Leave a legacy, Gov. Granholm

The worst kept secret in Lansing this year has been how much Jennifer Granholm wanted to skip town -- and how badly folks from both parties were dying for her to do just that.

After the governor was named to Barack Obama's economic transition team, most of Lansing's chattering class considered her a lock for a cabinet post. Evidently, the New York Times was convinced enough to run a cover story and all the networks came calling.

Around the corridors of the Capitol, Democrats could be seen crossing their fingers that the governor's name would be announced. And Republicans grumbled that although she certainly wasn't qualified for Labor or Energy Secretary, Granholm could sell anything.

The general sentiment among legislators was that they'd love to spend the next two years working with Lt. Gov. John Cherry, especially with the sorry shape the budget's in. And Democrats relished the idea of him waltzing into the 2010 election as an incumbent.

But after weeks of Obama's methodically laudatory press conferences, which had to be a form of Chinese water torture for the guv, she surfaced with bupkis.

Last week, she quickly put out the word that she wanted to stick it out here, "given all the crises Michigan is facing." But it was painfully clear that Granholm had been passed over for Labor and was allowed this face-saving gesture by Team Obama. Sure enough, a California congresswoman nabbed the post two days later.

That's not to say Granholm will walk away empty-handed in the long-run. Not all cabinet nominees make it through the confirmation process or serve a full term. And after her rave reviews for conducting the Kwame Kilpatrick hearing this summer, she'll certainly be on the federal bench list.

But it's a significant blow. Republicans will undoubtedly try to pounce on her weakness in negotiations, although after the beating they took on Nov. 4, they're pretty anemic themselves.

The more salient issue is why so many lawmakers of both parties were terribly eager to throw the governor a goodbye party.

In reality, this sentiment really isn't anything new; it's just reached a fever pitch after last year's government shutdown and it looked like Obama was generously posing a way out.

Granholm arrived at the governor's mansion via the attorney general's office, not the Capitol, and her lack of legislative experience has always caused tension. Like Bill Clinton in 1993, the governor frankly didn't get how the process worked and it's cost her dearly.

She's made deals that she's quickly reneged on, as even Democrats gripe, which has long eroded trust with lawmakers. Now that Senate Minority Leader Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, is hightailing it to D.C., she's lost her biggest legislative ally. House Democrats are far more loyal to Speaker Andy Dillon than to her, something of which she's well aware.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, has a visceral disdain for Granholm. He recently sniffed to the Wall Street Journal that she "likes to be governor more than she likes to governs," which is kind of like Ken calling out Barbie for vanity.

All this means that we can look forward to a couple of years of fabulous friction, as 2009's budget hole is at least $265 million and 2010's is a jaw-dropping $1.5 billion, unless Obama's federal stimulus saves the day. Granholm, Dillon and Bishop are all term-limited, as well as a good chunk of the House and all but eight senators, which means a lot of folks will be lookin' for work instead of workin' full-time for Michigan.

Out of crisis can emerge great leaders. There seems little hope for that in the Mitten State, if the '07 government shutdown is any guide. But it's legacy-building time and this is the governor's shot.

Few honest Republicans would dispute that she is immensely intelligent, persuasive and personable. No one is more aware of the problems Michigan faces than she is.

So in her final two years, Granholm should draw on her talents and be the leader she has always had the potential to be. Start with slashing the bloated Corrections budget and dumping the Michigan Business Tax surcharge. Revisit the idea of doubling the number of college graduates by 2015 and make sure we're on track. Have the courage to fix the structural budget deficit by pushing for a ballot question on a graduated income tax.

For years, Michigan has passed a slew of economic development measures to lure new businesses. The time now is to look long-term for the state's fiscal health.

None of this will guarantee her a job with Obama. In reality, it probably won't help much. Her polls numbers aren't going anywhere but down as the economy plunges south.

What will help is that Granholm has the highest national profile of any governor in modern Michigan history. She'll continue to get invites for "Larry King" and "Good Morning America" about the Big Three. It would be very tempting to rely on that exposure to net her next job.

But that won't do a damn thing for Michigan.

Granholm promised to "never stop fighting" for us. It's been six long years and talk is cheap. Governor, the time to act is now.

The GOP kisses the Rust Belt goodbye

Do the Republicans ever plan to win Michigan again? How about Ohio, Illinois or even Indiana?

Before the gang of GOP senators killed the $14 billion bridge loan for Chrysler and General Motors last week, they unleashed an ugly Southern snobbery about us Rust Belt rubes. And they just might have strangled their chances in here for years to come.

Let's not forget the GOP just lost the entire region to the man who will become the first African-American president, save for West Virginia. The Republicans only have one governorship here, in Indiana. Evidently, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell & Co. want to finish the job.

So they decided to bludgeon the Big Three while they were down and suffocate the United Auto Workers while they were at it.

Maybe they sincerely believe the domestic autos will be better off in bankruptcy. Maybe they expected President Bush to come to the rescue all along. Maybe they really think Honda and Toyota plants in their states would blossom if the domestics died, even though company executives warned they'd suffer because many of their suppliers would go under.

Maybe they were genuinely offended by the idea of the government messing with capitalism, although that didn't stop many of them from dumping $700 billion in the laps of Wall Street investment bankers.

But a leaked memo from the Senate GOP reveals it was all about politics and payback to the unions: "Republicans should stand firm and take their first shot against organized labor, instead of taking their first blow from it."

So much for principle. It's nice to know that our friends from Dixie were willing to play Russian roulette with 3 million jobs, spark a depression in the Midwest and cost taxpayers four times as much money as we'd be out with the bridge loan. Why not? Serves the evil UAW right.

Look, the loan is unpopular nationally, so this may be a good tactic. But it is insanely poor strategy if Republicans want to stay competitive in the Rust Belt and its pool of 151 electoral votes.

You can't just write off a region and expect to be a national party. That's why Barack Obama competed hard in the South and West. It paid off when he piled up an electoral landslide and padded Democrats' margins in Congress.

Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis gets this. His main appeal in his quest to head the Republican National Committee is that he's only guy who knows how to get Reagan Democrats back.

Presumably, it's not by stripping them of jobs and sneering that it's their fault.

Midwest Democrats will retaliate in kind for the Big Three and are chomping at the bit to finish off Republicans in 2010 and beyond.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is already on the attack, blasting senators willing to risk a depression as "un-American" and questioning their loyalty to foreign companies at the expense of U.S. workers. It's a crude rhetorical flourish on steroids, but it's enough to earn a megaphone on "Meet the Press." That kind of red-blooded American chest-beating puts her on the offensive and makes Republicans spluttering to defend their taupe Toyota Camrys look like girly-men.

Translation: Democrats strong and patriotic. Republicans weak and love foreigners. Shamelessly jingoistic, sure, but it effectively flips the post-9/11 conventional wisdom on its head.

Meanwhile, just where are the Republicans? Yes, the entire Michigan delegation voted for the $14 billion, save for U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, who claims he was recovering from surgery. But why have GOP leaders been avoiding TV cameras like the plague? You can't keep Granholm; Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit; or Rep. Sandy Levin, D-Royal Oak, off the news.

The notable exception is U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, co-chair of the Congressional Auto Caucus, but he's largely preferred to operate behind the scenes.

Most have opted for silent support as the Big Three teeter at the abyss. You can point to a blog post by U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township, here, or an op-ed by Attorney General Mike Cox there, but there's no real face of the GOP during this crisis.

This would seem to be the perfect time for one state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, to grab the spotlight, as he'd like Cox's job and could use some positive press. Indeed, the White House has pushed him to do it. But despite backing the Big Three, he seems paralyzed about taking the lead, almost as much as he is about setting an agenda in the Legislature.

The result is a power vacuum, with Granholm often battling Mitt Romney in the national media. Republicans, do you really want the guy who doesn't care if Detroit dies, who last lived in Michigan when polyester pants were groovy, as your mouthpiece? Come on. He's not even going to merit an invite to your county Lincoln Day dinner.

This is a chance for Republicans to remake their image after two straight electoral thumpings. What's good for Michigan could be very good for the GOP -- but no one seems to have gotten that memo.

A death sentence for Detroit

Polls show most Americans don't want Uncle Sam to help the Big Three and I couldn't care less.

They're wrong, plain and simple, but it's not entirely their fault. The amount of misinformation floating out there on ye olde information superhighway and from TV anchors who should know better is staggering.

Certainly there's a bit of bailout fatigue. The $15 billion bridge loan that cleared the U.S. House on Wednesday is a lot of money. Senate Republicans slayed it Thursday and the deal looks dead.

This would be utterly devastating for the U.S. economy - not just Michigan's.

Now would be the perfect time for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to be the statesman he is and end this political brinksmanship rooted in deep-seated denial of financial reality. He got hammered this fall for suspending his campaign to push for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout. No one could accuse him of playing politics now; this would simply be bold action for the good of the country.

The fact is, letting just two of the three domestic automakers go bankrupt means the death of 1.8 million jobs in just the first year alone.

Still don't care? Won't affect me or my state?

Try this. Taxpayers will see $66 million swirl down the drain in two years if just two of the companies go bankrupt. Bye-bye tax revenue; hello unemployment insurance.

The cost of bankruptcy is more than four times what the autos could get from the feds, according to a report by the Anderson Economic Group. CEO Patrick Anderson is a staunch fiscal conservative, so it's striking that he's not arguing that the free market should be allowed to work here.

The reality is, the more economically prudent solution is the bridge loan. Every taxpayer in America should be treated to a copy of this report.

Unfortunately, this won't stop the Big Three bashing because it's too much fun. What we have is an axis of ignorance of far-out environmentalists and free-market Republicans.

The left whines that Detroit's gas-guzzling dinosaurs rape the planet and there's karma in letting them wheeze out their last breath. Their greedy CEOs sucking up $20 million bonuses are the living symbols of what's wrong with capitalism.

