Rolling Stone swift-boats John McCain

In 2004, after John Kerry made his war record in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign against George W. Bush, GOP political operatives countered with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Conceived and organized by the Bush reelection team, this hand-picked collection of former navy officers and enlisted men was used to discredit Kerry’s military service. 

 

Personally, I found this one of the most vile attempts at character assassination in memory. Even a perfunctory investigation into the Swift Boat members revealed the men attacking John Kerry had been doing so since the early seventies. Their real beef with Kerry was that he returned to the U.S. with the opinion that the war in Vietnam had been a mistake. These former comrades never forgave Kerry for breaking ranks. And in 2004, they finally had a chance to get even thanks to the Karl Rove brigade. 

 

Now, a similar attack has surfaced against John McCain. In an article titled "Make-Believe Maverick" by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone magazine, it's McCain who gets the swift boat treatment. The article features interviews with former comrades and acquintaces along with details from McCain’s childhood, military service  and political career. Dickinson then weaves these selective facts into an armchair psychological pronouncement of John McCain as reckless and dishonest. Are the facts true? I have no way to dispute them. But the net effect of this article is every bit as reprehensible as the Swift Boat smears.

 

Yesterday, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama while praising John McCain’s integrity and dedication to his country. That is how statesmen behave. 

 

Enough of the smears and swift boat tactics. This nation deserves better.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez 

How politics should be conducted

For anyone who wants to see the U.S. political system at its best, I urge you to watch the video below. Colin Powell's endorsement of Barrack Obama raises the level of discourse in a campaign that has often descended into the gutter by both candidates. Mr. Powell's eloquence, decency and fairness are a reminder of how uplifting democracy can be when conducted by persons of principle and integrity. When the founding fathers imagined the future of the nation, this kind of dialog is what they likely had in mind. 

Raul Ramos y Sanchez 

FBI is ill equipped to police the $700 billion bailout

With $700 billion in government money sloshing around financial markets, it's evident the potential for fraud will increase exponentially. However, the FBI's ability to police white collar crime is at an all time low. That's because the Bureau's main focus has been on national security since 2001. According to the New York Times, the FBI has seen prosecutions of frauds against financial institutions drop by 48 percent from 2000 to 2007. The Times also reported FBI prosecutions have been slashed  by 75 percent for insurance fraud along with 17 percent reduction in securities fraud cases during the same period. These are not great trends at a time when financial markets are receiving money by the ton from the federal government -- the proverbial poster child for waste and fraud.    

Few would blame the Bush administration for redirecting FBI resources from white collar crime to national security after 9-11. The Bureau switched nearly a third of its agents from financial fraud to anti-terrorist activities following the terrorist attacks. Still, the financial crisis clearly caught the Bush White House completely unprepared—again. Now there is a manic swing underway to bring FBI resources back into fraud prosecutions. Let’s hope the terrorists aren’t watching this too closely.

In the meantime, some have raised questions about the connection between the lack of FBI attention to fraud over the last six years and our current financial meltdown.  Some within the FBI even saw it coming. One senior FBI official warned of a mortgage fraud “epidemic” in 2004. But like the memo that alerted the Bush administration that terrorists planned to use passenger planes as bombs, the Bush team was too busy with its pre-ordained agenda to pay much attention. When a president publicly boasts that he doesn’t read newspapers, is it any wonder he would overlook information that seemed inconvenient?

As the Bush years wind down, even its one-time supporters are finally admitting what only a few said in the beginning. This is a White House blinded by hubris and obsessed by ideology; an administration whose only real talent was winning elections with cunning swift-boat campaigns that attacked an opponent’s character while skirting real issues. The legacy of electing someone who “seemed like a great guy to have a beer with” will live with this nation for much too long. 

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

There you go again, George

On Friday morning, before Wall Street trading opened, President Bush adressed the nation about the measures being taken by his administration to put stability back into the world's troubled financial markets. As I have observed in earlier blogs, the president's typically stilted delivery (backed by a track record of colossal failure) once again had the opposite effect.

The stock market immediately tanked, finishing down over one hundred points.

OK, maybe news that housing starts in September hit a seventeen-year low was the catalyst for the stock market drop. In fact, it was probably this very news that prompted Mr. Bush to address the nation. All the same, by now it should be clear that the president's words are not very reassuring. Quite the contrary. Reacting like Pavlov's dog, every time Mr. Bush appears in public, investors immediately call their brokers with sell orders.

So get a clue, George. You are not helping.  Investors will not gain any confidence from someone who represents abject failure. Next time, why not invite Warren Buffet to speak from the White House?  Or simply keep quiet.    

