here are a couple of links supporting both of my last 2 posts, the idea that the religious right have been preaching the same or worst in the beds of republicans for years up to and including mccain as these show, which in the end means, we shouldn't even have to care about this, anyway...check them out for urselves
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/21/mccain-spiritual-guide-ac_n_92757.html
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/03/john-mccain-rod-parsley-spiritual-guide.html
Friday, March 21, 2008
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
religious right vs religious wright?
A healthy dose of Fox News and a brief drive through the right, conservative blogosphere provided some interesting criticisms of Obama’s speech and relationship with his Wright. The argument I most often heard was one related to truth. That is, Wright’s statements aren’t true and thus can be considered hateful or anti-American. Let’s be clear. Truth is the important factor here, and the critics on the right know that. Obama basically said that Jim Crow and segregation weren’t that long ago and their legacies are still with us today. I heard very few commentators arguing that their major problem with his speech was his reference to those odious ideas. Why? Truth. However, Wright’s sermons have provided them with a pool of statements that they can say first and foremost aren’t true, and if they aren’t true they can be deemed as hateful and unpatriotic. Those statements include saying that the American “government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color." Another statement referenced commonly was, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost.” Newt Gingrich and others criticized the remarks as first and foremost untrue, and subsequently categorized them as hateful, anti-American conspiracy-theorist garbage. After such declarations the questions posed were, “how could Obama be a member of this man’s church? How could this be his spiritual advisor?” Gingrich went so far as to ask why Obama didn’t tell Wright that he was spreading lies, suggesting that was his duty if he was going to sit in his pews. Glenn Beck said he would have stood up to Wright, called him out for spewing lies and then refused to return to his congregation.
It is remarkable that these are the conversations we have in the United States. Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the conservative right, religious in many or most cases, are bickering over the truth of this Pastor’s political words? What about his, and every other pastor’s, religious words? Because we can only assume that they are calling the above remarks false and lies based on what is essentially a scientific method for determining truth. Look for facts to support your hypothesis. Demonstrable facts allow us to determine things true. Lack of facts make things at best suggestive, conjecture or assumptions. Beck, and all of the other mainstream Christians or Christian variety believers, don’t seem to have any issue with their own pastors, ministers, and perhaps selves, espousing what the scientific method has essentially declared untrue or, in other cases, un provable or statistically improbable: a virgin birth, a resurrection, the effectiveness of prayer, the validity of the gospels, and the existence of a creative intelligent god capable of creating the universe and knowing and responding to everyone’s thoughts and actions.
I guess I am supposed to feel sorry about bringing that up. I don’t. I’m sorry I have to. This mostly vile mix of religion and politics in a democracy is uniquely American. Moreover, it has been agitated, intensified and made extreme by the religious right, evangelicals and most recently the Bush administration. Why must our politicians talk about their faith? Why should our wars be presented with religious overtones? I just laid out an argument for why they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t because then when people want to talk about whether they speak the truth or believe in the truth or have friends and advisors who are truthful, we can bring up religion. Or even more relevant to this situation, it is a religious advisor being called a liar. A Christian pastor being attacked for making false political statements about America. If these critics aren’t going to allow for the fact that Wright isn’t a politician, nor a political advisor and thus, his political statements can be disregarded as irrelevant at least as in their relation to Obama, then they should be less, or only equally as relevant as his religious statements given that he is a religious man and advisor. Yet, no one attacks him on that. No one says that he is perpetuating untruths when preaching about god, prayer, Jesus, the resurrection, miracles, virgin births, etc. Oh, wait. You can’t mention those things. That is religion. Don’t analyze religion like politics. Those statements don’t have to be true in the sense that his political statements should be true. As Bush likes to boast they say in Texas, “That’s bull.”
If we allow for religious statements, unproven to be true by the scientific method, to be considered as things that don’t have to be proven because they are not to be taken as wholly true but just parables based on important ideas and ideals, then the critics’ arguments weaken. Why? If you’re arguing that a pastor spoke untrue political words about America and for that reason Obama shouldn’t have associated with him in a religious way, you must allow for his religious words to be weighed as well, and perhaps weighed more, given that Obama’s relationship with him was primarily religious. Unfortunately for many, once you begin talking about religion, in this case specifically Christianity, it becomes difficult to say some untrue words are worse than others. However, to continue the conversation, both the critics and myself want to accept that as Obama says, words matter. Yet, we now aren’t arguing over the 100% accuracy of them but rather their meaning and intent. Like the religious parables and biblical references spoken by the Pastor, we can analyze his political words in the same light. That is, words that aren’t 100% accurate but based on what he considers important ideas and ideals. The critics at this point, having moved past truth, are inflamed at the anti-American rhetoric. Is it though?
As Nader most recently reminded us, “dissent is the mother of assent.” Not only is dissent a right, but it is truly American. So let’s refer back to Wright’s statements. We now can say that his statement about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people isn’t true but doesn’t have to be. Can it be considered a parable of sorts? Can they be considered words that have behind them a story based on important ideas to be extracted and used by the listener, as would religious ones? One might point to the fact that the Bush administration, along with the religious and conservative right, refusing to acknowledge statistics and recommendations from respected medical associations, supported policy in both the U.S and Africa that focused on abstinence-only programming at the cost of contraception education and condom-distribution. Given that in 2005 almost 50% of new diagnoses were black and that the great majority of recent diagnoses of people under 25 years of age are black, isn’t there a story be told? Those are just some statistics. Someone could easily combine those with the poor schools, lack of opportunity, and penal system injustices and start to paint a picture of a government and an America that isn’t truly helping blacks deal with AIDS. Does that mean they invented the virus with the intent of black genocide? No. But it doesn’t have to mean that for the suggestion to be made. The message behind the words is the important idea that the government’s actions in relation to the statistics, to the reality, suggest an indifference that blacks should consider when making decisions in their lives. Is it difficult to understand why that message would be told in a black church on the south side of Chicago?
However, wouldn’t it be more honest and powerful to state the true statistics and then make the suggestions thus avoiding such controversy and anti-Americanism? I don’t know. Perhaps. Would people find it more honest and powerful to be called to prayer by a pastor saying, come pray because statistics show that prayer has no real effect but they do suggest that people feel comforted by the idea of having a real communication with a god unproven to exist? I would argue no. They would inevitably find it more powerful to hear the Pastor suggest that when we pray god not only listens but he also responds.
Furthermore, we can now accept that Wright’s statement about American chickens coming home to roost isn’t 100% accurate but doesn’t have to be. Yet, is there a meaningful message behind the words? I find it the most surprising that people find this quote so outrageous. The fact is that people from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul to current reports about the increase of Al-Queda recruitment since the invasion of Iraq all tell the same story: Our foreign policy plays a big role in the inspiration of violence and violent thought against America. Could that story be told without using the same words Malcolm X used when making his controversial comments about the assassination of JFK? Yes. Would the absence of those words make the story more powerful for a black church audience to hear? I doubt it.
What does all this mean? It means we shouldn’t have the perverse obsession with our politicians’ faith that we do. It also means that the argument that Obama’s religious relationship with a pastor who makes controversial political statements doesn’t truly tell us much about his judgment, character or ability to lead the country. On the contrary, Obama’s speech on race does shed light on his judgment, character and ability to lead. Just as an additional point I didn’t hear being made: Doesn’t the fact that he was able to work with a man, with whom he disagreed with on fundamental issues, to bring about positive change in the Chicago community stand as testimony for his ability to be a unifier and not against it? Isn’t building a coalition made up of people with different views exactly what he will have to do as president?