Yeah, not very powerful stuff. That's why this hasn't really gained traction and even big-time liberals like U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are willing to lend Motown a hand.

The right, however, is scoring big with its version of economic nihilism run amok. It's the unions' fault, of course, and even reputable media are selling the falsehood that workers make $70 per hour. The New Republic has nicely debunked this myth and you'll notice that conservatives in Michigan, no matter how anti-union, haven't jumped on this bandwagon.

U.S. Sen. David Vitter, the Louisianan best known for using the services of the D.C. Madam, this week derided the bridge loan as being "ass-backwards" in a rambling speech that proved he knows a lot more about hookers than economics.

Southern Republicans smugly brag that their foreign plants will flourish if the domestic autos combust. Yeah, here's the problem. When auto suppliers start croaking - and they will - Honda, Volkswagen and Toyota will bleed, even more than they are now.

By the way, Japan, China and Germany haven't had any problem bailing out their automakers. Kind of an unfair disadvantage, don't you think?

Both sides agree that the Big Three got too fat and happy (true) and churned out cars people didn't want to buy (also true, but now even Toyota's sales plummeted 32 percent last month). Why? The credit crunch, which has pushed the Big Three to the brink, just as they were making the labor and technology overhauls they need to thrive.

Peel away the political spin, and that's the real cause of the current crisis.

But when economics get too complex, there's always the shorthand of blasting the Big Three titans for their nasty corporate jet habit.

There's a disingenuous double standard at work. The bridge loan pales in comparison to the tens of billions of dollars the feds have thrown at financial institutions like AIG and Citigroup. Their executives somehow escaped begging on Capitol Hill but the Big Three's humiliation (twice) provided hours of entertainment on C-SPAN.

At this point, the Big Three need a Christmas miracle. This is not a regional issue, but it's looking like Michiganders need to lead the way - and not just at the federal level.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm; Senate Majority Mike Bishop, R-Rochester; and House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, should be holding daily joint press conferences on the car crisis.

There are still some Mitten Staters who believe that Ford, GM and Chrysler are getting what they deserve and the rest of us will somehow be hunky-dory. They need to hear a strong bipartisan counterpoint to the dead-enders.

Letting the Big Three die isn't just cutting off our nose to spite our face. It would be a decapitation.

What’s good for Michigan is good for the Dems

No matter how you voted Nov. 4, it would be hard to argue that the Democrats are bad for Michigan.

For starters, the Mitten State may be in line for $600 million or more from Washington, thanks to President-elect Barack Obama's federal stimulus proposal. We could get a shot in the arm for big infrastructure projects (I-94 could be widened at last!) and a bigger federal match in Medicaid funding (could we get the same sweet deal as Alabama? Dare to dream).

Those following our ongoing state budget nightmare know that federal funds could go a long way to plug the current hole, which is anywhere from $400 to $900 million. And a few large-scale construction projects will help tamp down what will soon be double-digit unemployment.

But wait, there's more. Democrats, even uber-liberal U.S. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are the loudest voices pushing for help for the Big Three. Chrysler, GM and Ford now say they need a $34 billion bridge loan to stave off bankruptcy.

If the domestic auto industry fails, this will in all likelihood spark a depression, just as Chrysler Vice Chairman Jim Press warns. Three million jobs will be lost in the first year alone, according to the nonprofit Center for Automotive Research.

Yes, this would be a debacle for Michigan, but anyone who says this ain't a national problem (U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala.) should be forced to take a Breathalyzer.

Right now, Democrats are the only thing standing between Michigan and disaster. And that should absolutely terrify the divided and nearly decimated GOP, which is praying for a comeback in 2010.

To be sure, there are some Republicans making noises against these moves, although none that I know of in Michigan. If U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, hadn't just been axed by the voters, I'm sure he'd add his voice to the free-market choir, but he's busy lookin' for work. Walberg, it should be noted, is the only member of our congressional delegation who's still on the fence about rescuing the Big Three.

This week, more than 40 governors, including Jennifer Granholm, lobbied Obama for at least $136 billion in infrastructure projects. No less than 43 states are facing budget shortfalls and some, like California, have flirted with the idea of asking the feds for an outright bailout.

Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina didn't join in the reindeer games. Instead, they penned a sanctimonious op-ed in the Wall Street Journal sniffing that the joy of capitalism is that "winners create wealth, jobs and new investment, while others go back to the drawing board better prepared to try again."

Successful states will pull through this crisis. As for you 43 losers, good luck and try again. What this means in the real world is unclear. When a business fails, it closes (except giant, multinational banks). If states go under, what exactly happens?

Unlike the federal government, states have to balance their budgets. Thanks to the credit crunch, it's harder for states (and everyone else) to borrow funds to get through.

This isn't to say that Michigan should halt plans to aggressively reform and consolidate government and hack the budget. Indeed, we have no choice. Our fiscal problems won't go away even with a generous check from Mr. Obama.

But there is justice in getting some juice from the feds. Let's not forget that Michigan only gets 90 cents back on each dollar we send to Washington, whereas Alaska gets $1.87.

States already have slashed $7.6 billion this fiscal year and more cuts will have to come. But it's conceivable that some will have to cut so massively that their governments will have to partially shut down.

This is when the Ayn Rand crowd gets really excited. Let government fail. Individual liberty for all. Throw the bums off welfare. Nobody needs to be able to have trash collected or flush the toilet. Private enterprise will take over (eventually). Until then, ignore the stench.

The let 'em fail ethos might fly in Texas, one of the seven lucky states sans deficit. But I doubt Michiganders will be as charitable. Look at the Herculean struggle Democrats and Republicans alike have had in slashing the budget in years past. Remember, cutting taxes is fun. Education and health care, not so much.

This is a losing argument for Republicans. Why? You're asking people to go against their self-interest in the name of ideology, to turn down federal money that could make their state and their lives better. Not gonna happen.

The scarier concept for conservatives is that Ronald Reagan's maxim (government is the problem, not the solution) showed its age in the last election. Polls show Americans are willing to go the big government route if that will pull us from the jaws of economic crisis.

Now folks still don't want their taxes raised, to be sure, but the ideological debate is shifting away from the right. Obama has shrewdly outflanked theme GOP by promising bigger middle-class tax cuts.

Our new president may have just tapped into the winning formula for the Democrats to run the show for awhile. Hard to remember that a year ago, Barack Obama was universally savaged for being hopelessly naïve.

Oh, how Republicans must wish he was.

How to kill a business tax

Here's the bad news: There are no easy answers to solve the state's looming $400 million shortfall.

But the good news is, there's an obvious way to slay the much-maligned Michigan Business Tax surcharge. The Legislature rushed this 19.99 percent levy on top of the new MBT late last year in the frenzy to dump the service tax, which was deemed even worse.

The surcharge is now the bane of business owners' existence, with 9 percent telling the Michigan Chamber of Commerce they're considering leaving the state over it.

Senate Republicans have passed legislation killing the surcharge and promise to balance the budget with magical budget cuts yet to be revealed. While that might make Chamber members feel warm and fuzzy inside, it's akin to doing nothing because there's no deal with the governor or Democratic House.

Meanwhile, the credit crunch is smacking around our battered economy even more and unemployment is certain to veer into double-digit territory soon.

Republicans are right: We can't afford to keep a job-killing tax.

So I'll defer to an idea proposed by two GOP lawmakers, Reps. Chris Ward, R-Brighton, and Lorence Wenke, R-Richland. Let's snuff out the surcharge and up the income tax a bit, say between 4.6 and 4.8 percent. That'll cost the average family about an extra fill-up a year.

The time to do it is now, because as the deficit balloons next year, any kind of tax cut will be off the table.

Unfortunately, the odds of this happening are nil. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, isn't budging from his no-tax stance, even if it'll squeeze the business community. House Speaker Andy Dillon, D-Redford Township, is skeptical.

"We'd be sending the message that we're increasing people's taxes to cut business taxes," Dillon told me. "I was willing to do that a year and a half ago. So if Mike Bishop can find those votes and wants to send something over, he's welcome to."

It's true that Bishop could have OK'd this deal during last year's budget crisis and we wouldn't here today.

But the plan hatched by Michigan Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis and House Minority Leader Craig DeRoche (dear God) was to force as many Democrats as possible to vote for tax increases. That was the key to a GOP victory in '08.

So what was their plan to solve the $1.8 billion budget crisis? There wasn't one.

Astute readers will recall that Republicans actually lost nine House seats on Nov. 4. And the much-ballyhooed recall campaign failed miserably.

Not one legislator lost a seat over the tax hikes. Not one.

Ward just shakes his head. "Not only did we have bad policy, but it turned out to be bad politics, too."

Of course, Ward did lose. Not his seat - he's term-limited - but his GOP leadership post for being a grown-up willing to deal with the pagan Dems to get more budget cuts, less taxes and more reforms.

Oh, well. I'm sure the Chamber doesn't mind. Neither do business owners slapped with 1,700-percent increases in their tax bills.

Negotiating is for sissies.

Anyway, back to this year's budget mess. What's that you say? Can't we just cut fat out of the budget? I'm with you, brothers and sisters.

The income tax for surcharge was really Plan B. What Ward would actually like to see is cutting Corrections (which eat up $2 billion of our $9 billion general fund) in exchange for the surcharge. Gov. Jennifer Granholm first proposed the swap this summer, but she didn't provided specifics.

Now we have the blueprint, thanks to the $800 billion in cuts proposed by the economic development powerhouse, Detroit Renaissance. That's even more than what the surcharge generates, which is about $600 million this year and more than $700 million in years to come.

"It was something that we should have done during the budget crisis," Ward said.

Amen. Unfortunately, leaders don't want to take on politically unpopular reforms ranging from sentence guideline reform to shuttering prisons. Even the governor said it would be impossible to do everything in the last few weeks.

