Category: National

Now that the rhetorical debris from the election and the analytical dust from the postmortems have settled, we can be more objective about what happened a fortnight ago.

If you believe the exit polls, a plurality of those voting for President George W. Bush did so on the basis of a moral agenda. Gay marriage and abortion, apparently, trumped the war on terror and the economy. The Christian fundamentalist right, it would seem, was turned on and turned out the vote.

Two points.

First, that’s dumbfounding. Nothing in these United secular States is more important than security and the war on terror. Everything else – from protecting creationism and displaying the Ten Commandments in public places to partially privatizing Social Security and denting the deficit — is moot if we don’t win this one.

How will you feel, for example, about an otherwise mundane trip to Publix or a sortie to International Plaza after a suicide bomber detonates himself — or herself — at the Mall of the Americas? What will be the price in lives lost and economic chaos if a container-concealed dirty bomb goes off in a major American port? Nothing less than how we live the lives of free and free-enterprising Americans is at stake.

The question thus begged is: Have we helped or hurt our chances of maintaining those lives by what we’ve wrought in Iraq? While we hunt down whatever insurgents hadn’t already fled from Fallujah, are we addressing the root causes – ranging from being Ariel Sharon’s blank check-writing patron to being supporters of the corrupt Saudi royal family – that compel Islamic fanatics to attack America? Are we safer for having alienated a good chunk of the civilized world in a Middle East neo-con end game? Have we squandered the moral high ground we were accorded immediately after Sept. 11?

The election of 2004 should have been a referendum on Iraq. Nothing else should have been close. A foreign quagmire with American body bags is the sort of campaign crucible that deterred Lyndon Johnson from running for re-election in 1968 when much less was at stake. Ho Chi Minh was no Osama bin Laden.

But this time, according to exit polls, revenge for the Scopes trial might have mattered more than the security that guarantees such a debate in the first place.

Iraq is seen by some as a legitimate, pre-emptive extension of the war on terrorism that helps keep the homeland safer. Moreover, a time of war is never the right time to change commanders-in-chief. And, candidly, there’s never a good time to entrust a patrician liberal – even one with Super 8 footage of himself in Vietnam — with America’s security.

To others, Iraq is an ill-advised invasion followed by an ill-conceived occupation so botched that it has turned that country into a bloody, jihadi pep rally that imperils us even more. There’s no wiggle room here.

But back to those seemingly inexplicable exit polls that sited “moral values” as the overriding factor.

Here’s a possible explanation – one that doesn’t have anything to do with evangelicals. A sizable portion of that “moral values” vote might simply have been a cultural protest in the context of the United States now three years removed from Sept.11. The sort of message-sending vote that might have gone to George Wallace in another era.

Those voters, in effect, could have been echoing sentiments expressed memorably by the Peter Finch character in the movie “Network.” They were “mad as hell” and weren’t going “to take it any more.” The ballot as bullhorn.

Quite possibly, they were those who never fully recovered from trying to explain to their kids what it was that a former president actually did that brought on his impeachment. They were those who had nowhere else to turn and ranted against a popular culture that has never been more adversarial to those trying to raise kids properly. From Britney Spears to Grand Theft Auto. From “wardrobe malfunctions” to reality TV. From internet flotsam to vulgarian sports role models.

And in no particular order: Howard Stern, Michael Moore, Whoopie Goldberg, 50 Cent, institutionalized liberal media, champagne socialists, the ACLU, entitlement mentalities, mainstreamed hip-hop, in-your-face gaiety, diluted academic standards, celebrity trials, “edgy” anything, immigrants who don’t want to be Americans, diversity definitions that only apply to favored groups, the “Blame America First” crowd and get-out-the-vote campaigns that amount to little more than dragnets for the clueless. And Michael Moore…But, then again, that’s just a theory.

Part of John Kerry’s campaign mantra has been the characterizing of America’s Iraqi policy as “the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place.” It’s a hot-button line that actually harkens back to another war, the Korean, and another adversary, China.

The source can be found in Niall Ferguson’s “Colossus: The Price of America’s Empire.” The quote comes from Gen. Omar Bradley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the aftermath of the sacking of Gen. Douglas MacArthur. In 1951 Bradley testified at a hearing held jointly by the Senate’s Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees.

“Bradley argued that an all-out war against China would have left Western Europe at the mercy of the Soviets,” writes Ferguson. “It would have been ‘the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time and with the wrong enemy.'”

The deeper Gov. Bush gets into his lame duck years, and the closer it gets to his brother’s presidential show-down, the more speculation picks up about Jeb’s future plans. A persistent query concerns a presumed run for the presidency. Most recently the governor had to deny such interest on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I’m not going to run for president in 2008,” he told George Stephanopolous. “That’s not my interest. I’m going to finish my term.”

