MSNBC Republican Reconsiders His Choice

Note: Michael answers my questions at the end of this article.

Michael A. Smerconish, Philadelphia-area native, attorney, columnist, author, morning drive-time talker on Philly's WPHT radio and MSNBC pundit, is a life-long Republican. But this moderate to conservative Republican is considering voting for Barack Obama.

Before I got XM radio, I had few listening choices in this area. I'm not overly fond of "morning zoo"-type radio, the local New Jersey talk out of Trenton was lame, and so I wound up listening to Smerconish every morning on my drive into work. It was a rare day when I would find myself agreeing with ANYTHING Michael said - in fact he angered me. But it was a short dose of politics and local flavor for me and the anger woke me up better than coffee.

As is normal for radio talk show hosts, his appearances on MSNBC (which have become considerably more frequent in the past year or so), lack the strident, ego-driven rhetoric that I was used to on radio. His appearances showed a much more reasonable soul - on that I could listen to without chucking things at the TV.

I have known since 9/11 how deeply Michael was touched by the tragedy - especially the fate of United Airlines flight 93 that was heroically diverted by passengers into a field in Shanksville, PA, surely saving many more lives than were lost. Michael took that personally and wanted the ultimate perpetrators brought to justice. He still waits. He has spent a lot of air and newsprint on the subject.

Get the new
PD toolbar!

So strong are his feelings about the current administration's lack of action in capturing Osama bin Laden and John McCain's agreement with the whole mess, led Smerconish to write an essay on the 7th anniversary of the attack on our country in Salon - not usually home to conservative commentators.

Smerconish's feeling's on this subject are raw and very personal:

Where the hell are Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri? And why does virtually no one ask anymore? What's changed since the days when any suburban soccer mom would have strangled either of them with her bare hands if given the chance? And what happened to President Bush's declaration to a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11 that "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime." Doesn't that apply to Pakistan?

These are things that I wonder as I watch from my perch in Philadelphia, where I'm a talk show host, columnist and MSNBC talking head. I have also spoken and written about them incessantly, so much so that I've exhausted my welcome with many conservative members of my own talk radio audience. My editors at the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer have made it clear that I've published my last column on this issue because I have written seven to date. On the day after the Pennsylvania primary, I told Chris Matthews on "Hardball" that this was an issu e that could help Barack Obama win support among white male voters; he recognized that it was "[my] issue," before adding, "And I agree with you completely."

I can't help myself. So strong is my belief that we've failed in our responsibility to 3,000 dead Americans that I am contemplating voting for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in my life. It's the chronology I find so compelling.

Between being called fixated on 9/11 by a fellow columnist and scathing emails from long-time listeners and readers, Michael has remained true to quest to hold responsible those in this administration who have coddled Pakistan and taken their eye off the prize - Osama bin Laden. Only one candidate for president in this cycle had impressed him enough on this subject to pique his interest:

I hoped that the presidential campaign would move the issue to the front burner, but despite the campaign's 24/7 nature it failed to stir up a discussion about the failure to capture or kill those who pushed us down such a perilous path. In the first seven presidential-primary debates -- four for the D's, three for the R's -- there was only one question in 15 hours of discourse that touched on the subject of finding bin Laden in Pakistan, and it came from the audience. Though I did not keep count thereafter, I know that the issue never gained resonance in any subsequent debate.

Things changed somewhat on Aug. 1, 2007, when Barack Obama delivered a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won't act, we will," he said.

"We can't send millions and millions of dollars to Pakistan for military aid, and be a constant ally to them, and yet not see more aggressive action in dealing with al-Qaida."

Finally, I thought, a presidential candidate saying something about this foreign-policy failure.

The reaction? Ridicule.

Since the resignation of Pakistan's Musharraf, who Bush had sent off into the sunset with glowing terms, we appear to making some military inroads in the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and stepping up forays into the area - pretty much just like Obama has suggested. The fact remains that bin Laden still doesn't appear to be a major concern to anyone anymore - not our politicians, our President or the media. I agree with Smerconish that it's shameful to only speak the name of the mastermind of 9/11 in the most cynical of political terms and no longer as a national imperative.

If the current administration manages to make some headway into the tribal controlled areas of Pakistan, who are confirmed to be hiding al-Qaeda operatives, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, will that change Smerconish's mind? I posed two questions to Mr. Smerconish over the weekend. Here are his responses:

Denise: Since the American military now seems to be making forays again into
the Waziristan area, and if John McCain supports these moves, will you
reconsider your vote for Obama?

MAS: A few things.....you say "again"....I think that is mistaken.....this is really the FIRST time we are moving against bin Laden where he lives in 7 years...that is appalling .....there was a clear difference in the debate on foreign policy....McCain believes Iraq is the front line in the war on terror, Obama believes it is the Afghan-Pakistan border....I think Obama is correct

Additionally, follow the answer of Sarah Palin to a citizen in Philly on Saturday re Waziristan....and McCain's disavowing what she said on a sunday talk show....this gets to the "if" of your question...it is not at all clear that mccain is on board with what is now going on in pakistan"

Bottom line...I am not a one trick pony....Pakistan matters to me, and I have been writing and speaking about that for years, literally years, but it is one component of my vote.

Denise: If you remain an Obama supporter, will you tell your listeners and readers of your decision before or after November 4? Do you think you'll lose support?

MAS: I do not predicate what I say based on how it will play with my audience.....I doubt I would have embraced profiling in the war on terror, or spent 3 years writing a book on Maureen Faulkner (DW: Michael co-authored Murdered by Mumia: A Life Sentence of Loss, Pain, and Injustice with the widow of slain Philly police officer Daniel Faulkner) if I let public opinion dictate what I do.....will I tell voters how I will vote? probably, but I will not browbeat them....and unlike other shows, I will certainly not tell them what to do....

Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!