Corrections is the logical place to start. It's the one area of the budget that's been spared from the chopping block. Our prison population has soared by 538 percent in the last three decades and costs have skyrocketed 5,000 percent, according to the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council. With more than 50,000 inmates, Michigan has the highest prison population in the Midwest. The cost of a year in prison is $30,000 per inmate.

Clearly, something has to be done.

This will be the battle of 2009, make no doubt about it. And everyone, from Granholm to lock'em-up Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, is sure grateful that a third-party group, the Council of State Governments, will be issuing a report with cuts they can hide behind.

Everybody claims credit for a tax cut. But nobody wants to be associated with cuts that could let the bad guys out (and more importantly, be used in political ads against them).

Looks like this budget battle could turn out to be as much fun as last year's. Lucky us.

The GOP: Evolve or die

The party of personal responsibility is having an awfully hard time with that concept after the election.

Listening to Republicans nowadays is like booking time with a colicky baby. I haven't heard so much whining and crying since my daughter was 3 months old.

Oh, and have I mentioned they're angry? Really steamed, like savaging anyone who suggests they chill as godless socialists who want nonstop gay sex and baby killing for the next eight years (I think I hear my e-mail now). I look forward to adding them to my folder of paranoid messages that Barack Obama won't be inaugurated after all because there is *PROOF THAT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS FORGED.* And the threats from Republicans that they just might be moving to Canada.

There's little time for self-reflection in a pity party. And right now, the right is rapturously licking its wounds, sounding more than a little like the Dems in 1980.

There's scant acknowledgement that Obama ran a stellar campaign and Democrats have clearly become the party for moderate voters. No one wants to dwell on the fact that Obama won by 7 percent nationally, when George W. Bush topped out at 3 percent in '04 after losing the popular vote in 2000. And please don't bring up that Obama won nine Bush states, some like Nevada and New Mexico by double digits.

Ignore the state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote drive that made W's look like amateur hour. And pay no attention to the 200,000 tearful supporters in Grant Park, the collective world adulation and reports that Obama could draw a record-shattering 4 million to his inauguration.

No, it's not so much that the Dems won this election, but circumstances conspired so the GOP lost. Really, how could Republicans win with the economy tanking, Bush's legacy and the malevolent media?

It's never their fault. The country is still with them, despite irrefutable proof to the contrary with the presidency and two houses of Congress going very blue.

The clinical definition of this, of course, is denial.

Republicans still insist Obama would have lost without Wall Street going into a tailspin. John McCain was leading in many polls until then, which they attribute to their favorite moose-shooting mama, Sarah Palin. That ignores the fact this was a post-convention bounce and the first time the Arizona senator had posted a consistent lead.

While the economy is surely a tricky issue with a Republican in the White House, the fact is that McCain both lost on this issue due to his wild mood swings and stunts, and Obama won it with his cool demeanor that settled voters' frayed nerves. He also connected far better to the middle class.

As for the current president, he surely was an albatross, which was precisely why right-wingers were whining from the get-go how unfair it was to tie Bush to McCain. Why? They knew it was a powerful message and worried it would work.

Of course, it didn't have to. McCain differs from Bush on issues ranging from global warming to campaign finance and has a much more bipartisan disposition. But by veering to the right to shore up the base, he made those Bush-McCain morphs seem plausible and unseemly.

And there is a certain irony in Republicans ranting that the president isn't a true conservative anyway, what with his big-government Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Well, kiddies, most of you voted for them at the time. Talking heads used to screech that anyone who would dare question our commander-in-chief at a time of war should be charged with treason.

Bush's only real problem with the right is that his poll numbers plummeted.

And finally there's the media, or shall I say, the worldwide conspiracy to put Obama in the Oval Office. Look, it's a fact that Obama won a landslide in newspaper endorsements and won over a number of columnists, many of them conservatives like Chris Buckley.

I don't think this election with its nonstop horserace coverage was a high point for investigative journalism into either candidate, although Obama came out slightly ahead in this regard. There were more negative stories about McCain in general, but that's what happens when your campaign is wracked with infighting and you're losing.

But the idea that the media can determine elections is laughable. If that's the case, we wouldn't be hemorrhaging red ink, because everyone would want a piece of the all-powerful press. Our sales pitch would be devastatingly simple: We can make presidents, you know.
Here's the bottom line for Republicans: You lost. Own it. Learn from it. Stop focusing on what you can't control and fix the fundamental problem - you're not connecting with voters like Obama did. Your no-tax, social-issues-on-steroids message has grown stale.

Ronald Reagan hasn't ruled for 20 years and yet you're still looking back. Demographics can become destiny and you're losing badly with key groups like young voters, Asians and Latinos.

Change is hard for conservatives, for obvious definitional reasons. But the truth is, in the kill-or-be-killed world of politics, those who don't evolve - becoming stronger and leaner - die.

So far Republicans are resisting such heresy. Evolution is just a theory, after all.

The Republicans' Rosetta Stone

Behold, Republicans. The Rosetta Stone for your demise has been unearthed right here in Michigan.

After last week's bloodbath, conservatives are desperately trying to decipher exit poll data and county-by-county vote tallies for answers as to what went wrong. But the key to Republican renewal is right in front of us.

Let's journey to the 7th Congressional District, that swath of rural rugged individualism from the Lansing suburbs to the Indiana-Ohio border. The district was designed to be the most Republican in the state, but come January, a liberal Democrat will represent it in Congress.

State Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek, toppled Republican U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg 49 to 47 percent on Nov. 4. True to his petulant nature, the soon-to-be-ex-congressman waited well into the next day to concede, I'm told, although the results were clear.

How did this happen? Ask Joe Schwarz.

Back in 2004, the centrist eked out a GOP primary win for an open seat against Walberg and four other cookie-cutter conservatives. Schwarz's bipartisan appeal earned him 58 percent of the vote in the general.

The Battle Creek physician and 16-year veteran of the state Senate was ranked one of the top 10 most effective freshman members of Congress. He trekked home every weekend, hitting the pig roast circuit in the southern counties like Lenawee and Hillsdale that regarded him with suspicion, despite his conservative bona fides as a decorated Vietnam War veteran and CIA operative, who among other things, helped save Indonesia from a violent Communist coup.

Walberg, a faceless former state rep and Bible salesman, spied an opening. No one could beat Schwarz in a general election - that was clear - but GOP primaries are odd, cloistered contests that disproportionately draw the far right.

Bingo.

With a little help (say, about $1 million) from the anti-tax smear machine Club for Growth, Wally was in business for '06. The Club reduced Schwarz to a caricature, an "embarrassingly liberal" dude who liked nothing better than dispensing Viagra to bums on welfare. As an evangelical preacher, Walberg took care of the church crowd, warning that the good doctor was a baby-killing gay lover out to steal our guns.

Schwarz wasn't helped any when he had to take controversial votes on issues like gay marriage, which he said was redundant. So why did former Majority Leader John Boehner allow that to come to the floor? Why didn't the Michigan Republican Party and the National Republican Congressional Committee sit Timmy down and tell him to butt out?

Because the truth is, the Republican machinery is controlled from top to bottom by right-wing activists. And they like Walberg's politics a lot more than Schwarz's. The seat will always stay Republican, they reasoned, so why not trade a maverick for a foot soldier?

In the end, it wasn't even close. Walberg won by 6 points. But the darling of the far right couldn't even break 50 percent that fall against Sharon Renier, an organic chicken farmer with $1.03 in the bank.

"You're just setting this seat up for Mark Schauer to win it in 2008," warned Schwarz aide Matt Marsden, who was promptly mocked for having sour grapes.

One of the cynics, columnist Brad Flory, conceded this week in the Jackson Citizen Patriot, "Those Schwarz people look like geniuses now."

You betcha.

This year, Republicans lost another crop of moderates thanks to Club for Growth's scorched earth tactics, including U.S. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest in Maryland and U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson in New Mexico.

Enough is enough. The GOP needs a moratorium on primarying incumbents, stat.

The holy grail of ideological purity has proven to be the priciest of illusions. The number of seats lost because the GOP no longer appeals to moderate, suburban voters is staggering. Many centrists have fled the party (Schwarz is a Republican-leaning independent who endorsed Schauer), thus robbing the GOP of institutional knowledge critical to rebuild.

Indeed, much of the brain trust - Colin Powell, former U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, former Rep. Jim Leach - are odds-on favorites to join the Barack Obama administration.

Sadly, there are few grown-ups to tell the right-wing rapscallions to put down the Pop Rocks and come down from the sugar high of deliciously divisive politics. They don't work anymore.

Karl Rove ain't the messiah -he's just another washed-up pundit on teevee who's fallen into the trap of insisting elections can be won with the same nasty tactics from his glory days. Electorates change. Politics change. The Republican Party needs to be nimbler and more inclusive to survive and flourish.

So where's the party heading in Michigan? State Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, a close ally of Walberg and a Bob Jones University grad, reportedly has the answer to the GOP's woes in '10.

Why, a ballot question banning gay adoption, of course.

Now, I could show him the data that initiatives don't drive up the vote unless it's on affirmative action (and that's already been done, folks).

But Cropsey undoubtedly has God on his side. And Democrats from Grosse Pointe to Grayling are hoping he keeps the faith.

The audacity of responsibility

Barack Hussein Obama was never supposed to be elected president. Not with that name, his skin color and certainly not by an electoral landslide.

But he was. And regardless of who you voted for, I dare anyone with a sense of history to not be moved at the sight of his family taking the stage at Grant Park afterward or his face splashed on the traditional Time magazine as the 44th president.

With yet another Democratic tide, the debate rages on about what kind of country we are, liberal or conservative. The answer is obvious: We are both.

