Huckabee’s presidential campaign, and worked on staff for Bill Frist.

Disgraceful.

Here’s what CNN had to say:

(CNN) — A candidate for the Republican National Committee chairmanship said Friday the CD he sent committee members for Christmas — which included a song titled “Barack the Magic Negro” — was clearly intended as a joke.

The title of the song about President-elect Barack Obama was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column.”

“I think most people recognize political satire when they see it,” Tennessee Republican Chip Saltsman told CNN. “I think RNC members understand that.”

The song, set to the tune of “Puff the Magic Dragon,” was first played on conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in 2007.

Its title was drawn from a Los Angeles Times column that suggested President-elect Barack Obama appealed to those who feel guilty about the nation’s history of mistreatment of African-Americans. Saltsman said the song, penned by his longtime friend Paul Shanklin, should be easily recognized as satire directed at the Times.

The CD sent to RNC members, first reported by The Hill on Friday, is titled “We Hate the USA” and also includes songs referencing former presidential candidate John Edwards and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, among other targets.

According to The Hill, other song titles, some of which were in bold font, were: “John Edwards’ Poverty Tour,” “Wright place, wrong pastor,” “Love Client #9,” “Ivory and Ebony” and “The Star Spanglish Banner.”

Saltsman was national campaign manager for former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid in 2007 and 2008. Before that, he held a variety of posts, including a number of positions under former Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee.

First Rush, now Mrs. Johnston.  What is it with these people and Oxycontin?

Can the made-for-TV movie be far behind?

We can only wish that McCain had done a better job of vetting and selecting his Vice Presidential pick a few months ago.

McCain also went on record against the RNC’s advertisements trying to tar Obama with the scandal now surrounding Illinois Governor Blogojevich.  The Republicans have long practiced the “art” of slander by association and insinuation.  Thankfully we are seeing more of the “old McCain” in standing against the worst of these tactics.

In a fire that officials are calling a likely arson, Sarah Palin’s church in Wasilla suffered serious fire damage on the evening of Friday, December 12th. Early estimates of $1 million worth of damage have been made for the fire at the Wasilla Bible Church. There are reports that five women were in the church at the start of the blaze, but fortunately no one has been reported injured.

There is no evidence yet that the fire was linked in any way to Palin or her run for office, but the event does seem highly suspicious given the new high visibility for Palin.  We hope that the fire turns out to have been nothing more than an accident.  Sadly there are some seriously disturbed people in the world too ready to commit acts of violence.  Our thoughts are with the people of Wasilla and members of the church after this cowardly act.

Palin gave a statement:

“Gov. Palin stopped by the church this morning, and she told an assistant pastor that she apologizes if the incident is in any way connected to the undeserved negative attention the church has received since she became a vice-presidential candidate on Aug. 29. Whatever the motives of the arsonist, the governor has faith in the scriptural passage that what was intended for evil will in some way be used for good.”

The church planned to meet in temporary quarters for the Sunday services.

Powell said:

Gov. Palin, to some extent, pushed the party more to the right, and I think she had something of a polarizing effect when she talked about how small town values are good. Well, most of us don’t live in small towns. And I was raised in the South Bronx, and there’s nothing wrong with my value system from the South Bronx.

And when they came to Virginia and said the southern part of Virginia is good and the northern part of Virginia is bad. The only problem with that is there are more votes in the northern part of Virginia than there are in the southern part of Virginia, so that doesn’t work.

Watch parts of the interview here:

Powell’s comments only touch on the rural  vs. urban-suburban divide.  And while Powell didn’t go this far, I think the clear extension of his comments can be drawn by an understanding of the demographics of those populations.  Rural America is, by and large, Christian and white.  Urban America is racially and religiously diverse.  At its core, the rural white Christian populism is simply too narrow and too alienating to everyone else to be able to hold majority power.

They are both dogged by persistent rumors about a cover-up over births.  These rumors continue to circulate in blogs and forums on the Internet, where there is no standard of evidence or substantiation required.

You’ve surely hear the rumors, they go something like this:

• Barack Obama is claimed to not be Hawaii-born as he has stated, but rather was born to his under-18 American mother during a trip to Kenya, which, under the laws in place at the time would mean that he is not a “natural born citizen,” making him ineligible for the Presidency.  [update: the Supreme Court refused on December 8th, 2008 to hear a case that claimed that Obama was a British citizen because of the citizenship of his father, despite his birth in Hawaii.  Read about it:  here.]
• Sarah Palin is thought to not be the mother of Trigg Palin, the baby born shortly before her Vice-Presidential run.  She is thought to be covering up for the now-pregnant Bristol, who is said to be the birth mother of the child.

