Barring a miracle, Troy Davis will die by lethal injection on Monday night. With the election so close you can taste it, nobody wants to talk about an execution.   A rally is scheduled for 6:00 pm on October 23rd on the steps of the Georgia State Capitol and I plan to be there.  

The state-sanctioned death of Troy Davis will receive a few passing mentions in the major newspapers and thirty seconds on CNN.  Davis has some high-profile supporters (Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu, the Pope, Amnesty International) and that’s enough to warrant a few equal-and-opposite quotes from supporters and state officials. 

Then our eyes will drift back to the horse race between Barack Obama and John McCain and the plight of Troy Davis affair will be forgotten.

Don’t expect the presidential candidates to defend an innocent man.  John McCain has enough problems with the Republican base without taking up for a convicted cop killer.  This late in the game, the disciplined Obama campaign isn’t going to hand McCain a Willie Horton moment.

So I decided to invest money I don’t have in a protest no one will notice.  I’m flying to Atlanta because I can.  Many of you would stand up for Troy in Atlanta if you could, but you can’t.  If you want me to stand proxy for you let me know (all contributions gratefully received).

Politicians and quarterbacks think the same.  Up by ten late in the game, Team Obama is running the ball straight into the line while Team McCain runs trick plays and guns for the end zone.  The caution of the Democrat and the increasing desperation of his Republican challenger tell us things about America we’d rather not know.

Although Barack Obama styles himself as an agent of change, his campaign, from the outset, has been a model of disciplined caution.  Having studied the losing strategies of Democratic presidential campaigns over the last few decades, Obama understands that what you say isn’t nearly as important as what you don’t say. 

Any impression that you are weak on national defense and terrorism, soft on crime, insufficiently patriotic or too attentive to the needs of the poor and the underprivileged spells death for Democrats.  Which explains why a progressive politician from Chicago presents himself as pro death penalty, supportive of the war in Afghanistan, opposed to gay marriage and a champion of the middle class who rarely mentions poor folks and avoids all contact with Muslim Americans.

The Democrat has come to terms with the unpleasant realities of Middle America.  He tells us who we are.  Colin Powell can stand up for Muslim Americans (and thank God he did), but Powell isn’t running for president.

John McCain hates gutter politics, but the realities of American life give leave him with no alternative.  If he thought the high road would carry him to victory he would take it.  But his handlers gave him a choice: whine about Bill Ayres and socialism or wave the white flag.  And if the candidate is too principled to sing the praises of pro America real Americans, then you bring in the surrogates to do it. 

Watching this hate parade from the curb, we learn a few more unpleasant truths about America.  We are desperately afraid of terrorists, criminals and folks who don’t look, speak and pray like we do.  We aren’t all that way, but Republican strategists are hoping that more than 50% of us are. 

John McCain knows the low road probably won’t take him to the White House.  After sacrificing the last vestige of personal dignity he will be remembered as the guy who lost to Barack Obama in ’08. 

But maybe, just maybe, he can still turn this thing around.  That’s what keeps him going.

Obama’s caution tells us that America remains a fearful center-right empire heavily invested in military might and mass incarceration.  This year’s Democratic hopeful can’t rush back to Arkansas to preside over the execution of a mentally retarded man.  The last successful Democratic presidential candidate took no pleasure in this crude guesture, but the times demanded it.  Once elected, Clinton punted on health care reform and turned his attention to a massive omnibus crime bill he knew would enjoy bipartisan support.  Politics ain’t beanbag.

Barack Obama knows he can’t intercede for Troy Davis–politics is the art of the possible.

Fortunately, most of us aren’t preachers, politicians or bank presidents and are therefore free to follow the dictates of conscience.  My conscience tells me to get up at 4:30 tomorrow morning so I can be at DFW by 6:00.  To be honest, it feels like a futile gesture.  One more anonymous face at a Troy Davis rally isn’t going to change anything.  

But maybe, just maybe, we can still turn this thing around.  That’s what keeps me going.