It is remarkable that these are the conversations we have in the United States. Am I the only one who finds it amusing that the conservative right, religious in many or most cases, are bickering over the truth of this Pastor’s political words? What about his, and every other pastor’s, religious words? Because we can only assume that they are calling the above remarks false and lies based on what is essentially a scientific method for determining truth. Look for facts to support your hypothesis. Demonstrable facts allow us to determine things true. Lack of facts make things at best suggestive, conjecture or assumptions. Beck, and all of the other mainstream Christians or Christian variety believers, don’t seem to have any issue with their own pastors, ministers, and perhaps selves, espousing what the scientific method has essentially declared untrue or, in other cases, un provable or statistically improbable: a virgin birth, a resurrection, the effectiveness of prayer, the validity of the gospels, and the existence of a creative intelligent god capable of creating the universe and knowing and responding to everyone’s thoughts and actions.
I guess I am supposed to feel sorry about bringing that up. I don’t. I’m sorry I have to. This mostly vile mix of religion and politics in a democracy is uniquely American. Moreover, it has been agitated, intensified and made extreme by the religious right, evangelicals and most recently the Bush administration. Why must our politicians talk about their faith? Why should our wars be presented with religious overtones? I just laid out an argument for why they shouldn’t. They shouldn’t because then when people want to talk about whether they speak the truth or believe in the truth or have friends and advisors who are truthful, we can bring up religion. Or even more relevant to this situation, it is a religious advisor being called a liar. A Christian pastor being attacked for making false political statements about America. If these critics aren’t going to allow for the fact that Wright isn’t a politician, nor a political advisor and thus, his political statements can be disregarded as irrelevant at least as in their relation to Obama, then they should be less, or only equally as relevant as his religious statements given that he is a religious man and advisor. Yet, no one attacks him on that. No one says that he is perpetuating untruths when preaching about god, prayer, Jesus, the resurrection, miracles, virgin births, etc. Oh, wait. You can’t mention those things. That is religion. Don’t analyze religion like politics. Those statements don’t have to be true in the sense that his political statements should be true. As Bush likes to boast they say in Texas, “That’s bull.”
If we allow for religious statements, unproven to be true by the scientific method, to be considered as things that don’t have to be proven because they are not to be taken as wholly true but just parables based on important ideas and ideals, then the critics’ arguments weaken. Why? If you’re arguing that a pastor spoke untrue political words about America and for that reason Obama shouldn’t have associated with him in a religious way, you must allow for his religious words to be weighed as well, and perhaps weighed more, given that Obama’s relationship with him was primarily religious. Unfortunately for many, once you begin talking about religion, in this case specifically Christianity, it becomes difficult to say some untrue words are worse than others. However, to continue the conversation, both the critics and myself want to accept that as Obama says, words matter. Yet, we now aren’t arguing over the 100% accuracy of them but rather their meaning and intent. Like the religious parables and biblical references spoken by the Pastor, we can analyze his political words in the same light. That is, words that aren’t 100% accurate but based on what he considers important ideas and ideals. The critics at this point, having moved past truth, are inflamed at the anti-American rhetoric. Is it though?
As Nader most recently reminded us, “dissent is the mother of assent.” Not only is dissent a right, but it is truly American. So let’s refer back to Wright’s statements. We now can say that his statement about the government inventing AIDS to kill black people isn’t true but doesn’t have to be. Can it be considered a parable of sorts? Can they be considered words that have behind them a story based on important ideas to be extracted and used by the listener, as would religious ones? One might point to the fact that the Bush administration, along with the religious and conservative right, refusing to acknowledge statistics and recommendations from respected medical associations, supported policy in both the U.S and Africa that focused on abstinence-only programming at the cost of contraception education and condom-distribution. Given that in 2005 almost 50% of new diagnoses were black and that the great majority of recent diagnoses of people under 25 years of age are black, isn’t there a story be told? Those are just some statistics. Someone could easily combine those with the poor schools, lack of opportunity, and penal system injustices and start to paint a picture of a government and an America that isn’t truly helping blacks deal with AIDS. Does that mean they invented the virus with the intent of black genocide? No. But it doesn’t have to mean that for the suggestion to be made. The message behind the words is the important idea that the government’s actions in relation to the statistics, to the reality, suggest an indifference that blacks should consider when making decisions in their lives. Is it difficult to understand why that message would be told in a black church on the south side of Chicago?
However, wouldn’t it be more honest and powerful to state the true statistics and then make the suggestions thus avoiding such controversy and anti-Americanism? I don’t know. Perhaps. Would people find it more honest and powerful to be called to prayer by a pastor saying, come pray because statistics show that prayer has no real effect but they do suggest that people feel comforted by the idea of having a real communication with a god unproven to exist? I would argue no. They would inevitably find it more powerful to hear the Pastor suggest that when we pray god not only listens but he also responds.
Furthermore, we can now accept that Wright’s statement about American chickens coming home to roost isn’t 100% accurate but doesn’t have to be. Yet, is there a meaningful message behind the words? I find it the most surprising that people find this quote so outrageous. The fact is that people from Noam Chomsky to Ron Paul to current reports about the increase of Al-Queda recruitment since the invasion of Iraq all tell the same story: Our foreign policy plays a big role in the inspiration of violence and violent thought against America. Could that story be told without using the same words Malcolm X used when making his controversial comments about the assassination of JFK? Yes. Would the absence of those words make the story more powerful for a black church audience to hear? I doubt it.
What does all this mean? It means we shouldn’t have the perverse obsession with our politicians’ faith that we do. It also means that the argument that Obama’s religious relationship with a pastor who makes controversial political statements doesn’t truly tell us much about his judgment, character or ability to lead the country. On the contrary, Obama’s speech on race does shed light on his judgment, character and ability to lead. Just as an additional point I didn’t hear being made: Doesn’t the fact that he was able to work with a man, with whom he disagreed with on fundamental issues, to bring about positive change in the Chicago community stand as testimony for his ability to be a unifier and not against it? Isn’t building a coalition made up of people with different views exactly what he will have to do as president?
Monday, March 17, 2008
america! god damn...
this is a comment on a politico story related to the media fire over obama's ex-pastor.
on point. i'll post the comment but here is the link to the article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9095_Page2.html
it seems to be a post written by Francis Schaeffer's son Frank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton. Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American. Email Print Comments Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies. Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience: If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable. And this: In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union.... Then this: There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation... Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop). Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements. Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance." We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did. My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany. The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed. Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.
what do you think about that?
on point. i'll post the comment but here is the link to the article:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9095_Page2.html
it seems to be a post written by Francis Schaeffer's son Frank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Schaeffer
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr. Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton. Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American. Email Print Comments Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies. Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience: If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable. And this: In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union.... Then this: There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation... Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop). Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements. Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance." We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did. My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany. The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed. Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.
what do you think about that?
Friday, March 14, 2008
the challenge. the case. the invitation.
