The problem with ads

Imagine a set of commercials that feature footage of the Vietnam War and the film "Taxi Driver" intermixed. A deep, warm baritone voice-over talks of John McCain's heroism in the war. And then, the tag line is "He is an American hero, but is he stable enough to lead?"

How would everyone feel?

What if Obama was 20 points behind, and this was the only way to claw his way back into the race?

There are two basic problems with the Taxi Driver ad and the Brittney ad.

1. They would use innuendo and backhanded insults to address a legitimate question that we all need to take into account. (For the record, yes, I think "is he stable" is a legitimate question to which my answer is "yes.") They would be bringing the issue up in ways that paint the opponent with guilt by association with people that they might not even have met. They ask the question in a way that does not invite a reasonable examination of the question, but instead attempt to illicit a guttural response divorced from the seriousness of the election.

2. Both ads would not only be insulting, but they both play to longstanding prejudices.

I read an interesting comment from David Gergen this morning where he was talking about the celebrity ad and the moses ad. (Taken from a transcript of ABC's "This Week" quoted on "Huffington Post")

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him as somebody outside the mainstream, other, 'he's not one of us,'" said Gergen, who has worked with White Houses, both Republican and Democrat, from Nixon to Clinton. "I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."

The sad fact of the matter is that there are still a ton of racists out there. That isn't John McCain's fault. Many of them will vote for McCain out of that racist impulse. That is also beyond the control of the candidate. But what is within the control of the candidate is how he deals with the campaign.

If McCain approves ads that even southern conservative commentators identify as having subtle coded race-messages, then he has crossed a race-line. This is particularly true when the candidate has a long history of things like opposing the observance of Martin Luther King Day.

I don't think John McCain is a racist, but it seems he has no qualms with taking advantage of that ugly part of our country.

The problem is that if he wants to win so badly that he is willing to stoop to this, then the question becomes "Why does he deserve it?" The question for all you Clinton haters out there becomes "Isn't this the same thing you crucified the Clintons for for years?" The question becomes "His past is honorable and heroic, but can the same be said of his present?"

All that being said, McCain is in a tough position on the race issue. Obama supporters are on a hair trigger looking for anything that has the hint of bigotry. That places him on a tight rope where he is held to a very high standard for civility.

Obama is also on a tight rope on race. The more he is seen in the general election as the "black candidate", the less likely he is to win. The more the media complains about racism, the more he is seen as the "affirmative action candidate" who is protected by liberals and unworthy of the presidency.

Both candidates need to live up to the dignity of the office they are aspiring to. Anyone who can't is not qualified to be president.

The fruits of Bush's war

I wish there was a punchline, but there isn't anything funny here. I know that blogging against the civil war in Iraq is getting old, but I found something new to be horrified about. Dig this:

"More than one-third of U.S. soldiers in Iraq surveyed by the Army said they believe torture should be allowed if it helps gather important information about insurgents, the Pentagon disclosed yesterday. Four in 10 said they approve of such illegal abuse if it would save the life of a fellow soldier.
In addition, about two-thirds of Marines and half the Army troops surveyed said they would not report a team member for mistreating a civilian or for destroying civilian property unnecessarily. 'Less than half of Soldiers and Marines believed that non-combatants should be treated with dignity and respect,' the Army report stated."
-- From the Washington Post

When we Liberals say we want to support the troops by bringing them home, we are often mocked for not having the stomach to defend America. But this illustrates quite clearly another way to care about those who serve our nation. We want them to come home with the same mental health and values that they went in with. We even hope that the experience of service will improve their characters.

But, as the war drags on, and men are forced to extend their tours and return multiple times, they are losing a bit of their humanity. In an environment where discipline comes from the top, the decay of values has to be coming from someplace. Either the leaders on the ground are not competent to command men (which I doubt), or our troops are getting serious mixed messages from the top.

This is why we have to be a champion for human rights for even the most horrific terrorist. This is why Guantanamo Bay must be closed. This is why we need to abolish the secret prisons, end rendition and come clean about what we have done. Because it is now clear that not only have we lost the respect of the world, we have polluted the minds and values of our brave service men.

We have to leave Iraq before we lose what it is to be American.

Boris eez dead

Am I the only one who is a bit surprised to hear that until just the other day he was alive at all?

But seriously, folks, people will be debating Yeltsin for a long time. So, here are my two rubles: Boris was a disaster! First of all, the Soviet Union was a bad place in a lot of ways. The authoritarian government was horribly repressive. The lack of freedom left the nation with empty store shelves, overcrowded apartments and enough nuclear weapons to destroy all life on earth five times.

However, Yeltsin used his fame as the man who stood against the anti-Gorbachev coup to attempt a revolution of his own.

But, revolutions don’t work. Lenin and company tried to completely upend Russian society, and it was a disaster. Gorbachev tried to ease the Soviet Union into becoming a free nation. His reforms were the sort of evolution that could have worked, but Yeltsin’s pre-emption killed it.

Russia was not ready for democracy and free markets because it did not have a history of citizenship. When Yeltsin tore down Soviet authority, there was nothing there to take its place. In the end, Russia fell to chaos and organized crime. Free markets ended up filling stores with products nobody could afford and the army couldn’t pay the electric bill.

The end game of the Yeltsin adventure was Putin, who is just as authoritarian as an old Soviet without all that “workers” claptrap.

It is not fair to blame Yeltsin for Putin’s betrayal of democracy. However, Yeltsin’s sudden resignation and pardon ushered the former KGB chief into power. One would have to be naïve not to think there was something nefarious going on.

If it was his own corruption that forced Boris out of power, then I believe he created his political revolution more for himself than for his nation. His lack of skill as a world leader tends to make this an easy conclusion to reach. It makes me doubt his sincerity and hero stature.

The old Soviet way had to end, I just don’t think Boris was the right answer to the problem.