It’s been increasingly clear the influence that money and most-especially of billionaires have had on politics, and mostly notably the MAGOP Party. 
 
For starters, that’s easy.  There’s the world’s richest man Elon Musk buying Twitter and changing policies to allow far-right fascism creep back onto the platform, bringing more of the material, racism and division to be posted than before, and drive many users away.  And then himself promoting Russian talking points and racist propaganda, interviewing Trump, campaigning with him at campaign rallies and running one of the party’s get out the vote efforts.  Topping it off by giving away a million dollars daily to those who signed up for his PAC.  Not to mention the news today that ABC reporter Jon Karl reported a Trump advisor telling him, "If you are on the wrong side of the vote, you're buying yourself a primary. That is all. And there's a guy named Elon Musk who is going to finance it."
 
But that only touches the surface.  This includes billionaire Peter Thiel who groomed and paid for most of “JD Vance’s Senate campaign and pushed him to be Trump’s vice presidential running mate, a heartbeat from the presidency, for a 78-year-old man with dementia.
 
There’s also Leonard Leo, vice-president of the Federalist Society, who received control of a $1.6 billion gift to fund his efforts to push his far-right legislative agenda.  His many payments to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas – as well as “gifts” to SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito would force the jurists to resign his seat on any other court in the country for ethics violations, except that the High Court has no such rules.
 
Billionaire Miriam Adelson, widow of long-time benefactor of the MAGOP Sheldon Adelson, got upset at a slight she perceived from someone on Trump’s staff and threatened to withhold future funding.  How much money did she donate?  Enough for Trump to make nice by awarding her the Presidential Medal of Freedom.  The money flowed again.

Not to mention billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and billionaire owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos blocking their newspapers a week before the election from publishing prepared endorsements for Kamala Harris.
 
And we haven’t even gotten to hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, Texas real estate billionaire Harlan Crow (who also made “friendly gifts” to Justices Thomas and Alito) and the Koch family billionaires, whose donations to Trump and the MAGOP have been profound over the years.
 
Yes, Democrats have their billionaire donors, as well.  But nothing at this level of payment, and nothing even remotely close to this level of deep, substantive influence.  Just from Elon Musk (the richest man in the world) and Peter Thiel alone.  And that's before even getting to all the rest.
 
All of which got me to thinking about an article I wrote for the Huffington Post about this very problem – 14 years ago.  That was when the Supreme Court, in all its infinite wisdom, for reasons know only to itself, ludicrously ruled that money is free speech.
 
I thought it was therefore an appropriate time to revisit that piece.  I tracked down a dollar bill for an interview, to make its case that it was indeed deserving of free speech.

Written January 26, 2010.

This is sort of a multi-part article, though all connected.  And its provenance from over a decade ago really didn't have any connection to the news today.  But as the Trump Final Argument Racist-a-thon took place in Madison Square Garden on Sunday, it brought to might the unrelenting torrential storm of lies that Trump and "JD Vance" have been dumping on the country during the campaign -- most notable for their "immigrants are eating pet dogs and cats," but oh-so-much more, down to Trump's idiotic "You have a 75% chance of being killed in the New York subway" at MSG over the weekend. 

That led to me remember an article I wrote here in 2020 about all the mass of lies during the Trump time in office, and the maniacal and foolish efforts from those around him to desperately try to explain them away.

And that column, in turn, directly stemmed from 2011, when I wrote an article on the Huffington Post about Jon Kyl, then the junior Republican senator from Texas, and the most ridiculous lie he told, topped by his utterly ludicrous attempt to explain it away -- which I used as a way of describing how the GOP seemed to be a party built on lies.  And yes, that was written in 2011, thirteen years ago, a full five years before Trump even entered the scene. I embedded that piece in the 2020 article as a way to support how the GOP got to Trump.

