Who can ever replace Mark Foley?

A Democrat. Tim Mahoney.

Mahoney is running to replace Mark Foley in Congress. Americans are completely fed up with Republican leadership. Yes, we know that the Democrats are not perfect, but the Democrats never claimed to be perfect. When we have problems, we take care of them. When the White House has problems, they promote and give medals.

Mahoney believes in responsibility and accountability, regardless of anyone’s political affiliation. He has pledged to fight for fiscal responsibility. He is a successful rancher and businessman who supports 9/11 Commission reforms to keep our country safe. Mahoney’s website reports that Republicans are pouring in money to produce negative campaign ads.

Mahoney has been campaigning for over a year, and the disgraced Republicans in Florida have a hand-picked candidate to try to keep the seat. If you can contribute at all, the time is now.

The New York Sun reports that a new Republican ad financed by white billionaire J. Patrick Roone calls black women “Hos.” The group, America’s Pac, began running ads last month in more than two dozen congressional districts. The ads triumph some right-wing pride issues: warrantless wiretapping and school choice among them. The most notorious of the ads target abortion, accusing Democrats of discrimination because “black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies.” The most shameful exchange explicitly exploits African Americans. In an exchange between two black men:

“If you make a little mistake with one of your ‘hos,’ you’ll want to dispose of that problem tout suite, no questions asked,” one of the men says.

“That’s too cold. I don’t snuff my own seed,” the other replies.

“Maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican,” the first man says.

Another ad attempts to link Democrats to white supremacist David Duke, who served as a Republican in the Louisiana Legislature:

“I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists,”a male voice in the ad says. “What I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke.”

The ads are completely inflammatory. Essentially, the ads are financed by white billionaires recruiting black actors who apparently speak on behalf of the black community.

Just when you thought FOX news was Odd and Biased, they go right over the edge.

David Friend’s new book, Watching the World Change, takes a look at the images of 9/11, some of the stories behind them, and the effect of these images on a post-9/11 world. The book has made a major impact on the lives of many, and Friend’s website has become a focal point for people’s memories and reflections.

What has escaped the attention of many up to this point was a disturbing quote in the book from Roger Ailes, head of FOX news. Friend asked him, “What was the significance of two billion people being able to watch the same thing at the same time on September 11?” Ailes’ response was extremely disturbing:

“The implications from a television standpoint are simply that: When the end of the world comes, we’ll be able to cover it live until the last camera goes out. I believe I mean it literally. If you can witness something like [9/11] by two billion people, live, then there’s nothing that can’t be covered. And if we get into a world war, with nuclear weapons, I assume we’ll be covering it live.”

“It’s horrifying to think about. But maybe God set it up that way. You can either figure out how to live in freedom…and hope, or you can watch yourselves burn to death. Nine-eleven is a warning shot that says: Look, this can go either way. It’s your choice, folks.”

The political and religious implications of this statement are horrifying. Do the execs. at FOX really believe that the end is near, and they will somehow be blest to cover the final battle? When pressed as to whether he really meant that we would all be watching the Apocalypse live on FOX, Ailes responded, “I believe I mean it literally.”

Someone check the man’s medication and turn the channel.

Judy Shepard spoke at Roosevelt University in Chicago Monday, October 16. Her son Matthew was murdered at age 21 in an anti-gay hate crime October 12, 1998. The presentation was not at all what I expected. I’m not sure what I expected. Perhaps I’m still grieving for Matt, and expected tears from his mother, or someone angry. But Judy Shepard told a soft, determined, calm, and, at times, humorous story.

She started by reading the victim impact statement which she first read at the sentencing hearing for Russell Henderson, one of the two men convicted in the murder of Matthew Shepard.

“I’ll never understand why anyone would hurt Matt,” Shepard said in the statement.

She then segued into a brief presentation on the importance of voting. Mrs. Shepard, a proud Democrat, spoke at length about life in Wyoming, a staunchly Republican state with a population of 450,000 people. Her tongue-in-cheek humor about Wyoming provided a window into her warm spirit, “People give the same answer when asked either why they live or do not live in Wyoming: ‘Because no one else lives there.'”

She came on stage after a brief film that spoke about two hate crimes: the murder of her son Matthew, and the murder of James Byrd, Jr. Mrs. Shepard said she felt it was important to speak about both because all crimes of hate are related.

This was not a person speaking in anger. While conveying her family’s pain seeing Matt in the hospital, hardly recognizable, she spoke about the unimaginable with strength. She seemed to draw strength from reading the victim impact statement, and conveyed strength as she continued to tell her story. She spoke about the importance of gays and lesbians coming out to family, friends, and co-workers. Telling one humorous anecdote, she recalled speaking to a 50 year old man who told her he was so touched by her talk that he finally came out to his mother. She laughed, “You mean she really didn’t know? Trust me, a mother knows.”

She spoke about Matt coming out to her at age 18. Her response was simple, “What took you so long to tell me?” Her husband Dennis took a bit longer to understand Matt’s coming out, but not much more. He was not present Monday, but his victim impact statement is worth thoughtful reflection.
Her story was about pain, forgiveness, and realizing that the pain continues for others; that racism continues, bigotry continues, hate continues.

The presentation was over too soon.

Support the Matthew Shepard foundation.

I never thought I would write those words about John Kerry. And if the man ever does another photo-op wind-surfing or in a pink bunny outfit for NASA, well, then I give up on John Kerry.

But it’s true. He’s come alive.

First, Kerry spoke last week at the New Hampshire Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. His speech was, well, inspiring. People were cheering. For John Kerry.

It’s worth watching.

