If you believe Israelis' claim, Hamas has been firing rockets into their homeland, and thus endangering, injuring, and killing Israeli civilians for more than 6 months. Accordingly, the Israelis say they had to respond to the national security threat posed by the hostile regime in Gaza.
If Israel is telling the truth in their claim, then, in light of such a severe security danger, one can't help but ask, "Why did Israel wait that long to take action against Hamas?"
One plausible answer might be that the Israelis were reluctant to endure a repeat of the Lebanon debacle, where the elite military all but got its butt kicked by Hezbollah in 2006, probably because Israel sought to fight a politically correct war, according to some pundits.
Click here to continue reading...
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Rush Limbaugh’s Many Names for Barack Obama
When it comes to the politics of name-calling intended to belittle, demonize and smear, few influential figures do a better job than radio talk host Rush Limbaugh, who has been doing what he does best for 20 years now, dating back to 1988.
While there is much liberal talk radio just as addicted to smear talk, there is no liberal talk radio host who commands anywhere near Rush's audience of around 20 million per week.
We used to think that the years of President Bill Clinton would have been the peak of Limbaugh's harshest partisan attacks, as the uncontested master of the politics of personal destruction. But along came Barack Obama, and Rush has taken attack politics to a whole new level. He has even gone after Obama's wife and underage daughters. You don't dig any lower than that.
Rush Limbaugh salivated when Gov. Sarah Palin was contracted by Senator John McCain to join the ticket and save the McCain campaign in her role as McCain's vocal culturally conservative veep. Ever since Palin's arrival on the national stage, Rush has been re-energized like we've never heard him in years. Before then he had to settle for a sweet lemon attitude towards the moderate, maverick John McCain. But now, Limbaugh truly has a dog in this fight. With his own mouth, Rush said to Gov. Palin on his radio program, "I admire you so much!"
With Palin going to the cemetery to exhume Bill Ayres and wrap him like a corpse around Obama's neck, Rush is playing his part, covering the airwaves with the kind of animus that has made him the beloved of the hard right, with the millions of dollars that go with being the national hit man for all causes conservative.
You may ask why a politically independent guy like me would use my time to tune the AM dial on my radio to the Rush Limbaugh Show Monday through Friday for going 17 years now. Well, I do so for the same reason I watch or listen to the liberal media: to hear both sides out, so I can protect inner being from the kind of partisanship that blinds the heart and mind, the slam game that makes enemy combatants out of one's political opponents.
As a Rush listener, I have been keeping a tab on the various names, titles and descriptions that Limbaugh has attached to Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
1. Empty Suit: This tag means that Obama lacks substance. He's a puff of air. His speeches use words like "change" and "hope", but say nothing. Those who are taken in by "Barry Hussein's" fluffy orations of nothingness are emptier suits themselves, gullible souls to be pitied by the super-intelligent Limbaugh.
2. The Messiah: Rush used this title to say that Obama supporters regard the candidate as their political savior, like Jesus the Messiah. He also means that Obama sees himself as a God-size figure, who is shocked by disagreement, who despises those who challenge or criticize with him. Many Christians were offended by Limbaugh's sarcastic use "Messiah" for Obama, but their objections did little to restrain the conservative giant's fiery tongue from festering his twisted form of sacrilege.
3. Squirrel: With that tag, Rush describes Obama not only as crafty and sneaky, but to tie him with ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), that group that seems to be practicing what conservatives are already calling "voter registration fraud". As a squirrel feeds on acorn, Obama is benefiting from the efforts of ACORN. Acorn feeds squirrel; ACORN works for Obama. Got it?
4. Liar: Rush often calls Barack a liar outright. According to Rush, Obama is not telling the truth about what he heard or didn't hear from Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama attended for 20 years. Obama lies about his association with Bill Ayres. Obama is not telling the American people about his true liberal ideas. Guess who has picked up this theme? Sarah Palin is correct, who is a Rush Limbaugh listener, as she intimated in her interview with Mr. Limbaugh on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.
5. Radical: Though Obama has all but bypassed the political platform and tactics of a typical black politician, Limbaugh insists that Barack's liberal ideas will radically change America as we know it. Rush fails to mention how radically the current administration, run by one of his guys, has "radically" changed America!