Troy Davis is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Monday, October 27th at 7:00 pm.  Amnesty International is sponsoring a rally at the Georgia State capitol this Thursday, October 23rd and is calling for people of all faiths to make next weekend a time of prayer.  Details below:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/uploads/file/TroyDavisSolidarityRalliesOct23.pdf

STAND FIRM FOR JUSTICE!
Global Day of Action for Troy Davis
Thursday, October 23rd

Troy Davis was denied clemency by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles on Friday, September 12, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear his petition on October 14. This means that he may be scheduled for execution in the very near future. There will be a large rally at the state capitol in Atlanta, GA on October 23. Please organize solidarity rallies or other public events to demand justice for Troy Davis on this date.
IMPORTANT! This is a GLOBAL call to action. Please email jcohn@aiusa.org with a time and place of your event.

AT YOUR EVENT:
Make and bring signs that say “I am Troy Davis!”, or “We Are Troy Davis!”; you may also hold up enlarged photos of Troy Davis Emphasize that this execution is taking place despite that fact that Troy Davis’ strong claims of innocence have never been resolved. Express your sympathies for the family of Troy Davis and the family of Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Emphasize that this execution, like all executions, will solve nothing and only add to the pain caused by the original crime. Call for abolition of the death penalty.

IDEAS FOR SOLIDARITY EVENTS:
Candlelight vigils (religious or secular) – Provide at least one speaker to put the event in context and to open and close the event. If possible, you might want to close the event with music or singing (the tone should be somber and serious). Be sure to provide candles and signs and/or banners with brief versions of the above messages. Have Troy Davis fact sheets on hand to give to interested passersby. Public rallies – Provide a few speakers, and a bullhorn or microphone. If possible, you might also want to include music or singing in the event (the tone should be somber and serious). Be sure to provide signs and/or banners with brief versions of the above messages. Have Troy Davis fact sheets on hand to give to interested passersby. Prayer service – Go here – http://salsa.net/peace/vigilsvc.html – for an example of an execution watch prayer service.

RESOURCES: Photos and fact sheets are available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/troydavis.

Barring a legal miracle, Troy Davis will be executed sometime between October 27th and November 3rd.

If you have been following the Troy Davis story you will have heard a lot about witnesses who have recanted their original testimony.  Some said they saw Davis pull the trigger.  Some testified that Davis had privately confessed to the crime.  And then there are those who insist that another man, Sylvester “Red” Coles, did the shooting.  Some are willing to testify that they heard Coles confess to the murder.

Fear is the glue holding all these accounts together.  Fear of the police; fear of retaliation; fear of being implicated in a dangerous business; even fear of an interminable interrogation.  Again and again, witnesses insist that they broke down after hours of interrogation and told the police “what they wanted to hear”.  Here is the major flaw in the Davis case: the investigation was handled by traumatized officers still suffering from grief and shock.  It was like asking the father of a murder victim to solve the case.

The men and women who signed the abridged affidavits that appear below are not particularly admirable people.  They lied under oath, or they refused to step forward until it was too late.  But eventually they did the right thing.

Or did they?  Three Georgia jurists found these statements compelling; four did not.  According to the law, Troy Davis must die because he failed to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.  The anti-appeals movement has been so successful that a convict must now prove innocence prior to a hearing.  The government’s case can crumble to dust, but unless you have smoking-gun proof of innocence it doesn’t matter.

Please give these affidavits a quick read and tell me if you find them credible.  Then go to the Amnesty International Troy Davis page, scroll down to the “Take Action” link, and send a letter to the Georgia board of pardons and paroles.

Affidavits Recanting Testimony or Statements Given in the Troy Davis Case

(From: Amnesty International, ‘Where is the justice for me?‘: The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia , Feb. 1, 2007)

Kevin McQueen
“The truth is that Troy never confessed to me or talked to me about the shooting of the police officer. I made up the confession from information I had heard on T.V. and from other inmates about the crimes. Troy did not tell me any of this… I have now realized what I did to Troy so I have decided to tell the truth… I need to set the record straight.”

Monty Holmes
“I told them I didn’t know anything about who shot the officer, but they kept questioning me. I was real young at that time and here they were questioning me about the murder of a police officer like I was in trouble or something. I was scared… [I]t seemed like they wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop.”

