Historic Election

Seconds after the large television screens that hung near the podium declared Barack Obama winner of this historic election, a uniformed police officer leaned against the back wall of the tightly packed Skirvin Hotel ballroom.

He was there not as an on-duty Oklahoma City policeman. But as a citizen to witness what no one had witnessed before. To stand quietly, but to soak up the sight and sound and feel that made this special. At that moment he glanced and then looked me straight in the eye, and smiled. It was a smile not of a man of authority, not of a man of different race than me, and not of a man of different experience or culture or thoughts.

It was a smile of a fellow human being who recognized that we – the black police officer and the white lawyer – were there for precisely the same reason. And I returned that recognition in the same way. With a return smile. A smile that you give your brother when on Christmas morning you gather around the tree and open the presents that you have given each other, and realize that the giving is greater than the gifts.

In that moment there was a sameness in this grand ballroom that at least for this period in time swallowed any racial division that any of these participants - black, white, brown or red – had ever imagined or had ever experienced.

The candidates in this election said it was about "change". As it turned out the election wasn’t just about change of policies in Washington, it became about a change in the way we see each other as people.

The celebration at the Obama/Democratic Party watch party was like a gush of emotion and elation that rivaled the final seconds of any team’s national championship. The ballroom was adorned with blue Obama signs and the "Yes We Can" banners. With the announcement that the 232-year-old United States had elected its first African-American as President, there was an eruption of sound, then a blur of movement and then a cacophony of aural celebration, marked by the most notable chant, "O-BAM-A...O-BAM-A...O-BAM-A."

A band blared some catchy tune that captured the feeling that America had risen to the level of idealism which school children have been taught for ages, which Hollywood has portrayed with the patriotic sounds of John Williams scores, but which for our country’s entire history has been seen as lacking and even sometimes disingenuous when the color of skin was considered.

People danced and people danced on chairs. Men high-fived. Well dressed women of all ages hugged. Couples kissed. There was no barrier — physical, political or perceived – among these many people who celebrated the election of a man who brings hope that America is indeed the great democracy of the world, and on this night we proved it to the world.

On this night, November 4, in the year 2008, in this red-state ballroom of nearly 800 people, one rock band and a half dozen TV reporters, there were no black people. There were no white people. There were no differences. There were only Americans. Americans standing, and dancing, and smiling at each other -- proud of what we had accomplished.

--Mike D.

McCain hanging on

The surprising thing is that John McCain’s candidacy for president is dying on the vine. It may be his position on Iraq that has turned even conservatives (who are increasingly critical of the quagmire in the Middle East) against him, or they merely believe McCain’s pro-war stand threatened his viability as a “winning” candidate.

Regardless, the man who championed campaign finance reform is suffering from poor contributions and poorer campaign strategies.

McCain was once considered a front runner. He’s now a mere announcement away from checking it in for 2008.

Is this a bad thing? Maybe. McCain is labeled a populist conservative. On some issues he is right in step with middle America. He also has this Goldwater-esqe way of taking a path not always in step with his party. Must be something in the Arizona water.

McCain is anti-abortion, so much that he advocates over-turning Roe v. Wade. But he’s also not homophobic, endorsing the military “don’t ask don’t tell policy” and stating gay marriage should be an issue left to individual states. He thinks local school boards should decide whether to teach creationism in their districts, but he personally believes in evolution. He advocates investing oil profits in nuclear power, but voted against drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). He has voted for greater environmental controls over the oil and gas industry. McCain voted for protections of gun manufacturers from lawsuits, but also voted to ban certain assault weapons.

And as the only member of Congress who has ever been tortured (while a prisoner of North Vietnam), McCain is against CIA torture of suspected terrorists to get information. He knows first hand it is a flawed method of obtaining intelligence, and just plain un-American.

McCain doesn’t buy into the chicken little approach some Republicans have to immigration. He does not support an official language (English), noting that some native Americans speak their tribal language and that hasn’t threatened our white-bread culture. He has been critical of the witch-hunt some conservatives have toward illegal aliens.

He voted yes to increasing the minimum wage, knowing that the only people that will affect are a few McDonalds drive-through workers and some college students. But the union bosses say McCain has an anti-labor voting record.

McCain voted in favor of allowing re-importation of low cost prescription drugs from Canada. I am sure that did not endear him to the pharmaceutical lobby, which might account for his recent poor showing in the campaign contribution race.