6. Extremist: Rush does not regard Obama as a run-of-the-mill liberal. No, Obama is something far worse, and Limbaugh cites MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal backers of Obama as proof that the man is an extremist, the same label that some American politicians apply to Islamic/Muslim extremists. In other words, Obama is no less dangerous to the welfare of America than the terrorists are.
7. Socialist: Limbaugh believes that Obama's healthcare plan and tax policies will turn America into a socialist country. But Rush has a difficult case to make in this case, since the takeover of the financial sector of the US economy has been under the auspices of a Republican administration, with Barack often being a reluctant go-along. Much of the socialization of the American economy is already in place, without Barack in the White House.
8. The Most Liberal Person Whoever Ran for the Presidency: This one is like the catchall stigma with which Mr. Limbaugh intends to shock American voters as far away from Obama as they can go.
There may be and there will be other titles coming from the wordy lips of Rush Limbaugh, whether or not Obama wins the White House. But the sum total of all the name-calling is this: "You should be scared of Barack Hussein Obama. Be very afraid!"
No wonder, for fear is the weapon of choice for political underdogs.
To Rush Limbaugh and others who share his disdain for Barack Obama, let me post this warning: Wait till Barack becomes President Obama. Then you may need a regular dose of Maalox or that antidepressant Limbaugh's doctor used to give him under the table. Watch Rush loose his sanity, watch his health take a nose dive, if Obama becomes president. In that nightmare scenario for the conservative juggernaut, the only hope will be another round of addiction to unprescribed prescription drugs for the biggest mouth in talk radio. Pity the man.
While there is much liberal talk radio just as addicted to smear talk, there is no liberal talk radio host who commands anywhere near Rush's audience of around 20 million per week.
We used to think that the years of President Bill Clinton would have been the peak of Limbaugh's harshest partisan attacks, as the uncontested master of the politics of personal destruction. But along came Barack Obama, and Rush has taken attack politics to a whole new level. He has even gone after Obama's wife and underage daughters. You don't dig any lower than that.
Rush Limbaugh salivated when Gov. Sarah Palin was contracted by Senator John McCain to join the ticket and save the McCain campaign in her role as McCain's vocal culturally conservative veep. Ever since Palin's arrival on the national stage, Rush has been re-energized like we've never heard him in years. Before then he had to settle for a sweet lemon attitude towards the moderate, maverick John McCain. But now, Limbaugh truly has a dog in this fight. With his own mouth, Rush said to Gov. Palin on his radio program, "I admire you so much!"
With Palin going to the cemetery to exhume Bill Ayres and wrap him like a corpse around Obama's neck, Rush is playing his part, covering the airwaves with the kind of animus that has made him the beloved of the hard right, with the millions of dollars that go with being the national hit man for all causes conservative.
You may ask why a politically independent guy like me would use my time to tune the AM dial on my radio to the Rush Limbaugh Show Monday through Friday for going 17 years now. Well, I do so for the same reason I watch or listen to the liberal media: to hear both sides out, so I can protect inner being from the kind of partisanship that blinds the heart and mind, the slam game that makes enemy combatants out of one's political opponents.
As a Rush listener, I have been keeping a tab on the various names, titles and descriptions that Limbaugh has attached to Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.
1. Empty Suit: This tag means that Obama lacks substance. He's a puff of air. His speeches use words like "change" and "hope", but say nothing. Those who are taken in by "Barry Hussein's" fluffy orations of nothingness are emptier suits themselves, gullible souls to be pitied by the super-intelligent Limbaugh.
2. The Messiah: Rush used this title to say that Obama supporters regard the candidate as their political savior, like Jesus the Messiah. He also means that Obama sees himself as a God-size figure, who is shocked by disagreement, who despises those who challenge or criticize with him. Many Christians were offended by Limbaugh's sarcastic use "Messiah" for Obama, but their objections did little to restrain the conservative giant's fiery tongue from festering his twisted form of sacrilege.
3. Squirrel: With that tag, Rush describes Obama not only as crafty and sneaky, but to tie him with ACORN (Association Of Community Organizations For Reform Now), that group that seems to be practicing what conservatives are already calling "voter registration fraud". As a squirrel feeds on acorn, Obama is benefiting from the efforts of ACORN. Acorn feeds squirrel; ACORN works for Obama. Got it?