Jeffrey Sapp
“I got tired of them harassing me, and they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I
told them what they wanted to hear. I told them that Troy told me he did it, but it wasn’t true. Troy never said that or anything like it. When it came time for Troy’s trial, the police made it clear to me that I needed to stick to my original statement; that is, what they wanted me to say. I didn’t want to have any more problems with the cops, so I testified against Troy.”

Dorothy Ferrell
“From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the
one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had… I felt like I was just following the rest of the
witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole…I told the
detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer.”

Darrell “D.D.” Collins
“After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told
them what they wanted to hear. They would tell me things that they said had happened and I would repeat
whatever they said. … It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here
is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I could do or else I would go to jail.”

Larry Young
“I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had
been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept
pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they
wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in
my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them.”

Antoine Williams
“They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling
them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even
today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t
then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did
not read it because I cannot read.”

Robert Grizzard
“I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that the person who shot the officer was wearing a light colored shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement …”

Michael Cooper
“I have had a chance to review a statement which I supposedly gave to police officers on June 25, 1991. I
remember that they asked a lot of questions and typed up a statement which they told me to sign. I did not
read the statement before I signed. In fact, I have not seen it before today. … What is written in that
statement is a lie.”

Benjamin Gordon
“I just kept telling them that I didn’t do anything, but they weren’t hearing that. After four or five hours, they
told me to sign some papers. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I didn’t read what they told me to sign and they didn’t ask me to.”

Affidavits Containing Evidence Implicating Another Suspect in the Troy Davis Case
(From: Amnesty International, ‘Where is the justice for me?’: The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia , Feb. 1, 2007)

Joseph Washington
“I saw Sylvester Coles – I know him by the name Red – shoot the police officer. I am positive that it was Red
who shot the police officer…”

Tonya Johnson
Red then took both guns next door to an empty house and put them inside the screen door and shut the
door … he threatened me after this happened. He told me that he wanted to make sure that I did not tell the
police about the guns he hid in the screen door that morning. This is why I did not testify about the guns at
Troy’s trial because I was afraid of what Red would do to me if I did. I have not told anyone about this until
now because I was still scared… But I have decided that I must tell the truth.”

Anthony Hargrove
“I know a guy named Red, from Savannah. His real name is Sylvester Coles. I’ve known Red for years and
we used to hang out together. Red once told me that he shot a police officer and that a guy named Davis
took the fall for it. He told me this about a year or so after the officer was killed…”

Gary Hargrove
“I am sure that Red was facing in the officer’s direction when I heard the shooting. … I was never talked to
by the police or any attorneys or investigators representing Troy Davis before his trial. I didn’t go up to talk to the police that night because I was on parole at the time and was out past my curfew so I didn’t want my
parole officer to find out about that.”

Shirley Riley
“People on the streets were talking about Sylvester Coles being involved with killing the police officer so one
day I asked him if he was involved… Sylvester told me he did shoot the officer …”

Darold Taylor
“I remember reading in the paper once about how a guy named Troy Davis got sentenced to the electric
chair… One day when I was in the parking lot of Yamacraw drinking beers with Red. I told him about how I’d
heard that he was the one who killed the officer. Red told me to stay out of his business. I asked him again if he killed the officer and Red admitted to me that he was the one who killed the officer, but then Red told me again to stay out of his business.”

April Hester Hutchinson
“Red turned to me and asked me if I would walk with him up to the Burger King so ‘they won’t think that I had nothing to do with it’. That’s exactly what he said… I told [the police] that I saw Red talking to my cousin Tonya and that Red was real nervous. I did not tell them about what Red had said to me because I was
scared he would hurt me. I was thinking that if he did that to a police officer, what would he do to me? I didn’t want to die like that officer, so I kept my mouth shut.”

Anita Saddler
“When I saw Red and Terry, they were jumpy and couldn’t stand still. Their eyes were shifting around and
they were looking everywhere. They walked up to us and Red asked us to go up to Burger King and see
what happened. Like I said, they were real nervous and fidgety. Red had a gun which was stuck into his
shorts. I saw the outline of his gun through his white shirt. I had seen him with a gun many times before.”