So, with the election just a week away, I thought this was a good time to revisit it all.  Because it's important to see that this dementia-laden MAGOP world of Trump which has degenerated so much into lunacy and a realm where facts almost don't seem to exist isn't something that just occurred, and isn't only a Cult of Trump (though it most definitely is that, in part), but is something which the Republican Party has been doing for a very long time, and priming its members to accept as their normal.  To accept lies, to accept idiotic explanations, to distrust facts, Democrats, the news, reality, and lay the groundwork and pathway to accepting a Trump, opening the door wide for him to walk through.

Here, then, first is that article from 2020, before the look back into 2011.

                                                        *   *   *

                                                The Road to Hell
                                               September 23, 2020

As I listened to White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany twist herself in knots and try to explain to an unrelenting Jim Acosta of CNN why Trump wasn't lying when he said that "nobody" was really affected by the coronavirus, despite 205,471 deaths of Americans, so far -- and 7,097,937 infections, so far.  And these were only in the United States.  In fact, around the world, there have been almost 32 million human beings infected by the coronavirus and just under one million people have died.  So far.  So, that whole "nobody" thing, not so much.

And yet, on and on, Ms. McEnany went on, trying to explain that Trump was being honest and only talking about young people -- despite that, no, he wasn't, and, of course, despite there also being an actual recording of Trump telling Bob Woodward that he knew young people could get infected by it.  

And as I listened to someone from the White House once again try to explain what Trump meant when he said something horrible and irresponsible and cruel and racist, I just started to wonder when it was that we formally went past the line where it become officially head-numbing to hear a White House spokesperson again explain "What the president meant when he said..." something.

I mean, words matter.  But when it comes to the President of the United States, words not only matter, they can be life-and-death critical.  A president should ever have to have it explained what he meant, but though in life that does occur on occasion, those occasions should be rare -- not something so common that the White House Communications Office has the words, "What the president meant when he said..." on speed dial and a macro.

Of course, most people know what Trump "meant" when he says something.  We've heard him for four years.  We know he meant something egomaniacal or cruel or untrue or racist.  The only time we don't know is when it's totally incomprehensible and a mindless bunch of word less.  Or "covfefe."

The thing is, this -- like most things -- isn't just about Trump, though he and his spokespeople have turned it into an art form.  (Can we ever forget "alternative facts"?)  But Republicans making bald-faced lies and then having to explain what they actually meant when the lie is too egregious even for them to double-down on and they're called out on it.  The list is too long and massive, but a few leap out.  Like when Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson said that President Obama was responsible for the battle that killed Captain Humayan Khan (son of Khizr Khan, who had spoken at the Democratic Convention) -- except the problem is that Capt. Khan did in Iraq in 2004, and Barack Obama didn't take office until 2008. And of course, there was Republican lying claims of birtherism long before Trump made it his campaign issue.  And maybe one of the most legendary of all, there was the infamous article by Ron Suskind in 2004 when an unnamed W. Bush White House official (now believed to be Karl Rove) who chided Democrats for living in a "realty-based community" while Republicans "created our own reality." 

In other words, you tell the truth, we make it up.

And that's just been standard operating procedure for Republicans.  And as it often happens, I can delve into the archives and explain what I mean.

Back in 2011, I wrote an article about then-senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) getting caught in a lie so blatant that he ended up coming out with one of the more stupid, teeth-aching attempts to explain it away.

This isn't about Trump.  It isn't even specifically about All Republicans.  This is just one individual.  But especially because of what his mind-numbing explanation for his lie was, it is all too indicative of what Republicans have been doing for decades, and what Trump does when he breathes.  Over 20,000 Trump lies that the Washington Post documented in just over two years of his time in office.

Yes, all politicians lie.  All people lie.  But it's how you lie, what you lie about, how you explain your lie, how you correct your lie, if you correct your lie and why you lie that separates people.

This is just a look at Jon Kyl..  But when we live with this sort of thing for decades because one party has "created their own reality" and live on "alternative facts," and as a result of all that we now live with the standard, default White House explanation of "What the president meant when he said..." -- this is far more than a look at Jon Kyl.  It's about Trump.  And it's about much more than Trump, it's about the elected members of the Republican Party who enable him, are complicit and, in fact, long-since laid the foundation for him.