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

“Bush” may soon become a verb

The way John McCain and Sarah Palin have been moving away from the ostensible leader of their party, you’d think George W. Bush had lice. Of course when a man presides over a long and unpopular war, the greatest economic collapse since the Great Depression, and moves into uncharted territory for presidential disapproval ratings, it gets very itchy for the heirs of his political mantle.

In fact, the president’s unpopularity has become so universal, it may only be a matter of time before his name becomes a figure of speech.  I can hear it now…

“Man, you sure bushed that up.”

“You’re full of bush, dude.”

“Sorry, I totally bushed up.”

“That’s the worst bushing job I’ve ever seen.”

Just think of it. In much the same way the disgraced Roman general Sulla gave us the word “sully,” George W. Bush’s most enduring legacy may be to enrich our language with another term for incompetence.  I can't imagine a more fitting tribute. 

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

Will illegal immigration be McCain’s last gasp?

The most interesting analysis following last night’s third and final debate did not come from the spin doctors.  CNN’s coverage showed a U.S. state map depicting Electoral College vote projections based on current polls. The situation looks grim for the McCain camp.

Even if the McCain-Palin ticket captures all the “battleground” states, the Democrats will still move into the White House. To win, McCain must not only capture all the contested states, the GOP must win back several states already solidly committed to the Obama-Biden ticket.

It is a desperate time for the Republicans. Don’t be surprised if McCain reverses his previous position and goes after the only issue that can stir up passionate support among conservative Democrats: illegal immigration.

It’s clear both candidates have already cast aside the mantles of integrity they wore entering the campaign. Will McCain abandon the last shred of honor and pander to the nativist fringe of the Democratic Party? He has nothing left to lose … except the election.  

Obsessed with undocumented workers, Arizona sheriff ignores real crime

In April of this year, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched a massive sweep for undocumented immigrants in Guadalupe, Arizona, a city that is 51% Hispanic and 49% Native American. “Deputies stopped people for the slightest infractions—a cracked windshield, broken taillight, jaywalking — and asked whether they were in the country legally,” reported the Los Angeles Times.

Angered by the heavy-handed tactics of the self proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America,” then-mayor Rebecca Jimenez confronted Arpaio before the cameras of the media. “You came here under false pretenses,” Jimenez told Arpaio.

Infuriated by the public comeuppance, Sheriff Arpaio announced he would cancel his contract to provide Guadalupe with police protection. “If you don't like the way we operate, you get your own police department,” Arpaio announced.  

To the dismay of Guadalupe’s city council, after searching for months, they found no other municipality to replace Arpaio’s deputies. In September, as Guadlupe’s contract was about to expire, the city sued to keep its police protection in place.

How could a sheriff elected to maintain law and order leave a city under his jurisdiction without police protection? Those who know Arpaio were not surprised by his reaction.

The sheriff’s many detractors believe real law enforcement takes a backseat to publicity stunts with Arpaio. Among his other headline-hungry exploits was a massive prostitution round-up that involved 350 deputies for two months and resulted in 70 arrests, most of which were eventually declined for trial by the county prosecutor. Arpaio has also publicly boasted of being the first sheriff in the U.S. to house inmates in tents and feed them green bologna.

Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, one thing remains clear. In his grandstanding obsession with nabbing undocumented workers, Sheriff Arpaio is ignoring his obligation to the lives and property of the people he is sworn to protect. 

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

The subprime blame game

There is a lot of partisan finger pointing going around about the causes for the subprime debt that has contaminated U.S. financial markets and pushed the world to the brink of economic collapse. In truth, neither U.S. political party is blameless for this disaster.

Not surprisingly, the GOP blames the Democrats for passing the first bill to push home ownership for the poor, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. The Republicans also accuse Bill Clinton of forcing banks to raise the percentage of risky loans to minorities in 1995--with Attorney General Janet Reno threatening to levy fines against banks that did not comply. Finally, the GOP faithful claim it was the Dems who resisted repeated attempts by the Republicans to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 2003 through 2005.

Of course the Republicans studiously avoid any mention of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the landmark legislation authored by Texas Republican Senator Phil Gramm that broke down the barriers between commercial banks and investment banks. These regulations had been in place since the Great Depression when the 1932 Wall Street bubble went bust and spawned the infamous run on banks.