Our history likewise is terrible and triumphant. It is one of injustice, of shackling and enslaving a race of people, of hosing them down and turning the dogs on them just five decades ago. But it is one fundamentally of freedom and liberty, from overthrowing the British to found this nation, to restoring these virtues by vanquishing the Nazis in World War II.

The election of our first African-American president 145 years after the Emancipation Proclamation could be and should be a powerful end to a long chapter of prejudice, bringing us ever closer to the ideals our country was founded upon -- what Lincoln called the "better angels of our nature."

From Sydney to Athens to Kogelo, Kenya, people were literally crying in the streets after Obama's election Tuesday.

Voter turnout reached a high not seen since Lyndon Johnson swashbuckled his way through the West Wing. After decades of cynicism since Watergate, people are excited to be part of democracy. They believe in it.

No other leader could have inspired this euphoria, this onslaught of optimism, both here and abroad. Not living, anyway.

No one could live up to this hype and Obama won't. There's always the temptation to play it safe when you are the first of your kind, a living symbol. He surely has been lectured that if his tenure is an abject failure, there won't be another black president for decades to come.

But I think Obama is better suited by the advice the late Gov. George Romney gave John Engler on his inauguration day in 1991: Be bold.

Run the country for the next four years as though you will not be re-elected. Because you very well might not be. You may be blamed in 2012 for the continuing economic devastation or a new terrorist attack. There could be a powerful Republican backlash, whether you're cautious or go at breakneck speed.

You ran on an ambitious agenda and results-oriented philosophy that government can be one of the solutions to our problems. Indeed, the majority of Americans are willing to embrace this idea, more than they have since Ronald Reagan. Look how laughable the Republicans' red-scare tactics turned out to be.

Joe McCarthy reigned a half-century ago, kiddies, and the truth is most voters today didn't live through that. They aren't spooked by the mere mention of socialism, especially when the charge against Obama was so absurd. (And here's a newsflash for the Ayn Rand crowd: We're all commies now, anyway. That's what happens when the evil guv'ment bails out capitalism by buying out the banks).

After covering Obama for two years and reading reams of his work, I don't believe he's wild-eyed lefty, but rather a pragmatic liberal who will govern with a centrist sensibility. He is more progressive than the country, just as Reagan was more conservative in 1980. But through his flexibility, oratory and discipline, the Great Communicator enjoyed great success and moved America to the right.

Obama has the potential to be that kind of transformative figure, which is why he scares the bejeezus out of the bludgeoned GOP. That's a little difficult to articulate, which is why it's simpler to shout that he's a Muslim who pals around with terrorists.

But Mr. President-Elect, I don't see voters giving you the grace of four more years if you come back with empty pockets, mumbling that it's just too hard to do much in a staggering recession while waging a war on terror and you need more time.

Voters can be less forgiving of historic candidates.

And you have the advantage of a very blue Congress. Unlike your recent Democratic predecessors, you have extensive legislative experience and know how the game is played. Adding brass-knuckled U.S. Rep. Rahm Emanuel as your chief of staff would further inspire confidence.

So go forth and stick to your guns. You believe that increasing infrastructure spending will be a jolt to our economy. You believe that health care is a right, not a privilege, and will save businesses and individuals billions by making us more competitive.

You believe that the government needs to invest in clean energy, instead of waiting for the market to catch up, to create jobs and clean up the planet. You believe in a military strategy in which Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the war on terror, not Iraq.

So do it and let history judge.

Most of all, challenge us. Challenge us to be part of this change, to sacrifice during these manic-depressive times, to get off our collective keisters and do something for the country we love.

Americans yearn for a leader. Your charge is deceptively simple, Mr. Obama.

Be one.

Death of a maverick

The political autopsy of John McCain has already begun.

Four days remain, of course, and he could still pull this out. But even more than the daunting gap in swing state polls, it's the rabid infighting and utter gloom in Team McCain that's the dead giveaway that Nov. 4 will be a brief and bloody night for Republicans.

Two narratives have arisen as to why McCain will lose. His supporters claim that with a tanking economy and President Bush's record low popularity, McCain was sunk from the start. No other Republican could have made it a contest.

Less charitable folks say McCain has run a terrible campaign, plagued by bickering staff with competing agendas from the start. His message bounced all over the place (which sadly is inevitable when more moderate candidates compete in GOP primaries and then shift to the general election).

But it was the Wall Street meltdown proved fatal. McCain seemed determined to prove Barack Obama's charge that he was erratic (suspending the campaign, diddling around Washington, going to the debate anyway) and the impression has stuck.

There's truth to both storylines. But I think the ultimate reason is more organic.

McCain wasn't allowed to be McCain. He didn't run the kind of campaign he wanted, leaving him forever to wonder what if. What if I'd picked Joe Lieberman as VP? What if I'd run a clean campaign? What if I ran on the issues I valued most and palled around with the press?

In a way, McCain will probably regret this more than his actual defeat. Because there's nothing quite like compromising your core and going down anyway.

Let's make this clear. This wasn't a murder of McCain; it was a suicide. McCain is the captain of the ship and didn't have to hand the reins over to traditional GOP advisers like Rick Davis and Charlie Black nationally or Chuck Yob in Michigan. If he wanted to run like a true maverick, he should have kept his conscience, John Weaver, and hired Mike Murphy, who wasn't afraid to challenge him.

But McCain ran like a candidate afraid to lose from the get-go. It was only when he got back to basics in New Hampshire, tirelessly holding town halls in hamlets for a dozen people at a time last summer, that his campaign was reborn.

What ultimately greased his way through the inhospitable GOP primary season was that the far right was uncharacteristically fickle about its anointed candidate. Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and even social liberal Rudy Giuliani duked it out while McCain stitched together a series of unlikely wins.

Once he grabbed the nomination, he floundered for four months, failing to campaign hard even as Obama and Hillary Clinton threatened to obliterate each other and take the party with them.

McCain clearly thought he'd face Clinton, whom he respected, and always viewed Obama as a cocky usurper. But his campaign allowed him to telegraph his disdain, which he most notably did with his sighs and eye rolls at the debates. Better advisers would have drilled Mac to be more happy warrior, less grumpy old man.

His contempt for Obama also allowed him to OK vile robocalls linking him to terrorism, run sinister ads questioning his patriotism and fall just short of calling him a commie at rallies. McCain can justify this to himself because Obama ducked town hall debates and broke his public financing pledge.

But the truth is that McCain is running the sort of bare-knuckle, whip-up-the-basest-elements-in-the-base campaign that Bush thrashed him with in 2000. The lesson McCain seemed to learn from that was that nice guys finish last. Better to sell out than sell yourself short.

Which brings us to his pick of Sarah Palin. Reports in the New Yorker and other publications clearly paint McCain as being irascible and demoralized when his advisers foisted Palin upon him. The senator wanted a truly bipartisan, national security ticket with Lieberman.

McCain was told in no uncertain terms that he would shatter the party, that pandemonium would reign at the convention with a far right exodus. Well, so what? The Dixiecrats walked out of the Dems' bash in 1948 and most formally seceded by the '60s. That helped the Democratic Party redefine itself as one dedicated to equality and human rights.

McCain would have captured the holy grail of independents and stolen away moderate and conservative Democrats.

Look at the GOP right now. The civil war is happening anyway. McCain could have been the leader of the new pragmatic, centrist party. He could have taken control of the party platform on climate change, drilling, gay rights and abortion for starters. Instead, it's even more radical than it was under Bush's tutelage.

Now McCain is being pilloried by the right-wing media for killing the party (ha!) while Palin is canonized and groomed for the glorious resurrection in '12. Good luck with that.

If McCain had followed his instincts, he still might have fallen short. But at least his political epitaph would have cathartically read, "I did it my way."

Grand Old Pummeling

Even if John McCain manages to pull this one out in a squeaker, that won't be enough to save the Michigan Republican Party.

That's because McCain's circus-like pullout from the Mitten State earlier this month instantly translated into a double-digit lead for Barack Obama. No one, even Mac's most diehard supporters, thinks a comeback here is possible, unless Obama does a suicidal Detroit campaign swing with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Kwame Kilpatrick and Willie Horton at his side.

McCain has choked off all the oxygen to down-ballot races here. Gone are the money, organization and rock star visits by Sarah Palin that state and local Republicans were desperately counting on to help them withstand the swelling Democratic tide.

Republicans thought they could finally pin the economy on Gov. Jennifer Granholm, but the Wall Street meltdown gave the guv a fresh coat of Teflon. It's a perfect storm and the GOP mood has swung from full-scale panic to unshakable depression.

Right now, the conservative estimate on state House losses is four. The doomsday scenario is 12, which would put the lower chamber at a lopsided 70-40 split in the Dems' favor.

The educational boards will swing even more Democratic, and many county, city and township bodies will be bluer after Nov. 4.

When a party fails as spectacularly as the Republicans are poised to, it's time for some soul-searching - which in politics usually means backstabbing and bloodbaths.

The wily maverick - who most of the blood-red party brass never cared much for anyway - will certainly garner his share of the blame. But John McCain won't be here to kick around.

The Michigan GOP's problems, of course, started long before this ridiculously long campaign. There are two crises facing Republicans post-Nov. 4: Who will lead them and where are they going?

In the short-term, this means yet another civil war between factions led by party chair Saul Anuzis and former National Committeeman Chuck Yob.

It's hard to say how that will turn out, but it will be a strain for Saul to shake off two disastrous election cycles in a row. Even though as a former Mitt Romney guy, he never had the inside track with the McCain clan and received no notice the nominee was skeddadling from Michigan.

There are many Republicans who wish a plague on both their houses, slamming Anuzis for meddling in policy matters like last year's budget crisis and Yob for having a political track record akin to perennial losers like my Chicago Cubs.

They just want a party that works. This is uncomfortable ground for people accustomed to the order, fraternalism and seniority that has had a vice grip on the GOP. Now they seem as splintered as Democrats, which have long operated like a loud, dysfunctional family.

