If two teams in a competition follow different rules, I’m not sure that anyone can win. Even if there can somehow be a victor, it is bound to be a messy, maddening affair.

This is what is happening with twenty-odd days to go before the presidential election. The McCain campaign seems to have created one set of rules for John McCain, and another for Barack Obama. Here’s how.

McCain Rule #1: You are responsible and may be implicated for every action ever taken by anyone you have ever served on a board or committee with

The McCain campaign announced their new rules with one name: Ayers.

As messenger, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin has delivered dozens of speeches in which she uses Bill Ayers to raise questions not only about Barack Obama’s motives, but about who the democratic nominee for president even is.

The argument from McCain and Palin goes as follows: Barack Obama and Bill Ayers served on the same board for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Also, Ayers, thirty years after ceasing his despicable ways, and many years into his post as a professor at a respected university, hosted a fundraising meeting for Obama toward the beginning of Obama’s political career. Thus, according to the McCain-Palin logic, Obama is “palling around with domestic terrorists” and can’t be trusted.

The major logical flaw here is this: The Annenberg Challenge was a non-profit organization whose goal was to promote public school reform in Chicago. Its parent organization was founded by a woman named Leonore Annenberg. Leonore Annenberg is a vocal supporter of Senator John McCain.

So, just to make the irony and the connection clear: a prominent endorser of Senator McCain created the education foundation that had Barack Obama and Bill Ayers (as well as a number of Republicans) on one of its boards. Were the number of Republicans on that board, and is Leonore Annenberg herself, “palling around” with Bill Ayers, too? Or is Barack Obama the only one who is guilty by association?

There’s also the very troubling issue of a few of John McCain’s past associations. There’s McCain’s “old friend” Gordon Libby, a felon who spend years in federal prison for his part in Watergate. There’s McCain’s associate Ralph Reed, a key figure in the Abrahmoff scandal. There’s McCain’s associate Carl Lindner, Jr., a man who gave approximately $1.7 million dollars to a paramilitary group that is now designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. By McCain’s Rule #1, we should question and doubt John McCain for each of these shady associations. Because he knows and has worked with these people, he should be held responsible for their actions.

Doesn’t John McCain see that, if a candidate is not only judged by but inextricably linked to anyone who has ever hosted a campaign event or provided major political support for him, then that leaves McCain himself linked to a convicted felon, a figure in one of the highest-profile political scandals of the decade, and a supporter of terrorism?

McCain Rule #2, as recently adopted by his staunch supporters: If anyone you have ever associated with has unsavory, despicable characteristics, then you yourself share these unsavory despicable characteristics

McCain’s Rule #2 has been applied most liberally to Obama’s associations with Ayers and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. To be clear, Ayers’ stupid, unpatriotic actions should be denounced; this is obvious, and Obama has said so on a number of occasions. Similarly, Jeremiah Wright should be called a fool for his anti-American rants and offensive, hyperbolic rhetoric. Again, Obama has fully separated himself from Wright, and from every anti-American comment this man ever made (even those he made when Obama wasn’t even in the congregation).

Yet this rule requires us to further abandon reason, and believe not only that Obama is guilty by association, but that he actually shares the same characteristics and opinions as any unsavory person he has ever been associated with. McCain’s Rule #2, in spite of being illogical and unfair, has clearly been embraced by some of his supporters, as evidenced by the shouts of “treason!” and “terrorist!” after Barack Obama’s name is mentioned at McCain and Palin rallies.

Did Sarah Palin need to renounce the pastor who made absurd accusations about an Alaskan woman and warned congregants about the dangers of witchcraft, while Palin herself was not only in attendance at the church, but called up on stage as a participant? Would John McCain assert that, because Sarah Palin sat in church and listened to this man, she herself must share his opinions?

We can also go back to McCain’s friend (McCain has called him that) Gordon Liddy. Liddy is most well-known for spending four years in prison for his involvement in the Watergate scandal, but his less-reported behavior is arguably the most troubling.

McCain’s friend Gordon Liddy has asserted that listening to recordings of Hitler’s speeches made him feel “a strength inside [he] had never known before.” Liddy proposed kidnapping anti-war activists during the 1972 Republican National Convention. His documented advice to Branch Dividian cult members about how to fight the law enforcement officers trying to stop them in Waco was: “Give them a firefight. Just remember, they’re wearing flak jackets and you’re better off shooting for the head.” Shooting for the head of members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who were trying to protect innocent Americans. That certainly constitutes promoting violence against the government.