You don’t have to be a Philadelphia lawyer to see the linguistic parsing in that reply. But you also don’t have to be a presidential scholar to sense that Americans might look askance at a Bush trifecta. As in at least one too many.

Granted, the wonkish, well-spoken Jeb had been groomed for a presidential run before being leapfrogged by his older brother. And it’s true that Americans can be enamored of political legacies — from Adams and Harrison to Taft, Kennedy and Bush. But while John and Quincy Adams are father-and-son precedents, going to the family well a third time, one suspects, would smack less of legacy than entitlement.

Americans may love famous families and faux Camelots, but not intimations of monarchy. It adds up to a governor on the presidential ambitions of Jeb Bush.

Tampa’s recently concluded Cuba Summit was a graphic reminder that there are good, principled people on both sides of the emotion-drenched issue of America’s relationship with the government of Fidel Castro. It’s appropriate to remember that until you’ve actually walked in the shoes of those who have directly suffered at the hands of the Castro regime — from expropriations to executions — you might want to err on the side of empathy.

Having said that, there is also the hypocritical, politically self-aggrandizing, disproportionately powerful, South Florida-based Cuban-American lobby. In complicity with every administration since John Kennedy’s, this veto-wielding element shares blame for the continuance of this country’s failed, counterproductive Cuban policy that negatively impacts Cuban citizens, U.S business interests and America’s global image. That much hasn’t changed.

To no one’s surprise, the third National Summit on Cuba, held recently at the University of Tampa, yielded no surprises. It is the nature of such gatherings, whether they are called conferences, seminars or “summits.” That’s the way it (embar)goes.

There are the requisite Fidel Castro-denouncing banners and placards set up outside. On the inside, expect a myriad of literature promoting everything from doing business in Cuba to renouncing any effort to “reward” Castro’s dictatorship with tourism, trade and investments. The conferees typically range from politicians, former ambassadors and spokespersons for agenda-driven organizations to port officials, consultants and entrepreneurs. Cherry-pickings from history will be served. The rhetoric will include emotional, embargo-bashing, applause lines — as well as unyielding voices for continued recrimination and retribution. There’s never a fence to sit on.

This summit, which drew about 250 attendees, was ably moderated by Fox News Channel’s senior correspondent and host, Rita Cosby. To her credit, the occasional point-counterpoint disagreements never grew overly disagreeable. She also reiterated often that the summit regrettably failed — but not for lack of effort — to land a balanced representation of views among its more than two dozen presenters. Among those unable or unwilling to accept an invitation: members of Congress, the Bush Administration and the Cuban American National Foundation.

But the summit did land Frank Calzon, executive director of the Washington-based Center for a Free Cuba. Some of his observations:

*It’s unrealistic — and wrong — to assume that American tourism will significantly change Cuba, averred Calzon. He took issue with the analogy of Western visitors influencing the erstwhile Communist bloc of Eastern Europe. “It was not American tourists enjoying Soviet ballets in Leningrad that brought down communism,” he said. Instead, stressed Calzon, it was the likes of Radio Free Europe and strong leaders, such as President Ronald Reagan, “who kept the pressure on.”

*”Private enterprise doesn’t exist in Cuba. The government owns all businesses, and Cuba’s military controls tourism.”

*”Americans have the right to travel to Cuba, but that right has to take account of other rights. For example, when an American tourist goes to Cuba and stays in a hotel that only Cuban prostitutes can go to, that’s shameful. That American tourist is subsidizing economic apartheid.”

*”I’m all for selling to Fidel Castro for cash. But selling to Cuba and getting paid are not the same thing. Ask Mexico. Cuba owes Mexico $380 million and has stopped payment in a dispute with (President Vicente) Fox. Castro is broke and owes billions. If the U.S. were to give Fidel Castro credits on exports, then watch your wallet. You will subsidize Castro.”

*”Cuba remains a rogue state. It supports terrorism.” And that’s reason enough, underscored Calzon, to keep the sanctions.

Attorney Robert Muse of Washington-based Muse & Associates, offered these embargo-related insights:

*”U.S. laws have consistently subordinated business interests to shifting political goals. Both Congress and the executive branch are fully complicit. It’s been the path of least resistance.”

*Muse also laid blame on corporate America. According to Muse, corporations couldn’t see beyond modest, short-term prospects of a “relatively small, unattractive market.” Moreover, they harbored largely unspoken “fears of a consumer boycott.”

Then there’s the take of Kirby Jones, president of Washington-based trade consultants, Alamar Associates:

*”Those who maintain that Cuba is but an out-of-date, leftover country which fanatically is clinging to a rigid and static state-controlled economy are simply misinformed, wrong or purposely misrepresenting the economic reality in Cuba to promote and achieve their own political agenda. Cuba has instead proven itself — more than once — to be willing to implement radical changes in the manner in which it manages its economy in order to adapt to a new world economic order.”

