Since the founding of Alcoholics Anonymous 75 years ago and the beginning of Alanon for spouses and families of alcoholics shortly thereafter, the “anonymous” label has been attached to a multitude of 12-step recovery programs. Spin-offs are designed to deal with an array chemical, physical and emotional problems—gambling, sex, eating disorders, addictions to illegal and/or prescription drugs, and an array of struggles that part of the human condition.

Regardless of the ailments, the underlying principles of all the different 12-step programs are pretty much the same. The steps put into practice a value system that is unknown to many—the basics of which include universal tenets of faith, trust, honesty, courage and humility. In AA lingo, incorporating the principles in one’s life leads to a “spiritual awakening.” Not to be confused with a sudden epiphany that is often described as a ”spiritual experience.” Twelve step programs gradually bring about a level of self-honesty. That is why so-called tea partiers need to form a recovery program called, ”Deniers Anonymous.”

From inception, Tea Party members and its candidates have been in a state of denial in responding to any and all criticism. The most recent instance of self-deception is the refusal to acknowledge the NAACP’s claim that the loosely formed organization have been invaded by racists, bigots and hate groups. The denials must be coming from blind and deaf spokespersons. How could they miss an inflammatory road sign in Iowa comparing the President to Hitler and Lenin, or fail to see placards at rallies that are clearly racist, or not accept the word of credible sources that epithets were directed at black congressmen as they walked through a crowd of Tea Party demonstrators? That is the equivalent of my years of denial that alcoholism caused my drunken episodes, delirum tremens, nights in jail, an emotionally abused broken family and eventually led me a failed skid-row audition. 

Vice President Biden refused yesterday to label the Tea Party as racist. And I agree. However, that does not mean the absence of racism among many of its members—a subtle form of which is sometimes more sinister than outward bigotry. Indeed, it is often difficult for people—me included—to detect underlying prejudices. Our failure to see deep-rooted personal bias is troublesome for African Americans. At least they know where they stand with the Klan mentality.

Deniers Anonymous would be particularly helpful for Tea Party candidates, some of whom have denied saying or believing they made statements in radio, television and newspaper interviews. Sharron Angle is an exception. The Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Nevada simply avoids mainstream media interviews. She answers only to God, Fox “News” and right-wing reporters in her home state. God apparently is not satisfied with her answers. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has been resurrected from the graveyard of politically dead incumbents.

Meantime, God has smiled down on Democrats in Kentucky by delivering a Tea Party-supported candidate whose mouth has gotten him in so much trouble that he is no longer a a sure-fire Republican successor to slightly deranged incumbent Jim Bunning. Dr. Rand Paul stumbled in the race coming out of the gate by making 1960’s era comments about civil rights. Like Sharron Angle, he now avoids interviews that could expose him as under-qualified to occupy Bunning’s Senate seat—a level of incompetence that is probably impossible to achieve. Nonetheless, Dr. Paul’s gaffes have made the Kentucky race competitive. Given his explanations that previous statements are not a real reflection of his position on civil rights, Deniers Anonymous would be helpful in allowing Paul to get in touch with his true views.

Former Presidential candidate Ross Perot is the best example of my own experience of encountering political candidates living in a state of denial. Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger provides all of the gritty details. If interested, buy the book and be entertained by my journey to a vast fantasy land. In short, my one hour in-depth confrontation with Perot during the 1992 Presidential campaign was his final sit-down interview with an investigative reporter .

I had flashbacks of the Perot debacle sixteen years later while watching Katie Couric interview Sarah Palin—another political figure who defines accountability as being a personal attack. She has become a role model for refusing to do interviews with anyone but the Fox “News” bunch and their ilk. She and all her cohorts at the Republican propaganda networks are excellent candidates for Deniers Anonymous. Especially Glenn Beck.

In AA, we sometimes classify a category of alcoholics as “low bottom drunks.” Having spent time with my feet planted in a gutter, I fit the label. Glenn Beck is a low bottom denier. In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he consistently denies his racially charged and anti-semitic rants. Washington Post poltical reporter Dana Milbank wrote a column last week that provided astonishing statistics about Beck’s hate-filled lunacy and his influence as a self-proclaimed leader of the Tea Party movement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071602855.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

If the day comes that someone decides to start a Deniers Anonymous program, Glenn Beck should be among the first recruits. He should have some vague knowledge of recovery based on his past disclosure that he joined AA many years ago. I presume he is still sober today. Outwardly, though, he does not fulfill AA’s promise of restoring its members to sanity. 