Peggie Grant (mother of April Hester Hutchinson)
“A few hours later, April called me on the phone. She told me that she had had a conversation with Red
where he asked her to walk up with him to where the officer was shot so that the police would think that he
was with her and not think he did anything.”

The Supreme Court justices have refused to give Troy Davis a hearing.  Since Davis was convicted of killing an off-duty police officer, seven of the nine eyewitnesses who testified at trial have recanted their testimony.  Two people who did not testify at trial now report that another man has confessed to the murder. 

None of this made any impression on the the Supreme Court.

Did the court refuse to call for a hearing because the initial trial was considered fair and thorough, or do a majority of justices fear that public confidence in the justice system will erode further if the ambiguity of the Davis case is revealed? 

The big question now is whether the state of Georgia will be able to execute Troy Davis before his lawyers have a chance to get an appeal before another court.  The question could be moot: now that the Supreme Court has refused the request for a hearing it will be difficult to get a different ruling from a lower court.

The Davis case shows that the legal system is more concerned with proper procedure than with issues of guilt and innocence.  The system frowns on witnesses who change their minds and not even the kind of massive shift we have witnessed in the Davis case can overcome this predisposition.

Is it okay to execute a man who may be innocent?  This is not a question the justice system understands. 

The best initial coverage came from CNN. 

Since then, CBS has published an article that frames the Davis case as the final and bizarre conclusion of the anti-appeals movement.  The bar in Georgia is now set so high, attorney Andrew Cohen writes, that no case could possibly meet it.   According to Cohen, the Supreme non-decision “virtually guarantees that Davis will be executed despite the grave doubts about his guilt. There will be no evaluation of the Eighth Amendment in these circumstances; no considered review of the new Georgia rule; no ardent discussion between Justices Scalia and Stevens about when, if ever, a defendant like Davis can ever get that meaningful new look from the courts.”

The most telling quote appears in the New York Times piece. “Georgia is willing to risk the credibility of its whole death penalty system in carrying out this one very questionable execution,” said Steven B. Bright, a professor at Yale Law School. “The death penalty should really only be enforced in cases where there is no question about guilt, and that just cannot be said about this case.”

I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt this story will raise more than a ripple of interest from the media.

It wasn’t long ago that conservative pundit Bill Kristol was predicting a renewed “Wright is Wrong” assault on Barack Obama.  Kristol got his inside information from Sarah Palin and assumed that Number 2 provided a reliable window into the heart of Number 1.

Not so.  At least for now. 

John McCain has consistently refused use Jeremiah Wright’s “God damn America” as a blunt instrument.  Moreover, the Arizona Senator hasn’t allowed his Alaskan pit bull to drag the Chicago preacher back into the campaign.  Mike Allen’s article in Politico argues that if McCain’s advisers had their way it would be all-Jeremiah-all-the-time.

McCain has made his opponent’s ties to the now-infamous Bill Ayers the centerpiece of his campaign.  This simply deepens the mystification.  Analysts across the political spectrum have greeted the Ayers connection with skepticism.  Jeremiah Wright, on the other hand, is routinely decried as the-man-who-hates-America by white opinion leaders left, right and center.  The notion that Barack Obama’s erstwhile pastor preachers racial hatred is one of the few issues on which professional experts agree (the current passion for Wall Street welfare being another).

Since I first published this post, several readers have suggested an obvious explanation for McCain’s reluctance: he has a few preacher problems of his own, namely, the Revs. Rod Parsley and Ted Hagee. 

The apocalyptic theology of many evangelical preachers leads them to speculate endlessly about the mystical link between America (the New Israel), the Israel mentioned in the Bible and the modern state of Israel.  The real concern of these speculations is America; Israel, whether ancient or modern, comes in as a means to an end.  As a result, Jews are sometimes presented in a highly ambigous light.  Taken out of context, guys like Parsley and Hagee come off sounding downright anti-semetic.

But I doubt many pundits are willing to do the digging required to sort all of this out.  McCain’s mistake was to take endorsements from men he didn’t understand.  McCain isn’t particularly religious and can’t afford to get chest deep in the exotic waters of American evangelical theology.

