Campaign tipping points

By Ellen Ratner
I write this column from Boston, home of the Democratic National Convention 2004. It's the third week of July and the presidential race is in a statistical dead heat. Even the most seasoned political pundits here admit they have no idea who will be the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.



Numbers can change dramatically between now and November, but for now, undecided voters are not budging. Many of them I have interviewed say they are not happy with Bush, but not particularly excited about Kerry either.

Even people who can normally be counted on to vote Democrat are undecided. One union member I interviewed said he voted for Bush because he hated the Clintons. His worst nightmare was the possibility of 24 years of the Clinton dynasty – eight years of Bill, eight years of Al and eight years of Hillary).

I practically had to be revived by smelling salts after his comment, but I wanted to hear why a man who worked for an airline that was attacked on Sept. 11, denied government loan guarantees twice, has taken an effective pay cut in excess of 40 percent in wages and work-rule concessions, lost health benefits, and may lose his retirement, could still even consider voting for George W. Bush twice. He said, "I'm not happy with Bush, but I'm not convinced Kerry is any better. I may just skip the presidential vote altogether." This man cannot bring himself to vote for Kerry and he is not mad enough to vote against President Bush. Unfortunately, he's not alone.

Some Democrats optimistically predicted that the addition of John Edwards would make people vote for Kerry. I'm not willing to completely rule out this as a future possibility given John E's ability to energize everyone he comes in contact with, including John Kerry. Unfortunately, so far he has not been able to energize the numbers.

Republicans, on the other hand, fantasized that Cheney's weekly conflicts of interest (Halliburton-Iraq, Halliburton-Iraq, Halliburton-Iraq) would cause President Bush to pick a moderate Republican hero like Rudy Giuliani or John McCain to be his running mate and this would tip the moderate fence-sitters. So far, Cheney's heart is ticking just fine and there is very little chance that Bush will risk disenfranchising the so-called "base" in the fourth quarter of this race.

John Kerry needs one of two things to happen to win. Either he must do something to make people vote for him – like decisively win the presidential debates – or something must happen to make people vote against Bush (like more bad news in Iraq, more conflicts of interest, more Michael Moores, or all combined).

Security is the wildcard. My guess is that sometime between now and the first Tuesday in November, there will be an event or events that will conclusively lead the undecided voters to the conclusion that they are either safer with President Bush as the commander in chief, or less safe. Until that time, skepticism runs high. A recent national poll reveals that over a third of the voters believe both Bush and Kerry will say anything to get elected (35 percent Bush and 38 percent Kerry).

If someone told me in January of 2001 that I would be sitting in Boston in July of 2004 wondering if I would be following President Bush around for another four years, I would have recommended a drug-rehabilitation program for them. I did not have high hopes for W's presidency. I was right. Over 900 men and women have lost their lives in a war that this self-proclaimed wartime president misled us into.

The same commander in chief now jokes about the fact that we have not found "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq (he narrated a videotape of himself searching the Oval office for WMD at a spring dinner; saying "no weapons there" as he looked under his desk). He has added hundreds of billions of dollars to our national debt, yet Iraq, health care and education are still a mess. Corporate profits have dwarfed real wages for working Americans. Consumer debt is the highest in our history. The concept of retiring with a company pension is non-existent, and our reputation for human rights and dignity has given way to brutality. I could go on.

Yes, I am clearly a card-carrying member of the "Anybody But Bush" crowd. The truth is I hit my personal tipping point on the day the Supreme Court decided that George W. Bush would be my president.

Hijacked Christianity

By Ellen Ratner
This may not come as a surprise to many, but I receive a ton of "hate mail." More hate mail is generated by this column than from my 18 daily radio hits or weekly Fox News appearances. I've been threatened and sworn at. Virtually every aspect of my being has been criticized. Perhaps the most creative piece of hate mail came with a picture of my head attached to the body of a rat on a red white and blue magic carpet. I even put that one on my office wall.



But after 10 years of hate mail, one finally really disturbed me a few weeks ago. If I quoted the e-mail directly, WorldNetDaily and Ellen Ratner would be in the same boat with Howard Stern and the Federal Communications Commission. The gist of the e-mail, after the author called me every four-letter, vile word in the book was that it's impossible to be a Christian and be a Democrat. Granted, I'm not a Christian – I'm Jewish – but that statement sent chills down my spine. It made me wonder how many others feel this way?

After four weeks of unofficial research, I have found that many so-called evangelical Christians believe this to be true. Granted, they would have omitted the author's four-letter words, but agreed with his statement completely. Now this, my fellow Americans, represents a very slippery slope for the future of America. George Bush, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes and Company have successfully hijacked the American Christian psyche into believing that the Republicans are their savior and John Kerry is the devil incarnate.