The Republican Party here and nationally is fissuring amidst competing, incongruous interests brought together under Reagan - the country club set, moderates, the religious right, disgruntled blue collar Democrats, Wall Street, small business, rural dwellers and fiscal conservatives.

The split crystallized under the McCain-Palin ticket. There was little fire from the base or talk radio for McCain, who could never be forgiven for calling fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance." No matter how far to the right he veered, it was never good enough.

Palin was a godsend to the party faithful, but she turned off moderate McCainiacs, as well as a fatal number of independents. The result is no one's truly happy with the GOP ticket, as opposed to the Dems, who are both inspired by Obama and giddy to turn the page on George Bush.

Michigan Republicans have a better chance than their national counterparts to get it together. Granholm still remains unpopular, which bodes well for the 2010 governor's race, and the next wave of term-limited House retirements is set to sock Democrats far harder than the GOP. The party should pick up another Senate seat if state Sen. Mark Schauer captures the 7th District congressional slot.

But they'll need organization and a message. What's clear is that the party orthodoxy on abortion and taxes hasn't worked. Social issues have driven moderates from the party in droves. And it seems increasingly likely that no legislator will lose his seat for hiking taxes last year.

This is not 1980. That's something Republicans have to get over, stat. The get-government-off-my-back ethos has withered. Now it's bring back big government if you can save my 401(k).

That doesn't mean that conservatism is dead, nor should it be. But politics is never static, while parties tend to be. The Democrats finally had to become more pragmatic and rejigger themselves after their thumpings in the '80s and '90s and the day of reckoning has come for the GOP. The party needs fresh ideas on the fiscal crisis, health care and foreign policy.

Gerald Ford, Bill Milliken and Dwight Eisenhower offer obvious role models of centrist conservatism spliced with good government. And there was something safely reassuring about these leaders during troubled times.

All I know is if a modern Milliken gave it a stab in 2010, he'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

Grand Old Pummeling

Even if John McCain manages to pull this one out in a squeaker, that won't be enough to save the Michigan Republican Party.

That's because McCain's circus-like pullout from the Mitten State earlier this month instantly translated into a double-digit lead for Barack Obama. No one, even Mac's most diehard supporters, thinks a comeback here is possible, unless Obama does a suicidal Detroit campaign swing with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Kwame Kilpatrick and Willie Horton at his side.

McCain has choked off all the oxygen to down-ballot races here. Gone are the money, organization and rock star visits by Sarah Palin that state and local Republicans were desperately counting on to help them withstand the swelling Democratic tide.

Republicans thought they could finally pin the economy on Gov. Jennifer Granholm, but the Wall Street meltdown gave the guv a fresh coat of Teflon. It's a perfect storm and the GOP mood has swung from full-scale panic to unshakable depression.

Right now, the conservative estimate on state House losses is four. The doomsday scenario is 12, which would put the lower chamber at a lopsided 70-40 split in the Dems' favor.

The educational boards will swing even more Democratic, and many county, city and township bodies will be bluer after Nov. 4.

When a party fails as spectacularly as the Republicans are poised to, it's time for some soul-searching - which in politics usually means backstabbing and bloodbaths.

The wily maverick - who most of the blood-red party brass never cared much for anyway - will certainly garner his share of the blame. But John McCain won't be here to kick around.

The Michigan GOP's problems, of course, started long before this ridiculously long campaign. There are two crises facing Republicans post-Nov. 4: Who will lead them and where are they going?

In the short-term, this means yet another civil war between factions led by party chair Saul Anuzis and former National Committeeman Chuck Yob.

It's hard to say how that will turn out, but it will be a strain for Saul to shake off two disastrous election cycles in a row. Even though as a former Mitt Romney guy, he never had the inside track with the McCain clan and received no notice the nominee was skeddadling from Michigan.

There are many Republicans who wish a plague on both their houses, slamming Anuzis for meddling in policy matters like last year's budget crisis and Yob for having a political track record akin to perennial losers like my Chicago Cubs.

They just want a party that works. This is uncomfortable ground for people accustomed to the order, fraternalism and seniority that has had a vice grip on the GOP. Now they seem as splintered as Democrats, which have long operated like a loud, dysfunctional family.

The Republican Party here and nationally is fissuring amidst competing, incongruous interests brought together under Reagan - the country club set, moderates, the religious right, disgruntled blue collar Democrats, Wall Street, small business, rural dwellers and fiscal conservatives.

The split crystallized under the McCain-Palin ticket. There was little fire from the base or talk radio for McCain, who could never be forgiven for calling fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance." No matter how far to the right he veered, it was never good enough.

Palin was a godsend to the party faithful, but she turned off moderate McCainiacs, as well as a fatal number of independents. The result is no one's truly happy with the GOP ticket, as opposed to the Dems, who are both inspired by Obama and giddy to turn the page on George Bush.

Michigan Republicans have a better chance than their national counterparts to get it together. Granholm still remains unpopular, which bodes well for the 2010 governor's race, and the next wave of term-limited House retirements is set to sock Democrats far harder than the GOP. The party should pick up another Senate seat if state Sen. Mark Schauer captures the 7th District congressional slot.

But they'll need organization and a message. What's clear is that the party orthodoxy on abortion and taxes hasn't worked. Social issues have driven moderates from the party in droves. And it seems increasingly likely that no legislator will lose his seat for hiking taxes last year.

This is not 1980. That's something Republicans have to get over, stat. The get-government-off-my-back ethos has withered. Now it's bring back big government if you can save my 401(k).

That doesn't mean that conservatism is dead, nor should it be. But politics is never static, while parties tend to be. The Democrats finally had to become more pragmatic and rejigger themselves after their thumpings in the '80s and '90s and the day of reckoning has come for the GOP. The party needs fresh ideas on the fiscal crisis, health care and foreign policy.

Gerald Ford, Bill Milliken and Dwight Eisenhower offer obvious role models of centrist conservatism spliced with good government. And there was something safely reassuring about these leaders during troubled times.

All I know is if a modern Milliken gave it a stab in 2010, he'd have my vote in a heartbeat.

Anti-stem cell subterfuge

Mad scientists. Cow people. A sinister, omniscient cloning industry straight out of a cheap horror flick.

The group against Proposal 2 has conjured up some truly deceptive, paranoid bunk to whip up fear over lifting Michigan's ban on embryonic stem cell research.

But here's the most dishonest thing of all.

Spokesman Dave Doyle flatly told me it last week it doesn't matter.

"We don't take a position on specific legislation or anything else," he said.

Say what? This is the fundamental issue of Prop 2. Voters absolutely have the right to know the answer to this question. And they should ask why MiCAUSE is being so shifty. What do you have to hide?

I pressed Doyle why he didn't think it was important.

"Our group was formed to oppose the constitutional amendment and we only talk about that," Doyle replied, lapsing into neatly typed talking points.
Really, what does he take us for?

Back in 2006, can you imagine Leon Drolet ducking whether or not he opposed affirmative action when he was gunning for a constitutional amendment banning it? That's just bad PR, as my professional media hound friend would probably tell you.

Both are the loudest opponents of embryonic stem cell research out there. Their criticism is on religious grounds, which I respect. However, they go way too far by arguing that potentially life-saving research on microscopic cells from fertility clinics (that would have been chucked in the dumpster otherwise) is akin to abortion or infanticide.

That's just disingenuous. Those cells are never going to say "goo." But they could find a cure for people suffering from Alzheimer's, which claimed my grandfather 16 years ago this spring. And they could help millions suffering from Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, Type I diabetes, spinal cord injuries and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).

So why doesn't MiCAUSE just come clean and say it's against embryonic stem cell research? After all, the group is bought and paid for by special interests that are.

Turns out, that's an easy one. Doyle and the other hired guns at Marketing Research Group (MRG) are no dummies. Polls show about 60 percent of Americans back the research, including a majority of Catholics.

So Doyle stresses that it's A-OK to be pro-stem cell and anti-2 because the amendment "goes too far." This is the standard argument against any ballot proposal. The sky will always fall if Prop X passes.

And since MiCAUSE can't win a fair fight, it's time for the smears and smokescreens. I give its high-priced consultants credit. The group has a flair for the dramatic, if you've watched its ominous, apocalyptic ads envisioning a world of animal-human clones and science run amok.

Too often, journalists don't call B.S. when we see it. Oh, no, the charlatans might come after us, insisting we write a correction that black is white. Well, this is as clear-cut an issue as I've ever seen. MiCAUSE is lying to you. Period.

Here's a reality check. Michigan already has a tough law banning cloning. Some embryonic stem cell research takes place here but it's extremely limited. The Legislature and governor are free to regulate an industry designed around saving lives. And it will create thousands of good-paying life sciences jobs critical for our economically decimated state.


Proposal 2 is precisely what the Wolverine State needs right now. Its opponents are the logical heirs to the Flat Earth Society.

But he is parroting MiCAUSE's crazy rhetoric on clones and weird science, which he need not do. George would one day make a fine congressman or lieutenant governor, but he's hurt his credibility in the long-run, even if he's endeared himself to the receding right-wing of his party.

He might want to talk to Republican former House Speaker Rick Johnson, who passionately believes that being pro-Proposal 2 is the most pro-life position there is, since it could save the lives of people suffering from debilitating diseases. Johnson knows of what he speaks, having a brother who was severely injured in an accident two decades ago.

"If they ever had the opportunity to sit in a hospital ER ward wondering if someone's going to live or die, and knowing that something like this could help save those lives, they may look at things a little differently," Johnson says quietly. "I have; I have gone to funerals of people who have passed away that this kind of research can help."

It's time to ask yourself how you'll feel about closing the door on that research. That's what you'll do by voting no on Proposal 2.

Joe Sixpack snubs Sarah Palin

Doggone it, if it weren't for that George W. Bush, America would be head-over-heels for Sarah Palin.