That is not surprising. Anyone listening to Beck can easily discern that he knows nothing about the principles that form the basis of 12-step recovery.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

Many years ago when Geraldo Rivera was a correspondent for ABC’s 20/20, he chased a pimp down the street during a hilarious ambush interview attempt that began with a fast walk, followed by a jog and then became a full sprint. Had this been in the age of You Tube, the Internet would have been overloaded with viewers. Instead, the video was passed among television newsman as an example of “Geraldo” style jouralism. I’m a longtime critic of the technique, although it was a hallmark of my early career as an investigative reporter in Miami.

Nonetheless, ambush journalism is sometimes the only way to serve the public interest. Such is the case with Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle—the Republican candidate opposing Harry Reid for a U.S. Senate seat in Nevada. TV crews have begun stalking Angle because of her refusal to answer questions about previously stated radical views that seem to advocate taking up arms against our government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29angle.html?th&emc=th

By limiting interviews to right-wing radio shows sympathetic to her views and to appearances on Fox “News,” Ms. Angle re-enforces the old axiom that “the truth hurts.” Her rhetoric is already part of the public record. Among other things, she has called for phasing out Medicare and Social Security, eliminating the EPA and the U.S. Department of Education and making alcohol illegal. While serving in Nevada’s 42-member state Assembly, she voted “no” so often that legislators described votes as “41 to Angle.” 

So given this public record, newsmen have a simple question for the candidate. “Do you really believe your rhetoric, Ms. Angle, or are you truly a right-wing lunatic.” Senate President Harry Reid—an incumbent whose re-election was in serious jeopardy—must fall to his knees daily and thank God for delivering Angle as his opponent in the November elections.

Also remaining close-mouthed in the presence of newsmen is Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul—another Republican with strong support from the tea party movement. Early gaffes about civil rights and his defense of BP in the wake of the Gulf coast oil spill disaster led Paul to become extremely cautious in granting interviews to reporters representing the mainstream media. Early on, Paul cancelled an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, apparently fearing he would make a fool of himself.

More recently, the Louisiville Courier-Journal disclosed that Paul was not certified by the medical clearing house that oversees his Bowling Green practice as a ophthamologist. Instead, he is certified by the National Board of Ophthamology, an organization he created and heads as President. He has refused to answer questions about his self-certification.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100614/NEWS0106/6140307/Rand-Paul-s-ophthalmology-certification-not-recognized-by-national-clearinghouse

When tea partiers are asked about the secrecy of candidates they support, the responses are predictable. “You can’t trust the liberal media.” The “liberal media myth” is a fable fostered by Rush Limbaugh, his idiot clones on Fox “News” and all the Rush wannabes ranting daily on AM radio.

I make no bones about my own progressive political views, which in large part have been hardened by the aforementioned stable of loonies. I know name-calling is counter productive, but at my age it’s better than sex. Indeed, wing-nuts and politicians they endorse have given up on any pretense of civility. So why not join the crowd? More dangerous than the loss of civility is the reality that many journalists have given up on demanding accountability, which allows evasive candidates like Sharron Angle to conceal their true positions on issues.

Maybe it’s time for more reporters to put on Geraldo Rivera running shoes and begin chasing down politicians for answers to tough questions.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. The book is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.

Long ago when I held the important sounding title of CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent, I had encounters of the painful kind with squirrely billionaire, Ross Perot. Incidentally, “Senior” attached to a network reporter’s name is the last title before being referred to as “former,” although that designation was a a few years in my future. In 1992, meantime, I was assigned to dig into Perot’s mythical background as part of a series of documentaries called, Democracy in America. Each of the one-hour programs focused on a single candidate.

As I relate in Odyssey of a Dereleict Gunslinger, I didn’t know a helluva lot about Perot, other than he was rich, outspoken and allegedly had assembled a team to rescue two of his employees imprisoned in Tehran—a far-fetched tale that was the subject of a best selling book and a movie.