4. Liar: Rush often calls Barack a liar outright. According to Rush, Obama is not telling the truth about what he heard or didn't hear from Rev. Jeremiah Wright at Trinity United Church of Christ, where Obama attended for 20 years. Obama lies about his association with Bill Ayres. Obama is not telling the American people about his true liberal ideas. Guess who has picked up this theme? Sarah Palin is correct, who is a Rush Limbaugh listener, as she intimated in her interview with Mr. Limbaugh on Tuesday, October 14, 2008.
5. Radical: Though Obama has all but bypassed the political platform and tactics of a typical black politician, Limbaugh insists that Barack's liberal ideas will radically change America as we know it. Rush fails to mention how radically the current administration, run by one of his guys, has "radically" changed America!
6. Extremist: Rush does not regard Obama as a run-of-the-mill liberal. No, Obama is something far worse, and Limbaugh cites MoveOn.org and other ultra-liberal backers of Obama as proof that the man is an extremist, the same label that some American politicians apply to Islamic/Muslim extremists. In other words, Obama is no less dangerous to the welfare of America than the terrorists are.
7. Socialist: Limbaugh believes that Obama's healthcare plan and tax policies will turn America into a socialist country. But Rush has a difficult case to make in this case, since the takeover of the financial sector of the US economy has been under the auspices of a Republican administration, with Barack often being a reluctant go-along. Much of the socialization of the American economy is already in place, without Barack in the White House.
8. The Most Liberal Person Whoever Ran for the Presidency: This one is like the catchall stigma with which Mr. Limbaugh intends to shock American voters as far away from Obama as they can go.
There may be and there will be other titles coming from the wordy lips of Rush Limbaugh, whether or not Obama wins the White House. But the sum total of all the name-calling is this: "You should be scared of Barack Hussein Obama. Be very afraid!"
No wonder, for fear is the weapon of choice for political underdogs.
To Rush Limbaugh and others who share his disdain for Barack Obama, let me post this warning: Wait till Barack becomes President Obama. Then you may need a regular dose of Maalox or that antidepressant Limbaugh's doctor used to give him under the table. Watch Rush loose his sanity, watch his health take a nose dive, if Obama becomes president. In that nightmare scenario for the conservative juggernaut, the only hope will be another round of addiction to unprescribed prescription drugs for the biggest mouth in talk radio. Pity the man.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
6 Other Ways to Say "Barack Obama is Black"
A recent CNN report begins with a line similar to this: Race still matters in America, the question is How much will race matter in the 2008 presidential elections?
As an African I am very grateful for how far America has come in race relations. My gratitude to those who shed capital, much heartache, sweat and blood, allowing us to eat at any restaurant, sleep at any hotel, sit anywhere on a bus, train, subway or plane, without seeing signs like "For Whites Only".
Things have changed so much that my children can date, engage or even marry whites, if they choose to.
In our lifetime, the biggest evidence of America's leapfrog progress in race relations is the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, who would not be where he is today without the active support and actual votes of millions of whites, Hispanics, Jews, Asians and others, beginning with the Democratic primary elections.
Despite all the progress, however, it can be said that race remains the wild card, the X-Factor in the 2008 presidential elections in these United States of America. No matter how far ahead Obama may be ahead of Senator John McCain in the polls, there is no room or reason for comfort for him, because of the so-called "Bradley effect", less commonly known as the "Wilder effect".
According to Wikipedia, "the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters -- black as well as white -- to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent."
But that is not the only tide Obama has to swim against. There are also non-blacks who have learned to conceal their unlikelihood of voting for a black candidate in the wrappings and trappings of some really clever talking points. These are what may be called "Other ways to say He's Black".
1. "He's just too liberal." "He's too liberal for me." "He's too liberal for this country." These people don't see that John McCain is not that conservative; he has signed on to so many liberal policies.
2. "He makes me nervous." "I'm uncomfortable with him." "He makes me uncomfortable."
3. "I'm scared of him being in that White House." "He could be dangerous to our national security."
4. "He sympathizes with terrorists like Bill Ayres."
5. "He's a Muslim, but he won't tell you that." "He's Arab." "His middle name is Hussein. He's Barack Hussein Obama." That probably ranks as the favorite of them all -- the religious litmus test. Is it anti-American to be Muslim? Is being "Christian" a requirement for the presidency of the United States?
6. "I can't vote for him, and it's not because I'm racist. I would vote for General Collin Powell for president." That's easy to say when General Powell is not running.
Of course, there are some elderly whites who still say it the old fashion way: "I can't vote for that black boy."