They're both plain folks, who play up their folksy accents that are just as American as all get-out. Their unflinching, moral absolutist vision of the world is distilled into simple sound bites, unlike some snooty, professorial Harvard-types, Barack. They tap into our hopes and especially fears because they "don't blink" or ever "wave the white flag of surrender" to terrorists.

In this "American Idol" era, we're supposed to go for the guy we can chug a beer with or the gal we can giggle with over a skinny mocha latte.

But not this time.

Why? Been there, done that.

We've already rolled the dice on a president with a fatal allergy to intellectual curiosity, demanding only "yes" men who won't challenge his chillingly narrow view of the world. We tried likeable and down-home and wound up with war(s?) we cannot win, a $10 trillion debt and an economy that bears more than a casual resemblance to the one Herbert Hoover bequeathed to us in the 1930s.

So, ya know, we're kinda sayin' "thanks, but no thanks" to that sweet Sarah Palin.

As Joe Biden's mother might say, "God love her," but this ain't amateur hour, kiddies.

But this raises a more important question: How can we trust John McCain when he's willing to entrust the country he loves so deeply with someone so inexperienced and unintellectual?

That fancy-pants know-it-all Obama doesn't seem like such a bad guy to steer us through a financial meltdown no one seems to comprehend. As conservative icon Charles Krauthammer ruefully observes, the Democrat has a "first-class intellect and a first-class temperament. That will likely be enough to make him president."

He won't lurch from stunt to stunt, as McCain jarringly has for his entire campaign. And Obama doesn't need flash cards to solve the crisis, like Palin brought to her debate last week.

Afterward, the talking heads (those evil Eastern elites) were convinced Joe Sixpack would go as ga-ga for Palin as they did, because the pretty lady said "Joe Sixpack," "hockey mom" and the Reagan classic, "There you go again."

We didn't. Why? Americans are smarter than a fifth grader. We do value substance over style. The fact that she can only spout scant talking points on the bailout and doesn't grasp McCain's position on Pakistan bothers us. That's why every poll showed Biden wiped the floor with her.

Deflated conservatives still insist the self-proclaimed Sarahcuda is connecting with Main Street Americans. Dozens of polls say otherwise; she can't win over women or independents.

No matter. Her flinty winks literally sent hard-up right-wingers like Rich Lowry into a fit of embarrassing ecstasy, mooning over the "little starbursts" he felt through the teevee. Ahem.

Sarah should have been the perfect focus-grouped candidate, down to the effortless way she drops her g's and winks at you (only you). The GOP couldn't have built a better veep if they'd finagled some of that sci-fi-style cloning technology the pro-life loonies warn will take over Michigan if the pro-embryonic stem cell Proposal 2 passes.

Palin would have killed in the heyday of Newt Gingrich, as the apple-cheeked, high-heeled embodiment of gun-totin' rugged individualism. But now we're back to the era of big government, aided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The country has changed, snapping back to the middle and even (gasp!) the left.

For too many years, we've plucked presidential candidates with criteria fit for a glitzy Hollywood biopic, not the leader of the free world. That was part of the problem with John Edwards, a coiffed empty suit whom desperate Democrats projected their hopes and dreams onto because he came in a slick, Southern-fried wrapper.

On the campaign trail, Palin brings the heat to a movement running cold. "This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world," she drawls (rhetoric that incited one cultured fan to shout, "Kill him!")

She's warned us. Obama "pals around with terrorists" and will maniacally raise our taxes. We know blood will be on our hands.

And yet, a clear majority of us are planning to vote for him. She doesn't do it for us.

Palin will soon be relegated to irrelevance, perhaps the de facto leader of the far-right fringe of a party teetering on the brink of combustion. That's why David Brooks calls her brand of anti-intellectual populism a "fatal cancer to the Republican party."

I hope it eats the party alive so it reverts back to the civil spirit of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower. But instead of looking backward to '80s-style solutions, the young Turks will have to embrace a 21st century realism to the staggering problems ahead.

Palin can serve as a parable for the dangers of always choosing glib politics over good policy. She can invigorate the GOP, perhaps by destroying it as Democrats take both houses of Congress, the White House, most governor's mansions and more state and local seats across the country.

And for that, let's salute ya, Sister Sarah.

Grace after the fire

GRAND LEDGE -- Hillary Clinton is so over it.

The primary ping-pong, that is - the bitter battles with Barack, her husband's crimson face and wagging finger, the endless wrangling over every state, every superdelegate.

It all seemed to wash away as a Zen-like Hillary took to the stage Saturday and bestowed her message on the mostly female crowd of 1,000: Move on and vote Obama.

Maybe it's the distance. Maybe it was Friday's debate and the harrowing financial meltdown that hasn't fazed the kid from Chi-town one bit, while the impeccably experienced John McCain swan-dived into a full-scale panic. But Clinton seemed genuinely impressed with Obama in a way she never was when they engaged in hand-to-hand combat.

"I'm campaigning as hard as I can to make sure he's the next president," she announced with almost maternal pride. "I think last night people saw why."

Decked in a canary suit as sunny as her demeanor, Clinton radiated a laid-back warmth to a clearly smitten crowd. (There wasn't a PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) miscreant in sight). Instead of having to make the sale for herself in a pressure-cooker primary, she could relax and merrily dispatch McCain while pumping up Obama.

Losing such a brutal, close contest was devastating, no doubt. Many pundits believed she'd hole herself up with astringent aides Lanny Davis and Howard Wolfson, resurfacing to give aid and comfort to the GOP with unhelpful comments about Obama. ("He did admire Kwame Kilpatrick immensely, I know that.")

But Hillary's grace and enthusiasm has surprised even this cynical columnist, admittedly not her biggest fan. I don't know that Obama would have been able to pull off what she has if the roles were reversed.

Often sour and steely in her own race, Clinton has transformed herself into the happy warrior. This was supposed to be John McCain's role, instead reduced to a scowling septuagenarian lecturing baby Barack that "he just doesn't understand" anything, when it's his running mate who can't name a single newspaper she reads, another Supreme Court case besides Roe v. Wade or any of his maverick reforms ("I'll try to find you some and I'll bring 'em to ya.")

Is it real? Who knows? No one can say what's truly going on in someone's head. Maybe Clinton is giving a Cannes-worthy performance and will be punching her ballot for McCain on Nov. 4 anyway. She no doubt is looking ahead to 2012, just in case, as is one Mitt Romney.

But publicly, she is all-in in '08 and apparently has told Bill to get with the program, prompting him to (finally) say nice things about Obama while barnstorming Florida this week.

No one could have predicted what an effective surrogate Hillary has become for her former rival. Indeed, she's Obama's best defender, an emissary to women, although they're flocking back on the Barack bandwagon in droves since Sarah Palin has proven to be a national embarrassment.

Clinton's sheer depth on policy issues and effortless intellect underscores Palin's indignant incuriosity and startling cerebral shallowness, which even a skeptic like me underestimated. The McCain campaign clearly chose style over substance, but to flagrantly do so with someone a heartbeat away from the presidency is political malpractice.

But even on the surface, Clinton's down-home "I feel your pain" routine plays better than Palin's faux populism, since she's not really concerned with building "Joe Sixpack" up, as she refers to her constituency, but on cattily tearin' the elitist haters down. I believe we refer to that as goin' for the lowest common denominator.

What the 2008 election will ultimately mean for women is anyone's guess. I tend to believe that Clinton coming so close will motivate more women to jump into public life and push harder for a female president next time. That's one reason why so many women were initially drawn to the McCain-Palin ticket, before they came down with buyer's remorse.

But the failure of Palin could have the opposite effect. Some women who remember the Gerry Ferraro days tell me that Sarah's set up to be the fall gal when McCain goes down. She's the airhead hottie who never could be trusted with the launch codes, scuttling the chances of an honorable war hero who could have restored this country's glory.

Chicks, huh?

Forgive and forget, part II: Republican Joe Schwarz has broken his silence about the 7th District congressional race and endorsed state Sen. Mark Schauer, D-Battle Creek. This won't come as a shock to anyone who watched the bloody GOP primary two years ago when U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Tipton, and his Club for Growth overlords disemboweled him as a liberal, baby-killing freak.

But it did catch longtime pundit Bill Ballenger a little off guard.

"Schwarz and Schauer are supposed to be good buddies, though Schauer screwed him over a few times," he observes.

Like Mark recruiting the former congressman to run as a Dem, swearing he wouldn't run himself (oops)? Or neglecting to give him credit for keeping open the Battle Creek Air National Guard Base?

I hope Mr. Schauer manned up said he's sorry. Because Schwarz just did him a huge favor, at his own political peril.

All eyes shouldn't be on Michigan

"I want you to feel the pressure, because Michigan could be the Ohio of this election." - First lady Laura Bush pumping up state delegates at the Republican National Convention

Sorry to burst Mrs. Bush's bubble, but there's a slim chance this ungodly long presidential race will come down to the Great Lakes State.

I know, I know. The national pundits think Michigan's where it's at. We're a great story with the highest unemployment rate, a beautiful but unpopular Democratic governor and an African-American ex-mayor of our largest city heading to the slam.

And stereotypes? We got your stereotypes right here. There are bowling alleys galore to pensively interview those all-important blue-collar Macomb County voters, diehard deer hunters in the rustic U.P. to rhapsodize about Sarah Palin and patchouli-drenched students in the People's Republic of Ann Arbor to philosophize about Barack Obama.

Who am I to dissuade the national press corps from our exceptionalism? So let me sincerely roll out the welcome mat for Anderson Cooper, Joe Scarborough, Katie Couric and your posses. Please come revel in our Water Winter Wonderland and throw money at our hotels, restaurants and party stores - our Legislature will probably hand you a tax rebate. (Seriously, just ask the Hollywood set. We toss 'em away like candy).