I contacted one of my friends and invited him to read my blog and comment on it. I mentioned that as of now my posts have been commentaries on politics and most specifically the democratic candidate race. He responded back that he doesn’t discuss politics or religion because conversations such as those always end in arguments. Additionally I contacted a known Hillary supporter, excited at the prospect of hearing some defense and offense from her side, and was met with a similar response. She wrote that from a fleeting glance at my blog she surmised that the topics I’ve raised for discussion would only allow for what inevitably “devolves into a roe v. wade type debate and no one ever wins there, do they?”
Before I go further let me state clearly that I respect both of these friends as intelligent people. With that said…
I’ve come across this hands-off attitude before. It is a curious stance for an intellectual, or even for just a reflective self-aware person, to have. At this point I will simply say that intelligently and vigorously debating topics, relevant or irrelevant, grave or silly, physical or metaphysical, critical or trivial, can be and should be a fantastic cerebral exercise. And while I am an avid supporter of relaxation and escapism, I simultaneously uphold that cerebral exercise, the creative engagement of one’s mind, is a necessary part of being a reflective and self-aware person and citizen. Thus, nothing should be off the table for investigation.
The Hillary supporter (HS) suggested that my blog seemed to lack any recognition of the fact that the democrats have two great candidates to choose from this year and this makes for a challenging race and choice. She also said she admired my “fierce allegiance” to Obama. I’ve said this before and I want to be clear: I am not fiercely allegiant to Obama by any standard. In addition, and this is only to explain, I have only recently started blogging and have done so as an exercise and with the hope of creating some dialogue and expressing some opinions. Perhaps had I started blogging earlier in the race I would’ve already written as to the miraculous opportunity democrats have this year given a choice between two great and respectable candidates. I would’ve most likely written about the additional benefit of witnessing the historic candidacies of what could be our first female or black president. I didn’t so I haven’t but I concede the point HS.
It is fair to say that given the present status of the race, it would be difficult for any supporter of either candidate to still be entranced by the opportunity and marveling at the historic significance. That time has passed. Part of the process of unifying the party once we have a candidate will depend on leaders’ abilities to recreate that sense of awe, history and excitement.
Saying “that time has passed” is not a generic reference to the fact that we are in the middle of a race. “That” time has passed but not just because inevitably “the” time has passed. No. “That” time has passed in great part due to the direction that this race has taken since Super Tuesday, arguably accelerating in that direction with every loss Clinton suffers.
Don’t run yet, HS. HS suggested my blog focus “less on issues that have been talked about so much that it's tiresome to people who follow politics every day” and instead, “talk about the issues that matter in choosing a President.”
What does that mean? HS mentioned foreign policy, healthcare, economic strategies and how a candidate will be a unifying force, as possible issues. Certainly anyone who follows politics everyday would acknowledge that those issues have been covered. Just watching the 20 debates they’ve had would certainly give the average voter a sense of each of the candidates’ stances on those issues, healthcare and foreign policy specifically. If one were to argue that the media hasn’t or doesn’t dive deeply into the details of each candidates plans or proposals related to those issues I would probably agree. However, history gives us good reason to be skeptics when dealing with both the big ideas and the details of any candidate’s proposals or plans before they get to office. Think: “no new taxes,” “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” “compassionate conservatism.” No matter what anyone says, it is all talk until you’re in the white house. Nevertheless, those are important issues and I want to address them.
Yet, are you suggesting, HS, that the issues I have dealt with on my fledgling blog, (issues such as the mathematical improbabilities Clinton faces and what that means about the purpose of her continued campaign, the validity of her big state argument, the ambiguity of her Texas “win,” what is the significance of the republican crossover vote, the Michigan/Florida debacle, the Clinton campaign’s role in the Michigan/Florida solution process, the validity of Clinton’s logic as represented in her words, be it suggestions at the VP offer or her declaration of the Michigan primary as “fair,”) are irrelevant to the process of choosing a president? Does the media’s perhaps over-coverage of these topics render them inconsequential?
No. On the contrary, they are substantial. The importance of exploring the hypothetical future results of the candidates’ plans and proposals cannot be denied. However, with so much unknown about the reality of those proposals and plans being realized and being realized in the form they are being presented, we have good reason to analyze and utilize what isn’t hypothetical and unknown: their records and how they run their campaigns. With that said, in regards to all those issues, I have raised reasonable questions that demand answers. For example, there is no reason to suggest that we can’t discuss the validity of calling Michigan’s primary “fair.” It isn’t a “Roe V Wade” issue but in fact a topical issue of which some declaration on one side or the other will definitively be made by the party and possibly with significant consequences. Furthermore, whether for good or for bad, it is through the campaign that we learn the most about our candidates as people. Yes, looking at their records tells us something. However, given that it has been almost 50 years since a candidate moved straight from the Senate to the Oval Office, the voting public is either remembering or seeing for the first time how difficult it is to investigate a Senator’s record, especially in our polarized climate. Voters have seen repeatedly how the same vote can be represented in a variety of ways, attacked or defended from different sides, and bought or sold in different packages. Thus, the senatorial records, brief on both sides of the democratic race, play a somewhat tenuous role in voters’ minds when they think about what matters in choosing a president. Again, this increases the importance of the things that voters witness happening present day, in front of their eyes, on the campaign trail. So again, I do invite you HS to participate in the conversation I started on my blog in regards to the important issues above.
I will now deal with the issues you presented. It may surprise you, or not, to know I am in love with very little about his stance on many of the issues you raised. Moreover, you didn’t mention education and neither do they, which in my book deserves the boo. (booooo) Hillary said she’d end NCLB, which is probably a better idea than his idea of reforming it. Nevertheless, it has practically been a non-issue in this campaign and I will let that speak for itself at the moment.
Foreign Policy.
I am not going to talk about this speech or that vote against Iraq. What I like about Obama is that he believes in diplomacy. People hype is oratory. I’m not one who feels shivers in my spine when he speaks. I do find him familiar and convincing, powerful and well reasoned. I think the debates have helped to expose a difference between him and Hillary as far as an approach to diplomacy is concerned. She doesn’t believe we can talk to just anyone. There needs to be preconditions and we mustn’t toss our presence at a discussion table around lightly. As an ever increasing traveler myself I do believe that attitude has at its basis an unseemly arrogance. I am encouraged by his faith in the diplomatic process. I admire the idea that someone committed to diplomacy can be effective with it. The conviction that it is important to talk with both your friend and foe respectfully is a philosophical stance that holds relevance in interpersonal relationships as well as international ones. She shies away from doing that under the pretense of it being irresponsible. Her campaign strategy of late truly reflects the idea that political gains can be made through demeaning, insulting and division. Shall we be seen that way as a country as well? Not even a staunch HS supporter would submit that hers has been a campaign of unity, negotiation or of reaching across barriers. One’s ability to conjure up those ideas, be it truthfully or superficially, is necessary for effective diplomacy.
HS didn’t mention ethics but it relates to the values I was discussing above. It relates to the concepts of unity, negotiation and reaching across barriers. Obama already fought for some long needed ethics reform but I am impressed with the levels of transparency he wants to bring to government. His “Google for Government” idea is innovative and directly related to accountability and public participation. What does HS say are the reasons Hillary is waiting to release her financial information? Obama has recently released a list of his earmark spending requests. Clinton, as of yet, has made no move to release hers and in fact resisted the idea. Shouldn’t the people know how the government spends their money? Again, what reason is there to resist this idea? Would HS argue this isn’t an important issue when choosing a president? How? He is showing leadership on this issue.