I’m not going to go into the whole business of debunking these rumors.  I’ll leave that for another day.  Instead, I thought I’d toss out a few more anecdotes from history regarding rumors about birth and legitimacy as a means to ask:  “Why are Americans so hung up about issues surrounding birth when it comes to people seeking political office?”

John McCain’s candidacy against George Bush is largely believed to have been fatally damaged by underhanded “push polling” in South Carolina, whereby potential voters were asked “hypothetically” if the presence of an illegitimate black child by McCain would sway their vote.  The underhanded Rovian tactic was effective not only because it played to the still virulent racism of many in the southern Republican party, but because John and Cindy McCain have an adopted dark-skinned Bangladeshi daughter, and there are many photos of the family that naturally include their daughter.

Starting in the recent past, there have been widespread rumors that William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President, was illegitimate.  Records show that his father (who died a few months before his birth) had not been granted a divorce at the time that he married Bill Clinton’s mother, thus making him illegitimate.

Stretching further back, Abraham Lincoln was dogged by rumors that he was an illegitimate child, both during his life and ever since.  The rumors appear to have started because of the lack of physical similarity between Lincoln and his father.  Several scholars have effectively debunked the myth, but still the rumors persist.  In addition, there is fairly strong evidence that Lincoln believed his mother to be illegitimate, and that this belief caused him much consternation.

One of the most famous long-running rumors surround the relationship between Renaissance man Thomas Jefferson and his slave Sally Hemings.  Most historians now believe that there was an intimate relationship between the two, and that they had children together.  DNA evidence studied in 1998 concluded that descendants of Hemings possess DNA from the Jefferson family, while not positively identifying the source as Thomas Jefferson.  At the time it was fairly common for widowers like Jefferson to have sexual relationships with female slaves, but it was not formally socially acceptable and was kept from the public eye.  The fact that Thomas Jefferson had promised his first wife that he would not remarry, and she died while he was in his late 30’s provides additional evidence that such a relationship was likely.

John Edwards, Jesse Jackson, Strom Thurmond, Grover Cleveland - the list goes on and on.

On the surface there are some simple reasons why these rumors are created, whether or not they are based in truth.  To the extent that character matters, and if people are caught in blatant lies - to their spouse, to the public - their qualification for office falls into question.  In addition, illegitimate birth carries with it a very real social stigma, even today.  We seem to hold our elected representatives to nearly impossible levels of moral purity, even while disdaining such standards for ourselves.  And of course politics has always been a bare-knuckled fight covered with just enough decorum so as to maintain a semblance of civility.  So if a claim against an opponent could help a candidate, he or she was bound to make sure that that claim gained currency.

But the most interesting thing, I think, is why Americans still have such puritanical behavioral expectations of politicians.  This is not the case in France.  Politicians and socially prominent people have often had mistresses whom they would often take out in public.  The marriage persisted, and so did the “open secret” of the affair.  Not so in America.  An affair (which is, of course, broadly speaking the precondition of an illegitimate child) is considered a major moral failing, and has ruined many careers.

I think we are rooted in this puritanical conundrum as a result of our history.  There is something in Americans culturally that makes us all feel illegitimate.  While we revel in stories of Boston Tea Parties and defeating the British, at our core we are a newly constituted people.  You needn’t dig very deep in most American’s past to find “a little bit of trailer.”  I think that because of this cultural complex of illegitimacy, we need a higher standard to believe in, one that we can believe is a reflection of our truest selves.  If we maintain the myth of moral purity through a public ritual of shaming our officials, we somehow salve that deep part in our hearts that feels like a common pretender.

Let’s hope that as a country we can grow up, deal with our demons, and move on, looking for true character traits and intelligence for those who would deign to lead us.  Let’s find the best candidates for the job and stop our self-destructive witch hunts.

Dec. 4, 2008

To the editor:

In my September letter to the editor, I predicted the Republicans would lose the presidential election and the selection of Gov. Palin as Sen. McCain’s running mate, however entertaining, was a serious mistake in judgment. I say entertaining, but entertainment was not what I voted for, neither was it for the rest of the country.