Barack Obama’s situation is very different.  He didn’t just take an endorsement from influential but controversial preachers; he willingly sat under the preaching of a single man for decades.  How could Obama not know, detractors ask, that his pastor was a hate-spewing racist?  Unlike McCain, the Democratic candidate was intimately aware of the content of his preacher’s sermons. 

If John McCain tried to embarrass his opponent with the preacher issue he could expect a little media blowback, but not much.  Some people in his camp are clearly eager to play the preacher card.  So the question remains, why is McCain so reluctant to cash in?

As I have noted before, African Americans have a much more nuanced understanding of the Reverend Wright business because black preachers teach that God sometimes abandons his chosen people to the consequences of their actions. 

Take the 11th chapter of Hosea, for example.  God, speaking through the prophet, recalls how tenderly he cared for Ephraim (Israel).  “It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, I took them up in my arms; but they did not know that I healed them.  I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love, and I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them.”

But when Israel turned to idolatry and contempt for the poor, God’s blessing became a curse.  “They shall return to Egypt, and Assyria shall be their king, because they have refused to return to me.  The sword shall rage against their cities, consume the bars of the their gates, and devour them in their fortresses.  My people are bent onh turning away from me; so they are appointed to the yoke and none shall remove it.”

Jeremiah Wright’s talk of chickens coming home to roost sounds pretty tame in comparison.

Bible students will point remind me that the God of Hosea changes his mind, almost in mid-sentence.  “How can I give you up, O Ephraim!  How can I hand you over, O Israel!  My heart recoils within me, my compassion grows warm and tender.  I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come to destroy.”

Nonetheless, a few generations down the road, the Babylonians (the inhabitants of present day Iraq) destroyed the temple in Jerusalem and carried the people of the covenant across the wilderness into foreign captivity. 

How could such a thing have happened?  This is the central question of the Old Testament (the crucifixion of Jesus holds a similar place in the Christian New Testament).  Instead of a single answer you find a prolonged debate in which all participants agree on only one point: God’s chosen people had been punished by God–Babylon was simply the instrument by which the divine decree was carried out.

African Americans have little trouble believing that a just and merciful God can come in judgment against his most fervent admirers. 

A fascinating scene in the 22nd chapter of Acts illustrates the experiential divide separating white and black Americans.  Preaching to a largely Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, the Apostle Paul tells the story of his Damascus Road conversion and claims that God sent him as a missionary to the Gentiles (non-Jews).  When the crowd exploded in fury, a Roman centurian grabbed Paul and dragged him into the barracks that stood near the Temple.

Unfamiliar with Jewish sectarian disputes, the centurian decided to flog his prisoner until he learned what was going on.  Seconds before the first blow fell, Paul asked a question that turned the centurion’s heart to stone: “Is it lawful for you to scourge a man who is a Roman citizen, and uncondemned?”

Profuse apologies were offered, Paul was released from the flogging post and the cruel lash was put away.

Being a Roman citizen in the first century was much like being white in contemporary America.  Black Americans know how it feels to be treated as non-citizens.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the criminal justice system.  This basic inequity drew 20,000 black church people and college students to Jena, Louisiana. 

Abraham Lincoln interpreted the Civil War as the just judgment of God on a chosen nation.  The Almighty had damned America for the sin of slavery.  This explains why Lincoln bore so little malice toward the Southern States: all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

White conservatives see America as a nation chosen by God, “a nation of exceptionalism,” as Sarah Palin has it.     

White liberals reject the notion that God has any interest in American politics or any relevance to political debate.

Conservatives castigate the American Jeremiah for suggesting that God regards America as one nation among many.  Liberals reject the notion that God bears any relevance to human affairs.

If John McCain tried to associate his opponent with the hate-monger from Chicago few would question his judgment.

So why is the Republican candidate holding back?

Maybe John McCain understands that there is something about the Jeremiah Wright business that eludes the grasp of white America. 

I doubt very much that McCain appreciates the radicality of the biblical prophets, but he must have noticed that black Americans have a unique take on the Wright episode.  Black leaders have criticized Wright for his choice of words, but they see the “God damn America” bit as one part of one sermon.  Wright’s inelegant and self-indulgent response to criticism earned rebukes from many black pundits, but few have condemned his preaching out of hand. 

