Thank goodness the seemingly interminable election campaign that lasted more than a year is now finally over and Americans are heading for the polls. We also have to be grateful that there were no last minutes real nasty October surprises such as a heralded Iran bombardment. Instead we were treated to a Television visit from Osama bin Laden but more about that in another issue.

Whether or not the administration ever seriously considered an aggressive act against Iran prior to the elections I don’t know, but on October 25 I received an e-mail from a Canadian colleague to that effect. It was distributed by a Canadian organization, “The Centre for Research on Globalization,” and featured an article by Wayne Madsen entitled, “A Bush pre-election strike on Iran. White House Insiders report ‘October Surprise’ imminent.” In the article Mr. Madsen asserted that he had been told by White House Insiders that the Bush administration was poised to bomb Iran’s nuclear reactor at Busher, as well as other targets throughout the country. The article also stated that the aircraft carrier USS John F. Kennedy was deployed to the Arabian Sea in order to coordinate the attacks.

This brought up the question: who is Mr. Madsen and how does he know what he says he knows? All answers are provided on the Internet and when one punches in his name one is informed that he is a “Senior Fellow of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington DC” and that he also works as a free-lance journalist. In addition he has written the Introduction to Forbidden Truth. U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for Bin Laden. This particular book, available through amazon.com, was published by two Frenchmen J. Brisard and G. Dasquie in 2002. How reliable Mr. Madsen’s sources are I have no way of knowing.

Apparently even Karl Rove might have thought that bombing Iran a week or so before the election was not a good idea because it might backfire and the plan was put on hold. But as we say in the German language aufgeschoben ist nicht aufgehoben - to postpone doesn’t mean to abandon – and we as well as the Iranians can look forward to it after the election. If Bush were to lose he might even give it to Kerry as a final good bye present in the waning days of his administration. If he wins it is full steam ahead anyway.

But back to the past month’s campaign which was certainly the nastiest I have witnessed in the past 54 years. As mentioned in the previous installment, I was arriving in Montreal during the first Presidential debate and saw only the tail end, although I did have access to the full version upon returning home. Nevertheless, even what I saw on that Thursday night made me embarrassed for our country. The “Leader of the Free World” was so inept that one felt one had to apologize for being an American citizen while in a foreign country. On Saturday Toronto’s Globe and Mail had an Editorial headlined “The Evil of the Lesser Two,” which certainly hit the nail on the head. Although Kerry appeared considerably more “Presidential” the substance one might have expected from him simply wasn’t there. Another interesting feature was in an article that had come out from an American research group which analyzed the language level the two candidates had used during the debate. Bush spoke at a 6.8 and Kerry at a 7.3 grade level.  This may not be meaningful for readers outside the U.S. but translates into the speech patterns of 12-13 year old teenagers. The article also mentioned that Kerry had deliberately “talked down” because this is the level the American electorate understands. If this is not an indictment of our current “culture” I don’t know what is.

Prior to the second Presidential debate Bush apparently was told by his “handlers” that smirking and grimacing doesn’t work because it makes the contrast to Kerry even starker and that he has to show more “leadership.”  He took the advice to heart. We saw him running around the stage and at one point shouting the poor moderator down, which is generally regarded as a no-no. I taped the debate and when I played it back on fast forward to catch a certain segment it really became hilarious. Our President appeared precisely as, what some of us had suspected since 9/11, a puppet on a string. If you happen to have access to a tape of this debate please watch a segment on fast forward because as the Chinese said,”a picture is worth a thousand words.”

The Vice Presidential debate was meaningless and so was the third Presidential debate.  The candidates simply answered whatever question was asked with a hand-me-down well-worn mantra, which frequently had nothing to do with the question that had been asked. There was only one memorable phrase uttered by the President in regard to what he would do to create more jobs in the country. Believe it or not, he replied that the “No Child left Behind” school project was the answer to the problem. This is what he told college graduates whose jobs disappear due to “’outsourcing,” “downsizing,” or bankruptcies!

