As I write these words, Senator John McCain, F.O.B. (Friend of Bush) is delivering his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. (I think I hear him yelling “Fight with me!” – watch out!) I have to say, just having had a good look at his audience, that is one of the whitest gatherings of people I have ever seen, and I grew up in the suburbs. After listening to bits and pieces of what has been said over the past few days, I’m getting a pretty good feel for what will be the overriding themes of the G.O.P. general election campaign. A bit different from 2004, it seems. That year, “service” was largely vicarious – i.e. honoring our people in uniform in the abstract (from 5,000 miles away) while denigrating the service record of the opposing party’s nominee quite shamelessly (recall the band-aids with purple hearts printed on them being sported by the smirking manatees on the convention floor, almost none of whom had ever heard a shot fired in anger).

This year it’s different – the veteran is on the G.O.P. ticket, and there’ll be no diminishing his war record. In fact, there will be very little scrutiny of McCain’s general attitude towards war as it relates to his worldview and his vision for American power in the coming decade. Judging by his past statements, McCain feels bitterness over the U.S. defeat in Vietnam. He has expressed the opinion that the failure of U.S. policy resulted from lack of resolve on the part of our political leaders, particularly L.B.J. (McCain is a little less hard on Nixon, whom he credits for bombing North Vietnam more relentlessly.) If this sounds at all familiar, it should: this has been the dominant conservative assessment of America’s failure in Vietnam since the end of that war. McCain and other high profile P.O.W.’s have been at the core of that revisionist project from the very beginning, ever since the Nixon administration first demagogued on the P.O.W./M.I.A. issue during the war.

To say the least, this should probably be a point of some concern to voters. We’re talking about a guy who believes in his heart that, if we had just bombed a little harder, we could have won the Vietnam war. Based on his perspective as a prisoner in Hanoi, McCain feels that Nixon’s bombing drove North Vietnam to the bargaining table. And yet it is demonstrably true that the Paris Peace Accord signed in early 1973 was in essence the same as the agreement that could have been had in October 1972, prior to the massive U.S. terror bombing of Hanoi/Haiphong around Christmas of that year. Moreover, the accord reflected terms at least as favorable to Hanoi if not more so than those that had been put forward for many years prior to that – certainly more favorable than what the “Vietcong” (NLF) had offered in the early 1960s. All of the death, destruction, massive bombing, appalling chemical defoliation (that still kills today, incidentally)… all of that was for nothing. So… we should have bombed more? We dropped many times more bombs on Indochina than in all theatres of World War II combined, with most ordinance falling on South Vietnam, our supposed ally. Sorry, but the suggestion is simply bizarre and obscene.

This is the “maverick” we want making decisions that affect millions of lives? I think not… even if he brings a caribou-hunting evangelist back to Washington with him.

Yeah, I watched it… at least parts of it. Who can resist partaking of at least a slice or two of such rich political theatre? The DNC nominating convention in Denver had some odd moments, to be sure, at least from the television viewer’s perspective. I’m still trying to work our, for instance, why they were playing the ’70s disco number “Rollercoaster of Love” when Dennis Kucinich was walking up to the podium. (Coincidence? I think not!) Dennis gave a volcanic speech that certainly touched on most of the issues I hold dear, and for that I love him. Jimmy Carter got a video but no speech – his reward for being the only sane mainstream voice on Israel/Palestine. Bill Clinton delivered a senior statesman-like address, making many wonder (myself included) where that particular B.C. was during the primary season. (For a while there, he was replaced by a look-alike good ol’ boy. Gratefully, that fucker got put back in the box.)