Without Gramm’s unprecedented deregulation in 1999, the subprime loans that defaulted in the last two years would have become simple foreclosures. But thanks to the geniuses on Wall Street, these loans were metastasized into the junk bonds that have poisoned the entire financial markets. (Bill Clinton did sign the 1999 Gramm bill into law, by the way. So the Dems are hardly blameless. But the GOP had enough votes in congress at the time to override a presidential veto anyway.)

Another way the subprime loans mutated and spread to dangerous levels was by the complicity of the private sector. There was a lot of money to be made from collecting closing fees and origination charges on subprime mortagages, to say nothing of realtor commissions. Poor people were encouraged to buy beyond their means by realtors and banks who knew full well many of them could not pay.

More importantly, over half the mortgages that have gone sour are from middle income households that got greedy and overbought. The government's push for more loans to the poor had nothing to do with these bad debts which make up the bulk of the toxic bonds.

So it’s fair to say both parties, along with the government and the private sector, helped create the mess we’re in today. The most important question is this: Will these factions be willing to work together to resolve our dilemma—or continue to play the blame game?

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

Want to end the panic? Keep Bush quiet.

With financial markets in a swoon across the globe, economic wizards are wondering why each new move by the U.S. government to shore up investor confidence only seems to worsen Wall Street’s woes.

Well, you don’t have to be an arbitrage expert to follow the cause and effect.

The panic on Wall Street started the Monday after George W. Bush made a weekend television appearance painting an apocalyptic vision for America if congress did not approve his Treasury Secretary’s hastily concocted $700 billion bailout plan for dealing with the toxic subprime mortgage funds contaminating financial markets. By the time trading opened on Monday, the sell orders were already backing up at most brokerage houses. Instead of reassuring investors, Bush started the stampede.

How could government intervention to prevent panic have the opposite effect? Put most bluntly, George W. Bush has zero credibility with most Americans by now. How many times has he appeared on television and misled the American public? He implied that Saddam Hussein had a connection with 9-11. He said Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He declared “mission accomplished” in a war that is still taking American lives. He praised his FEMA director even as Michael Brown was botching the Katrina recovery efforts.

And suddenly we’re supposed to believe that Bush is finally right about something?

The loss of faith in President Bush has spilled over to the entire federal government. As a result, we are seeing a vicious downward spiral. Each time the government announces another measure to prop up financial markets, investors become more convinced of the severity of the problem—and the government’s inability to fix it.

The crisis we face now is a crisis of faith. To find the root cause of the public mistrust, one need look no further than 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue. Maybe it would be best for everyone if Mr. Bush just kept quiet for a while.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez

The immigrant in the mirror

The immigrant men gather on the pavement at dawn and wait passively as the bosses walk among them, choosing those who will work today. For the lucky ones, a ten-to-fourteen-hour day of hard labor lies ahead. Tomorrow, they will show up at dawn again, hoping to find another day of work.

After work, most return to a small apartment crowded with children and relatives. They live among their countrymen, clinging to their traditions and language. Only a few are U.S. citizens. On the street, their thick accents bring stares of scorn from native-born Americans. Yet they work doggedly at the most menial of jobs, hoping their children will not have to endure their fate.

Hispanic immigrants in the barrios of California? No, these events took place in factories and steel yards across the U.S. Midwest at the turn of the twentieth century. Yet the struggles and dreams of those immigrants from five generations ago seem much the same as those of Latino immigrants today.

Ah, but the immigrants of the past were all “legal,” right?

Instead entering the United States by its southern border, most early-twentieth century immigrants crossed the Atlantic crowded aboard steam ships from European nations overflowing with the desperately poor. They landed at ports like Ellis Island and endured a rigorous entry process before they were allowed into the country. For that reason, many people today see the newcomers of the last century as somehow more moral and deserving than today’s “lawless” Latinos. But let’s not confuse geography with morality.

If the poor immigrants from Europe could have simply walked across a land border instead of having to cross an ocean in a ship to find a better life, would they have waited patiently behind an invisible line? We can look to history for the answer.

Beginning with the thirteen original colonies carved out of Native American land, the United States has spread inexorably west. In many cases, this annexation was carried out without any legal treaties. When land was available, American settlers simply overran the territories of other peoples. So much for the “moral superiority” of Anglo-Saxon culture.

Does that make today’s illegal immigration right? Not in my book. But the idea that a land border would have kept out waves of desperately poor Europeans eager for work is pure self-delusion. Europeans do not hold the franchise on morality. Native-born Americans don’t either.

So what’s the answer? A guest worker program would bring today’s undocumented workers out of the shadows. We need their labor. We do not need to call their assimilation “amnesty.” Because in more ways than most of us care to admit, they are already Americans.

Raul Ramos y Sanchez