*”Basically nothing you see existed 10 years ago. What you see is a 10-year-old, economic experiment. Right or wrong, it’s charting its own course. The jury is still out on the mix.” Since the end of 2001, that mix has included Cuba’s purchase or signed contracts for approximately $1 billion of agricultural and food products from the U.S., added Jones. Cuba, it should be noted, is a cash-only customer for America.

*”Cuba is one of the most highly privatized countries in the world — if you define it as the state selling its assets to private investors. There are more than 340 joint-ventures now — from telecommunications with the Italians, oil exploration with the Spanish to office construction and citrus production with Israelis.”

*Cuba, said Jones, has created dozens of free-standing holding companies that operate “as free from day-to-day government control and oversight as any private-sector firm in any country in the world.” And they have but one shareholder — the government, points out Jones.

*While the aforementioned changes and others came about under Castro’s watch, Jones emphasized, don’t expect much deviation in the post-Castro period. “Castro has brought in an entire new generation of ministers, vice ministers and middle level officials and managers,” he said. “Alimport (Cuba’s powerful trade-negotiation agency), for example, is run by a 28 year old. All of this, initiated under Castro — is not dependent on Castro. This new generation will still be there the day Castro moves on.”

*”Fidel Castro has already implemented much of the very transition that some still say will come only after he no longer leads Cuba.”

And for historical context and geo-political projection, there is the perspective of Wayne Smith, former chief of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana and current senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for International Policy:

*When the U.S. embargo was imposed, noted Smith, it was part of the U.S. “containment policy” and was “eminently sensible at the time.”

*”The Bush Administration has the most counterproductive, most illogical policy toward Cuba I’ve seen, and I’ve been watching it for 46 years

Should George W. Bush not be re-elected, there will be considerable speculation about where Sen. Bob Graham’s name will be on several John Kerry Administration short lists. That includes the CIA, where some think Graham could confer, in effect, footnote status upon Porter Goss — for having the shortest tenure of any CIA director.

For now, however, the outgoing, three-term Florida senator — and former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee — isn’t encouraging any such speculation. He dismissed such scenarios and told a recent luncheon crowd at the Tiger Bay Club of Tampa that he was more interested in enjoying his 11 grandchildren.

What he wasn’t reluctant to offer, though, were criticisms of America’s intelligence failures leading up to Sept. 11 and denunciations of subsequent Bush Administration missteps. The former were familiar assertions from his book, “Intelligence Matters.” The latter largely focused on the decision to go to war in Iraq — at the expense of flushing out Osama bin Laden. Some outtakes:

*”We’re no longer protected by oceans. We need anticipatory information. This is an enemy that was less known to us than the Soviets were in 1947. A tribe of tribes

We really don’t ask much of voters in this country.

We’re not particularly interested in their literacy or familiarity with the issues. Early and absentee voting obviates the need to queue up at the polls. We just want them to participate and respond — if that’s what it takes — to get-out-the-vote campaigns, whether sponsored by hip-hop performers, swift boat vets or Michael Moore-ons.

But is it asking too much of voters to register properly? The Florida Voter Registration Form requires an answer to an inarguably pertinent question: Are you a U.S. citizen? It then provides two boxes, labeled appropriately enough “Yes” and “No.”

Secretary of State Glenda Hood, while not necessarily the paragon of all things bipartisan, says an unchecked “Yes” box is a pretty good reason to deny a vote. Others, such as the League of Women Voters, Florida ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Kerry campaign, are crying foul — or at least much ado about a technicality.

Such scenarios of sloppiness tend to proliferate where there are third-party groups doing the registering — as in Florida. It also appears would-be Democratic voters are largely affected.

Pasco Elections Supervisor Kurt Browning put it best: “Voters have to take some responsibility to make sure that form is completed.”

What a concept.

Much of the early skirmishing in the Florida senate race has been necessarily blunted by hurricane coverage. With the anxiety respite, however, have come some curious calculations.

In the political universe all perception is reality, and the Mel Martinez campaign has allowed its candidate, the former U.S. Housing Secretary and erstwhile president of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, to be portrayed as less than willing to debate Betty Castor. It’s at odds with the image of the courageous youngster who escaped Communist Cuba to undauntingly pursue the American Dream. Fleeing Castro, learning English, adapting to a new culture and achieving professional and political success, yes. Debating your opponent and handling the heat of Tim Russert, no.

As we know, the Martinez camp initially balked at the inclusion of Russert, the well-regarded “Meet The Press” host, as moderator of an October debate sponsored by WFLA-Ch.8 in Tampa. They asked for a Florida journalist — something Gov. Jeb Bush didn’t deign to do when his gubernatorial debates were moderated by Russert. The Martinez excuse waxed lame. Then another debate proposal was deemed too late in the campaign. Castor readily agreed to all debate proposals without qualification.