So, we head back to April 13, 2011.

As most know, the Washington Post has documented 30,000+ lies by Trump when he was in the White House.  They stopped counting when he left office, but the lies have continued to skyrocket, which is what you expect from a pathological liar.  Even if you didn't expect even from him that he'd say something so utterly clownish that for a long while he never knew that Kamala Harris was Black.

This has morphed to MAGOP members of Congress who seem to feel that they've gotten the Seal of Approval from Trump -- though they do miss that though the lying works with the base of the party (a base that believes JFK, Jr. will come back to life and run with Trump, and that Anderson Cooper eats babies), the lies aren't working so well with the rest of the country.  All the more so now.

That hasn't stopped "JD Vance" from picking up the mantle, of course.  In fact, it's almost a requirement if you're going to be Trump's running mate -- especially if you have previously called Trump "America's Hitler" and "I'm a Never Trump guy.  I never liked him" and now have to defend how great you want everything to think he is.  His lies about his counterpart, Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Tim Walz, began almost immediately in a torrential downpour -- from repeating Trump's lie about Gov. Walz supposedly not doing anything about riots in Minneapolis (in fact, Walz actually called in the National Guard, and there's now audio of Trump praising his actions!) to lying about how Tim Walz's admirable and honored 24-year record in the Army National Guard, reaching the high level of Command Sergeant Major was false and 'Stolen Valor' (a charge many have angrily refuted)...and more in between.  Including his repeated lies attempting to suggest that Kamala Harris is a "chameleon" whose life she hides and keeps changing.  And only yesterday bizarrely said about her, "Do not pretend to be somebody you're not."

This last, it must be repeated, is all the more "weird and creepy" (tm) -- and Trump-like clownish -- when you realize that "JD Vance's" real name is James Donald Bowman.  Which he then changed to James David Harmel.  Which he later changed to James David Vance.  (Which he later changed to J.D. Vance, and then instead used JD Vance.)  And further, that he wrote a memoir about growing up in Appalachia, when in reality he was born and was raised in a suburb or Cincinnati. 

Man, talk about pretending to be somebody you're not.  "JD Vance" is on a level that is almost Oscar-worthy.  It's living a life that's a lie.

But what leaped out amid all that was when Trump had a major meltdown after Gov. Tim Walz, the genial former schoolteacher and former high school football coach who has been described as a "happy warrior, was made the Democratic running mate for Vice President -- and wrote a long screen on his social media site that ended with a mournful cry in the wilderness that that, if elected, Tim Walz would “unleash HELL ON EARTH.”  While an obvious lie, of course, it's more a punchline for a Saturday Night Live sketch.

By why it leaped out to me was that it reminded me of an article I wrote for the Huffington Post about egregious Republican lying 13 years ago -- in 2011.  I can't say nothing has changed, since it's gotten far, far, far worse.  But for that reason, I thought it was worth revisiting.

                   The Road to Hell is also Paved with Bad Intentions
                                                  April 13, 2011
 
As a young man, Jon Kyl, the Republican junior senator from Arizona, was convicted of selling heroin, and he spent eight months in federal prison.
 
This remark was not intended to be a factual statement.  Rather, it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl, a Republican senator, is from Arizona.
 
Yes, that was unfair.  But just because Jon Kyl wasn’t actually convicted of drug crimes doesn’t mean he hasn’t committed any legal abuses.  Make no mistake, in his early days in Arizona state politics, he was reprimanded for 12 ethics violations, though avoided expulsion on a technicality, changing the spelling of his name which originally was “John Kyle.”
 
This remark was not intended to be a factual statement, either, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl doesn’t have the letter “H” in his name.
 
Joking aside, there is something I do admire Sen. Kyl for.  It is his deft skill manipulating the English language to avoid responsibility for making a gross smear on the floor of the U.S. Senate.  Addressing his senate colleagues, Mr. Kyl had said that abortions accounted for “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does” – though the actual, truthful number is 3 percent.  When later confronted over these shamefully inaccurate remarks now in the official Congressional Record, he hid behind his staff, which commented that “His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.”
 