You know what, I think I prefer the straight talk kind. At least, we don't have to guess or second guess what they mean. It's the ones who "speak in tongues" that worry me.
For the vast majority of Americans who have conquered "the skin thing", let's hope that race will not be a major factor on November 4th.
As an African I am very grateful for how far America has come in race relations. My gratitude to those who shed capital, much heartache, sweat and blood, allowing us to eat at any restaurant, sleep at any hotel, sit anywhere on a bus, train, subway or plane, without seeing signs like "For Whites Only".
Things have changed so much that my children can date, engage or even marry whites, if they choose to.
In our lifetime, the biggest evidence of America's leapfrog progress in race relations is the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, who would not be where he is today without the active support and actual votes of millions of whites, Hispanics, Jews, Asians and others, beginning with the Democratic primary elections.
Despite all the progress, however, it can be said that race remains the wild card, the X-Factor in the 2008 presidential elections in these United States of America. No matter how far ahead Obama may be ahead of Senator John McCain in the polls, there is no room or reason for comfort for him, because of the so-called "Bradley effect", less commonly known as the "Wilder effect".
According to Wikipedia, "the Bradley effect refers to a tendency on the part of voters -- black as well as white -- to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, and yet, on election day, vote for his/her white opponent."
But that is not the only tide Obama has to swim against. There are also non-blacks who have learned to conceal their unlikelihood of voting for a black candidate in the wrappings and trappings of some really clever talking points. These are what may be called "Other ways to say He's Black".
1. "He's just too liberal." "He's too liberal for me." "He's too liberal for this country." These people don't see that John McCain is not that conservative; he has signed on to so many liberal policies.
2. "He makes me nervous." "I'm uncomfortable with him." "He makes me uncomfortable."
3. "I'm scared of him being in that White House." "He could be dangerous to our national security."
4. "He sympathizes with terrorists like Bill Ayres."
5. "He's a Muslim, but he won't tell you that." "He's Arab." "His middle name is Hussein. He's Barack Hussein Obama." That probably ranks as the favorite of them all -- the religious litmus test. Is it anti-American to be Muslim? Is being "Christian" a requirement for the presidency of the United States?
6. "I can't vote for him, and it's not because I'm racist. I would vote for General Collin Powell for president." That's easy to say when General Powell is not running.
Of course, there are some elderly whites who still say it the old fashion way: "I can't vote for that black boy."
You know what, I think I prefer the straight talk kind. At least, we don't have to guess or second guess what they mean. It's the ones who "speak in tongues" that worry me.
For the vast majority of Americans who have conquered "the skin thing", let's hope that race will not be a major factor on November 4th.
Obama and McCain Break Even in Second Presidential Debate
With barely 28 days before the November 4th presidential election, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, just about broke even in their second debate that took place on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at Belmont University, a Christian (Baptist) institution in Nashville, Tennessee. Tom Brokaw of NBC served as moderator.
The candidates were asked 21 excellent questions, to which they responded with fewer specific answers but more talking points from their campaign trails. Some of the questions were asked by members from a special audience of 80 undecided voters, who enjoyed special seating in the debate hall. I have listed the questions here, with the answers or no-answers from the candidates.
1. From the audience: What's the fastest and best way to help Americans suffering from the economic crisis?
=> Obama: general response
=> McCain will use $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy up all bad mortgages. This is a new plan from the McCain camp.
2. Who would you appoint as Treasury Secretary?
=> McCain: somebody Americans can trust.
=> Obama: William Buffett is one possibility.
3. From Oliver Clark: What's in the bailout package that will actually help American homeowners?
=> McCain: "You call it a bailout; I call it a rescue package." He spoke about how the Democrat-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current economic crisis.
=> Obama said without the package, credit would dry up, companies would be unable to borrow and meet payroll, and that may lead to job losses.
4. Do you think the economy will get worse before it gets better?
=> Obama: the bailout will help.
=> McCain praises the strength and ingenuity of American workers.
5. From Teresa Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this crisis?
=> Obama: I understand your frustration and cynicism. He contrasts the economy under President G.W. Bush with that under former President Clinton. Obama says his targeted spending will result in net spending cuts. (Independent sources dispute that claim.)
=> McCain: "I understand why you feel cynicism and mistrust." He recites his record of bipartisanship, saying solving our problems will require reaching across the aisle to work with members of all parties. He calls Obama a liberal, who has proposed $850 billion in new spending.
