Mansions Out of Molehills

Just when you thought you were going to have to endure another dull August news cycle in the world of presidential campaign politics, Christmas came early. John McCain left a big steaming gaffe under the tree.

When asked how many houses he had during a Politico interview, McCain responded “I’m not sure. I’ll have my staff get to you.” McCain isn’t the only one who is confused. His staff said, “At least four.” New York Senator Charles Schumer says six. The Obama campaign, in an ad hoc ad, went with seven. And ProgressiveAccountability.org, which must be credible given the word “accountability” is in its name, has been quoted around the web with evidence that the McCains own “at least 10 houses.”

All of this is certainly problematic for McCain. It is going to be difficult for Republicans to paint Barack Obama as an elitist who is out of touch with the working class voter given the new focus on the McCains’ wealth.

The way this story has heated up on liberal blogs, there are probably a great deal of high-fives and “terrorist fist jabs” being exchanged among Obama supporters. Is this the “new style of politics” we were promised? It smells about as new as a month-old fish stick.

If the new politics were in effect, McCain would never have been asked such a question, and Obama would certainly have never put out an advertisement ridiculing McCain’s response.

In a hurriedly produced television ad, the Obama campaign precedes McCain’s latest gaffe with this quote: “I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” dated August 20th, 2008. The announcer follows with a “hmmm.”

It is upsetting that Barack Obama approved this message. Here’s the quote in context:

INGRAHAM: And now look: the dollar’s weak, we have serious competition from abroad, government is running a deficit. … What are the Republicans going to do if China ultimately overtakes us economically and does that matter?

MCCAIN: I still believe the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But we’re still the most innovative, the most productive, the greatest exporter, the greatest importer.We’ve got terribly big challenges now, whether it be housing or employment or so many of the other — health care. It’s very, very tough times. It’s very tough. (ThinkProgress.org)

Clearly, McCain is not so out of touch that doesn’t know we are facing very, very tough times. His assertion that the fundamentals are strong almost sound like the old man has got a hint of hope in the economy.

But back to McCain’s mansions … “How many houses do you own?” really is a “gotcha” question when you’re married to a baroness and real estate is a form of investment. Does it speak to his ineptitude that he wasn’t prepared for the question in the first place? Sure. Is his personal wealth relevant to how we feel about the man? Absolutely. But is it relevant to his governing, experience, or proposals?

McCain’s latest gaffe, while telling, is ineffectual to the “issues” the voters have been demanding solutions for. The dream of a civil, if not academic debate on these issues has long ago been abandoned. After all the problems brought to light during the seven long years of the Bush administration, the dialogue turns to McCain’s seven houses. At this point, the voter seems powerless to effect the debate.

The last person I want to be defending right now is a snake like John McCain. He’s run a disgraceful campaign, and he and his people have been the main catalyst for the ugliness we see now. Still, he never suggested he could change the way politicians campaign. Obama did. By jumping on this gaffe, Obama, who looks, speaks, and seems so much different, may be showing that he too is more of the same. Or to quote McCain, “That’s not change we can believe in.” Obama owes the people who have fought on his behalf better.

We Started the Fire

When it comes to the war in Iraq, there is plenty to be outraged about. Outrage is often expressed at the justification for the war, botched intelligence, Rumsfeld’s poor-planning, debaathification, Bush’s declaration of victory, Abu Ghraib, the reckless behavior by Blackwater USA, string-pulling for Halliburton, Guantanamo, lack of Humvee armor, dead troops, or dead civilians. Wow, this brief list of history is crappier than Billy Joel’s “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”

A variety of outrage you don’t typically find on American shelves is that directed toward the United States military itself. I know, I know, “Don’t you support the troops?” you ask. The answer is “Duh.” But still, how in the hell does an organization with an approximately $626 billion dollar 2007 combined budget do such a piss poor job? Yes, we can blame Bush/Cheney and the civilian leadership for so many egregious errors, but what about holding the military accountable?

Today’s military has gone from the trenches to the gutter. The once proud force; decedents of patriots, victors in two theaters during the bloodiest war in history, the U.S. military has never appeared more vulnerable. Over the past 60 years, a time of tumultuous change around the world, the customs and tactics of the Military has remained largely stagnant. America’s Boys, in three grand failures (Korea, Vietnam, and now Iraq), have proven their fallibility toward guerrilla armies and their inability to adjust to the unexpected.

The question is, who’s holding the reigns and who’s asleep at the wheel? How could $626 billion (I’d say “give or take,” be we all know it’s only “give”) not yield better results in our armed conflicts, regardless of how misguided their intentions?

It is the combination of too many chefs in the mess hall and too many meals gone cold. The various branches of the military and intelligence agencies were not the work of a creator or a creative group of founding fathers. They evolved, each to meet a new, unique and unplanned set of circumstances. In doing so, there was the creation of a never-before-seen level of bureaucracy and redundant systems. Funny how you never hear the conservatives discussing this sort of big government.