Forgetting for a moment that this isn’t even an attempt at an apology, there only two options here:  either Jon Kyl takes you for an idiot, or himself.
 
To be fair to Jon Kyl and sympathetic, he has unfortunately been painfully distracted lately, due to a bitter divorce he’s going through, brought about by the exposure of a 12-year, secret affair with his secretary.
 
Just to clarify, this remark is not intended to be a factual statement, rather it was to illustrate that Jon Kyl has a secretary.
 
A case could be made that Jon Kyl knew his senate statement was a lie when he gave it, or at least that he didn’t care whether it was false or not.  But even if one chooses to graciously accept that it was just a horrific mistake – we all know what a proper reply should have been.  We all know how we ourselves would have apologized.  We would have said –
 
“I’m sorry.  I made a mistake.  I relied on information given to me, and I should have checked it myself.  I apologize to Planned Parenthood, to my senate colleagues, and to the American public.  I will immediately correct the Congressional Record.  And will strive to make sure such a horrible error doesn’t occur again.”
 
We wouldn’t have had a lackey say for us – “His remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”
 
Jon Kyl’s lie and lying response reminds me of an election several years back for the Writers Guild Board of Directors.  An unsigned letter was mailed that smeared each candidate on an opposition slate.  Later, at a WGA Meet the Candidates Night, one of the candidates there (who had not been attacked) was asked for his reaction to the anonymous smear of his opponents.  Not wanting to defend his opponents, he said with a thoughtful, sad expression, “The fact that it got all the names and some of the ages right is what made the letter so hurtful.”
 
Sitting in the back of the room, all I could think was, “No!  The fact that it got all the names right is what made the letter – a smear.”
 
It was the same attitude weaving through Jon Kyl’s own smearing statement and smarmy, staff reply.  It’s as if the truth doesn’t matter.  That anything can be said if it helps you.  And if you’re forced to address the lie, dismiss it as not being intended to be the truth.
 
Of course it’s not intended to be the truth.  It was intended to smear!
 
This is an attitude that permeates the conservative movement these days.  Democrats can lie, too, and when they do, it’s just as wrong.  But these days, the “say whatever you want,” “truth be damned” weight has been falling more heavily on the Republican and conservative side.  Perhaps because they’re the ones in attack mode.  Perhaps because the truth that Social Security, Medicare, universal healthcare, and public education all actually help people causes Republicans political trouble.
 
Whatever the reason, when the truth hurts you, and you choose to say anything to win, the truth doesn’t matter.
 
To make a point attacking President Obama, Bill O’Reilly describes U.S. troops massacring Germans at Malmedy during WWII – when the truth is the exact opposite, German Waffen SS soldiers massacred U.S. POWs.  To prove that a political rally was popular, Glenn Beck shows a photograph of the crowd – when the truth is that the photo was taken years before.  To terrify the GOP base, Sarah Palin and others lie that Democrats want to kill old people.  And on and on the spiral downward goes. 
 
But of course, truth actually does matter.  And we should not only expect it of our children, but also our politicians and social voices.  Yes, I know that’s a lot to expect.  So, let’s make it easy and start small –
 
Let’s expect it of Jon Kyl.
 
That remark is intended to be a factual statement.

I've posted a lot of videos here of the wonderful Tom Lehrer, including some rare material that he wrote and performed for his fellow professors at the University of California, Santa Cruz which fortunately got privately recorded. (Lehrer had taught political science at MIT, and later went to UCSC to teach mathematics -- and even also taught a class in musical theater.)  But a couple weeks ago, my pal Mark Evanier had a rarity on his site -- a TV performance by Lehrer with a song I'd never heard before.  And it's a lot of fun.