Has McCain renounced this Gordon Liddy for encouraging violence against the government, for his participation in Watergate, for his idolization of Adolf Hitler, or for his proposal to kidnap Americans exercising their right to free speech? He has not. In fact, McCain has called Liddy “an old friend,” and said to Liddy on his radio show recently, “I’m proud of you.” McCain has accepted $1000 in campaign donations from Gordon Liddy this year alone.

That should be bad enough, but McCain Rule #2 leads even further. McCain has applied this rule to Obama on a regular basis, so let’s see what happens if we apply it to McCain.

By McCain’s own rule, McCain not only “pals around with” convicted felons who in their past have plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government, McCain himself has plotted and incited violence against the U.S. government. By McCain’s own rule, because one of his associates wanted to shoot government officials in the head, so too does John McCain want to shoot government officials in the head. By McCain’s own rule, because he knows Liddy, McCain must sympathize with every past or present bad deed done by Liddy, and thus McCain must also draw strength from Adolf Hitler and advocate the kidnapping of dissenters. Treason! Terrorist!

Does the absurdity and unfairness of this argument make your skin crawl? It should.

McCain Rule #3: This rule does not apply to John McCain or Sarah Palin

Well, shoot. Never mind, then. Silly me, thinking that John McCain’s own rules should apply not only to his opponent, but to him as well.

I am the last person who will say that we shouldn’t ask questions of each other and of our leaders. We have every right to seek information and to hold our candidates accountable, and to keep pressing at those gnawing questions until we are satisfied. That is one of our responsibilities as voters.

Yet an equally important responsibility is to be fair enough to ask those questions of both sides, and to accept that some questions may not lead to the exact answer we were hoping for or that will help us make our case. I don’t maintain that every question Americans have asked about Barack Obama has led to answers that cast him in an ideal light. But for the sake of fairness and honesty, we should acknowledge that the same is true of many of the questions Americans have asked about John McCain.

In a divided and frustrated country during what is by all accounts a difficult era, I bet most of us can all still agree on a few things. Like when we set rules, the rules should count for all players in the game. When we set standards, it is only right to apply those standards to everyone equally, and to give honest due to the truth we find, whether is applies to friend or foe.

It may sound quaint, but I think these ideas go all the way back to pre-school for me. It was there that I learned a pledge–one we made every day, to our country, and to each other. That pledge is about the most fundamental elements of America, like one nation, indivisibility, and liberty. It ends with an idea that is as important now as it has ever been: justice.

Justice for all.

Taxes

Obama on McCain: McCain ”proposes a $300 billion tax cut, a continuation not only of the Bush tax cuts, but an additional $200 billion that he’s going to give to big corporations, including big oil companies, $4 billion worth.” Further, ”McCain is proposing tax cuts that would give the average Fortune 500 CEO an additional $700,000 in tax cuts.”

McCain on Obama: ”He wants to raise taxes,” including on the middle class. Further, ”Obama has voted 94 times to either increase your taxes or against tax cuts.”

Being Responsible with Your Vote

Imagine, if you will, the following fictitious presidential nominees:

Candidate A:

Black male, born in Central America. He has a Bachelor’s degree from the US Naval Academy, where he was ranked 894 in a class of 899. His first marriage ended in divorce (the candidate admitted to having an affair during his first marriage). Second marriage is to a woman 18 years younger than him, whose most notable negative mark on her reputation is that she went to rehab for a prescription drug addiction, in order not to face criminal charges. Candidate A’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is temperamental, aggressive, and “rough around the edges.”

Candidate B:

White male, born in the United States. He has a Bachelor’s degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard, where he held the top position on the Harvard Law Review. Candidate B is has been married to the same woman, who is three years younger than him, for sixteen years; her most notable negative mark is that she said, in response to her husband’s success in the presidential primaries, that she was “really proud of” the country “for the first time in [her] adult lifetime.” Candidate B’s most-criticized personality traits are that he is too reserved, intellectual, and “professorial.”

Who wins?