More accurately stated, the Republican Party never had a chance, no matter who became its choice for the White House or for vice president. The die of this failed election was cast eight years ago and remains with us today, waiting change.

The Bush administration managed to create an overwhelming sense of distrust from the war in Iraq to a multitude of failed policies and economic problems at home. Unfortunately, it all happened on his watch with little wiggle room for meaningful justification. It would be exceedingly difficult to find any major accomplishments aimed at “for the good of the people” to feel good about.

Gov. Palin’s personal obsession for political exposure could be recognized as a work in progress and nothing more. She spared no effort selling herself and at the same time spared no effort attacking her opponents throughout the national election. Not the best way to win friends or influence people, especially voters.

While our state faces budgetary and other internal problems, Gov. Palin’s secondary focus seemed to have been a self-appointed senatorial position should Sen. Stevens win the election and be voted out by his peers. She called on Sen. Stevens to step down, guaranteeing herself the job. We now know a Democrat won this election while preserving the dignity and honor of Sen. Stevens. Sen. Stevens may not ask President Bush for a pardon, but someone should.

I hope Gov. Palin will now concentrate on being the best governor for our state. How she governs could determine her future political possibilities. Nothing trumps good judgment and experience with a little Emily Post mixed in. 2012 would not be the right time for any Republican presidential comeback. Try 2020.

The amount is shocking, and even high-end stylists working in Hollywood have assessed the fees charged by the likes of Lisa Kline of New York ($54,900 paid in mid-October) as seriously out of the norm, even if the sytlist had traveled with the candidate every day.  The campaign also paid Palin’s make-up artist  Amy Strozzi, $68,400.

The image the campaign tried to paint of Palin as just a down-home every-day person is falling apart at the seams, just as the attempt to position her as a “maverick” is seriously faltering.

I continue to hope that the Religious Right believes that Palin and Huckabee are the future of the Republican Party, and are willing to fight their internal holy war in that pursuit.  That just might give Obama the breathing room he needs to make some serious and significant changes to the profligate spending, cronyism, poor decision-making and corporatism that has left us fighting two wars and has nearly bankrupted the country.

Please note the date - well after the completion of the Presidential campaign.

The trips occurred in April and May of 2007, and State law requires disclosures be filed within 30 days.  The State government has said it does not intend to apply sanctions.

The total value of the trips, hotels and other gifts (like cowboy boots) for Palin and her family, including Todd’s travel to the Republican Governor’s convention was $8,000 - presumably just the price of one good DNC-paid suit from Neiman Marcus.

Palin blamed the failure on “staff oversight.”

Read about it in the AP story “Palin files late disclosure for free trips.”

In the first two weeks since the election, President-elect Barack Obama has broken with a tradition  established over the past eight years through his controversial use of complete sentences, political observers say.

Millions of Americans who watched Mr. Obama’s appearance on CBS’s 60 Minutes on Sunday witnessed the  president-elect’s unorthodox verbal tick, which had Mr. Obama employing grammatically correct sentences virtually every time he opened his mouth.

But Mr. Obama’s decision to use complete sentences in his public pronouncements carries with it certain risks, since after the last eight years many Americans may find his odd speaking style jarring.

According to presidential historian Davis Logsdon of the University of Minnesota, some Americans might  find it “alienating” to have a president who speaks English as if it were his first language.

“Every time Obama opens his mouth, his subjects and verbs are in agreement,” says Mr. Logsdon. “If he  keeps it up, he is running the risk of sounding like an elitist.”

The historian said that if Mr. Obama insists on using complete sentences in his speeches, the public may    find itself saying, “Okay, subject, predicate, subject predicate — we get it, stop showing off.”

The president-elect’s stubborn insistence on using complete sentences has already attracted a rebuke from one of his harshest critics, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

“Talking with complete sentences there and also too talking in a way that ordinary Americans like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder can’t really do there, I think needing to do that isn’t tapping into what Americans are needing also,” she said.

Had Stevens been declared the winner, despite his conviction on felony charges for lying on his disclosure forms to the Senate over gifts made to him in the construction work done on his house, it was clear that there was widespread support in the Senate from both Republicans and Democrats to oust him for ethics violations.  It was slightly ridiculous, and highly embarrassing for Alaskans, that Stevens got enough votes that his reelection was even a possibility.  Had he been elected and then expelled, however, the Governor (Palin) would have appointed a successor.  While unprecedented, it was not entirely implausible that a self-appointment or other political machination would have made it possible for Palin to become the replacement Alaskan Senator, and then avoid the new difficulties which now face her in Alaska.  A position in the Senate would also have given her a greater national platform to continue her quest to become a major national political power.