All in all, McCain is one of those candidates whose populist approach to issues is appealing to many Americans (and consequently a threat to Democrat candidates). Unfortunately for him, the Republican party has been hijacked by extremists. The Republican voting base is being unduly influenced by the conservative shock jocks of cable TV and radio – pushing them farther and farther to extreme positions away from McCain on issues like immigration or sensible positions on the environment and energy.

McCain is now in third place among Republican candidates. Unless this ol' Navy man can right the ship, his campaign will get mothballed soon. That is good news for Democrats.

"Conservative" Giuliani

Republicans getting hjacked again?

The striking question about Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the Republican presidential nomination is this: Have the Republican voters lost their minds?

Twenty seven percent of Republicans favor Giuliani, placing him head of Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, who stands with 21 percent , according to a recent Fox News poll. A New York Times poll puts Giuliani’s lead at 36 to 22. Sure, Giuliani’s candidacy could be difficult for the Dems to tackle. After all he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 2001, and presumably some Republicans think he is the best competitor to Hillary Clinton – perhaps the primary reason for his support from conservatives.

But mostly, Giuliani’s candidacy does not look like a conservative Republican at all.

An example:

-- After the 9/11 attack, Giuliani threatened a lawsuit to challenge the mayoral term limits so he could continue as mayor of New York. Term limits of government officials has been a core plank of the Republican Party for several years.

-- During his 1999 bid for U.S. Senate, he admitted to his marital infidelity. That cannot sit well with conservative evangelicals.

-- In 2000, Giuliani announced the city was going to file lawsuits against two dozen major gun manufacturers and distributors. “This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed," Giuliani said at the time. Do the muckety mucks of the NRA know about this guy?

-- In 1998, as NY mayor, Giuliani pushed the city council to codify local law by granting all city employees equal benefits for their “domestic” partners, meaning homosexual partners. Giuliani also allowed gays and lesbians to serve openly in his administration.

And then there’s the big issue to Repubs: Abortion. Giuliani has been very open about his pro-choice stand. In his campaign against Hillary Clinton for the Senate in 2000, Giuliani said he supported then President Clinton’s veto of legislation making partial birth abortions illegal. While most Americans are pro-choice, Giuliani’s stand should not curry favor with conservative voters who see it as a good vs. evil issue.

Giuliani has not only been pro-choice, but advocated lawsuits against big business, openly promoted illegal immigration, and who admitted under oath he promoted to city Corrections Director and man with mob connections and who later pleaded guilty to corruption charges.

Is this Republicanism? Well, just when I thought I understood the “new” conservatives (now labeled “neo-cons”) the party of the religious right has Giuliani leading the pack. Just when I’d started to acquiesce to the notion the Bill O’Reilly-created “culture” war was real, Rudy Giuliani – the pro-choice candidate – is leading the Republican Party candidates. But it doesn’t stop there. The Repubs are seriously considering nominating a guy whose moral barometer is a lot farther left of Bill Clinton than Ken Starr ever imagined.

Giuliani divorced his first wife who was his second cousin (no more Arkansas jokes about that, my friends); openly had an affair with a staff member; told people he believed it was in good Italian tradition to maintain a mistress (according to this month’s Vanity Fair article on him), and fired his police chief because the guy got more publicity than the NY mayor. He’s also known among NY political insiders as being a ruthless control freak who is willing to step on anyone’s toes to assert his authority.

Everyone likes to say the proof is in the pudding, which I think means you judge someone by their actions and behaviors. How do we judge Giuliani? Well, a recent poll said we don’t know how to judge him, at least we don’t know where he is in the political spectrum. More than one-third polled considered him a moderate. Fifteen percent actually called him “liberal”. An amazing 20 percent had no clue.

However, there is some indication that some conservatives voters are catching on. In the NY Times poll of Republican voters, half said Giuliani did not share the same values as the Republican Party. Those voters are also unhappy with their candidate selection in general, with only 38 percent of Republican voters saying they are satisfied with their field of candidates. That compares to 63 percent of Democrats who said they were satisfied with the Democratic Party candidates.

Come on my conservative friends, stop this. You may think Giuliani has a better chance of beating a Clinton, but if you don’t watch out you’re going to be putting in the White House a man whose reading on the Republican litmus test is more acidic than even Hillary. More likely, though, you’re just going to be nominating a guy so out of step with the party that a greater number of conservatives will stay home from the polls and we will all be welcoming “Madam President.”