Fooling Ourselves

We hope that American prejudice has diminished over time, and there are certainly significant indications that it has. Yet to claim that prejudice–including, yes, that most-avoided word, racism–no longer plays a role in this country is to belie one’s inability or unwillingness to analyze basic facts.

YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Barack Obama’s church that happened on a day when he was not even in attendance dominate the news cycle and elicit outrage for weeks. YouTube videos of outrageous goings-on at Sarah Palin’s church, in which she is an actual participant in the goings-on, get little attention and certainly elicit no calls for a denouncement, public apology, or long, explanatory speech about her faith.

When the black candidate has a law degree and an Ivy-league education, he is an “elite” and “out of touch” man whom Americans claim they can’t identify with. Did we say the same about George W. Bush, who went to Yale? I don’t seem to recall President Bush’s Ivy-league education (nor having attended one of the most elite all-boys private high schools) being cited as a reason not to vote for him as he sought to become the leader of our country.

Differing Standards of Tolerance

Then there is the question of what sort of personality and emotional displays we permit in our candidates. McCain is known for having a fiery temper and an aggressive approach to politics. Lately, his integrity has come into question as a number of non-partisan fact-check organizations have accused him of including blatant falsehoods in his campaign advertising. Would the American people tolerate this in a black candidate?

When asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” in a reference to Hillary Clinton, McCain chuckled and answered the question. To be sure, Senator McCain caught flack for this, but it certainly didn’t do permanent damage to his campaign. Fortunately for Obama, there is no parallel blunder on his side to cite. We can’t be sure how the American people would react if Senator Obama laughed at and responded to a mean and disrespectful attack on a woman. But we can imagine.

Similarly, if Barack Obama stood in front of a crowd and sang about bombing other countries to the tune of the Beach Boys, would most Americans continue to think of him as “presidential”?

American prejudice has not gone away. It has just become more nuanced, more subversive, and harder to identify behind the many masks it wears. Apply the “reverse roles” trick though, and there it is, rearing its ugly and stubborn head right in the middle of the most important election this country has seen in decades.

Want more fodder? Nicholas Kristof’s excellent Op-Ed in The New York Times addresses conservative strategy of “otherizing” Obama.

The latest breaking news is that congressional negotiations of the financial bailout have come to a halt. Congressman Barney Frank announced to the press this evening that Republican representatives refused to continue the process of reaching an agreement on the bailout, asserting that they need additional time to devise a more acceptable plan.

Based on today’s timeline, it would seem that this deterioration is closely linked to Senator John McCain’s involvement in the crisis. Prior to the Republican nominee’s arrival in Washington, most indications showed that Congress was likely to come to an agreement by the week’s (if not the day’s) end.

As the day wore on, however, John McCain became increasingly involved in the congressional process. He proposed the idea of introducing a significantly altered or potentially new plan to solve the financial crisis. Accusations of political partisanship flew from one side of the aisle to the other. Republicans claimed that Democrats were going to refuse to support the bailout; Democrats said the same of Republicans.

Toying with a great American virtue

Americans have an impressive history (recent history, at least) of unity during times of extreme crisis. When our future is tangibly on the line, when tall buildings or centuries-old institutions are collapsing, our collective gut reaction is to face a challenge together, as one group of dynamic, resilient, spirited Americans. In times of extreme crisis, politics play second fiddle to old fashioned American problem-solving. This is one of our great strengths.

The snowballing economic problems we face most certainly qualify as an extreme crisis. Hence we found ourselves, this morning, relieved that politics were not going to get in the way. We were met with the heartening news that our leaders were brokering an agreement that would soon pass Congress.

Enter Politics

As the day wore on, though, speculation and analysis triggered by Senator McCain’s actions began to dominate the news cycle. Quickly, reports about the financial crisis were inextricable from news about political maneuverings. In introducing himself into the process, McCain reintroduced politics into a process that, previously, was largely and necessarily de-politicized

Thus we find ourselves tonight, clicking on the “Economy” page of our favorite news site and reading about the campaigns. We click on the “Election ‘08″ page and find that the top story is about the financial crisis. The two are one.

And in a more dire example of the same effect, politics weaseled their way into the greatest financial collapse this country has seen in nearly eighty years. We find ourselves absorbing the latest news with disbelief, dread.

The deal fell apart?

They want more time? Aren’t most experts saying we don’t have any more time?

What now? What next?

Read the full story here