Healthcare.
I don’t need to spend much time discussing healthcare. I don’t really care for either of their plans. I would support a single-payer system. That is the only thing I consider actual “universal” health care. Neither of them supports it. Choosing between the two, it is arguable that Clinton has the better plan. While Obama raises good points about the weaknesses of a mandate I agree that if you’re not supporting single-payer but you’re saying your plan is “universal,” you need to require everyone to be covered. Given that they both fall short of my preference, the debate about mandates doesn’t strike me as particularly critical given how similar the rest of the plans are. Healthcare is the biggest example of an issue that we can talk about ad nauseam and yet there is little reason to think that either of their plans will be realized anytime soon. Their healthcare plans are reasons to vote for either of them against McCain but not strong enough reasons to make that you’re reason to vote for one over the other. Would you argue otherwise HS?
Economic Strategies.
What does that entail? From the debates and their websites it is clear that they both have very similar economic strategies. They both want middle class tax relief, improved trade agreements, the stimulation and creation of a “green” economy, investment in rural areas, the improved opportunities and strength of and for labor unions, etc. That, in combination with their strikingly similar ideas about the war and war spending, makes it unclear to me which economic strategies of one or the other could be argued as a deciding factor. I’m not convinced that either of them will decrease our military spending given what they will be inheriting. However, I do think that these strategies along with all the other issues mentioned tie into the last one you proposed as important in choosing a president: how a candidate will be a unifying force.
The way they have run their campaigns and the types of voters they have been able to attract I think is a significant, present-day active example of what kind of unifying force they are and could be. I think it is undeniable who has the advantage here. In states like Virginia and Maryland Obama won almost every category of voter. He only about drew even with whites, but did win with white males. Moreover, the republican crossover phenomenon shows a stark contrast here. In January and February when he was winning the majority of republican crossover votes, the crossover percentages were much lower, typically 3-4%. It was argued that those were genuine crossovers, moderates who had become “Obama-republicans.” On the other hand, more recently in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi, there were much larger percentages of crossover voters. Those voters overwhelmingly voted for Clinton and statistics showed that the majority of those voters supported McCain and would be dissatisfied if she got the nomination. What that represents is a tremendous negative force and divisiveness attached to Hillary. Polls have hovered consistently at around 40% of people who have negative feelings toward her. All these things do not add up to a unifying force. However, if one wants to discuss the possibility of being a unifying force in government and ending the partisanship, it is hard to make a convincing argument either way. Both Hillary and Obama represent significantly left-leaning, liberal, democrat agendas. The lack of a precedent for republican acceptance of those types of agendas suggests they both will have an uphill battle reaching across the aisle. Yet, given the above analysis, there is a solid argument for Obama having a greater chance at being a unifying force.
I’ve discussed the issues HS suggested were important when choosing a president. Let me present one other case. The fact is that experience hasn’t proven an effective indicator of presidential success. Experience provides people with some comfort at the idea of their candidate being tested. However, if experience is your determining factor, McCain has the most of it. Which brings me to my next point. As both Clinton and Obama say: There is every reason to want change right now. There is every reason to want something new. Just as experience provides some with comfort at the idea of a tested candidate, it provides others with the idea of a stale cynicism. Whether Clinton herself touts some progressive ideas or fresh directions in contrast to the last eight years, there is no escaping her name, her history, and her baggage. There is no denying that the greenest candidate is Obama. He is the outsider. He is the newest and the freshest and accordingly baggage-free. And while that may translate to inexperience and thus discomfort for some, it translates to hope of something different for others. Just as Hillary suggests about her healthcare plan: if you want to go universal it is necessary to start with what she considers a pure idea of universal, because it will most likely be nibbled to death later. The same argument supports Obama as the candidate for change. If you truly want something different then you have to at least start with a pure idea of something different, something new, and something hopeful. He inherently represents the purer idea of those things by being younger, multi-cultural and a hopeful unifier as represented as by his campaign and supporters.
Let’s be clear. I’ve laid down an argument for why Obama could be considered the better candidate. How good that argument is depends. Please HS, respond to this. I want to hear what you think is the compelling argument for Hillary. What does that mean? A compelling argument to me would be one that represents the counter points to all of the points I have made. If you don’t want to address certain issues that I’ve raised, such as the list of ones mentioned on my blog, I would rightly expect an argument for why those issues don’t deserve attention. I am open to being persuaded. I have made the argument for Obama because I understand how to make that argument logically. Show me how to make the argument for Hillary.
Before I go further let me state clearly that I respect both of these friends as intelligent people. With that said…
I’ve come across this hands-off attitude before. It is a curious stance for an intellectual, or even for just a reflective self-aware person, to have. At this point I will simply say that intelligently and vigorously debating topics, relevant or irrelevant, grave or silly, physical or metaphysical, critical or trivial, can be and should be a fantastic cerebral exercise. And while I am an avid supporter of relaxation and escapism, I simultaneously uphold that cerebral exercise, the creative engagement of one’s mind, is a necessary part of being a reflective and self-aware person and citizen. Thus, nothing should be off the table for investigation.
The Hillary supporter (HS) suggested that my blog seemed to lack any recognition of the fact that the democrats have two great candidates to choose from this year and this makes for a challenging race and choice. She also said she admired my “fierce allegiance” to Obama. I’ve said this before and I want to be clear: I am not fiercely allegiant to Obama by any standard. In addition, and this is only to explain, I have only recently started blogging and have done so as an exercise and with the hope of creating some dialogue and expressing some opinions. Perhaps had I started blogging earlier in the race I would’ve already written as to the miraculous opportunity democrats have this year given a choice between two great and respectable candidates. I would’ve most likely written about the additional benefit of witnessing the historic candidacies of what could be our first female or black president. I didn’t so I haven’t but I concede the point HS.
It is fair to say that given the present status of the race, it would be difficult for any supporter of either candidate to still be entranced by the opportunity and marveling at the historic significance. That time has passed. Part of the process of unifying the party once we have a candidate will depend on leaders’ abilities to recreate that sense of awe, history and excitement.
Saying “that time has passed” is not a generic reference to the fact that we are in the middle of a race. “That” time has passed but not just because inevitably “the” time has passed. No. “That” time has passed in great part due to the direction that this race has taken since Super Tuesday, arguably accelerating in that direction with every loss Clinton suffers.
Don’t run yet, HS. HS suggested my blog focus “less on issues that have been talked about so much that it's tiresome to people who follow politics every day” and instead, “talk about the issues that matter in choosing a President.”
What does that mean? HS mentioned foreign policy, healthcare, economic strategies and how a candidate will be a unifying force, as possible issues. Certainly anyone who follows politics everyday would acknowledge that those issues have been covered. Just watching the 20 debates they’ve had would certainly give the average voter a sense of each of the candidates’ stances on those issues, healthcare and foreign policy specifically. If one were to argue that the media hasn’t or doesn’t dive deeply into the details of each candidates plans or proposals related to those issues I would probably agree. However, history gives us good reason to be skeptics when dealing with both the big ideas and the details of any candidate’s proposals or plans before they get to office. Think: “no new taxes,” “we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” “compassionate conservatism.” No matter what anyone says, it is all talk until you’re in the white house. Nevertheless, those are important issues and I want to address them.