Apart from this gem, Bush insisted throughout the campaign on having shown strong leadership, which is an absolute necessity for winning the war on terrorism and that it would be outright dangerous to entrust the country to Kerry because the Senator would ask the United Nations for permission to go to war in case America were to be threatened by a “rogue” state. This is what he, Bush, would never do. Kerry’s mantra was that he would do better than the President if we were to elect him. He promised not only to be strong in regard to the defense of our country but that he would also create a genuine alliance from nations around the world to establish a stable and peaceful Iraq, which would allow us to bring our troops home within the next four years. In addition he intends to spend billions of dollars to improve the various domestic problems he will inherit. A seasoned observer, steeped in realism, can only say, “Good Luck” to that.

The reasons why intelligent people, who are not dogmatic party hacks, find themselves unable to vote for Bush, even if they are more comfortable with conservative rather than “progressive” ideas, have been abundantly explained in previous installments. But what about Kerry? In the previous issue I have already touched on some of his liabilities. The most outstanding appears to be that he seems to have lost the fervor of his younger years when he spoke from the heart, especially in his 1971 Senate testimony. He now relies on what his handlers tell him as to what he should or shouldn’t say. This is potential poison for a person’s soul. He played it “safe” and avoided direct answers to Republican attacks. In regard to interviews on national cable TV he did not accept the challenge thrown at him by Bill O’Reilly, host of the “No Spin” evening news program. This was a mistake, and as O’Reilly keeps hammering:  not showing up on his show cost Al Gore the election. This may or may not be so but it is a fact that O’Reilly has the largest audience in the country, as far as journalists go. It is also true that the “no spin” exists only in O’Reilly’s and his partisans mind because he is frequently rude and acerbic to his guests on the program, when they disagree with his very firmly set views. But Kerry would surely have had the stature and intellect to put him in his place and answer questions forthrightly rather than with canned statements. Kerry missed this chance.  Regardless whether or not one likes O’Reilly the fact is that he does have a nightly audience of an estimated 3 million viewers most of whom vote in the election.

Kerry missed another chance to show substance. As his Vice-Presidential running mate he chose John Edwards, the junior Senator from North Carolina. This was also a mistake. I have been told from family members who live in that state that Edwards ran for President only because he would have lost this year’s re-election to the Senate. He has made his reputation and millions of dollars as a trial lawyer who specialized in suing physicians for malpractice. During the campaign he defended himself by asserting that he really didn’t go after the doctors but only the insurance companies when he achieved millions of dollars settlements. This is misleading on two counts. First of all there is the common misconception that “the insurance company will pay anyway.” Yes, the insurance company pays first but then drives up the rates so that malpractice insurance coverage becomes nearly unaffordable and the individual physician has to deal with that. The other point is that Edwards’ specialty was to sue obstetricians when a baby was born with cerebral palsy. This was regarded as the physician’s fault, which is incorrect. In most instances there are prenatal or unavoidable perinatal factors at play and the physician has no role in their causation. The malpractice problem is currently a massive one around the country. Not because we have so many negligent physicians but frivolous law suits are filed on a daily basis. These drive insurance rates up and responsible physicians out of high risk specialties. Who suffers as a result? The patient of course! As physicians we were used to thinking of the patient first but medical practice has changed since I first came to this country. Now, the thought of potential law suits is ever present. Defensive medicine is being practiced, which not only drives up the costs but in some instances puts an additional mental barrier into play. Not only do you have to worry about whether the medical insurance company will pay for what you think the patient really needs, but in addition you have to be concerned about how the case will look in court if and when you get sued. It is actually no longer an if but only a when and that is no way to practice good medicine.

Edwards and Kerry promise tort reform but we know how pre-election promises compare with post-election legislation.  Since Edwards may not even carry his home state in the election, does not bring significant domestic or foreign policy experience to the ticket and carries the above mentioned baggage, Kerry has gained nothing from his choice and lost the potential support of a number of well-meaning practicing physicians.