In addition, the election of Begich puts the Democrats closer to the 60 Senator “super-majority (the number of Senators able to invoke cloture, or the ability to stop a filibuster, which by Senate tradition can be used by a minority to forestall a vote and either kill a piece of legislation or get compromises from the majority.

There seems to be an increasing weariness of Palin’s high visibility in the media, with many calling for her to get out of the spotlight and declaring her 15 minutes of fame over.  At least for now.

Unfortunately for Palin she has to go back to Alaska and deal with a reality on the cold frozen ground that is very different than it was in August.

1. Diminished standing of the “Sarah Palin Brand.” All of the national attention certainly brought out home-state pride, but it also highlighted Palin’s inexperience.  Many in Alaska were frankly embarrassed by her performance and the resulting negative image spillover onto Alaska.  Her approval ratings in Alaska have plummeted from their stratospheric heights.
2. Troopergate fallout. There are many in Alaskan government bitter at the way that Palin and the McCain-Palin campaign handled the Troopergate inquiry.  They may even investigate whether individuals urged witnesses to not appear; something that would constitute witness tampering under Alaska law.  The findings of the independent investigator highlighted a Palin administration that did not follow proper disclosure policies (private e-mail for public business) and seemed obsessed by a personal vendetta.
3. Questionable Billings to the State. Palin’s claims for per diem payments for time spent at home and her reimbursements from Alaska for family travel (and failing to report those payments as income) could come under new scrutiny.  The legislature is likely to create rules to make clear that these practices are unacceptable.
4. State Budget. Alaska depends on taxes and fees on oil companies for the vast majority of its budget (no state income tax or property tax exists).  With the price of oil dropping, Alaska’s revenue faces a dramatic decrease.  Palin had governed in a time of easy money; the new economic realities will prove to be a significant hurdle for the Governor.
5. The Pipeline. Palin trumpeted the natural gas pipeline deal with TransCanada with as her crowning achievement, but it has not been built and may never be built.  She led the effort to spend $500 million by the State to plan for the pipeline, but no other private or public money has been committed for the multi-billion dollar construction of the pipeline, and there is no guarantee that it will be built.

As for me, I’m going to continue to view with great suspicion anybody who expects God to talk to them.  Where I grew up they called people who heard voices telling them what to do schizophrenic.

Palin is attempting to use the residual glow that she still enjoys to improve her now-tarnished image by giving multiple interviews with reporters like Matt Lauer and Greta Van Susteren.  Alessandra Stanley of the International Tribune writes “But so far, viewers have mostly witnessed some of the very traits - disarming candor and staggering presumption - that drove some McCain campaign aides to leak damaging accusations about her.”   In those, Sarah opines that the loss of McCain-Palin was due to:

• Hispanics
• Obama’s money advantage
• The “R” next to their names (backlash against Republicans)

I guess she had nothing to do with the loss of the ticket.  I think the McCainiacs have gone overboard trying to blame poor Sarah for all of their woes, but to claim that her presence on the ticket or the extremely poorly executed campaign had nothing to do with their loss sounds like magical thinking.  But then again, Sarah is expecting God to tell her what to do next, and if that isn’t magical thinking, I don’t know what is.

Fred Davis of Strategic Perspectives

I was in equal parts mesmerized and horrified.  I found myself admiring his cunning and his thought processes, but then would take a step back and realize that the net effect of his work is truly corrosive to society and to the reasoned discourse necessary for a well functioning democracy.

You have to admit that Davis’ efforts have often been effective.  But they’ve been effective by appealing to the worst among and within us.  The Harold Ford Jr. Playboy Bunny ad?  That was his.  The Elizabeth Dole “Godless” ad?  His too.  So was the “Celebrity” ad against Obama this season.  When you review his work, as I did in the recent session, you see a not so subtle appeal to racism, class warfare, homophobia and misogyny.  Convicts dancing in tutus and a white playboy bunny talking about a black candidate.  Many of the most memorable extremes in negative ads have come from Davis’ work.  It is this kind of slimy campaigning that caused McCain’s longtime friend Chuck Hagel to not endorse McCain in the Presidential election.