Yet, are you suggesting, HS, that the issues I have dealt with on my fledgling blog, (issues such as the mathematical improbabilities Clinton faces and what that means about the purpose of her continued campaign, the validity of her big state argument, the ambiguity of her Texas “win,” what is the significance of the republican crossover vote, the Michigan/Florida debacle, the Clinton campaign’s role in the Michigan/Florida solution process, the validity of Clinton’s logic as represented in her words, be it suggestions at the VP offer or her declaration of the Michigan primary as “fair,”) are irrelevant to the process of choosing a president? Does the media’s perhaps over-coverage of these topics render them inconsequential?
No. On the contrary, they are substantial. The importance of exploring the hypothetical future results of the candidates’ plans and proposals cannot be denied. However, with so much unknown about the reality of those proposals and plans being realized and being realized in the form they are being presented, we have good reason to analyze and utilize what isn’t hypothetical and unknown: their records and how they run their campaigns. With that said, in regards to all those issues, I have raised reasonable questions that demand answers. For example, there is no reason to suggest that we can’t discuss the validity of calling Michigan’s primary “fair.” It isn’t a “Roe V Wade” issue but in fact a topical issue of which some declaration on one side or the other will definitively be made by the party and possibly with significant consequences. Furthermore, whether for good or for bad, it is through the campaign that we learn the most about our candidates as people. Yes, looking at their records tells us something. However, given that it has been almost 50 years since a candidate moved straight from the Senate to the Oval Office, the voting public is either remembering or seeing for the first time how difficult it is to investigate a Senator’s record, especially in our polarized climate. Voters have seen repeatedly how the same vote can be represented in a variety of ways, attacked or defended from different sides, and bought or sold in different packages. Thus, the senatorial records, brief on both sides of the democratic race, play a somewhat tenuous role in voters’ minds when they think about what matters in choosing a president. Again, this increases the importance of the things that voters witness happening present day, in front of their eyes, on the campaign trail. So again, I do invite you HS to participate in the conversation I started on my blog in regards to the important issues above.
I will now deal with the issues you presented. It may surprise you, or not, to know I am in love with very little about his stance on many of the issues you raised. Moreover, you didn’t mention education and neither do they, which in my book deserves the boo. (booooo) Hillary said she’d end NCLB, which is probably a better idea than his idea of reforming it. Nevertheless, it has practically been a non-issue in this campaign and I will let that speak for itself at the moment.
Foreign Policy.
I am not going to talk about this speech or that vote against Iraq. What I like about Obama is that he believes in diplomacy. People hype is oratory. I’m not one who feels shivers in my spine when he speaks. I do find him familiar and convincing, powerful and well reasoned. I think the debates have helped to expose a difference between him and Hillary as far as an approach to diplomacy is concerned. She doesn’t believe we can talk to just anyone. There needs to be preconditions and we mustn’t toss our presence at a discussion table around lightly. As an ever increasing traveler myself I do believe that attitude has at its basis an unseemly arrogance. I am encouraged by his faith in the diplomatic process. I admire the idea that someone committed to diplomacy can be effective with it. The conviction that it is important to talk with both your friend and foe respectfully is a philosophical stance that holds relevance in interpersonal relationships as well as international ones. She shies away from doing that under the pretense of it being irresponsible. Her campaign strategy of late truly reflects the idea that political gains can be made through demeaning, insulting and division. Shall we be seen that way as a country as well? Not even a staunch HS supporter would submit that hers has been a campaign of unity, negotiation or of reaching across barriers. One’s ability to conjure up those ideas, be it truthfully or superficially, is necessary for effective diplomacy.
HS didn’t mention ethics but it relates to the values I was discussing above. It relates to the concepts of unity, negotiation and reaching across barriers. Obama already fought for some long needed ethics reform but I am impressed with the levels of transparency he wants to bring to government. His “Google for Government” idea is innovative and directly related to accountability and public participation. What does HS say are the reasons Hillary is waiting to release her financial information? Obama has recently released a list of his earmark spending requests. Clinton, as of yet, has made no move to release hers and in fact resisted the idea. Shouldn’t the people know how the government spends their money? Again, what reason is there to resist this idea? Would HS argue this isn’t an important issue when choosing a president? How? He is showing leadership on this issue.
Healthcare.
I don’t need to spend much time discussing healthcare. I don’t really care for either of their plans. I would support a single-payer system. That is the only thing I consider actual “universal” health care. Neither of them supports it. Choosing between the two, it is arguable that Clinton has the better plan. While Obama raises good points about the weaknesses of a mandate I agree that if you’re not supporting single-payer but you’re saying your plan is “universal,” you need to require everyone to be covered. Given that they both fall short of my preference, the debate about mandates doesn’t strike me as particularly critical given how similar the rest of the plans are. Healthcare is the biggest example of an issue that we can talk about ad nauseam and yet there is little reason to think that either of their plans will be realized anytime soon. Their healthcare plans are reasons to vote for either of them against McCain but not strong enough reasons to make that you’re reason to vote for one over the other. Would you argue otherwise HS?
Economic Strategies.
What does that entail? From the debates and their websites it is clear that they both have very similar economic strategies. They both want middle class tax relief, improved trade agreements, the stimulation and creation of a “green” economy, investment in rural areas, the improved opportunities and strength of and for labor unions, etc. That, in combination with their strikingly similar ideas about the war and war spending, makes it unclear to me which economic strategies of one or the other could be argued as a deciding factor. I’m not convinced that either of them will decrease our military spending given what they will be inheriting. However, I do think that these strategies along with all the other issues mentioned tie into the last one you proposed as important in choosing a president: how a candidate will be a unifying force.
The way they have run their campaigns and the types of voters they have been able to attract I think is a significant, present-day active example of what kind of unifying force they are and could be. I think it is undeniable who has the advantage here. In states like Virginia and Maryland Obama won almost every category of voter. He only about drew even with whites, but did win with white males. Moreover, the republican crossover phenomenon shows a stark contrast here. In January and February when he was winning the majority of republican crossover votes, the crossover percentages were much lower, typically 3-4%. It was argued that those were genuine crossovers, moderates who had become “Obama-republicans.” On the other hand, more recently in Ohio, Texas and Mississippi, there were much larger percentages of crossover voters. Those voters overwhelmingly voted for Clinton and statistics showed that the majority of those voters supported McCain and would be dissatisfied if she got the nomination. What that represents is a tremendous negative force and divisiveness attached to Hillary. Polls have hovered consistently at around 40% of people who have negative feelings toward her. All these things do not add up to a unifying force. However, if one wants to discuss the possibility of being a unifying force in government and ending the partisanship, it is hard to make a convincing argument either way. Both Hillary and Obama represent significantly left-leaning, liberal, democrat agendas. The lack of a precedent for republican acceptance of those types of agendas suggests they both will have an uphill battle reaching across the aisle. Yet, given the above analysis, there is a solid argument for Obama having a greater chance at being a unifying force.