The number is in the spirit of his song "New Math."  He was appearing in England on one of David Frost's TV shows (I don't know which one, nor does Mark), and he performed a song he wrote for the occasion.  He explains how to convert the old British pounds/shillings system to the new decimal currency, like in the United States, that they were going to be changing to in 1971.

You can find the song here on Mark's website.

And as a bonus, for the folks who like to compare, here is that aforementioned song, "New Math," from his great albums ​That Was the Year That Was.

Last Wednesday, on Sept. 27, Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) gave a speech at the Manhattan Institute in New York City, where he talked about border issues.  I was going to say border “crisis” – as his official press release stated – but after hearing some of his comments, I figured that his definition of “crisis” might not be the same as everyone’s.
 
I don’t say that hyperbolically.  I say it because, at one point the Republican governor said – and yes, this is a quote – “And so not only are we building border barriers between the border of Texas and Mexico, we’re also now having to build barriers between Texas and New Mexico.”
 
Yes, you read that right.  Gov. Abbott of Texas wants to build a barrier between Texas and the state of New Mexico.  I believe that this has something to do with New Mexico being a safe harbor state.  But at this point, I think it’s a losing battle trying to interpret Gov. Abbott’s fascist thinking.
 
Never mind that prohibiting interstate travel in the United States is wildly and obviously illegal, it also helps define referring to his fascist thinking.
 
Nonetheless, when reading about Mr. Abbott’s hopes and dreams, I was reminded of an article I wrote for the Huffington Post 16 years ago, on May 16, 2006.  I had written a sarcastic article about the State of Illinois building a wall to keep out anyone from Indiana.
 
And yes, you read the date right.  This was back in 2006, a full decade before Trump.  It’s not that I was so prescient anticipating him, but rather the idea of building a border wall on the Mexican border to keep out those Mexican folk has been bubbling in the Republican Party since then.
 
(By the way, this further supports what I’ve long noted that Trump didn’t suddenly turn the GOP fascist.  It was percolating in the Republican Party for years, from its xenophobia, hatred of the press and calls for violence against “those damn hippies” and black protestors for civil rights.  You may recall the self-proclaimed "Minutemen" group of thugs who were based, I think, in Arizona, and were arming themselves against what they considered border intrusion that required their efforts.  Trump merely walked through the fascist door that was left open for him, and called everyone in to join him.)
 
The weird thing about my satirical article is how many people took it seriously. 

[SIDE NOTE UPDATE:  After linking to this on Twitter, I got a response that amazed me.  Someone wrote that they actually remember my “state border wall” article from 17 years ago!  He wrote – “I remember that one! I had just redeployed from Iraq with a unit from Chicago through a National Guard camp in Indiana, and I shared it in our company email chain. If I recall correctly, it was a big hit with them. Never would've guessed less than two decades later the GOP would be beyond parody.”  Ha. Amazing!]
 
And with all this that in mind, and in honor of Texas GOP Gov. Abbott, I thought I’d repost it here.  From May 16, 2006 --

I can't say more about her theory, though, since in full disclosure I didn't read the article.  Because, in all honesty, I didn't even remotely care.  On far, far too many levels.  Lunacy should not be coddled.

Seeing this reminded me of one of my proudest columns (and most prescient) for the Huffington Post -- which turned out to be overwhelmingly my most-read article. It's one that I sat down to write literally 30 minutes after John McCain named her as his Vice-Presidential candidate.
​
I delayed my morning walk that day to watch McCain's announcement.  While waiting, the name of his selection had been released to the press, so I did some research about her and started to get upset by the total thinness of her resume to be someone a heartbeat from the most powerful person in the world.  But I still wanted to give her a fair chance to see how she presented herself. 

I watched the event. and then took off -- but I was so infuriated by his choice, even while knowing little about her and only seeing her introductory comments, that 15 minutes into my walk I couldn't continue, turned around, came right home, sat down and began wrote, "The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History."  Just a half-hour after she was named.  She's only continued to prove me right, every single time.

(This article aside, my favorite specific line about her was in a later column during the election. I wrote that "Sarah Palin uses her children like circus props.")

