The campaign drags on - episodes like McCain accusing Obama of hating on Joe the Plumber merging with episodes like a reporter being kicked at a Palin rally, into a single tarry mass - bringing to mind the image from Yeats’ “Second Coming” of a “rough beast” “slouching” toward The End.

And as things veer increasingly toward the violent, the terrified, the siege mentality, another line from the poem echoes fearfully loud:

” The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Indeed, there is too much passionate intensity among the racists, brutes and bullies. But do the best lack all conviction?

No. In fact, if anything, this fierce reaping has cast the best into relief, as they’re the ones the worst are pointing fingers at. Nowhere is this more evident than on the Right.

First it was Kathleen Parker, conservative columnist for the flagship of conservative publications, The National Review. Parker made waves recently by roundly criticizing Sarah Palin after the Couric interviews, and being reamed by an alleged “12,000 e-mails” and counting - ranging from declarations that she should have been aborted to denunciations of her as not a “true conservative,” and those are the nice ones, according to her.

So it was with a bit more discretion that libertarian leading light and heir to National Review founder William F. Buckley’s estate, Christopher Buckley, endorsed Obama. In his article, “Sorry, Dad, I’m Voting for Obama,” Buckley writes:

“Obama has in him—I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric—the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.”

For any unconvinced conservatives out there who’ve soured on Obama, this sage, caustic man’s revolutionary appraisal of the candidate is an indispensable read.

The same can be said for the article about his subsequent denunciation by the right-wing and tense resignation from the magazine his father founded: “Sorry, Dad, I Was Fired”

While I regret this development, I am not in mourning, for I no longer have any clear idea what, exactly, the modern conservative movement stands for. Eight years of “conservative” government has brought us a doubled national debt, ruinous expansion of entitlement programs, bridges to nowhere, poster boy Jack Abramoff and an ill-premised, ill-waged war conducted by politicians of breathtaking arrogance.

Has the modern “conservative” GOP abandoned its conservative roots, and with them, scholarship and intellect? Increasingly this seems so to me. And at the very least, Kathleen Parker argues in her article supporting Buckley’s self-sacrificing stance for his principles, it is separating those who suppress thought from those who champion it even in difficult times:

Radical conservatives are still having an interesting time of it, though these days they are being mutilated by fellow “conservatives.” The well-fed Right now cultivates ignorance as a political strategy and humiliates itself when its brightest sons seek sanctuary in the solitude of personal honor. … Republicans are not short on brainpower — or pride — but they have strayed off course.

How many brightest sons languish in self-exile, or after being swept to the margins? Certainly Frank Schaeffer, pro-life activist, and Douglas Kmiec, conservative legal eminence and acclaimed scholar, come to mind. Both have endorsed Obama as the sole, best hope of reducing abortions available to us, and both have been denounced by the rabble for it - Kmiec even being denied communion one occasion on the basis of that endorsement.

If we can put aside the divisions that old-time partisans have stoked for so long to our disadvantage, more people might see abortion as a product of societal indifference and individual callousness: the former exemplified by economic conditions ranging from inadequate wages to evictions traceable to the subprime fraud; the latter typified by a self-centeredness that sees children as competitors or enemies to personal fulfillment.

And certainly there are the others I have referenced in past posts.

No brightest son better embodies this phenomenon than the man who many expect will, come the end of next week or the week after, capture the news cycle with his endorsement of Obama: Collin Powell.

For many, Powell represents the wise, humble voice that tried to steer the Bush administration away from war and was instead shouted down by the arrogant, self-interested apparatchiks like Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz. He sullied his reputation for many at the UN, was ignominiously cashiered come the end of Bush’s first time, and as since been out of sight - like an old trophy commemorating the intellectual prudence and moral involvement of the Republican party, now gathering dust.

If all indications are correct, that trophy will soon come crashing down to seal the fate of bullying, gut-based conservatism. I eagerly await that.

The brightest sons and daughters want their party back. With voices like Parker, Buckley and Kmeic, they deserve it.

And all of us deserve a better President than the man who, once as fierce a critic of those “worst” among the right, now fights for them with the “passionate intensity” of desperation.

* UPDATE * The conservative Chicago Tribune just endorsed Obama, their first Democratic Party candidate endorsement in the 161 year history of the paper.

* UPDATE II * In Philadelphia, conservative Talk Radio host Michael Smerconish endorsed Obama on his show today, “for the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago … voting for a Democrat.”

America’s body politic is getting worse before it gets better - John McCain’s campaign has adopted hatred as the one and only plank in its case for power over the free world.