This creates a hugely expensive and cumbersome organization. There’s no doubt who spends the most money on Defense in the world, but the U.S.’s failing have left doubt if the strength of its fleet is more than a mirage.

For an example of the Armed Forces on a micro-level, think General Motors. It’s fun to refer to General Motors as a micro-anything! A huge, multi-teared, multi-brand behemoth, the company has been in decline for years against smaller, but better run competitors. They couldn’t keep up with changing demand to produce less gas guzzlers, couldn’t keep the promises to its work force, and couldn’t compete in a global market.

And, like its mini-me, the U.S. military is too large to change swiftly with a changing world. The military’s cultural conservatism and size keep it decades behind the times, leading to a lack of fresh ideas and occasional bouts of group psychosis. Its culture is one that has become particularly effective in keeping large numbers critical thinkers out of its ranks. This is truly unfortunate, knowing who has the guns.

All of this has turned the most funded military in history into the Rodey Dangerfields of the global power struggle. This lack of faith worldwide has caused fear and panic, posturing instead of diplomacy.

Russian overuse of force this week in Georgia and South Ossetia sends a clear message. I’d call it “bold,” but there’s nothing bold about destroying civilian apartment buildings in grand displays of brute force. The stronger power is expected to be bigger diplomatically, not the bigger bully. Ordinary Russians should be ashamed that they allowed their country, after celebrating the fall of communism, to revert to a bullshit “democracy,” with Putin as dictator. We should all be ashamed of our failure to see any of this coming and our inability to act in any way.

Russia’s despicable handling of Georgia, the deaths of thousands of civilians and its bizarre land-grab, only seem possible when you realize what they’ve realized: that the U.S. is all talk. In the 80′s and 90′s when the U.S. military seemed indestructible, attacks on its allies like this would not have seemed viable. Today, however, its limitation are airing like dirty laundry. The military looks exhausted in their fatigues.

If the U.S. is going to make strides toward creating a less dangerous and more constructive international environment, it can no longer afford the hulking mess that its military has become. The U.S. military needs to self-direct itself toward a stronger performance with less necessary resources. Remember when the buzz was about the CIA potentially destroying interrogation tapes? My question is: why the hell are these guys using tapes!? Cassette tapes in the 21st Century? It’s the digital era!

Our Armed Forces and intelligence agencies need to be diligent and attempt to create an effective fleet that understands and respects modern ideas in group management, education, and psychology. They shouldn’t just strive to out-do bin Laden, but to out-Google Google. “The Few, the Proud, the Brave” should make us proud. For the largest single chunk of American tax payer money, I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

My Opponent Has a Good Point

Did you know most of the world has been mispronouncing Dick Cheney’s last name? Rather than Chain-ey (rhymes with brainy), the Vice President and his family pronounce it Cheen-ey (rhymes with meanie). Try saying it aloud: “Chee-ney.” Isn’t that adorable? “Chee-ney.” And you thought our cute-as-a-button VP couldn’t get any cuter.

This country has a soft spot for wispy-haired old men with sour dispositions. Maybe Old Spice makes us nostalgic. Maybe we are secretly looking forward to the time when we will be so old, no one will flinch at our crazed misstatements; so old that we can wear our pants at any height we see fit; so old that we’ll have the freedom to be crotchety.

Dick Cheney, the reigning King of Crotchety, has had his throne threatened in the last few weeks. John McCain has been getting worked up (or as the ever suave Obama would say, “exercised”) over Obama, his treatment in the press, his reception abroad and his celebrity. I can’t say I’m surprised at John McCain’s reactions; these seem like relatively commonplace complaints from people in their 70′s.

What is baffling is McCain’s response to Obama’s very rational suggestion that we, as a country, focus on our energy consumption. McCain’s campaign has attempted to mock Obama on a no-brainer: keeping our nation’s automobile tires properly inflated.

It’s strange that McCain, a bona fide senior citizen, would take issue with this suggestion. Everyone knows it is America’s Mercury Grand Marquis and Buick Regal owners that are most meticulous about oil changes, tune-ups, and tire pressure.

At a town-hall in Wisconsin, McCain both embraced and took exception with Obama’s tire-pressure suggestion. “[Obama] suggested we put air in our tires to save on gas. My friends, let’s do that, but do you think that’s enough to break our dependence on foreign oil? I don’t think so.”

The following week, McCain’s campaign began circulating “Obama’s Energy Plan” tire-pressure gauges. Oh, John McCain, I’d say “lol,” but you have no idea what that means. I’m all for a light-hearted exchange of ideas, but mocking some things, like rational conservation, just doesn’t seem all that funny.

Is there no subject clear-cut enough that the campaigns can agree? On such an unambiguous topic like tire pressure, McCain had the opportunity to be civil, bipartisan, and rational. He could’ve said, “My opponent has a good point.” No need for a rebuttal.

Instead, McCain’s campaign has decided to be adversarial when it’s completely unnecessary. It’s “old politics” from an old man, and at this point, it’s gotten old.