I should add that I was also angry at John McCain, a man whose campaign slogan was to "Putting America First."  Because in his very first political decision as the Republican candidate for President, he instead -- as I titled a subsequent article -- put America last.

Put to get back on track, this is about Sarah Palin.  And as a Golden Oldie, seeing Sarah Palin trying to re-insert her car crash emptiness into the political landscape, I thought it was a proper time to bring back that original column.  So here, from August 29, 2008, is that article written just 30 minutes from when Sarah Palin was introduced to the country as the Republican Party's nominee to be Vice President of the United States.

I believe that over the past 15 years, every word has held up and been born out by history.  The article still can be found online, and I am so glad for that because it means the article is date-stamped as proof.

                     The Worst Vice-Presidential Nominee in U.S. History
​
There was a TV ad for deodorant that said, "Never let them see you sweat."  The John McCain campaign has just showed the world that it is drenched.

Selecting Sarah Palin as its choice for a vice presidential candidate is perhaps the worst such choice in American History.  To be fair, maybe there are worst choices, but I don't know how bad William O. Butler was when he ran with Lewis Cass against Zachary Taylor.

But it's far worse than Dan Quayle, who was a sitting senator.  Worse even than Geraldine Ferraro, who at least served in Congress for three-terms.  And far worse than William Miller, a choice so obscure when selected by Barry Goldwater that he (honestly) later did an American Express commercial asking, "Do you know me?"  And that ad was after the election.  But even Miller had been a Congressman for 12 years.  And been a prosecutor during the Nuremberg War trials against Nazis.  Sarah Palin lists her credits as a hockey mom.

There was a point during the Republican primaries when I was trying to figure out who I hoped got the presidential nomination.  Someone so weak he'd be easy for the Democrats to beat, or someone more challenging who at least wouldn't be a disaster for America.  I decided on the latter because America has to resolve its serious problems and can't afford risking some glitch where another George Bush got elected.  And so I felt that John McCain, for all his weaknesses, was the lesser of all evils and was glad he got the nomination.  Throw that out the window.  McCain-Palin is an unthinkable disaster.

I completely understand the reasoning behind the decision for John McCain to select Sarah Palin.  Absolutely.  It's the thinking that settled on Sarah Palin that's missing.

No doubt John McCain will get some women to vote for him who wouldn't have otherwise, and even some independents.  But he will also probably lose as many Republicans uncomfortable with a woman on the ticket - let alone a woman with so little as Sarah Palin.  Not to mention that the choice will cause many undecided Democratic women to be aghast and push them back to following their Democratic beliefs.  And further, it will lose all the independents who look at the GOP ticket and say "This is who I'm supposed to give my vote for the next four years to lead and protect America??"  It may even appeal to right-wing evangelicals for her strong pro-life stance and get some to vote - but that position and others related to it are specifically what loses even more women voters.  And men.  Ultimately, the nomination will lose far, far more votes than it gains.  
 
But this is not the reason the decision is so terrible.

It's always said that the most important decision a presidential candidate makes is their pick for vice president.  It shows their thinking and judgment.  John McCain, in his first decision, has just told the world that he believes Sarah Palin is the most qualified person to be a heartbeat from the presidency.  Forgetting all the available men for a moment, if John McCain felt it critical to select a woman in an effort to somehow grab the Hillary Clinton supporters, look at his choice of women he had available:  Christine Todd Whitman, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Elizabeth Dole, Susan Collins, even - for goodness sake - Condoleezza Rice.  Or Carly Fiorina.  Each of these have marks against them, and perhaps some might not have wanted to run, but it's near-impossible to look at the list and suggest to the American public that Sarah Palin is the best choice of Republican women to be vice president.  And again, this is ignoring the men he who could have been chosen.

It's not that Sarah Palin is inexperienced.  It's that this is gross political misconduct.  

Sarah Palin has been governor of Alaska for just a bit over 18 months.  Alaska has a population of 683,000.  (Though that doesn't include moose.)  This would only make it the 17th most populous city in the United States.  Just ahead of Fort Worth.