The plain-spoken Texan―journalists are required to describe all Texans as plain-spoken, even if they are mute―announced his candidacy February 20, 1992, on the Larry King show. The program was a favorite venting venue for Perot’s grandiose claims. Most went unchallenged. During this appearance, he told Larry that he had heard the cry of American masses demanding a leader of his skills. He wouldn’t just “tinker with the engine” under the hood, he would fix the thing altogether.

To ensure that Perot heard fellow citizens correctly, a 1-800 number was flashed on the screen for people to register their support. The next day, he claimed that telephone lines were jammed by thousands of calls begging him to rescue the nation in the same manner he saved his jailed employees in Tehran. Perot’s response was to establish the Reform Party. In some ways, it was the face of angry white men. White women, too.

I missed the Larry King interview. And so did Bill Smee, the producer assigned to work with me on the project. The young Yale graduate was among the first people hired for out investigative reporting unit three years before.  Bill and I watched a videotape in awe. Afterwards, we were ready to rush to the ballot box and cast our votes for Perot. He sounded great. But as we soon learned, Perot’s shtick on the Larry King show was pretty much the full range of his political acumen. He accused other candidates of speaking in sound bites, while doing nothing but.

The Rand Paul phenomenon brings back memories of Perot since there seems to be less there than meets the eye. Following a victory in Kentucky last week as the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by former major league pitcher Jim Bunning, Paul has begun lurching through a series of gaffes. The darling of Tea partiers first got caught up in a controversy over his comments about civil rights. He then made a foot in the mouth remark that the Obama Administration should ease up its criticism of BP’s clean-up efforts following the massive Gulf oil spill off the Louisiana coast. When Paul became a target of editorialists and media pundits, he cancelled an appearance on Meet the Press, bemoaning the fact that he has not been given a ”honeymoon” from scrutiny.

Before he self-destructs, Paul should review the trials and tribulations of Ross Perot. He also sought exemption from the kind media examination that sometimes discovers warts. After uncovering numerous inconsistencies in the carefully constructed Perot myth, I found out that he did not like to be challenged. My one-hour interview with him was, perhaps, the strangest with a candidate of my career. He answered questions with metaphors.

“If you really want to know, rather than just throw dust in the air like gorillas do when they fight, go over to EDS (his company)…..” The simian metaphor was followed by a lesser creature. “You’re off on an absolute rabbit chase is where you are, but you love being there. So, I’ve got to bring you back to reality.” Then he visited the insect kingdom. “All you want to do is find, if it’s at all possible, to find one mosquito somewhere. Well, there are no mosquitoes.”

It is no wonder that I felt a sense of déjà-vu sixteen years later when Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin promised to get back to Katie Couric with answers to rather simple questions. I believe my Perot interview was his last with an investigative reporter. Better to have Larry King posing questions. Anyway, bizarre begot bizarre. He temporarilydropped out of the race, only to return a few weeks later to the anthem of Patsy Cline’s hit song, Crazy. Perot received eighteen percent of the votes from a demographic very similar to the tea partiers—white, middle-aged to elderly, and unhappy with Washington. 

Many political experts credit Perot’s candidacy with splitting the votes and electing Bill Clinton over George Herbert Bush. As a non-political expert, I credit Jennifer Flowers. Clinton was a relatively anonymous Arkansas Governor until he appeared on 60 Minutes with his adoring wife, Hillary, to deny an affair with the Little Rock chippie.

Also of great political value was the theme devised by Clinton campaign manager James Carville. “It’s the economy, stupid.” Many of the same economic conditions exist today. Tea partiers have rallied voters, who live in fear of the future. The overall national impact is yet to be measured. No doubt, the rhetoric of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and the stable of Fox “News” fear-mongers has created an illusion of a large constituency of anti-incumbent voters. But what is the staying power of the insurgent candidates. And how often, will they stumble.

David Brooks, the Republican New York Times op-ed columnist, recently wrote an insightful column on the mood of the voters. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/21/opinion/21brooks.html?ref=opinion

For me, the Brooks column is a reminder of the folks I encountered during the Ross Perot adventure. A slightly younger generation of Perot-like people are now making their voices heard. At the same time, the candidates catering to this segment of the electorate are faced with the dilemma of moderating their voices to avoid be heard making dumb statments.

My memoir, Odyssey of a Derelict Gunslinger, is available at amazon.com and independent bookstores. It offers much more than $19.99 worth of laughs. It is an account of my illustrious (I choose the adjectives) career.