6. What will be your order of priorities: health care, energy, and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare)?
=> McCain: "We can do them all at once." He then recounts his bipartisan record that will help him do all of the above without giving one priority over the other.
=> Obama: "We're going to have to prioritize just like families do." He'll prioritize not just spending but taxes as well. His priority order is energy, $15 billion per year over 10 years; health care; education. He'll eliminate programs that don't work.
7. What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to ease the economic crisis?
=> McCain will implement a spending freeze; will cut defense spending.
=> Obama will provide incentives for Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars. He will double the size of the Peace Corps, so young people can serve.
8. How do Americans break the bad habit of too much debt and easy credit?
=> Obama agrees with the premise of the question, but he does not answer the question; goes on to spout unrelated talking points.
=> McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. "I'll leave tax rates alone." He will increase child tax credit to $7,000 per dependent child. (That dodges the question too.)
9. Will you give Congress a date (2 years) to reform Social Security and Medicare?
=> Obama: we can't fix entitlement programs without addressing taxes. He will cut taxes for anyone making $250,000 or less.
=> McCain: "It's easy to fix Social Security; it's not hard." Medicare will be tougher to fix. It will take bipartisan effort. He says Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes and has never in his political career supported a bill to lower taxes.
10. From Ingrid Jackson: What would you do within your first 2 years on the environment?
=> McCain bemoans the seriousness of a "damaged planet". He says the best fix is nuclear power, which does not pollute. He favors drilling for oil here at home, which will lower energy cost for Americans, though the use of petro may further pollute the environment.
=> Obama will create a new energy economy that will hire 5 million new workers. He sees the energy issue as a national security issue, because using alternative fuel will mean not buying petro from nations that mean us harm. He will invest in solar, wind, and other alternatives to petroleum. He says McCain voted 23 times against alternative fuel.
11. Should we fund one big energy project or several alternative energy efforts?
=> McCain will use a government effort coupled with the private sector.
=> Obama: no answer
12. Do you think health care should be treated as a commodity?
=> Obama speaks of lowering health care cost by using electronic records. No one should be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing condition.
=> McCain supports using online record too. He will set up community health care centers. He says Obama will impose mandates and fines on small businesses and families, if they don't participate in the Obama health care plan. McCain will give health care tax credit of $5,000, which people can use to shop around, even across state borders, for the best health care deals.
13. Is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
=> McCain: health care is a responsibility for every individual.
=> Obama: health care is a right for every American. He says the $5,000 tax credit that McCain promises will be taken back from the taxpayer through payroll deductions. "What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away."
14. How will the recent economic distress affect the U.S. ability to be peacemakers?
=> McCain: The United States is the greatest force for good in the world in history.
=> Obama agrees with McCain's statement on America being a force for good.
15. What is your doctrine for using the U.S. military for humanitarian purposes?
=> Obama: We should use our military for humanitarian reasons, but we must work in concert with our international allies, because we can't be everywhere.
=> McCain: We should temper our decision to use the military with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. We don't want a repeat of what happened in Somalia.
16. From Katie Hamm: Should the U.S. respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore it to pursue Al Qaeda?
=> Obama won't cuddle a dictator like the Bush administration did for General Musharraf, former leader of Pakistan, who received American money but was signing peace agreements with the Taliban. If Osama bin Laden is in sight, and Pakistan won't get him, we should act to kill him within the borders of Pakistan.
=> McCain: We won't telegraph our punches. He dismisses Obama's tough talk, which McCain says will turn the local population against the U.S.
17. How will you reorganize the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan?
=> Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan. He'll work to have an Afghan government that is responsive to its people.
=> McCain agrees with Obama that more troops are needed. He won't abandon Afghanistan like the U.S. did in the past.
18. From Terry Shirey: How can we apply pressure on Russia without restarting a cold war?
=> McCain wants Russia to understand there will be penalties for aggressive behavior, like what Russia did recently by invading neighboring Georgia. He will support effort to bring former soviet democracies into NATO.
=> Obama will do more than give moral support to those nations. He will help them rebuild their countries. We must anticipate problems before they happen; we have been reactive. Russia is using petro money to intimidate her neighbors. When the U.S. and those other nations around Russa switch to alternative energy, Russia will have less money from petroleum to use against her neighbors.