I’ve discussed the issues HS suggested were important when choosing a president. Let me present one other case. The fact is that experience hasn’t proven an effective indicator of presidential success. Experience provides people with some comfort at the idea of their candidate being tested. However, if experience is your determining factor, McCain has the most of it. Which brings me to my next point. As both Clinton and Obama say: There is every reason to want change right now. There is every reason to want something new. Just as experience provides some with comfort at the idea of a tested candidate, it provides others with the idea of a stale cynicism. Whether Clinton herself touts some progressive ideas or fresh directions in contrast to the last eight years, there is no escaping her name, her history, and her baggage. There is no denying that the greenest candidate is Obama. He is the outsider. He is the newest and the freshest and accordingly baggage-free. And while that may translate to inexperience and thus discomfort for some, it translates to hope of something different for others. Just as Hillary suggests about her healthcare plan: if you want to go universal it is necessary to start with what she considers a pure idea of universal, because it will most likely be nibbled to death later. The same argument supports Obama as the candidate for change. If you truly want something different then you have to at least start with a pure idea of something different, something new, and something hopeful. He inherently represents the purer idea of those things by being younger, multi-cultural and a hopeful unifier as represented as by his campaign and supporters.
Let’s be clear. I’ve laid down an argument for why Obama could be considered the better candidate. How good that argument is depends. Please HS, respond to this. I want to hear what you think is the compelling argument for Hillary. What does that mean? A compelling argument to me would be one that represents the counter points to all of the points I have made. If you don’t want to address certain issues that I’ve raised, such as the list of ones mentioned on my blog, I would rightly expect an argument for why those issues don’t deserve attention. I am open to being persuaded. I have made the argument for Obama because I understand how to make that argument logically. Show me how to make the argument for Hillary.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
dollar menu: Michigan fair? spitzer hasta go, and Olbermann, crossed the line?
"The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored,"
this is what Clinton said of the Michigan and Florida primaries. Up until this morning i was dying to hear how it is possible that Clinton supporters would defend the absurdity of their candidate's statement. not only that, but whether or not they could take that as some insight about her judgement, motives, and abilities to lead?
Although there is a very valid case to be made for why Florida shouldn't count as is and wasn't fair or representative, let's put it aside for now because she also mentioned Michigan.
People, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. He was not an option. People couldn't vote for him. they could vote uncommitted but if they did that, that wasn't a vote for Obama. Edwards wasn't on that ballot either for example. An uncommitted vote was a vote of non-commitment. So how, even in a crazy David Bowie puppet filled labyrinth world, is a primary where your competitors' names aren't on the ballot and voting for them isn't an option, "fair"?
Isn't that a tremendous statement about what Clinton thinks is "just" in this world? Doesn't that unabashedly express that she considers whatever is good for her politically as "fair" and "just" regardless of the rules or the context? Regardless, as some may say, to the cost to her party?
It's simply astounding that a person claiming to have good judgment would judge such a contest "fair."
I say it was until this morning that i was waiting for an explanation for another amazing inconsistency from the Clinton camp to be explained because i heard her try to explain it on NPR today. Questioned how it could be fair since his name wasn't on the ballot she said, "that was his choice."
I see. So the DNC said the primary won't count and the state rubbed their middle fingers in the DNC's face and so a few candidates, including Obama, took their names off the ballot to try to support the idea that there needs to be rules, those rules should be followed and that is it, that is also a part of democracy. So that he voluntarily took his name off the ballot makes the vote fair? I can't for the life of me create the logic chain here. the fact, again, was that voters asked, "how do i vote for Obama?" and they were answered, "you can't." Unfair.
I want to state unequivocally that my support for Obama doesn't affect my ability to reason. So, without beating a dead wolverine, i invite anyone to create a valid argument as to why Michigan was a fair vote?
Florida is another story. Neither of them could campaign there. Everyone agrees she was much better known there than he was at the time of the vote. In fact, she had a few permitted fundraisers there. Additionally, as i mentioned in my other entry, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee gave them 30 days to change their primary date. Thus, it was in the news and i imagine a topic of conversation at least during those 30 days. Which means people heard what was happening and heard they would be stripped of their delegates. How they reacted to that no one knows? Did many stay home?
One thing we do know for sure is that in every state where Clinton has had a lead, according to polls going into a primary, Obama's campaigning has been very effective at narrowing that lead. So, on top of all the other reasons and doubts, that suggests again that this wasn't an equal opportunity vote.
Enough. The media should be jumping all over this.
I've already discussed FL and MI at length in my earlier entry but i just want to raise one issue. During all of this debate and discussion about what to do we are hearing from all kinds of politicians and party leaders. Not only that but we are hearing poll after poll of what people want to do, what they think about this option, that option. The media and the politicians are very active now. Now. Why didn't these people get involved before? Why didn't anyone foresee the possible calamity? Simple questions could've been asked. Would you support an early primary if that meant Florida couldn't seat its delegates? would you vote in a primary such as that? Do you support you're elected leaders deciding that moving up the primary date is more important than following party rules and participating equally in this year's election process?
A sham and a shame.
Spitzer. I'm not going to write much about this. I find two things interesting. The first is that anyone would suggest he shouldn't have resigned. He held public office and possibly poured upwards of $80,000 into a prostitution ring that sources say may have had links to organized crime. outside of the fact that a prostitution ring is a form of organized crime, given that it is a crime and it is organized. Listen, you do a little coke or buy a little weed, that's one thing. You use a prostitute one time, maybe you can make an argument. This is supporting an illegal activity with tremendous money and over a long period of time. Forget about it. You're gone.
The only other interesting topic related to Spitzer I'll weigh in on is the one of his wife standing next to him. I just think if we haven't heard from the wife, then why speculate. Does her presence during the press conferences mean she supports his behavior? I don't think so unless she says so. It's a difficult time and you have to do difficult things. Spitzer's wife is a Harvard educated lawyer so i think any suggestion that she isn't capable of deciding what she should do on our own, and what that means for her individually and as a mother and wife, is ridiculous.
I'll leave a question for anyone reading. It is in regards to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's special comment. the link is below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/
the question is: is his special comment appropriate for him to make as a journalist? does it cross the line of what the media is supposed to do? or is this what we want and should expect from our media?
this is what Clinton said of the Michigan and Florida primaries. Up until this morning i was dying to hear how it is possible that Clinton supporters would defend the absurdity of their candidate's statement. not only that, but whether or not they could take that as some insight about her judgement, motives, and abilities to lead?
Although there is a very valid case to be made for why Florida shouldn't count as is and wasn't fair or representative, let's put it aside for now because she also mentioned Michigan.
People, Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. He was not an option. People couldn't vote for him. they could vote uncommitted but if they did that, that wasn't a vote for Obama. Edwards wasn't on that ballot either for example. An uncommitted vote was a vote of non-commitment. So how, even in a crazy David Bowie puppet filled labyrinth world, is a primary where your competitors' names aren't on the ballot and voting for them isn't an option, "fair"?
Isn't that a tremendous statement about what Clinton thinks is "just" in this world? Doesn't that unabashedly express that she considers whatever is good for her politically as "fair" and "just" regardless of the rules or the context? Regardless, as some may say, to the cost to her party?
It's simply astounding that a person claiming to have good judgment would judge such a contest "fair."
I say it was until this morning that i was waiting for an explanation for another amazing inconsistency from the Clinton camp to be explained because i heard her try to explain it on NPR today. Questioned how it could be fair since his name wasn't on the ballot she said, "that was his choice."
I see. So the DNC said the primary won't count and the state rubbed their middle fingers in the DNC's face and so a few candidates, including Obama, took their names off the ballot to try to support the idea that there needs to be rules, those rules should be followed and that is it, that is also a part of democracy. So that he voluntarily took his name off the ballot makes the vote fair? I can't for the life of me create the logic chain here. the fact, again, was that voters asked, "how do i vote for Obama?" and they were answered, "you can't." Unfair.