As for Obama and John McCain, keep assaulting us with ads 24/7. Media companies are doing slightly better than Lehman Brothers and your assistance is greatly appreciated.

But the thing is, you'll be taking another girl home on election night. It's looking more like Colorado, Wisconsin, Virginia or even New Hampshire with her anorexic four electoral votes will tip the scales for that magic 270.

We were the belle of the ball for the bungled primary in January and those crazy Dems couldn't decide how to pick delegates for months. The fact that so many candidates boycotted us made us far more fun to figure out than Florida.

So the likelihood that Michigan will again be front and center Nov. 4 is small. There's always a chance, of course. Who could have predicted the camp-worthy pregnant chad thing eight years ago? Elections are a whacky business and a lot can happen in five weeks.

There could be another terrorist attack on American soil, for one thing. The housing crisis could continue to cramp the markets even with a $700 billion bailout. Or Kwame Kilpatrick could punch out a cop naked while shouting, "Long live Barack Obama!"

Now if McCain conquers Michigan, he'll be in prime position to win the Electoral College unless Obama steals Ohio or Florida out from him. But if McCain wins our economically mutilated state that's been reliably blue since 1992, I'll bet it's Johnny in a rout. He'll take Wisconsin, Minnesota and possibly Pennsylvania and keep his vulnerable western states.

Obama's turnout model of young and black voters will be declared a dismal failure and the Bradley effect will have reared its head.

That could certainly happen. But the McCain folks don't really think he'll bag the Mitten State, although they say publicly they have a "really good chance," as Mrs. Bush told the delegation at the RNC. Why not? They're happy to see Obama part with millions here. And they know it will be close, even though the Democrat leads in 11 of the last 13 post-convention polls.

But if McCain was truly serious about winning the Wolverine State, his veep would have been Mitt Romney, Bloomfield Hills' favorite son.

John Dunagan, President Bush's Michigan chair in '04, claims Palin will single-handedly flip the state red. His reasoning? We have 12 minor league hockey teams and the highest registration of snowmobiles in the country.

Um ... sure. Who can argue with empirical evidence like that?

Obama started at a disadvantage by not campaigning here for the primary. McCain has roots in Michigan dating back to his 2000 victory, although he lost badly this year to Romney. But Obama's ground game is far better - 40-plus offices, a massive voter registration effort and superior media operation.

Gov. Jennifer Granholm is Obama's biggest albatross here. In some polls, voters blame her more than Bush for the state's unparalleled economic woes. That could change with Wall Street's implosion, of course, but there's a reason she's not in the Democrat's stable of surrogates.

In the end, it comes down to the Detroit suburbs in vote-rich Oakland County, which has turned Democratic for the last two cycles. (Macomb was sooo '80s). Tensions in Detroit helped McCain post unusually high numbers here in a recent Time survey.

If Kwame was still the proud occupant of the Manoogian Mansion, I'd say that Michigan's traditional lack of racial transcendence, as Obama poetically puts it, would propel McCain to the White House. But Hizzoner's gone and he has no relationship with Obama to speak of.

I'm inclined to agree with former McCain adviser Mike Murphy, an old hand in John Engler's and Spence Abraham's campaigns, who thinks Oakland County is Obama country. Palin will appeal to the quirkily conservative Macomb crowd, but she's too much pitbull for Oakland's sunny soccer moms who aren't fond of guns but do like making their own uterine decisions.

Somewhere, Mitt Romney is shaking his head and plotting for 2012.

A party of whiners

Republicans have become wusses. Next thing you know, they'll want to cuddle.

I came of political age in the Newt Gingrich era, and the right-wingers I knew were bold and brash. They didn't talk about their feelings or make excuses. They swore on Adam Smith's soul that the world would be a better place with lower taxes, less regulation and a Deringer in every home.

Frankly, they were a lot more fun to hang out with that the liberals who screeched that calling grown women "girls" was a hate crime and believed the notorious Antioch College edict requiring students to ask permission before engaging in each new act of love ("May I bite your navel?") was sound public policy Congress should consider.

So I never thought I'd see that day when the GOP would become the poster child for Affirmative Action and political correctness.

What a letdown.

As Wall Street collapses into free-fall, violence amps up in Afghanistan and gas shoots up north of $4 again, whiny conservatives are carrying on about cosmetics.

If you have a pulse and occasionally click on cable news, you know that Barack Obama used the shopworn political phrase, "lipstick on a pig," last week.

Former acting Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift shrieked Sexism, noting that because GOP veep pick Sarah Palin talks about slathering on lipstick, she must be the porker in question.

"Often times, you're responsible for your words even if they're misconstrued," sniffed Ms. Swift, who ironically was broomed by the GOP establishment to make way for Mitt Romney, whom I understand is male.

It was as if I was transported back in time to my too-serious, abstractly academic women's studies classes and our insufferable debates over whether the word "history" (get it, "history"?) was misogynistic. That was the point at which the resident Republican would sanely chime in with an, "Oh, please!"

But the humorless, hypersensitive train barreled on after "Saturday Night Live" skewered both Palin and Hillary Clinton. Fired Hewlett-Packard CEO and John McCain adviser Carly Fiorina panned Tina Fey's dead-on impression of the Alaska guv ("I can see Russia from my house!") as (what else?) Sexist.

In another ironic twist, the feisty Fiorina got the hook Wednesday after she declared Palin (and McCain, because she is not Sexist) didn't have the gonads to head a major corporation. But she hastily added they could run the good old U.S. of A. (What everyone seems too polite to say is that Carly couldn't run a company either, though she was rewarded with a $21 million golden parachute for trying).

Palin herself hasn't cried Sexism, since she avoids the evil elite media's meanie questions like the plague. Instead, she allows others to wallow in victim feminism for her.

Since when do Republicans, especially those who proudly compare themselves to pitbulls, dodge a fight, especially with weenies in the press?

Meanwhile, every conservative in America, down to uber-reactionary U.S. Rep. Tim Walberg of Tipton (who I believe is still undecided on women's suffrage), is repeating the talking points that Palin is supremely qualified because she has "executive experience."

Folks, let's just take a time-out for a second.

Can you really say that someone who was mayor of a town of 6,700 and governor for 20 months of a state with 670,000 souls (.02 percent of the U.S. population) should be a heart attack away from taking over as leader of the free world? Don't you think the VP should know the Bush Doctrine or have an elementary grasp of the financial markets?

Let's call this what it is: Affirmative Action run amok, shunting expertise or even basic competence in favor a focus-grouped new face who plays well on tee-vee. I know of no other politician who has so breathtakingly blown an interview as Palin did on ABC and survived. Obama would have been laughed off the national stage.

Don't Palinistas feel a wee bit silly attacking Charles Gibson as Sexist for doing his job? Don't they ever tire of defending St. Sarah because McCain chose her and the Maverick is infallible?

Joe Lieberman, McCain's almost veep, gave a rather Freudian answer when initially asked if Palin was qualified to be president.

"Well, let's assume the best," he laughed nervously. "John's in great shape."

The truth is, the GOP is a party in the throes of a full-blown identity crisis, forced to disown its once beloved and now wildly unpopular President Bush and his disastrous economic and foreign policy agendas. Gone is the swagger, the supreme confidence of the Contract with America signatories, replaced by defensive, desperate thought police bleating about the unfairness of it all.

They sound like ... Democrats.

Maybe right-wingers should admit that their merciless (and amusing) ridiculing of Barackstar, who parted the Rocky Mountains for a crowd of 84,000 adoring disciples, was jealousy, plain and simple.

"The presidential election isn't a popularity contest!" they'd dourly declare.

But as soon as superfine, superstar Sarah glided on stage, they suddenly had a reason to turn out in droves and scream, "Drill, baby, drill!"

Not that there would be any double entrendre there. That, my friends, would be Sexist.

My dear John (McCain) letter

This is just to say that you lost my vote over the last few weeks and Barack Obama won it.

Sen. McCain, I know I'm just a simple single mom, but I do live in Michigan, ground zero in the Electoral College battle.

This wasn't an easy choice. I was with you when only five folks showed up to your town hall meetings in New Hampshire last summer as you stood up for a compromise on immigration. I cheered when you told Mitten Staters that those cushy auto jobs ain't a-comin' back before you tanked in our primary.

And I defended you against the loony left's bizarre assaults on your military service. You are, indeed, an American hero, and one of mine.

But your attack-happy, outrage-driven campaign - which is inexplicably run by the slimeballs who slandered you on behalf of George W. Bush in 2000 - is beneath you. You cannot blame the bombastic ads and barrage of smears on wily subordinates; you are the captain of this ship and you refuse to turn it around.

And as you have seen fit to appease the far right more and more each day, down to your extremist VP pick, I'm struggling to see you as the man on white horseback who's come to save the day. You seem like you only want to win - at any cost.

"This campaign isn't about issues," your campaign manager scoffed last week. Well, I think that insults the American people. And it insults me as a voter.

Because I'd like you to know that I will be voting for Barack Obama on the issues. And the economy is No. 1 for my family. I like that Obama's comprehensive economic plan is rooted in conservative ideas on tax cuts, which need to be broad-based. You don't have many ideas beyond extending the narrow Bush tax cuts and calling your opponent a tax-hiker.

I'm sure the few making over $250,000 approve, but even you knew those cuts would be fiscally disastrous, which is why you voted against them. Our country can't sustain this kind of lopsided tax code, not while the middle class is losing net income for the first time in decades, the gap between rich and poor is growing and the Iraq war drains $10 billion from taxpayers every month.

And speaking of the war, like the vast majority of Americans, I want to see it end. Here's my compromise to you: Declare victory and get out. I have no reason to think that Obama and his stable of bipartisan foreign policy advisers will go about this in a hasty manner akin to how Bush got us into this mess.