19. Is Russia under Putin an "Evil Empire"?
=> Obama: No, but there are nationalists within the government.
=> McCain: No. "I looked in Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B." Putin still operates like the KGB that he was.
20. From the audience: If Iran attacks Israel, would you commit U.S. troops to support Israel?
=> McCain: Yes, even though that will mean we'll have to sort out some issues with China and Russia, who will not like our military action in support of Israel.
=> Obama: We don't give the U.N. veto power over what America would do in such a situation. But we must keep all options on the table, including talking to our enemies.
21. What don't you know and how will you learn it?
=> Obama will learn from his wife, Michelle, what he doesn't know. (A joke, I think.) He says the challenge of the presidency is not what you know but the problems you don't expect that can consume your time and energy.
=> McCain: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know." He says there will be new challenges, there will always be the unexpected.
Conclusion
=> The town hall setting is home turf for McCain, who enjoys engaging members of the audience. McCain was not as condescending towards Obama in this debate. This time, he did not repeat too many of those "Obama doesn't understand, Obama is naive, Obama's foreign policy is dangerous." And he did manage to say once, "I agree with Senator Obama", or something to that effect. Coming from McCain, that was huge. But he might have erased his points on congeniality when he referred to Obama as "that one". McCain needed to win big if he is to regain momentum in the national polls, but he probably fell short of that threshold.
=> Obama drastically cut back on his many instances of "I agree with John McCain, and John McCain is right" on foreign policy discussions. Also, Obama seems to be mastering the art of connecting with individual persons who ask him specific questions. It seems like Obama is behaving like former President Clinton in his personal touch and eye contact with voters. Obama is also Clintonesque in looking like a teacher-politician, who simplifies the issues. Either Mr. Clinton has been coaching Obama, or the latter has been watching Clinton campaign and debate tapes. There is just too much Clintonian similarity in Obama's style to be incidental.
=> Strikingly, McCain did not bring up Obama's association with Bill Ayres, an issue that the McCain camp has recently resurrected. Similarly, Obama bypassed McCain's link to the S&L scandal. A game of chicken there -- seems like either man was waiting for the other to go first on this line of mud-slinging attacks.
=> Over all, I grade the debate as a tie, but I do give Obama the edge simply, because McCain failed to dominate the town hall style that is his cup of tea, and Obama was able to hold his own on foreign policy. It should be pointed out that McCain is demonstrating greater knowledge of economic issues, and when he chooses to, he is naturally better at giving short, direct answers to questions than Obama.
The third debate between the candidates is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The theme of that final debate will be domestic and economic policy. Bob Schieffer will be the moderator. Many believe that theme should favor Obama in lieu of the current economic meltdown. But don't count Senator McCain out just yet; he's been doing much better at discussing economic issues. Keep in mind that McCain has made several comebacks in this campaign, not to mention the dramatic comebacks that form the narrative of his exceptional life.
The candidates were asked 21 excellent questions, to which they responded with fewer specific answers but more talking points from their campaign trails. Some of the questions were asked by members from a special audience of 80 undecided voters, who enjoyed special seating in the debate hall. I have listed the questions here, with the answers or no-answers from the candidates.
1. From the audience: What's the fastest and best way to help Americans suffering from the economic crisis?
=> Obama: general response
=> McCain will use $300 billion of taxpayer money to buy up all bad mortgages. This is a new plan from the McCain camp.
2. Who would you appoint as Treasury Secretary?
=> McCain: somebody Americans can trust.
=> Obama: William Buffett is one possibility.
3. From Oliver Clark: What's in the bailout package that will actually help American homeowners?
=> McCain: "You call it a bailout; I call it a rescue package." He spoke about how the Democrat-run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the current economic crisis.
=> Obama said without the package, credit would dry up, companies would be unable to borrow and meet payroll, and that may lead to job losses.
4. Do you think the economy will get worse before it gets better?
=> Obama: the bailout will help.
=> McCain praises the strength and ingenuity of American workers.
5. From Teresa Finch: How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got us into this crisis?
=> Obama: I understand your frustration and cynicism. He contrasts the economy under President G.W. Bush with that under former President Clinton. Obama says his targeted spending will result in net spending cuts. (Independent sources dispute that claim.)
=> McCain: "I understand why you feel cynicism and mistrust." He recites his record of bipartisanship, saying solving our problems will require reaching across the aisle to work with members of all parties. He calls Obama a liberal, who has proposed $850 billion in new spending.