I want to state unequivocally that my support for Obama doesn't affect my ability to reason. So, without beating a dead wolverine, i invite anyone to create a valid argument as to why Michigan was a fair vote?
Florida is another story. Neither of them could campaign there. Everyone agrees she was much better known there than he was at the time of the vote. In fact, she had a few permitted fundraisers there. Additionally, as i mentioned in my other entry, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee gave them 30 days to change their primary date. Thus, it was in the news and i imagine a topic of conversation at least during those 30 days. Which means people heard what was happening and heard they would be stripped of their delegates. How they reacted to that no one knows? Did many stay home?
One thing we do know for sure is that in every state where Clinton has had a lead, according to polls going into a primary, Obama's campaigning has been very effective at narrowing that lead. So, on top of all the other reasons and doubts, that suggests again that this wasn't an equal opportunity vote.
Enough. The media should be jumping all over this.
I've already discussed FL and MI at length in my earlier entry but i just want to raise one issue. During all of this debate and discussion about what to do we are hearing from all kinds of politicians and party leaders. Not only that but we are hearing poll after poll of what people want to do, what they think about this option, that option. The media and the politicians are very active now. Now. Why didn't these people get involved before? Why didn't anyone foresee the possible calamity? Simple questions could've been asked. Would you support an early primary if that meant Florida couldn't seat its delegates? would you vote in a primary such as that? Do you support you're elected leaders deciding that moving up the primary date is more important than following party rules and participating equally in this year's election process?
A sham and a shame.
Spitzer. I'm not going to write much about this. I find two things interesting. The first is that anyone would suggest he shouldn't have resigned. He held public office and possibly poured upwards of $80,000 into a prostitution ring that sources say may have had links to organized crime. outside of the fact that a prostitution ring is a form of organized crime, given that it is a crime and it is organized. Listen, you do a little coke or buy a little weed, that's one thing. You use a prostitute one time, maybe you can make an argument. This is supporting an illegal activity with tremendous money and over a long period of time. Forget about it. You're gone.
The only other interesting topic related to Spitzer I'll weigh in on is the one of his wife standing next to him. I just think if we haven't heard from the wife, then why speculate. Does her presence during the press conferences mean she supports his behavior? I don't think so unless she says so. It's a difficult time and you have to do difficult things. Spitzer's wife is a Harvard educated lawyer so i think any suggestion that she isn't capable of deciding what she should do on our own, and what that means for her individually and as a mother and wife, is ridiculous.
I'll leave a question for anyone reading. It is in regards to MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's special comment. the link is below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16270176/
the question is: is his special comment appropriate for him to make as a journalist? does it cross the line of what the media is supposed to do? or is this what we want and should expect from our media?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
headless chicken
Perhaps it is unfortunate that the left shies away from religion since it is in dire need of a savior. Seeming more and more like a chicken running around with its head cut off, the Democratic Party lacks an Optimus Prime. No? How about a Yoda? Popular references aside what we are witnessing is a freak show. The Florida and Michigan debacle exposes the fragility of a party with no central command and an ever-thinning sense of what constitutes democracy. I might argue that it is being driven down the road to self-destruction by the massive ego of Hillary Clinton. I might. But let’s look at how we got into this mess.
As we analyze this let us accept certain things as true. Our electoral process and primary/caucus season is deeply flawed. We were not ready before this election year to fix it and we are not ready to fix it now. Let us also accept that whatever conclusion one wants to make along the way may not be a perfect one, a great one, or even a good one. We shall aim for a realistic one that is as close to fair as possible given the doo-doo context described above.
Last year every state agreed to the strict sanctions in the rules of the DNC. Those sanctions gave the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee the power to strip rogue states of their delegates, half or all depending on the severity of the breach. The DNC rules stated that Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina could have their caucuses or primaries in January. Everyone else would have to wait until February 5th or later. The reasoning went that those states were smaller and were friendlier to on the ground campaigning with a lot of face-to-face time in contrast to large states more agreeable to those candidates with the money to buy themselves exposure on radio and television. How good is that argument? It depends. I don’t like it. I don’t give a shit that Iowa and New Hampshire are small; why should they get to decide who we Ohioans get to vote between? How about a national primary? How about a real round robin of small intimate debates leading up to that national primary? Awwwww nobody listens. My distaste not withstanding, this is the system that was decided on for 2008 by the DNC. So obviously Michigan and Florida should have to eat it just like we do in Ohio. Right?
Not according to them.
Florida voted to hold their primaries early. Some Florida Democrats argue that the Republicans control the legislature and, despite pleas from the Dems, refused to change the proposed early date. In addition some say that the bill, despite including a variety of election related legislation that the Dems didn’t care for, called for a paper trail of votes to be created. The argument was that they had to vote in favor of the paper trail because memories of the 2000 election still haunt them on cold winter nights. Thus, claiming the Republicans bullied them, they bowed a knee to the DNC and begged for mercy.
There was none to be had. Florida was to be made an example of and all of their delegates would be stripped. Wait, that is not exactly true. They were given thirty days to do whatever was necessary to conform to the party’s rules, i.e., change the date of their primary. Seems reasonable, no? Rules are rules, they were created to help not hurt, and what right does Florida have to declare itself special? Isn’t there a Bush in office in Florida?
In a Washington Post article written the day after the delegate-stripping sanction was announced, it stated, “Florida's state party chair, Karen L. Thurman, showed no signs of backing down yesterday. The former congresswoman said she will consult with state Democrats but added that she expects all the presidential candidates to ignore the national party's edict and campaign vigorously in advance of the Sunshine State's primary. "Whether you get a delegate or don't get a delegate, a vote is a vote," a defiant Thurman said. "That is what Floridians are going to say is important."”
So Thurman, acting as resident doosh-bag, thought Florida was so important that nobody would care about the rules, the rulings or the sanctions. And now we have a f@#king mess. Many had declared their early primary moot but they went through with it anyway and a million and change came out to vote with no promise of their votes counting. Who knows how many didn’t come out that would’ve? Who knows how the results would’ve panned out had candidates been able to campaign there? Nobody. Of course, Clinton “won” amongst the voters who voted so she thinks she could predict the outcome of those hypothetical scenarios: she wins. Shocking.
Michigan ended up doing the same thing. Michigan has its own resident doosh-bag, Mike Brewer, the state’s Democratic Party Chairman. In reference to his state’s delegates being stripped for violation of party rules he was quoted as saying, "I think we'll get seated. I'm not concerned about that penalty at all. Politically, the Democratic nominee needs to win Michigan and Florida, and they are not going to start the general election campaign by antagonizing the parties in those two states." Unbelievable. For those who don’t know about the qualifications required for the position of resident doosh-bag I will tell you. There are two. The first: you must actually be a bag of doosh. The second: you must also have an additional bag of hubris. F@#k, it’s unbelievable. Ohio and California are arguably just as important if not more important states but they followed the rules. Anyway, the only difference was that Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. Guess what happened? Clinton “won.”