It is true that George Bush is against gay marriage, but so is John Kerry. They both are on record of supporting a state's right to have civil unions and treating every citizen with dignity. OK, not much difference between the angel and the devil there. George Bush supports giving money to faith-based initiatives and there is no indication that President Kerry would renege on that. Yes, George Bush would like to repeal Roe v. Wade and stop a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. John Kerry, while personally opposed to abortion as a form of birth control, believes this difficult choice is not a matter for the government to decide.

But it's important to look more deeply into the issue of "choice." The position of George W. Bush is that life is sacred. The Sixth Commandment says, "Thou Shall Not Kill." This is a non-negotiable as far as God is concerned. It's not a mere mortal's right to determine who lives and dies. That should be left up to God. Fine. Can someone then explain to me how it is that the same man who uses the "life is sacred" argument to deny a woman's right to choose her destiny can put more than 140 people to death, including a woman who proclaims the same Jesus Christ George W. Bush does as her personal savior? There is an enormous disconnect in the logic here – and that's a problem for evangelicals. The cornerstone of the evangelical mind is that the laws of God are not up to personal interpretation. They are absolute, non-negotiable. So why is it OK for George W. to kill people in Texas? The Ten Commandments do not have a disclaimer.

There are a few other dents in George W's halo. Let us look at the definition of the word, "Christian." To be a Christian is to aspire to be "Christ-like," or so my Christian friends tell me. Christ said, "Turn the other cheek." "Do good to those who harm you." "Love thy neighbor has thy self." "Do unto others as you would have them to do unto you." Christ was a heretic in an "eye-for-an-eye" world.

George W. Bush on the other hand, resurrected the eye-for-an-eye world. He even took it to new heights with his pre-emptive strike policy. Although it should be called a "strike" policy, because for something to be "pre-emptive" means that it was preventing an actual event from occurring. No WMD in Iraq, therefore it did not pre-empt anything (other than Halliburton third-quarter losses, perhaps) so we can strike "pre-emptive" from the George W. Bush's "strike" policy.

George and Jesus are also very different in the company they keep. Christ was the embodiment of compassion. He didn't even have to modify the word by tacking "conservative" onto the end of it. Christ preferred the company of renegades and those on the fringes of society to the powerful and wealthy. George W. Bush likes to golf, ride mountain bikes and roam around on his ranch.

Jesus was able to enter into the place of pain and suffering and be with those in need. George W. Bush is willing to dress up like a solider, but he won't be present for the overwhelming grief and pain of death. He refuses to attend a soldier's burial. Karl and Karen likely told him it would not look good. Christ did not care about appearances.

Sounds to me like those Christians out there who believe they have to vote Republican to be a Christian need to go back and study the life of Christ. They won't find any killing. They won't find any fund-raisers. They won't find any contracts for the wealthy. I just hope they read it before November.

'And a little child shall lead them'

By Ellen Ratner
I have traveled the world over to know this one truth: There is no force of nature as powerful as the joy of a child. Children have the gift of being able to laugh and play through war, economic despair, natural disaster, disease and hunger. Their magical power to transform their environment has been recorded for thousands of years. As Isaiah 11:6 prophesied, "... and a little child shall lead them."



This week reminded us of the transformative nature a child can have, even in the midst of the most bitter and contentious presidential campaign in recent memory. This campaign season has been anything but fun. The future of the Supreme Court, the future of U.S. security policy, the future of our retirements, health care, education and big business are all up for grabs. Perhaps these trying times demand serious candidates. But I've been covering the campaign for the past 12 months and I'm about ready to kill myself with the seriousness of both men.

Just as I was starting to dread the final quarter of Campaign 2004, something magnificent sparked off at the end of the Fourth of July weekend. The Democratic ticket spontaneously declared independence from negativity and chronic seriousness. Two bright stars graced the presidential campaign trail and ignited a fire of joy – not anger – in the hearts of the Democratic ticket. Jack and Emma Claire Edwards have been on the planet less than 10 years combined, yet they have had the effect of a giant sparkler being waved like a magic wand into the heart of the newly minted Kerry-Edwards ticket.

No wonder President George W. Bush is not in a joking mood. The Democratic presidential ticket just got a shot of charisma that not even Karl Rove in his wildest political fantasies could dream up.

I have said at least 100 times that Americans vote for the people they would like to see in their living rooms for the next four years. Al Gore's stiff, smarty-pants debate performance killed him in 2000. No one wants a smarty-pants in their living room.