Those who know the black experience in America and the black religious tradition were not shocked by the anger in the preacher’s voice or by the suggestion that we have earned the world’s distrust.  It was a hard word, delivered in anger; a species of anger African Americans understand all too well.

However you explain it, John McCain is to be congratulated for his refusal to demagogue the Wright issue.  Barack Obama attended Wright’s church because he was nourished by Rev. Wright’s prophetic insights.  Aging preachers like Jeremiah Wright are angry in a way that a younger generation of black men and women are not.  Black Americans who came to their adult years after the Jim Crow era and the harrowing glory of the civil rights movement can’t always feel the anger, but they understand it all the same.

Barack Obama understands where his former preaching is coming from.  Maybe John McCain understands that he doesn’t understand.

One man in America has good reason to celebrate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression: Karl Rove.  The House Judiciary Committee has issued a subpoena to the Fox political analyst.  George W’s “Brain” has been linked to the firing of several US Attorneys and the wrongful conviction of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman. 

Both stories follow a similar script.  Karl Rove calls the tune and the Department of Justice (represented by either Alberto Gonzalez or an Alamaba US Attorney) dances a jig.  According to reports, the Alabama US Attorney’s Office hounded Siegelman for years before finally getting a grand jury to indict him on bribery charges.

Since the 2005 conviction, fifty four (54) former state attorney generals (many of them Republican) have called for a review of the Siegelman case.  After serving two years of a seven-year federal sentence, the ex-governor has been released pending appeal.  (A 60 Minutes story and a feature in TIME didn’t hurt.)

A scathing Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi argues that a desperate John McCain has hired Karl Rove and several Rovian disciples in a last ditch attempt to save a lagging campaign.  McCain was badly mauled by Rove acolytes in the 2000 election and the Republican candidate knows from experience how effective smear tactics can be.  He’d rather ride the Straight Talk Express to the White House, but that doesn’t appear to be in the cards.

The Siegelman legal fiasco, summarized nicely by the Tuscaloosa News, follows a familiar script.  A single witness told a jury that he saw the Governor exchange a committee membership for a donation to the state lottery fund.  Even though defense counsel demonstrated that the person in question had been on the committee for years and that the contribution didn’t benefit Siegelman personally, the jury voted to convict.

Once again, we see the extraordinary power of  eyewitness testimony.

This story demonstrates how politicized (and corrupt) the federal Justice Department has become.  

The parallels between the Siegelman case and the tragic plight of Alvin Clay are striking.  If the FBI was looking for people to investigate, they had their pick of thousands of compromised Wall Street traders and mortgage tycoons.  Instead, they are going after small-time operators like Mr. Clay, a black Little Rock attorney who allowed an unscrupulous business associate to use his contractors license. 

Clay says he had no idea Ray Nealy was arranging bogus real estate deals.  A single witness, exchanging perjured testimony for lenient treatment, told the story the US Attorney’s Office wanted to hear. 

Once again, the production of a single eye witness worked wonders with an all-white jury.

Most jurors in Alabama couldn’t believe that a US Attorney would pursue a bogus case against a politician simply because Karl Rove told him to do it.

Most jurors in Arkansas couldn’t believe that the US government had chosen, for no particular reason, to believe an incredible witness. 

Matt Taibbi’s highly partisan assault on Karl Rove underscores the power of brazen assertion.  Say something is so, repeatedly and with gusto, and most people will believe it.  Taibbi’s prose can get pretty rough, but he writes like an angel.  Consider this gem: “One is tempted to call this brilliant tactics, except that it isn’t brilliant, any more than pointing a gun at a Korean store owner is a “brilliant” way to make $135.”

Taibbi reminds us that Tim Griffin, one of the Rovian footsoldiers who replaced a fired Arkansas US Attorney, resigned after being accused of operating a racist vote caging scheme in Florida.  Griffin landed on his feet when he was assigned to dig up dirt on Barack Obama. 