I make note of this because I think everyone deserves to put this in the proper context: There has not, for over a century, been a campaign that has resorted to what McCain is now. Nixon, for all his ruthlessness, did not brand Humphrey or McGovern a terrorist. Clinton’s “War Room” did not fire the salvo that George H. W. Bush was not a real American.

They never resorted to galvanizing rage; to whipping up crowds with claims of their opponent collaborating closely with terrorists. They have lost and won with the understanding that such obscenity is not something Americans do - regardless of policy difference.

It is not because they were not able. McGovern shook hands with many radical leaders in the 70s. Bush was involved in Iran-Contra, where secret drug-financed funds fed cash to rebels who performed unspeakable atrocities on innocent civilians. The ground for upset, for rage at wrongdoing, could be laid there. It wasn’t.

It hasn’t been until now. And now, with Obama being called a “traitor“, the “pal” of a “terrorist,” and a “socialist,” it is consuming one side of the electorate. It is more than an aspect of the McCain-Palin campaign. It has become the furious, beating heart of it.

Some people are turning away from it, and rightly so. If anything, the conservative elements should be even quicker to excise the cancer from their party, and many have - of late, Maureen Dowd joined the ranks of Noonan, Will, Frum, Brooks and others.

But what is disturbing is that many have embraced it. People were afraid and agitated even before the financial crisis of the last few weeks, and now have been put into a fever pitch. The conservative economic pillars of deregulation and trickle-down were found to be too extreme, too corrupt in their current incarnation, and collapsed. And so those who supported them found themselves having to choose - re-evaluate and change, or dig in and go down fighting.

It is on that last instinct - the stubborn, the willfully ignorant, the prejudiced - that the McCain campaign has depended on. They have taken people’s fear and hurt, and given it a target - just as the Nazis did with the Jews in Germany, just as the Bolsheviks did with the moderates and nobles in Russia. Rather than let people look inward for soul-searching, McCain, and Palin especially, have encouraged them to rage outward.

The results are alarming.  Watch them.

Rather than be alarmed, or even express concern, the McCain campaign has only encouraged the fortress mentality, the crusader anger, of its followers.

That anyone criticizes them, is grounds for them to attack.

It is an understatement to say that this is not Presidential behavior. It is, in fact, behavior that mirrors the very radicalism it supposed denounces: It brings to mind ghosts of the most violent of the Black Panthers, the fury of the American Nazi Party and the accusations of debauched Joe McCarthy. It is the real darkness in America, made all the worse by its perpetrators passing it off with a smile and a wink.

But it is not humorous, nor mere gamesmanship, nor even remotely responsible. It is, as commentator Barry Yourgren observes, the prelude to bloodshed. For as much as people may try to dismiss it as simply another “tactic,” as if that euphemism salved all political wounds, the fact is that violent political speech is the seed of violent political action.

We are only forty years beyond our last major political assassination. Twenty-six years past the last major attempt. Only twelve years ago, a right-wing Israeli shot “traitor” Prime Minister Rabin before he could seal peace with the Palestinians.

Unless we want to go down that same road, we have to correct our course. Those who are already supporters of Obama can do this only by missives like this, for it is in the control of the conservatives - the GOP - to condemn their champion’s crass and dangerous actions.

Hearteningly, the change has begun. As I noted above and in previous articles, many conservatives are criticizing McCain and shifting their support. And on the basis of Obama’s policy and temperament, and McCain’s lack thereof, many voters are changing sides - from Christian independents here in California to small business owners in Florida. We can only hope it continues.

We can only hope that people see that the person best to lead in the future is the one not working to inspire darkness in the soul of our present.

At last, some answers as to the controversy as to whether Sarah Palin, as Mayor of Wasilla, saw to it that rape victims had to pay $500 to $1,200 for their forensic exams.

They come in the form of a CNN investigation on the subject:

To add some further context, the police chief mentioned in the story is the one Palin appointed after firing the previous chief for “not sharing her vision” - namely, for wanting to close the bars at 2am rather than 5am.

I am glad to find some perspective on this story between the extreme poles of Townhall.com and Daily Kos. I post it here in order to resolve one of the more disturbing controversies of late.

Lies.

It’s said every politician commits them. Its said that’s to be expected. It is, therefore, assumed that it balances out.

I reject this at least in part - the part that finds a moral equivalence between all untruths. The term “little white lie” can be dismissed by a truth-stickler as just an excuse, but the premise that there are degrees of dishonesty is no excuse.