Davis claimed to be mostly not interested in politics, and that might be true. But he only works for Republicans, and seems to have drunk more than his share of the conservative kool-aid.

Fred Davis is at once smart and charming but also reprehensible and largely responsible for so much of the partisan rancor and the disgust with which most citizens now view the political process. The win-at-all-costs approach makes advertising hitmen like Davis the practitioners of a dark art that has become indispensable to campaigns on all sides of the political spectrum. It was an interesting experience to say the least. Fred played a number of his TV ads from recent campaigns as well as earlier campaigns on figures like James Inhofe (his uncle) and Sunny Perdue (the “King Roy Rat” ads. He was responsible this election for the Dole “Godless” ads, as well as the “celebrity” ad attacking Obama that featured Paris Hilton. Davis believes that these ads were responsible for improved polling numbers for his candidates. He claims that Dole won 60% of the votes on election day after his “Godless” attack ads, but the enormous early voting that the Obama campaign turned out led to Hagan’s victory.

I will show some of the ads here, but with mainstream news commentary around some of them, because I really don’t want to just amplify something that is so vile at its root.

If you know what I mean when I say that you feel like you were nearly seduced by evil, you know what I was feeling.  Davis has so much charm that you feel yourself being attracted to what he’s saying, only to stop and realize that what the man is doing is manipulative and at is core evil and wrong.

Probably the best example is when Davis played the three minute Michael Monsoor video that was used during the Republican National Convention this year.  If you’re not familiar with the story, Michael was a young Navy Seal who fell under enemy attack while on patrol in Iraq.  After being struck by a live hand grenade, this courageous young man fell on the grenade, ensuring his own death but saving the lives of the other young men with him.  It’s a moving story of heroism and self-sacrifice to be sure, and even as Davis replayed it he choked up.  So why would I say that the use of this video was evil?  Simply because it follows in a long line of examples of Republicans taking remarkable stories and trying to use them for their own political benefit.  Monsoor was a hero.  Using his tragic story to try to get votes, in my opinion, is a tragic, cynical and evil use of his sacrifice.  Sacrifice and service are not partisan. Neither the Republicans or Democrats hold a monopoly on patriotism and honor. Even McCain, who personally sacrificed so much, does not hold a monopoly on service and honor. But then again the Republicans were willing to use Kerry’s remarkable service against him in the “Swiftboat” ads. That marked a disgraceful new low. While not his work, that ad is part and parcel of the work that Davis does. Yes, Monsoor was a hero, and we ought to honor his sacrifice. But we should never attempt to use his remarkable service as a way to get more votes for one candidate over another. That, my friends, is disgraceful. But you almost forget that when you get caught up in the remarkable and emotional story.  And such is the way of Davis’ most successful efforts.

Some of the most interesting comments were about the struggle between maintaining an overall strategy (which Obama did with “Change”) and the daily tactical approach that the McCain campaign used, and which resulted in the changing messages which left only the impression of a candidate who had lost his essential self, and ended up hawking an inauthentic brand.

Davis is also a Sarah Palin fan, and claims she is a smart lady, and a future leader of the Republican Governors Conference.  When Davis talked about his high regard for Palin, it was all I could do not to shout out: “If Palin is so smart, she’s done an amazing job of hiding it in her overcoat of ignorance.”

Davis was appalled that people within the McCain camp had turned on Palin and spread stories about her ignorance - not knowing that Africa was a continent instead of a country; not being able to name the three parties to NAFTA (The United States, Mexico and Canada).  He said that top leaders of the campaign including Schmidt would be on talk shows this Sunday to rebut those claims, and that Schmidt had put Nicole Wallace (widely suspected from within the campaign as being the source of those comments, as she did not get along with Palin but was charged with her handling) in charge of shutting down that story line.

I left the session feeling like I had met the devil.  I have it in my mind that the devil is clever and charming, but that behind the easy smile and the effusive charm lies an evil that slips into the room silently and poisons all who allow themselves to be lulled to sleep.

One thing is for certain, to borrow a phrase from traditional conservative Peggy Noonan, we are witnessing the vulgarization of politics in America.  And the responsibility falls squarely on Fred Davis and his ilk, on the candidates who are willing to utilize these hit men, and on all of us who let them get away with it.