Griffin, incidentally, was the US Attorney who demoted Assistant US Attorney Bob Govar for threatening to use his political clout to retaliate against a newspaper editor.  The editor had accused Govar of asking the FBI to turn a blind eye to a police chief who was eventually convicted of manufacturing, stealing, using and selling illegal drugs.  The police chief was Govar’s old friend.

So, instead of investigating a drug dealing police chief who illegally sold the services of county jail inmates to the highest bidder, the FBI, at Govar’s direction, decided to investigate Alvin Clay.  When their case fell apart, they plowed ahead anyway in the certain knowledge that an eyewitness, even the least credible man in the great state of Arkansas, would convince a jury.  

Compare Alvin Clay and Karl Rove and ask yourself who deserves to do time.  Subpoenaed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, Rove thumbs his nose with impunity.  And now, it appears, Rove is on the payroll of another presidential candidate and, with an economic crisis and all, nobody is paying attention.

The media isn’t paying attention to Alvin Clay either, but for an entirely different reason.

Scott Henson at Grits for Breakfast has an excellent piece on the dangers of eyewitness testimony.  Police officers and prosecutors are well aware of the weakness of eyewitness testimony, Henson writes, but they are also addicted to the sure fire results.

Douglas Kmiec is a devout Roman Catholic with impeccable pro-life credentials.  Furthermore, he is a Republican stalwart who recently co-chaired Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign.  Kmiec’s conservative triple-A rating explains why he regularly gave legal advice to presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.  So you can’t blame Mary Schmich with the Chicago Tribune for asking what a guy like Doug Kmiec is doing endorsing Barack Obama?

This surprising story was brought to my attention by a reader who, Like Mr. Kmiec, teaches at Pepperdine University.  I was disturbed to learn that, shortly after endorsing the Democratic presidential candidate, Kmiec was refused communion by a Roman Catholic priest who, in his homily, warned his flock against the grievous sin of voting blue.

Politics, as they say, makes strange bedfellows, and that has never been truer than in the 2008 electoral season.  When asked if we are Democrats or Republicans, Tony Campolo says, we should answer, “On what issue?”

Kmiec still calls himself a Republican.  He will likely die a Republican.  He thinks his party has it right on the abortion issue.  But Kmiec knows that abortion, however important, is one issue among many.  Roman Catholic moral theology has been called “a seamless garment” because one consistent ethic of life informs a range of issues from abortion to war to capital punishment. 

David Brooks, a Jew, was impressed to learn that Barack Obama has a nuanced grasp of Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realism.  Douglas  Kmiec is voting for Obama because the Chicago politician thinks like a Catholic.

Both presidential candidates this year are eclectic pragmatists who like workable solutions.  John McCain’s “Mavericky” streak (to quote Tina Fey) makes him the only Republican candidate capable of beating Obama (or Hillary Clinton) in a year when all the cards are falling for the Democrats.  Obama, contra McCain, can’t be written off as a knee-jerk liberal. 

Given all the partisan animus in the air, it is refreshing to see voters with flexible and open minds.  But as the Kmiec story suggests, openness comes with a price.

GOP Catholic backs Obama
Mary Schmich

October 8, 2008

Doug Kmiec went to mass, as usual, at Our Lady of Malibu on Tuesday morning. Then he drove up the hill to his office to talk to me by phone about how a Republican Catholic opposed to abortion could endorse Barack Obama. (more…)

Partisan politics has gone mainstream.  FOX News, led by the hard-charging Bill O’Reilly, is a big favorite with hardline Republicans.  More recently, MSNBC, led by the ascerbic Keith Olbermann, has become a safe harbor for ardent Democrats. 

Some decry the loss of objectivity and balance; others argue that journalists have always been partisan and might as well let their biases show.

Partisanship is predictable.  Jon Stewart recently played two equal-and-opposite clips of “paid partisans” spouting the orthodox Democrat and Republican lines.  “Thank you for taking up time,” Stewart smirked.  In other words, if everybody knows precisely what you’re going to say, why not keep it zipped?

Does critiquing a candidate’s judgment make one a partisan?  During this election season, many solidly conservative pundits have declared neutrality.  George Will and David Brooks can’t bring themselves to endorse Barack Obama outright; but the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate has sparked some chilly prose from conservative elitists.