Before that, she was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.  Population 9,000.  I know Republicans like to promote "small town values," but this is taking things to ridiculous extremes, don't you think?  I'm from Glencoe, Illinois, population 8,762.  It's so small it doesn't even have a mayor, it has an appointed village manager.  I'm sure that Paul Harlow is doing wonderfully at his job in the village - but I don't expect that he sees himself as even wanting to be a heartbeat from the U.S. President in 18 months.  You know what the top news story is on the Glencoe website?  "Fire Hydrant Painting Underway."  (To be fair, it's the #2 story.  The top news is a clarification about displaying political signage.)

Do you know what the first two "powers and duties" are for the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska?  Check their municipal code.

1.  Preside at council meetings. The mayor may take part in the discussion of matters before the council, but may not vote, except that the mayor may vote in the case of a tie;

2.    Act as ceremonial head of the city;

Swell.

If you live in small town America (and I mean really, really small), look around you and be honest - do you see your mayor (or village manager) as a heartbeat from the presidency in 18 months?  

But that's not the reason either that the decision to make Sarah Palin the VP nominee is so terrible.

It's one thing to discuss how unqualified Sarah Palin is.  That's a national matter and huge.  But on a grassroots political level, her nomination takes away the Republicans' ONLY weapon in the campaign - calling Barack Obama inexperienced.  They haven't even been trying to run on the issues, or on the eight-year record of George Bush, which John McCain has supported almost 95% of the time.  They've only been running on the faux-issue of Barrack Obama's experience of 14 years in federal and state government. Yes, Sarah Palin is merely running for VP, not president, but with a 72 year-old candidate with a history of serious medical issues, this is who they're saying is able to step in as president in a heart-beat.  She has so little experience that she makes Sen. Obama look like FDR, Winston Churchill and Julius Caesar combined.  So, the Republicans pulled the rug out from under themselves.  They have no issues.  The economy?  Housing?  The national debt?  Education?  The Environment?  Iraq?  Afghanistan?   Nothing.  All they have is "Dear Democratic women:  please pretend our VP candidate is Hillary Clinton.  Just forget that she's pro-life.  And against most things Democrats stand for."

But that's not the reason the decision is so terrible.
 
Because if the hope for John McCain is to get women to vote for him who otherwise supported Hillary Clinton - if anything could get Hillary Clinton campaigning in full force and fury…this is it.  She likely would have campaigned hard, but it's in Hillary Clinton's best interest to be the leading voice for women, and the leading woman candidate for president in the future, so having another woman as the potential Vice President (and potential President) is a significant challenge to that.  The Republicans just opened Pandora's Box and brought Hillary Clinton roaring to Barack Obama's side on the Democratic train.  And Bill Clinton, too.
 
Yet even that's not the reason the decision is so terrible.

What this does in the most profound and grandiose way possible is give lie to John McCain's pompous posturing that he Always Puts America First.  And that undercuts the most prominent campaign issue of his entire career, that everything he does is for reasons of honor.  There is nothing honorable about making Sarah Palin your vice presidential nominee.  Nothing.  Unless you define honor as "blatantly pandering."

But that's not the reason either that this decision is so terrible.

But before we get to that, let's look at the actual announcement to make Gov. Sarah Palin (AK - pop. 683,000) the Republican nominee for president, and put the horrible decision in perspective.

First, John McCain stood at the podium, looking up-and-down reading his speech.  It's impossible not to compare that to Barack Obama giving his majestic speech the night before that even conservative analysts were admiring in awe.

Second, the cameras were polite enough to avoid it, but there were empty seats in the gym.  It's impossible not to compare that to a stadium of 75,000 people that Barack Obama spoke to the night before.

Third, when people around the nation were waiting to hear about Sarah Palin's qualifications and gravitas to be Vice President of the United States, the first five minutes of her speech were spent talking about her husband being a champion snowmobiler.

Fourth, when she finally got around to her qualifications, pretty much all we discovered was that she fought to cut property taxes.  And then, she basically stopped there.