Within the last two weeks it also became apparent that there is not enough influenza vaccine to cover all the people who want to have preventive inoculations. The immediate reason was that vaccine batches from a major supplier in the UK, to whom the production had been outsourced, were contaminated. Why couldn’t we produce the vaccine here? Ask Senator Edwards! The “deep pockets” pharmaceutical industry is a prime target for litigation. Since vaccines have potentially the most dangerous side-effects from all pharmaceutical products the industry simply abstains from producing them. It’s a free country after all and the buck rules.

While we are on medicine let us not forget that stem cells have also emerged as a campaign propaganda tool. When Christopher Reeve died last month from complications of his debilitating spinal cord injury, the stem cell proponents went into overdrive. I have nothing against stem cell research and actually wrote an article about it on this site in August of 2001. At that time I mentioned not only the hyped benefits but also the state of the art and that it will take not only years but may be even decades before we really know how to use their potential constructively and safely. Although the article is three years old it is still correct and can be read profitably.

As mentioned, the Republicans kept insisting that Kerry cannot be trusted. Not only was he portrayed as weak on national defense but also as being unable to make up his mind and “flip-flopping” on every issue. Since I was blessed with a classical education in high school, even during the Nazi years, a historic analog, Fabius Cunctator, immediately came to mind. Let me explain. When Hannibal invaded Italy, after crossing the Alps with his elephants, he found the Romans totally unprepared. In the spring of 217 B.C. he promptly defeated a Roman army under the consul Flaminius near Lake Trasimeno, which is only about 80 miles north of Rome, as the crow flies.  Faced with this calamity the Senate put Quintus Fabius Maximus, a prudent man, in charge of the Roman army. Instead of giving battle he simply followed the Carthagenians around the country thereby depriving them of the opportunity for other cities to flock to their victorious banners. This earned Fabius, as he was referred to, the anger of the masses. He was regarded as a coward and given the nickname Cunctator, the Hesitator. But QFM, as we might call him, knew what he was doing. He realized that the outcome of battles was never guaranteed and by avoiding losses he would eventually triumph because Hannibal would run out of steam in a hostile country. This policy did not sit well with the impatient Romans. They appointed a new general, Varro, who promptly attacked Hannibal and suffered a massive defeat at Cannae (216 B.C.). Hannibal’s tactic of encirclement has become a text book example for military strategists that has been followed by generals ever since. It even appeared last week on the History channel. To appreciate the magnitude of this catastrophe one needs to know that from a Roman army which consisted, according to Plutarch, of 88,000 men, 50,000, including a considerable number of senators, lost their lives and 14,000 ended up as prisoners. As an aside one might mention that in those days the officials who were responsible for war were really leading their soldiers into battle rather than remaining safely behind desks.

With this catastrophe at hand the Romans recalled Fabius who managed to stabilize the country. He was helped in this effort by Hannibal’s decision not to follow up on his victory and march on the defenseless Rome. Fabius again employed his strategy of merely harassing Hannibal rather than attempting to throw him out if Italy. This went on for more than ten years. Understandably the Romans attributed Fabius’ conduct to his advanced age and a younger more aggressive spirit was called for. The plan by Publius Cornelius Scipio to bring the war to Africa rather than fighting it in Italy was, therefore, approved by the Senate over Fabius’ objections. The Carthaginians recalled Hannibal to defend the homeland in 203 but apparently he was also no longer in his prime and was decisively defeated at Zama, one year later. A proverbial Carthaginian peace was imposed by Rome and became the foundation for the emerging Roman Empire. Fabius did not live to see the triumph of his rival but he was buried with full honors at public expense.

This little excursion into history may not be irrelevant for our Senator who wants to be President. Prudence can indeed stave off disaster but when carried to excess people get tired after ten years and demand more dramatic action. Thanks to the wisdom of President Eisenhower our Constitution now limits to eight years the maximum time a given President can create harm.

There is one additional aspect one might have considered in one’s vote for President and one can learn potentially a great deal by looking at the women political candidates are married to. We were able to get to know them to some extent because they were drafted to appear on the campaign trail.