In an interview with an Atlantic reporter, David Brooks frankly admits that Sarah Palin is qualified to be neither vice president or president.  Moreover, the New York Times columnist lavishes praise on Barack Obama.  He doesn’t think much of the Democrat’s brief career in the Senate, but he says Obama has surrounded himself with world-class talent.

I would be nice to see more left-leaning columnists showing the same sense of fairness.  It is one thing to criticize a politicians politics; the kind of character assasination we have seen in recent days gnaws at the foundations of democracy.  

I have frequently criticized the Republican Party for its lack of racial inclusiveness.  It isn’t just that the GOP becomes more monochromatic with each election cycle; my central concern is that so few Republicans seem concerned about it.  George W. Bush made a good faith effort to woo black and Latino voters, but we haven’t seen much enthusiasm for the project among rank and file Republicans.  The Southern strategy embraced by Richard Nixon is based on the assumption that the GOP can win without significant support from non-white voters.  Tragically, this approach has worked very well.  But it is only a matter of time until the racial equation tips in favor of the Democrats. 

I would love to see two major political parties, one conservative, the other progressive, both valuing racial and ethnic diversity.  Watching the all-white crowds fawning over Ms. Palin I sometimes spot a single black face prominently displayed behind the candidate.  Are they paying this guy, I wonder, or is he too out of touch to realize he’s not welcome?

Newsweek recently published a story about “Obama’s other Pastor,” Kirbyjon Caldwell, a culturally conservative black pastor from Houston.  Caldwell has prayed at several key Republican gatherings in recent years and is a good personal friend of George W. Bush.

But this year, Caldwell, like virtually every other black preacher in the country, is backing Obama.  

White evangelicals often claim that they reject the Democratic candidate because of his liberal stance on homosexuality and abortion.  Caldwell is strictly pro-life and, just like Sarah Palin’s home congregation, his church boasts a program dedicated to praying gay men straight.  The Obama people have a problem with that but politics, as they say, is the art of the possible.

When Rev. Caldwell announced his support for Obama he was roundly denounced by the Republican establishment. 

Why are black Christians embracing a candidate that most white evangelicals find unacceptable?  Are black conservatives addicted to a single party, or do white evangelicals have a problem with racial diversity? 

I take no delight in characterizing the GOP as “the party of white”.  I wish it were otherwise.  I want it to be otherwise.  I have great respect for traditional conservatism, but unless we see dramatic change, and soon, a steady demographic transition will make it impossible to win a presidential election without a true rainbow coalition.  That day has not yet arrived, but it isn’t far off.

The J. McDonald Williams Institute is making Dallas a safer, more cohesive place to live.  On October 16th, the Institute is hosting its Annual Conference, an opportunity for scholars, public officials and activists to learn from one another.  Alan Bean of Friends of Justice will be speaking on a panel called “Community Organizing for Change and Wholeness” (the full conference agenda can be found here).   If you live within driving distance of Dallas, Texas and committed to positive social change I urge you to register for this important event.

 

Equity in a Time of Retrenchment:
More Urgent than Ever

Thursday, October 16th, 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.
Dallas Convention Center
Ballroom A
650 S. Griffin St.
Dallas, Texas

$90 full day; $50 luncheon forum only; $40 students full day

Registration & Continental Breakfast begin at 7:30 a.m.

 In just three years, the Williams Institute conference has established a unique place in Dallas. No other event draws the same potent mix of policymakers, scholars, community builders and engaged citizens, all dedicated to the betterment of our city and region. No other event will add as much to your store of knowledge, contacts, and hope for the future of our communities. Plus, with the election just weeks away and the nation’s financial system in disarray, we’ve invited representatives of the presidential campaigns to answer your questions about what an Obama or McCain presidency would mean for federal policies affecting you and all North Texas residents.

The Institute doesn’t pretend to have all the answers. Our mission is to gather together the people whose collective wisdom can bring hope and wholeness to distressed communities. In that spirit, each 2008 conference breakout session will be presented by a “content partner,” an organization in the vanguard of effective community building. Click the “agenda” tab above for a description of each session and a link to the content parther’s Web site.

To learn more, click here.