She did, however, mention becoming energy self-sufficient - by talking about how she supported drilling in Alaska!!!  Perhaps to Republicans this is being an environmentalist, but to most of America, not so much.   Then again, she's also against putting polar bears on the endangered species list (which the government did), so maybe her environmental qualifications are more lax than she thinks.

And then, finally, she spent the rest of her time praising John McCain.  Fine, that's very supportive of her…except that the one question on everyone's mind was not -- "can you say John McCain is a swell guy and tell us that he was a POW", the question on everyone's mind was - "Who in God's name are you, and please tell us why you should be a heart-beat from the presidency?"

In the end, the only case she herself made for being on the ticket was praising Hillary Clinton!  That's it, period.  Now, it might be enough to attract some women -- but it doesn't make a case for the ticket.  Why?  Hint:  some women did vote for Hillary Clinton solely because she was a woman.  But most women voted for Hillary Clinton because she was a Democrat, as well as a woman, who stood for important Democratic values they seriously believed in.  If Sarah Palin wants to praise Hillary Clinton, go for it.  But at least understand what you're praising.  Because it will likely come back and bite you.

It was a thin, nothing, empty speech.  It was a speech to be head of the Chamber of Commerce.  Compare that to the speech by Joe Biden when Barack Obama introduced him.  Eloquent, soaring and explaining in blunt detail why John McCain should not be president.  Joe Biden must have been watching Sarah Palin's speech, in order to take notes in preparation for his debate with her and thought, "This isn't fair."

And all that's not even the reason the decision is so terrible.

The reason is because the election is not about Sarah Palin.  Or about Joe Biden.  As much as TV analysts want to be excited by the balloons and hoopla, tomorrow the air will be let out, and there are still over two months to go for the campaign.

The campaign is about Barack Obama and John McCain.

Sarah Palin's nomination doesn't change that.  In fact, it reinforces it.  Nothing about putting Sarah Palin on the GOP ticket changes a word that Barack Obama said in his vibrant acceptance speech - about himself, about his issues, and about John McCain's repeatedly faulty judgment on the critical issues facing America.

What Sarah Palin's nomination does do is focus attention on John McCain's age.  Indeed, the nomination was made on his birthday, when he turned 72, the oldest man ever to run for president.  As the crowd sang "Happy Birthday to You," you almost sensed that through John McCain's clenched smile, saying, "Thanks for reminding me," that what he was thinking underneath was "Please, oh, please, don't sing the 'How old are you now?' part."  And how good a message was it that he's saying he supposedly forgot it was his birthday?

Vice presidents are usually selected as people who are adept at blasting the other side's presidential candidate, because it's only the presidential candidate that matters.  Joe Biden has already done that - twice - at length, spoken as someone who knows John McCain well and likes him.  Sarah Palin had her first chance…and whiffed.  Didn't even try.  And it's hard to imagine what she has in her arsenal that will remotely allow her to do so in the future.  

The election is about the presidential candidates.  And the selection of Sarah Palin now allows Barack Obama to campaign untouched by the Republican ticket.  John McCain's only other option is for himself to personally become negative for two months - which is disaster in presidential politics.

Now add on all the problems expressed above.  Sarah Palin's inexplicably laughable lack of substance, most-especially on the foreign policy stage.  Her taking away the one issue, experience, Republicans were even attempting.  Her pushing away voters who might otherwise be willing to vote for a senator with 26 years in the Senate.  Her bringing Hillary Clinton aggressively back into the campaign.  Her inability to offer anything to off-set Joe Biden.  Her standing as supposedly the most-qualified Republican woman as John McCain's first decision.  

And, in the end, it all focuses back on Barack Obama, with his indictment of eight years of the Bush Administration and of John McCain's flawed judgment - and John McCain's defense of all that.

Republicans might be dancing earlier today, because there was a lot of fun music playing.  But the music has stopped.  The actual campaign has now started.  For Republicans, it might have ended.