If someone lies about whether they returned your call, it’s one thing. If they lie about you having molested or murdered children, it’s another.

If your President lies about his sex life, it’s one thing. If they lie about an imminent nuclear threat that needs to be countered by vast, heart-wrenching sacrifice by hundreds of thousands, it’s another.

So here I have decided to do a thorough vetting of lies told by both sides - all four candidates on the major tickets. I do this in the interest of research - so that you can tell your friends that you are abreast of the issues; you know what’s going on.

So that you can decide which lies matter most to you, and which suggest a sin of omission as opposed to deliberate and cynical treachery.

And so that you can do an audit of your own feelings about honesty, about how much of a premium you put on it, and why. Mind you, I will not be including accusations of “lies” that were exposed as lies themselves. I will, however, be noting blatant flip-flops. If you say your position is something, then specifically oppose it three hours later without noting that you changed your position, that is a lie.

You can review them in alphabetical order, below or in linked articles, by last name.

Biden

McCain

Obama

Palin

Conclusion

Joe Biden

* The Veep Lie: Joe Biden said a few days before he was announced as Obama’s running mate that, “I’m not the guy.” He is the guy.

I mention this given that a huge number of “conservative” commentary on the internet is devoted to how this “malicious lie” shows you can’t trust Biden about anything.

* The Accident: Biden has made the claim that alcohol was allegedly involved in the truck collision that killed his family. He admits to having not looked into the involvement of alcohol. Legal investigations do not support the involvement of alcohol.

* The Kinnock Plagiarism: In the 1988 Presidential race, Biden often quoted British Labor leader Neil Kinnock’s speeches in his speeches, giving him credit. One time, he didn’t credit him. His Democratic colleague-opponents dismembered him for it.

That’s all for Biden. Good show, Joe.

Sarah Palin

* Frugality Lie: Sarah touts her reputation as someone who eliminated wasteful spending. She is about the only one in Alaska’s administrations that served with her that feels this way - namely the $50,000 redecoration of her office in Wasilla, the $20+ million she left Wasilla in debt and the exceptionally high level of earmarks she requested from the national tax payer.

* Bridge to Nowhere Lie: The bridge, which cost over $200 million, has been Palin’s showpiece for her frugality and hate of wastefulness. When she ran for governor, support of the bridge was her pet project - she even went so far as to weave it into speeches. She did turn it down, eventually when it became unpopular, but she kept the money the federal taxpayers gave her.

* Energy Supply Lie: Palin repeatedly claimed Alaska supplied 20% of the nation’s energy. She was only off by 16.5% - it supplies 3.5% of the United States’ domestically produced energy. That’s an exaggeration of only, oh, around %570.

* No Major Law Lie: Sarah likes to say Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law,” which is ridiculous, given that he has international WMD limitation, small arms limitation, government transparency legislation and international mission legislation all under his belt, just to name some of the ones he personally initiated and sponsored.

* Iraq Lie: Sarah said she visited Iraq. She got close. She visited Kuwait. They then clarified it. Then went back to the original version, where she visited the war zone.

* Private Chef Lie: Sarah claimed she dismissed the private chef. She didn’t. She just shifted the person to another part of the State’s service. Then, since she didn’t have a chef anymore, she began charging Alaska’s tax payers for her meals at home.

* eBay Plane Lie: Palin likes to repeat her yarn about selling the plane on eBay. It didn’t sell there, though; she eventually sold it for $600,000 less than the State had initially purchased it for to a major Republican contributor.

* Polar Bear Lie: In her Op-Ed strangely advocating that polar bears should not be protected as an Endangered Species, Palin cites that the state of Alaska did studies to support her assertion. Those studies actually contradict her, and she tried to suppress them.

* Troopergate Lie: After encouraging the investigation, Sarah then has used lawyers, witness suppression and personal evasion of subpoenas to block facts about her firing of a state trooper allegedly over a personal matter from coming to light.

Guiliani:

After mocking Obama’s resume in a way that belittles it and omits his achievements, Rudy asserts that “no one” can deny that McCain is ready to be Commander-in-Chief, because he’s been tested.

How has he been tested as C-in-C?  What executive command experience does he have?  What strategic command has he had?

Answer: He hasn’t.  His only strategic opinions were as a Senator.  For them, just consult the typical GOP talking points that were polling well at the time he made them.

* He also notes that McCain will lower your taxes.  Too bad McCain doesn’t note that on his Web site.  The only taxes going down are corporate taxes.

The rest of his speech is a smear - claiming defeatism about an opponent who wants to go on the offensive against bin Ladin, claiming he’s on the offensive when McCain has determinedly said he won’t go into Pakistan after al-Qaeda.