But Sen. McCain, you are even further out there than the president, who sees the need for a timetable after more than five years of morass. Violence is down now, hallelujah. But our military is broken, with some soldiers doing seven tours of duty in Iraq. The surge cannot be sustained. Nor do we have the manpower to truly fight al-Qaida in Afghanistan or Pakistan, much less start to tangle with Iran or Russia.

Your bellicose foreign policy is not the reasoned realpolitik of President Bush the Elder; it will bankrupt our budget and make us more vulnerable to terrorism. No one knows this better than our enemies.

And I appreciate Obama's willingness to include insurance companies, seniors groups and doctors into reforming health care, which is ridiculously inefficient and expensive. Your hands-off approach won't help the Big Three or small business being sunk by off-the-charts expenses. You're unwilling to even help uninsured children by reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

I know the new conventional wisdom is that we need to change the country by going with the GOP, which has been in charge for most of the last glorious war-ravaged decade that's culminating in economic devastation.

And I know that because I, too, have reproduced like Sarah Palin and people care more about my mug shot that what I write in this column, that I am automatically obligated to vote for your ticket.

But I'm just an average gal from Michigan who plans to vote my conscience.

Our country has been at war in Iraq since my daughter was six months old and I'm tired of having to explain death to her. Before the Bush presidency, I paid $1 a gallon for gas in Iowa, and I know as well as you do that drilling won't bring the price down one dime. What I don't know is how I'll scrape up $300,000 to send her to the University of Michigan in 12 years.

Now you're telling me that you're the maverick again, although you're certainly not on the biggest issues of the day. You have little to offer me and millions of Americans in terms of real policy change. What you can provide is a compelling life story and a superstar running mate.

Well, Sen. McCain, you warned us all not to vote on style and slogans over substance.

That's why I'm voting for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Palin: McCain's version of 'Trust me'

For years, Republicans have foamed at the mouth about Michigan's blonde bombshell governor, slamming her as woefully inexperienced and working in her "Dating Game" past whenever possible.

Now I've often shared their critiques of Jennifer Granholm in terms of policy and management style and I have it on pretty good authority that her senior staff despises my column. But that kind of patronizing tripe ignores her Harvard law degree (with honors), four years as attorney general, four years as a federal prosecutor and almost six years as governor.

Our governor has an almost unmatched intellect and is the state's most spellbinding speaker. Republicans will privately admit they wish they had anyone on their roster who could rival her. Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, shakes in his boots around her to this day.

So when John McCain made his utterly ridiculous pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be a heartbeat away from his presidency, I found it fascinating how Granholm's hecklers (a bunch of middle-aged white guys, natch) suddenly turned into raving feminists.

There was a lot of happy talk about breaking the glass ceiling from boys who oppose the Equal Pay Act.

"(Palin) puts the voice of women on the center stage of American politics," declared state Sen. Cameron Brown, R-Fawn River Township, which should come as news to the 18 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton.

Of course Clinton has everything to do with McCain's impulsive, insulting choice that former McCain aide Mike Murphy trashed, sighing, "The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical." Evidently, Mighty Mac thinks we broads are so hard up to punch a ballot for someone with ovaries that we'll take just anyone, like spinsters over 40.

We're supposed to fall for a candidate who has to play up her eight years as the mayor of a town of 6,715 - where the Associated Press devastatingly remarked the "biggest civic worry is whether there will be enough snow for the Iditarod dog-mushing race" - and her time on the PTA to round out her resume.

Palin has spent almost two years in the governor's mansion. To put that in perspective, she leads the third least populated state with fewer folks than the 7th Congressional District.

No wonder she's elicited a collective groan from Alaska newspapers and many colleagues about her inexperience and incuriosity.

No matter. Her sculpted cheekbones and naughty high-heeled boots inspire a quivering Rush Limbaugh to declare her "a babe."

Point granted. But the simple fact is that if Palin were a bleeding-heart Democrat, there would be only two words to describe the nod: Affirmative Action.

It is a slap in the face to dedicated GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, just to name a few. Palin's foreign policy credentials are so thin, having only traveled to three countries, that first lady-in-waiting Cindy McCain tried to pump her up by pointing out that Alaska is close to Russia.

Oh, dear Lord.

Yet somehow Republicans manage to tout Palin's massive "executive experience" with a straight face, while still blasting Barack Obama's eight years as a leader in the state Legislature in one of the biggest states in the country and almost four years in the U.S. Senate, chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee.

Oh, but don't even think of questioning St. Sarah's credentials. She is a Mom, as U.S. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, noted in a statement - yes, with a capital "M." Um, OK, but does the GOP really want to play the parental fitness card when her 17-year-old is knocked up by a dude who looks like a bad boy reject from "The Hills"?

So if you dare ask about her ethics scandals, relationship with indicted U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and readiness to be commander-in-chief on day one, be warned: You are Sexist. Even though when Hillary complained about her coverage in the primary, Sarah dismissed it as "whining."

It was a bewildered Palin who whimpered to CNBC a month ago, "I wish someone would tell me what the VP does."

But on Wednesday at the Republican National Convention, they replaced her with a new and improved Stepford Wife model to spew venom at that un-American Obama who looks down on the bitter folk.

Palin conveniently forgot to mention her extremist positions, like being anti-evolution, anti-abortion for victims of rape and incest and even against protecting polar bears from extinction. Maybe that's because most of us wouldn't view her as the mom down the street, but another out-of-touch fundamentalist windbag.

But what makes me saddest about this whole sorry affair is that it reveals an utter lack of judgment by McCain, whom I deeply admire. He calculated he needed to appease the base and try to capture the Clintonites by choosing someone he'd only interviewed once a few hours before offering her the job.

His entire campaign is built around us trusting him to do the right thing - even though most Americans disagree with him on most issues, from Iraq to the economy.

Sorry, John, I'm finding that hard to do these days.

A statesman for Obama

When I met Jim Leach for the first time, protesters were shouting down a speech he gave at the Iowa City Public Library under a hand-painted banner that read, "Killer Leach."

It was during the heady days of Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution in 1995 and the mild-mannered, moderate congressman was an unlikely foot soldier. But it was the first time in his 19-year career that the GOP was running the show and he dutifully towed the party line. He truly believed Republicans could clean up Washington.

So when I caught Leach's speech at the Democratic National Convention Monday endorsing Barack Obama, I let out a little gasp.

My former congressman chuckled that as a veteran of five Republican National Conventions, he'd never expected to be at a DNC, either.

"When I was asked to speak, it startled me at first and I had to think about it for a moment," Leach said during a phone interview Wednesday. "But I made a commitment and I decided to go all out."

That commitment is to Republicans for Obama, also led by Sen. Lincoln Chafee. Both were swept out of office during the 2006 Democratic tsunami, but they interestingly haven't bought the idea that maverick John McCain will restore their party. Leach believes a record number of Goldwater Republicans and independents will cross over.

Most Obama backers on tee-vee look to be 18 if they're a day and gush about their personal connection to him. But there was no come-to-Jesus moment with Leach, who admits he doesn't know Obama well.

Dispassionate Princeton professor he is, he neatly laid out a historical and geopolitical case for the Democrat better than anyone I've seen, masterfully weaving in the ideals of Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan with Obama's.

"The change Barack Obama is advocating is far more than a break with today's politics," Leach said in his speech. "It is a clarion call for renewal rooted in time-tested American values that tap Republican, as well as Democratic traditions."

Leach swats away the idea that the freshman Illinois senator is less ready to be commander-in-chief than McCain, whom he deeply respects.

"There's no doubt that John McCain has served in Congress longer than Barack Obama," says the man who was in Washington longer than both combined. "But it's important to look at judgment over experience and I am impressed by Barack's judgment."

Though he voted for the Gulf War, Leach was one of the few Republicans who didn't back the Iraq war, which he calls "a disaster." He's also troubled by the growing gulf between rich and poor and the middle class that's been left behind. What won him over to Obama was his non-ideological approach to issues and strong cast of bipartisan advisers, which he pointedly says is a break with the Bush administration.

But the most powerful part of his eight-minute monologue Monday was a devastating, and obviously tortured, indictment of the Republican Party he still calls home:

"The party that once emphasized individual rights has gravitated in recent years toward regulating values. The party of military responsibility has taken us to war with a country that did not attack us. The party that formerly led the world in arms control has moved to undercut treaties crucial to the defense of the earth. The party that prides itself on conservation has abdicated its responsibilities in the face of global warming.

"And the party historically anchored in fiscal restraint has nearly doubled the national debt, squandering our precious resources in an undisciplined and unprecedented effort to finance a war with tax cuts."

Unfortunately, the Iowan's measured and thoughtful soliloquy was drowned out by cable's talking heads and skipped by the networks, although once-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman's GOP coming-out party next week will likely net great fanfare. Pundits are praying he puts on the same kind of loopy show that Dixiecrat Zell Miller did at the 2004 RNC that spooked small children and family pets.

But the reality is that Lieberman, though an eloquent and impassioned McCainiac, is swimming against a tide where Republicans are fleeing the party in droves. And the country is moving past the middle and gently leftward. Leach thinks it didn't have to be that way.

"If we had stayed true to our core principles, we could still be in control of Congress," he told me.

Leach, who considers Dwight D. Eisenhower to be the greatest GOP president of the 20th century, could have pushed back against the tide in '06 and probably hung on to his seat. But he nixed an anti-gay mailing and inflamed the religious right, who then worked against him. They're the same folks who call him a turncoat today.

Leach can still rattle off details about that Iowa City event 13 years ago, down to the obnoxious sign. Though the liberal college town is known for its sometimes raucous protests, he clearly didn't relish being the target. He wanted to dialogue with the demonstrators; they wanted to shriek slogans stolen from the '60s.

He deserved better then and he deserves more respect now. But being a statesman is often a thankless job.