Next, he appeared on Fox News Sunday — you know Fox News, the network that claims it will film the apocalypse — and sat for an interview with Chris Wallace. Kerry confronted accusations from the Weird Right that North Korea’s nuke test are somehow Clinton’s fault. That’s right. Georgie spent the last several years in Iraq, ignoring the rest of the world, and North Korea is Clinton’s fault. Also worth watching.

I don’t know at this point if his star is rising again, but he still has something to say.

I’d love to know what some of our friends outside the United States have to say about our political scene.

Florida Governor Jeb Bush visited Pittsburgh, PA, Friday for a fund-raiser for Sen. Rick Santorum. Bush was making his way to the Duquesne Club, a posh, private club in Downtown Pittsburgh. Membership is by “invitation only.” If you have to ask how much membership costs, well, you probably won’t be asked to join.

The closest I ever came seeing anything like it was watching 1983’s Trading Places, with Dan Aykroyd and Eddie Murphy.

At any rate, as Bush approached the club, he had a close encounter with a group of anti-Republican protesters. The protesters were on their way to join other protesters already gathered in front of the club.

Protesters say Gov. Bush “blew them a kiss,” which was enough to thrill the group of about 30 protesters that was made up of United Steelworkers, and members of a group called Uprise Counter Recruitment, whose website says they are, “…a tour of mid-west and mid-Atlantic states aimed at advancing regional counter-recruitment efforts and linking the issues of war and military recruitment to corporate globalization and environmental sustainability. The Tour consists of a dozen activists traveling via a bio-diesel bus to cities both large and small.” They have teamed up with Iraq Veterans Against the War and Alive In Baghdad. Alive in Baghdad “shows the occupation through the voices of Iraqis.”

It was this distinguished group, then, that Gov. Bush blew a kiss to on a street in Pittsburgh.

The group drew nearer, shouting, “Jeb, go home.”

The governor made a retreat to a nearby T-station, an entry to Pittsburgh’s subway. The protesters followed Bush into the station, so Mr. Bush descended the escalators to the mezzanine level. At this point, Mr. Bush found himself surounded by signs that read, “Pittsburgh is a Santorum Free Zone,” and, “Honk if you’re sick of Rick.” “We don’t want you here,” protesters chanted.

Some days it just doesn’t pay to be born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

The situation apparently became very tense. Approximately 75 protesters had gathered on the street. They were asked to disperse, and did not. Two protesters were tased by two officers from a Port Authority canine unit.

As a precaution, the governor was ushered into a T-station supply closet. He reportedly remained there until the crowd dispersed.

Pittsburgh police, monitoring the front of the Duquesne Club, said the protesters were peaceful, and did not respond, and apparently were not asked to respond to the incident at the T-station.

The entire incident lasted approximately 5 minutes, after which Gov. Bush safely came out of the closet.

For the life of me I don’t understand why political campaigns today are so hell-bent on demonizing the opposition.

One has only to turn on the television in Illinois to see the rabid attack ads Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and challenger Judy Baar Topinka (R) are hurling at each other. Blagojevich’s ads, which offer ostensible proof of Topinka’s poor thinking in the form of Topinka sound bites, commonly end with the taunt, “Judy Baar Topinka, what’s she thinking?” Topinka has taken to attacking Blagojevich, offering for the viewer’s consideration tidbits about one of Blagojevich’s 7-year old daughter receiving a $1,500 birthday gift from one of Blagojevich’s lifelong friends and 2003 campaign treasurer, Michael Ascaridis. Yes, it sounds wrong. Who gives a $1,500 check to a 7-year old? Or rather, who gives a $1,500 check to a 7-year old and expects us to believe that the money was simply a casual gift — to the 7-year old?

The simple fact is, both of these candidates look aweful now. The insults and accusations they have leveled at each other have tossed at each other have reduced both gubernatorial candidates to a pair of foolish, trifling clods. Neither one appears to be a good choice for governor in Illinois, a state that desperately needs and deserves to see some dignity return to the state’s highest elected office.

But all of this is simply symptomatic of a larger, much older trend in politics. Political candidates may and often must disagree with each other. How else can the voter distinguish which person is best for an office? But the tendency to demonize the opponent, attack not the ideas but the person, this is truly a horrific and increasing trend in contemporary politics.

And it is so easy to do. Much of it is done in “whisper campaigns,” when one candidate is travelling door-to-door. The simple and sad fact is that most voters do not pay attention to campaigns. Many do not even know who their local elected officials are, let alone who their state representative, state senator, or congressman are. Many people respond to dirt. It’s sad. It’s true. Many of the malicious charges that are made in today’s politics are calculated and cold, not angry outbursts. People make up the most outrageous fabrications about an opponent because many in the American electorate believe such things without question. We’ve become so fatigued with rude and scurrilous behavior from our candidates that we don’t want to have anything to do with either the accused or the accuser. So, sometimes the accuser wins, even if he or she has put forth outrageous fabrications.

The American electorate deserves better. But this is not new.

In the 1828 presidential election, Andrew Jackson ran against President John Quincy Adams. Jackson was convinced that he had the 1824 election stolen from him (sound familiar?), and put himself forward as the people’s candidate. During the 1828 campaign, Adams charged Jackson and his wife with adultery. The charges grew from Jackson and his wife’s gullibility. Jackson’s wife had been unhappily married to Lewis Robards. In 1790, the Kentucky legislation passed a resolution granting Robards permission to sue for divorce. However, Robards never did so.

Andrew and Rachel married in 1791 after making a declaration of divorce, but not realizing that Rachel Donelson was still legally married. Robards finally sued for divorce in 1793, citing Rachel’s “adultery” with Jackson. The Jacksons remarried in 1794, but the political damage was done.

Rachel died a few weeks after her husband’s inauguration. Jackson blamed her early death on the public discussion and the outrageous accusations about their supposed immorality during the campaign.

We haven’t come far. What are we thinking?