Laura Bush came across as a very nice, pleasant lady whom one would want to have as a neighbor any day. But she is not likely to provide counsel on important political decisions. She is neither being asked nor does she want to. As she has reportedly described herself in the past, “I read, I smoke and I admire.” She has probably given up smoking in the meantime but she still admires and a balancing role to check the messianic fantasies of her husband cannot be expected.

Teresa Heinz-Kerry on the other hand is spun from different cloth. Born into a physician’s family in Mozambique, educated in Switzerland, fluent in several languages, married to Senator Heinz, she has seen the world in all its splendor and poverty. She gave up professional life for raising her children but when her husband was killed in a tragic plane accident she took over the Presidency of the Heinz philanthropic foundation, which dispenses vast sums of money for humanitarian purposes all over the world. In 1995 she married Senator Kerry who does not appear to be in the least disturbed by her strong will and outspokenness on any and all issues. It is to his credit that he doesn’t try to dictate to her what she should say on the campaign trail, because as he said, “nobody tells Teresa what to do or what to say.” Kerry’s opponents obviously had a field day with her off-the- cuff remarks but she is a woman of substance and if she were to run for President rather than her husband I’d have absolutely no problem voting for her. Teresa is just as important an element in Kerry’s life as Maria Shriver is in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s. These women can take the rough edges off their men and guide them into reasonable channels. In both marriages there is bipartisanship because Teresa is basically a Republican and Maria a Democrat. This has to reflect on the candidate’s behavior and we are much more likely to see cooperation with the opposite political party under those circumstances than when only one party exists in the marriage or one party dominates the Executive as well as Legislative branch of government.

So where do we stand today? As far as Utah is concerned my vote for President is irrelevant because the state is so heavily Republican that not even Senator Bennett, who is up for re-election bothers to campaign. The electoral system guarantees a Bush victory. All one can do is register a protest vote for Kerry, Nader or any of the Libertarians which does not effect the outcome of this election. It was, therefore, rather comical that The Salt Lake Tribune, which has been reasonably honest in its political coverage, found it necessary to officially endorse Bush in an Editorial. What was surprising, however, was the reaction of the readership. Numerous Letters to the Editor were published in response which denounced the paper and several of the writers officially canceled their subscription. This was heartwarming because it shows that there is a substantial segment of voters, at least in the Salt Lake area, that has no use for the direction Bush has taken the Republican Party and is ready to cast a protest vote. The editorial was actually written somewhat tongue in cheek and it seemed that the writer had done so under duress from the owner of the paper. Freedom of speech ends when your job is on the line. This is just as true in democracies as in dictatorships.

Today the good citizens of our country obediently trot to the polls and an unusually large turnout is expected. But don’t hold your breath that we’ll know the outcome by tomorrow morning. An unprecedented army of lawyers is standing by in the various states to challenge the election results unless there were to be an unexpected landslide victory for either side. The polling stations will be manned by numerous overseers, especially in the so-called battleground states, who will challenge some prospective voters for their credentials and then provide them with provisional ballots until their bona fides are established. How long it will take to count those votes is anybody’s guess. In Florida extra precautions are taken. We have been told that representatives from 15 nations will watch the goings on and may be Vladimir, who is busy reassembling the pieces of the old Soviet Union, will also have his deputies there. Florida actually is again one of the battlegrounds par excellence and we have already been told that tens of thousands of absentee ballots that had been sent out never reached their intended recipient.

As mentioned in an earlier installment there is also the problem of the complexity of the actual ballot that is to be cast. In some instances, as reported last week, the candidate’s name and the hole to be punched don’t line up and are in reversed order. The voting machines differ from state to state and with some there is no “paper trail” that would allow a recount. There is also no possibility for outside monitors to check on the accuracy of the computer programs that tally the votes and the door to intentional or unintentional fraud is wide open. It’ll be an interesting month and it may be December 1 before we’ll know who won or was appointed as the case may be. If the 2000 election is a precedent it may even take till Christmas or whenever.