He then insults Obama’s integrity on points he misrepresents: Campaign financing and Israel.  He then claims McCain doesn’t flip-flop, when he does - more than anyone in recent history, switching positions on climate change, immigration, abortion, Iraq, offshore drilling and tax cuts.

And John McCain did break under torture and denounce his country.  He says so in his autobiography.

Palin:

Lies, lies, lies:

To clarify:

Obama is increasing the spending in government less than John McCain.

Obama is cutting taxes for more Americans than John McCain.

Obama is giving more tax cuts for small businesses and domestic industry than John McCain.

Obama is increasing our military, not cutting it.

Obama wrote, initiated, researched, galvanized and saw passed several major laws in the Senate, a number of which bear his name: Obama-Coburn (exposing earmarks and finance sources), Obama-Lugar (conventional weapons and land mines limitation, globally), Nunn-Lugar (nuclear arms limitation).  Note that most are foreign relations issues.

Obama is supporting the same strategy in Iraq as the Iraqi government and the White House has.  In fact, he pretty much designed it.  Petraeus supports it as well.

“Reading terrorists their rights” refers to his support for habeas corpus and opposition to torture, two principles that should be considered part of the spine of Democracy.

Those “business taxes” Palin mentions? They are specifically the ones that encourage outsouring to other countries.

Consider those facts when considering Obama.

And consider why Palin felt she had to lie about them in order to make her point.  Consider why Obama’s campaign did not make similar lies about McCain.

Peggy Noonan is famous for her wordcraft.

She uses words that she Frankensteins together from the muscular matter of the modern lingo.  She digs up old words, pre-Cambrian English like “obliquity” and “nabob” that surely have William F. chuckling from on high in his smoke cloud up in heaven.

And sometimes, she tells it straight.

This is one of those times.

Watch.  Then E-mail to friends.  Then watch again.

This is apparently what the thinking set of the GOP says when they think the tape’s not rolling - you know, when the impact of the truth on the public isn’t a threat to their party.

In the choice of Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has boldly declared that he stands for political victory over the safety of his country.

For me, this is what the Palin appointment comes down to - not a referendum or vivisection of Palin herself, as surely the press wants to be. The media will likely want to rifle through her garbage like the raccoons they are, ignoring the larger dire significance of the choice itself. For John McCain to appoint someone like Gov. Palin shows that his judgment is so thoroughly self-interested, he has no right to either the heavy mantle of leading the free world nor the claim to say he still stands for sacrifice above all.

I say this on the premise that McCain picked Palin for what she could bring to his poll numbers, not what talent she can lend to his presidency. The evidence for that theory abounds:

First off, she wasn’t even seriously considered for the role until last week. His aides all indicate he wanted to pick his friend, Joe Lieberman but that GOP poobahs who bank heavily on wedge votes and the religious right said they would cut him off at the knees if he chose a Democrat Jew.

That means the person McCain is entrusting the country - arguably the world - with, he met only once. Vetting consisted of some sporadic work over the last couple of months that climaxed in a rush to seize both spotlight and socially conservative votes last week.

Lastly, the results of the vetting provide a chilling anatomy of what Palin brings to the ticket. Their conclusion as to her assets run entirely counter to what McCain has told America he wanted in a Vice-President.

I think about whether that person who I select would be most prepared to take my place. And that would be the key criteria.

McCain has insisted that the chief concern for America is its foreign policy, particularly its war policy. He is quick to remind us of the rising threats abroad and that his military experience will be a critical weapon to face them. Palin’s experience does not address this at all.

This is not an attack against Palin; it is an objective recognition that her experience is not in foreign affairs and McCain’s campaign has been about how important it is that we have someone experienced to deal with our chief concern: Foreign affairs.

So, McCain either has been disingenuous about his political vision, or he’s disingenuous in picking Sarah Palin.

In either case, we can ill afford McCain. He shows himself to be erratic, poll-driven and unprepared. That is the very model of the negatives in the Bush administration that led to mistakes abroad. And whether one supports the White House or not, one must admit mistakes were made in Iraq - mistakes directly due to Bush not having prepared for the war, but having rushed into it in order to take advantage of the public support for an invasion.

Integrity on defense was the keystone of McCain’s candidacy. His pick of the person to take the reins of a world at war when and if our 72-year-old, cancer victim, war-wounded Commander-in-Chief unexpectedly dies dynamites that.

It shows that while he once put country first, he now puts polls and advisers first.