George W. Bush is no exception. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, Reds, Purples are saying the same thing: They can't stand to hear George W. Bush open his mouth these days. "Nothing new. The same thing. Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla. He's angry." George W.'s adopted Texas drawl is wearing thin on the American ear drums. The blockbuster success of "Fahrenheit 9-11" (to include theaters near military installations) is evidence that America is tired of drinking at the trough of spin by Bush and Company.

Even John Kerry seems to transform under the spell of Jack and Emma Claire. Within a week, the dynamic duo (Jack and Emma Clarie that is) have transformed a dry, repetitious, restrained, practiced, stiff John F. Kerry into an energetic, smiling, joking, dotting grandfather-like engaging candidate. Until last week, only a crowd of Vietnam Vets could move Kerry out of his shell. Times have changed. People are starting to actually like Kerry.

The Edwards duo not only instills a sense of youth, fun and hope, but they also remind us of our responsibility to our children. The future of America is not about us, it's about them.

There is a great clip in "Fahrenheit 9-11" where President Bush addresses a group of donors at a black-tie event. He says, "There are the haves and the have mores. Some call you wealthy, I call you my base." Well, the president's so-called "base" has driven his policy initiatives, which include wild deficit spending, tax cuts for "the have mores," and enormous corporate entitlement programs that replenish the troughs of the pharmaceutical industry. He financed these giveaways, in part, by cutting after-school programs. He is bankrupting the future of our children. Jack and Emma Claire remind us that we can do better by our children and we must.

This does not bode well for Bush and Company. During the primaries, Republican insiders told me they feared Edwards the most. They figured Kerry's negative charisma factor was no match for the swaggering, ever upbeat G.W. Bush. Now they've got the worst of all possible worlds on their hands, Edwards times three, plus a new commander in chief who actually fought in a uniform vs. modeled one. I think it's time someone see if they can pull John-John and Caroline's old swing set out of moth balls. It's going to be needed this coming spring.

President Bush gives in to terrorists

By Ellen Ratner
It's important to pay attention to the actions, not the words when it comes to Bush administration policy. President Bush says we will not give into terrorists. His actions speak much louder.

Osama bin Laden demanded the U.S. military get out of Saudi Arabia. We are mostly out. They demanded that we get out of Iraq. And now this administration cannot drop the Iraqi hot potato quickly enough to satisfy their Campaign 2004 agenda, even if it means turning Iraq over to some nebulous quasi-Iraqi entity with no control of their security or money.



The latest al-Qaida demand came this week when they demanded all Westerners out of Saudi Arabia. The State Department dutifully issued a warning that all 30,000-plus U.S. citizens should leave the Magic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ASAP. Secretary Powell, in an interview with Radio America, then contradicted his own State Department's warning.

The administration insists these moves are not giving into terrorists. What? How can it be otherwise? They make a demand and we comply with it. Oh sure, if we capture one of the suspected terrorists, they will rot in jail until they die of natural causes, or "accidental death." Otherwise, we comply with their demands and cower to their intimidation tactics.

I must admit, however, that I don't know what other course of action would be appropriate given the circumstances. George Bush's policies have included the pre-Sept. 11 abandonment of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, the post-Sept. 11 pre-emptive strike policy, the invasion of Iraq, the continued coddling of a Saudi royal family whose hundreds of members have provided the oxygen for al-Qaida to survive and thrive (ironically, these same terrorists may overthrow the rich royals) and the list goes on.

The net effect of President Bush's leadership is that America is squarely in the backyard of the terrorists with a giant bulls eye on our back. The only way to get out alive is to run. Otherwise, Americans will be the victims of people who would just as well die for Allah as pray to Him. It's hard to beat an enemy that believes death is a reward.

OK, so we've given into the terrorists and we continue to do so – what's my point? My point is that George W. Bush has sacrificed at least 600 young lives and thousands of wounded and innocent civilians ... for what? In the end, he acquiesced. He threw in the towel.

The Marines in Fallujah are a great example – they fought hard and paid an enormous price to root out the insurgency ... for what? Fallujah is now controlled by Saddam's pals who are simply regrouping to fight another day, as the Marines say. What message does this send to our troops and their families? There is no other way to put this: These young Marines died in vain. This defeat is, and will continue to exact a price. How much longer will our military fight for their commander in chief?

Some say: But what about Saddam's plans to perpetrate terrorist attacks against the United States? Surely that was cause to spill American blood. OK, even if you grant this highly suspect claim, the argument can be made that nothing has changed. The Iraqis, under new management, are still planning terrorist attacks against the United States – only it's easier and cheaper now because they don't have to get on a plane to attack Americans. We went to them.

Meanwhile, as we look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, our own weapons of mass destruction remain unguarded. The TV show "60 minutes" ran a story last week detailing the pathetic state of chemical-plant security in the United States. Sen. John Corzine of New Jersey can't get the president's attention – he's too busy flying around the country addressing the troops. Again, viola! Al-Qaida saves the shipping costs.