Obama gave a very Obama-like acceptance speech, a performance of the caliber Democrats have been wishing for from their nominees since Moses was a pup. I mean, this guy tosses inspiring speeches out like it’s nothing – so much so that people, including many in his own party, complain about how good he is. (His wife’s good, too. What are the chances of that?) The complaints are mostly that he’s short on substance, but he’s hawking mostly the same policy positions that Democrats have been promoting for years, under much lamer nominees. Honestly, what have they got to be unhappy about? For me, there are plenty of policy differences that will keep me from being ecstatic, but never to the point where I’d be willing to even contemplate another four years of the G.O.P. in the White House. So guess what? I’m voting for the fucker, and I suggest you do the same. Not suggesting that’s all we need to do, not by a long shot, but that, certainly.

Now, if Obama really wants things to change in this country, there is something he could do about it. If he really thinks this election is, as he says, about all of us and not just him, he could look us in the eyes and say that he needs our vote, but not just that. He could say that he needs us to be there with him when he goes back to Washington. He could tell us that when he pushes for, say, national health care, he needs us to push for it, too…. because if we don’t, it’s never going to happen. Same with ending the occupation of Iraq. Same with closing Gitmo. Same with everything. Yeah, I know how unlikely this is. Politicians don’t like it so much when people get engaged – they don’t tend to encourage movements they can’t control. But those are the only ones that bring about meaningful change.

Sure, we can have empty change, like an anti-choice, mooseburger-eating “hockey mom” as Vice President. But what we really need is action on the same scale as the titanic problems we face.

luv u,

jp

I guess by now everybody knows about how many houses John McCain owns, even if he seems to be a little unclear on the subject. And it’s likely that even I know by now who Obama’s running mate will be (my guess: Pat Paulson). Call me morbid, but my mind is more focused on what appears to be a strong indication of how a President McCain might be expected to rule the American empire. His stance and rhetoric on the Georgian conflict have been jaw-droppingly bellicose – torn as they may be from the playbook of paid Georgian lobbyist (and former Rumsfeld advisor… and former Chalabi promoter) Randy Scheunemann, one of McCain’s chief advisors, they represent a side of the candidate that has been chillingly consistent for as long as he’s been in public office: a knee-jerk preference for military force. As much as he’s milked his own wartime experience and mouthed platitudes about the horrors of war, McCain has been fully on-board with virtually every invasion, attack, bombing run, etc., we’ve undertaken since his return home from Hanoi. He apparently has never met a war he didn’t like.

Now the admiral appears to be drawing a line in the Caucasus, calling this the first serious crisis of the post cold war era. I’m not sure what creeps me out more – the notion that he actually believes that to be true, or the fact that no one seems to recognize that it’s crazy talk. Actually, I think the second part is scarier. We’ve really reached kind of a sad day in America when, in the wake of five years of pointless bloody war in Iraq, we don’t recoil violently from the kind of blather that’s emanating from McCain and his neocon colleagues. Remember that McCain has taken a position distinctly to the right of the Bush administration on this. In light of the fact that we’ve been stoking up Georgia’s military for years, under both Bush and Clinton, and that both Bush and McCain have been pushing to make Georgia part of NATO, it’s a little disconcerting to know that this man who would be president is willing to turn this dispute into a full-blown confrontation between ourselves and Russia, still possessed of thousands of ICBMs (real ones, not the imaginary kind Bush officials keep referring to in places like Iran).

So anyway… let’s see a show of hands. Who wants to die or send their child to die over a dispute between Russia and Georgia about a region that most Americans can’t even pronounce let alone find on a globe? Anyone? Honestly, I have to think the numbers are pretty low. And yet… why do I keep hearing that McCain is more trusted on national security and foreign policy than is his opponent? The man has neocon-fueled Napoleonic delusions about putting Russia in its place. He clings to a war that never should have been fought, and seems more than eager to start yet another. He referred to Iraq as “phase II” of the War on Terror back in 2001, working with the administration to link that country to the anthrax attacks on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. He has been dangerously wrong on pretty much every major foreign policy issue of the last decade. This man is more qualified?

Note to the Obama campaign: take a page out of LBJ’s book. He rightfully painted Goldwater as a dangerous extremist. McCain has done half of that job for you…. take it from there, folks.

luv u,

jp