Finally the Martinez camp yielded to the bad publicity and agreed to the Russert-moderated debate on Oct. 18.But the Russert flap still bedevils Martinez. The perception is this: Russert, known for being painstakingly prepared and adept at follow-ups, would not countenance the sort of debate vehicle Martinez seems to prefer. That is, a forum to wrap himself in the American flag and George Bush’s presidential mantle and not have to answer pressing questions about, say, his independence of the neocon credo or his ideological smear campaign against Bill McCollum.

As for the former USF president and state education commissioner, it appears her campaign didn’t learn enough from the Peter Deutsch primary crucible. That’s when a Deutsch surrogate called into question Castor’s commitment to fighting terrorism by referencing Sami Al-Arian. He’s the computer science professor who has been indicted and imprisoned on terrorist-conspiracy charges. Castor put him on paid leave for two years in the 1990s.

The revisionist cheap shots were seen for what they were and dismissed by the voters.

The issue appeared interred until the Castor campaign exhumed it. In a TV ad that ran in Tallahassee, Jacksonville and Gainesville, Castor says: “Every candidate talks about terrorism, but I’ve dealt with it firsthand. As university president, I took action to remove a suspected terrorist from our campus.”

The Castor campaign wants it both ways. In the primary it said don’t blame her for “only” putting Al-Arian on paid leave and then reinstating him. As USF president, she did as much as she could given the lack of hard evidence, the tenured Al-Arian’s support among the faculty and the more laissez faire pre-Sept.11 era. Be fair. Security-wise, that was then; this is now.

The campaign no longer implies she did what she could, given the inherent limits. In seeking to bolster her national defense bona fides, it now declares her battle-tested from making the gutsy, tough call to take action against a suspected terrorist.

That’s political spin — as well as more revisionism. Something the Martinez campaign has duly noted.

According to media reports out of the Middle East, the rash of kidnappings, beheadings, suicide bombings and killings of Russian schoolchildren has taken a toll on public opinion in the Muslim world. In fact, the ongoing pattern of atrocities has sparked a debate among Arab intellectuals on why the majority of such heinous acts have been committed by Muslims acting in the name of Islam.

Some blame the violence on intolerance and extremism that leads to hatred of non-Muslims. Others blame the West, notably the U.S., because it’s a staunch supporter of Israel and the occupier of Iraq.

Perhaps this qualifies as good — or at least encouraging — news. Here’s another take.

Sub-human, barbaric behavior — no matter the grievance, no matter the perverted, religious loophole — is not a matter for debate. It’s a matter of sweeping condemnation, no questions asked. Unless, of course, the questions include: “Why aren’t we totally outraged and disgusted with such Islamofascist vermin?” and “Why don’t we do something about it ourselves?”

Some things you don’t dignify with debate.

In 1980 independent candidate John Anderson delivered one of the most memorably mordant lines in presidential campaign annals when he referred to the standard bearers of the two major parties, Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter and Republican challenger Ronald Reagan, as the “evil of two lessers.” History would eventually confirm the degree of hyperbole in play. But it was a great line.

Twenty-four years later, that caustic comment is ready for exhumation. Unfortunately, posterity may bear witness to more than political exaggeration. Tragically, the stakes have never been higher.

By his administration’s deceptively conceived and ineptly implemented Iraq policy, President George W. Bush, the kept man of the neocons, has made the civilized world angry at the United States and affronted at America’s arrogance. Much more to the point, he has made the Islamofascist world even more rabidly threatening by turning Iraq into the world’s will-call window for death and depravity.

Sept. 11, 2001 is now a worldwide terrorist footnote, not a rallying cry against the fanatical forces of inhumanity. Hardly mandate material for four more years.

Problem is, there is no FDR, Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower waiting, deus ex machina-like, in the wings. Nor is there a Wesley Clark, Joe Biden or Bob Graham. The Hobson’s choice is the junior senator from Massachusetts, who isn’t even the best Kerrey — that’s Bob.

You don’t have to read “Unfit for Command,” which I have, to know that John Kerry has been gaming the system for years. Call it “Eddie Haskell Grabs His Super-8 Camera And Joins The Naval Reserve — After Being Turned Down For A Graduate School Deferment.” But his self-serving calculations likely date to the first realization that his initials were JFK.

While he has been typecast as a Teddy Kennedy clone, there is a least a case to be made that the senior senator from Massachusetts actually believes what he says. Few accuse Kerry of such authenticity. His Senate tenure is distinguished largely by an ideology of waffling and self promotion.

The evil of two lessers? Seems all too appropriate in a nation-defining election reduced to an incumbent heading inexorably down the wrong path and a challenger to whom all roads are forked.

Would that the choice were Carter or Reagan again.