While it might seem obvious that both the Florida and Michigan primaries can’t be considered valid or fair considering all of the above, the Clintonians continue to suggest that the delegates from those states be sat as determined by the outcomes of those primaries. Not only that but the press continues to say that Clinton won those primaries without giving the proper disclaimers. I’ve argued that Texas shouldn’t even be presented as a win for Clinton but I will concede that could be debatable. But how in the name of all that is holy can Michigan be spoken about as a win when Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot? That is almost as ridiculous as the candidate losing in states won, pledged delegates and popular vote proposing in “magnanimous” fashion that she would consider putting the candidate who is winning in all those categories on her ticket. As vice president! Laughable I say.
Thus, we are in a quandary. What to do about these states? Meetings are being held as I type to figure out how to clean up this mess. If there was a leader in our party who had any clout, this could be solved yesterday. In a race involving different candidates maybe Bill Clinton could’ve been looked to. Obama, with his magic to bring people together, might’ve been someone who could’ve helped. Al Gore has been named as a last hope but if he is planning to do something he needs to Texas two-step his ass into gear. Howard Dean, despite his title as DNC chairman, is impotent to do anything. The DNC made rules, they were broken and they dealt punishments. Why isn’t that the end of it?
Enter Hillary Clinton.
If this race were over, this situation could be over. If the press and the Clintonians weren’t “hoodwinking” people that this race is unbelievably close, this could be over. If the superdelegates are so super, why don’t they get together and end this. Let them consider whether or not this continued race is about real policy differences and real issues or if it is about guerilla campaign tactics hoping to make a difference. Let some high school math students explain to them how all of the hypothetical situations would turn out as far as delegates and estimated popular votes. Let them decide if they would be willing to vote against the will of the people determined in those two categories. Let us pray they won’t. Let them make a power move and then: FATALITY, Obama wins.
If not, then it is only a matter of time until the headless chicken collapses.
As we analyze this let us accept certain things as true. Our electoral process and primary/caucus season is deeply flawed. We were not ready before this election year to fix it and we are not ready to fix it now. Let us also accept that whatever conclusion one wants to make along the way may not be a perfect one, a great one, or even a good one. We shall aim for a realistic one that is as close to fair as possible given the doo-doo context described above.
Last year every state agreed to the strict sanctions in the rules of the DNC. Those sanctions gave the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee the power to strip rogue states of their delegates, half or all depending on the severity of the breach. The DNC rules stated that Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina could have their caucuses or primaries in January. Everyone else would have to wait until February 5th or later. The reasoning went that those states were smaller and were friendlier to on the ground campaigning with a lot of face-to-face time in contrast to large states more agreeable to those candidates with the money to buy themselves exposure on radio and television. How good is that argument? It depends. I don’t like it. I don’t give a shit that Iowa and New Hampshire are small; why should they get to decide who we Ohioans get to vote between? How about a national primary? How about a real round robin of small intimate debates leading up to that national primary? Awwwww nobody listens. My distaste not withstanding, this is the system that was decided on for 2008 by the DNC. So obviously Michigan and Florida should have to eat it just like we do in Ohio. Right?
Not according to them.
Florida voted to hold their primaries early. Some Florida Democrats argue that the Republicans control the legislature and, despite pleas from the Dems, refused to change the proposed early date. In addition some say that the bill, despite including a variety of election related legislation that the Dems didn’t care for, called for a paper trail of votes to be created. The argument was that they had to vote in favor of the paper trail because memories of the 2000 election still haunt them on cold winter nights. Thus, claiming the Republicans bullied them, they bowed a knee to the DNC and begged for mercy.
There was none to be had. Florida was to be made an example of and all of their delegates would be stripped. Wait, that is not exactly true. They were given thirty days to do whatever was necessary to conform to the party’s rules, i.e., change the date of their primary. Seems reasonable, no? Rules are rules, they were created to help not hurt, and what right does Florida have to declare itself special? Isn’t there a Bush in office in Florida?
In a Washington Post article written the day after the delegate-stripping sanction was announced, it stated, “Florida's state party chair, Karen L. Thurman, showed no signs of backing down yesterday. The former congresswoman said she will consult with state Democrats but added that she expects all the presidential candidates to ignore the national party's edict and campaign vigorously in advance of the Sunshine State's primary. "Whether you get a delegate or don't get a delegate, a vote is a vote," a defiant Thurman said. "That is what Floridians are going to say is important."”
So Thurman, acting as resident doosh-bag, thought Florida was so important that nobody would care about the rules, the rulings or the sanctions. And now we have a f@#king mess. Many had declared their early primary moot but they went through with it anyway and a million and change came out to vote with no promise of their votes counting. Who knows how many didn’t come out that would’ve? Who knows how the results would’ve panned out had candidates been able to campaign there? Nobody. Of course, Clinton “won” amongst the voters who voted so she thinks she could predict the outcome of those hypothetical scenarios: she wins. Shocking.
Michigan ended up doing the same thing. Michigan has its own resident doosh-bag, Mike Brewer, the state’s Democratic Party Chairman. In reference to his state’s delegates being stripped for violation of party rules he was quoted as saying, "I think we'll get seated. I'm not concerned about that penalty at all. Politically, the Democratic nominee needs to win Michigan and Florida, and they are not going to start the general election campaign by antagonizing the parties in those two states." Unbelievable. For those who don’t know about the qualifications required for the position of resident doosh-bag I will tell you. There are two. The first: you must actually be a bag of doosh. The second: you must also have an additional bag of hubris. F@#k, it’s unbelievable. Ohio and California are arguably just as important if not more important states but they followed the rules. Anyway, the only difference was that Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan. Guess what happened? Clinton “won.”
While it might seem obvious that both the Florida and Michigan primaries can’t be considered valid or fair considering all of the above, the Clintonians continue to suggest that the delegates from those states be sat as determined by the outcomes of those primaries. Not only that but the press continues to say that Clinton won those primaries without giving the proper disclaimers. I’ve argued that Texas shouldn’t even be presented as a win for Clinton but I will concede that could be debatable. But how in the name of all that is holy can Michigan be spoken about as a win when Obama’s name wasn’t on the ballot? That is almost as ridiculous as the candidate losing in states won, pledged delegates and popular vote proposing in “magnanimous” fashion that she would consider putting the candidate who is winning in all those categories on her ticket. As vice president! Laughable I say.
Thus, we are in a quandary. What to do about these states? Meetings are being held as I type to figure out how to clean up this mess. If there was a leader in our party who had any clout, this could be solved yesterday. In a race involving different candidates maybe Bill Clinton could’ve been looked to. Obama, with his magic to bring people together, might’ve been someone who could’ve helped. Al Gore has been named as a last hope but if he is planning to do something he needs to Texas two-step his ass into gear. Howard Dean, despite his title as DNC chairman, is impotent to do anything. The DNC made rules, they were broken and they dealt punishments. Why isn’t that the end of it?
Enter Hillary Clinton.
If this race were over, this situation could be over. If the press and the Clintonians weren’t “hoodwinking” people that this race is unbelievably close, this could be over. If the superdelegates are so super, why don’t they get together and end this. Let them consider whether or not this continued race is about real policy differences and real issues or if it is about guerilla campaign tactics hoping to make a difference. Let some high school math students explain to them how all of the hypothetical situations would turn out as far as delegates and estimated popular votes. Let them decide if they would be willing to vote against the will of the people determined in those two categories. Let us pray they won’t. Let them make a power move and then: FATALITY, Obama wins.
If not, then it is only a matter of time until the headless chicken collapses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)