I am continually amazed that life goes on in America as though nothing has happened. I suppose it's no wonder that most Americans feel no link to the sacrifice or pain of those who have been the causalities of this president's ignorance and arrogance. After all, Wal-Mart is having a sale, there is plenty of "reality-TV" programs to choose from, fuel dropped six cents a gallon, and the tax breaks may be permanent.

It's time to wake up. We need new leadership. George W. Bush prides himself on being a determined leader who stays the course. Show me where he has stayed the course? What he has done is talk a mighty big talk, but walked a chicken walk. His decisions have been so pathetically bad that he has had no other choice. This isn't leadership, this is arrogance and incompetence and hot air.

The biggest problem is that he's not simply risking his political career, he's risking our lives – and for what? Absolutely nothing!

President Bush gives in to terrorists

By Ellen Ratner
It's important to pay attention to the actions, not the words when it comes to Bush administration policy. President Bush says we will not give into terrorists. His actions speak much louder.

Osama bin Laden demanded the U.S. military get out of Saudi Arabia. We are mostly out. They demanded that we get out of Iraq. And now this administration cannot drop the Iraqi hot potato quickly enough to satisfy their Campaign 2004 agenda, even if it means turning Iraq over to some nebulous quasi-Iraqi entity with no control of their security or money.



The latest al-Qaida demand came this week when they demanded all Westerners out of Saudi Arabia. The State Department dutifully issued a warning that all 30,000-plus U.S. citizens should leave the Magic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ASAP. Secretary Powell, in an interview with Radio America, then contradicted his own State Department's warning.

The administration insists these moves are not giving into terrorists. What? How can it be otherwise? They make a demand and we comply with it. Oh sure, if we capture one of the suspected terrorists, they will rot in jail until they die of natural causes, or "accidental death." Otherwise, we comply with their demands and cower to their intimidation tactics.

I must admit, however, that I don't know what other course of action would be appropriate given the circumstances. George Bush's policies have included the pre-Sept. 11 abandonment of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process, the post-Sept. 11 pre-emptive strike policy, the invasion of Iraq, the continued coddling of a Saudi royal family whose hundreds of members have provided the oxygen for al-Qaida to survive and thrive (ironically, these same terrorists may overthrow the rich royals) and the list goes on.

The net effect of President Bush's leadership is that America is squarely in the backyard of the terrorists with a giant bulls eye on our back. The only way to get out alive is to run. Otherwise, Americans will be the victims of people who would just as well die for Allah as pray to Him. It's hard to beat an enemy that believes death is a reward.

OK, so we've given into the terrorists and we continue to do so – what's my point? My point is that George W. Bush has sacrificed at least 600 young lives and thousands of wounded and innocent civilians ... for what? In the end, he acquiesced. He threw in the towel.

The Marines in Fallujah are a great example – they fought hard and paid an enormous price to root out the insurgency ... for what? Fallujah is now controlled by Saddam's pals who are simply regrouping to fight another day, as the Marines say. What message does this send to our troops and their families? There is no other way to put this: These young Marines died in vain. This defeat is, and will continue to exact a price. How much longer will our military fight for their commander in chief?

Some say: But what about Saddam's plans to perpetrate terrorist attacks against the United States? Surely that was cause to spill American blood. OK, even if you grant this highly suspect claim, the argument can be made that nothing has changed. The Iraqis, under new management, are still planning terrorist attacks against the United States – only it's easier and cheaper now because they don't have to get on a plane to attack Americans. We went to them.

Meanwhile, as we look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, our own weapons of mass destruction remain unguarded. The TV show "60 minutes" ran a story last week detailing the pathetic state of chemical-plant security in the United States. Sen. John Corzine of New Jersey can't get the president's attention – he's too busy flying around the country addressing the troops. Again, viola! Al-Qaida saves the shipping costs.

I am continually amazed that life goes on in America as though nothing has happened. I suppose it's no wonder that most Americans feel no link to the sacrifice or pain of those who have been the causalities of this president's ignorance and arrogance. After all, Wal-Mart is having a sale, there is plenty of "reality-TV" programs to choose from, fuel dropped six cents a gallon, and the tax breaks may be permanent.

It's time to wake up. We need new leadership. George W. Bush prides himself on being a determined leader who stays the course. Show me where he has stayed the course? What he has done is talk a mighty big talk, but walked a chicken walk. His decisions have been so pathetically bad that he has had no other choice. This isn't leadership, this is arrogance and incompetence and hot air.

The biggest problem is that he's not simply risking his political career, he's risking our lives – and for what? Absolutely nothing!