6. What will be your order of priorities: health care, energy, and entitlements (Social Security and Medicare)?
=> McCain: "We can do them all at once." He then recounts his bipartisan record that will help him do all of the above without giving one priority over the other.
=> Obama: "We're going to have to prioritize just like families do." He'll prioritize not just spending but taxes as well. His priority order is energy, $15 billion per year over 10 years; health care; education. He'll eliminate programs that don't work.
7. What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to ease the economic crisis?
=> McCain will implement a spending freeze; will cut defense spending.
=> Obama will provide incentives for Americans to buy fuel-efficient cars. He will double the size of the Peace Corps, so young people can serve.
8. How do Americans break the bad habit of too much debt and easy credit?
=> Obama agrees with the premise of the question, but he does not answer the question; goes on to spout unrelated talking points.
=> McCain says Obama wants to raise taxes. "I'll leave tax rates alone." He will increase child tax credit to $7,000 per dependent child. (That dodges the question too.)
9. Will you give Congress a date (2 years) to reform Social Security and Medicare?
=> Obama: we can't fix entitlement programs without addressing taxes. He will cut taxes for anyone making $250,000 or less.
=> McCain: "It's easy to fix Social Security; it's not hard." Medicare will be tougher to fix. It will take bipartisan effort. He says Obama has voted 94 times to raise taxes and has never in his political career supported a bill to lower taxes.
10. From Ingrid Jackson: What would you do within your first 2 years on the environment?
=> McCain bemoans the seriousness of a "damaged planet". He says the best fix is nuclear power, which does not pollute. He favors drilling for oil here at home, which will lower energy cost for Americans, though the use of petro may further pollute the environment.
=> Obama will create a new energy economy that will hire 5 million new workers. He sees the energy issue as a national security issue, because using alternative fuel will mean not buying petro from nations that mean us harm. He will invest in solar, wind, and other alternatives to petroleum. He says McCain voted 23 times against alternative fuel.
11. Should we fund one big energy project or several alternative energy efforts?
=> McCain will use a government effort coupled with the private sector.
=> Obama: no answer
12. Do you think health care should be treated as a commodity?
=> Obama speaks of lowering health care cost by using electronic records. No one should be excluded from coverage because of pre-existing condition.
=> McCain supports using online record too. He will set up community health care centers. He says Obama will impose mandates and fines on small businesses and families, if they don't participate in the Obama health care plan. McCain will give health care tax credit of $5,000, which people can use to shop around, even across state borders, for the best health care deals.
13. Is health care a privilege, a right, or a responsibility?
=> McCain: health care is a responsibility for every individual.
=> Obama: health care is a right for every American. He says the $5,000 tax credit that McCain promises will be taken back from the taxpayer through payroll deductions. "What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away."
14. How will the recent economic distress affect the U.S. ability to be peacemakers?
=> McCain: The United States is the greatest force for good in the world in history.
=> Obama agrees with McCain's statement on America being a force for good.
15. What is your doctrine for using the U.S. military for humanitarian purposes?
=> Obama: We should use our military for humanitarian reasons, but we must work in concert with our international allies, because we can't be everywhere.
=> McCain: We should temper our decision to use the military with our ability to beneficially affect the situation. We don't want a repeat of what happened in Somalia.
16. From Katie Hamm: Should the U.S. respect Pakistani sovereignty or ignore it to pursue Al Qaeda?
=> Obama won't cuddle a dictator like the Bush administration did for General Musharraf, former leader of Pakistan, who received American money but was signing peace agreements with the Taliban. If Osama bin Laden is in sight, and Pakistan won't get him, we should act to kill him within the borders of Pakistan.
=> McCain: We won't telegraph our punches. He dismisses Obama's tough talk, which McCain says will turn the local population against the U.S.
17. How will you reorganize the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan?
=> Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq to send to Afghanistan. He'll work to have an Afghan government that is responsive to its people.
=> McCain agrees with Obama that more troops are needed. He won't abandon Afghanistan like the U.S. did in the past.
18. From Terry Shirey: How can we apply pressure on Russia without restarting a cold war?
=> McCain wants Russia to understand there will be penalties for aggressive behavior, like what Russia did recently by invading neighboring Georgia. He will support effort to bring former soviet democracies into NATO.
=> Obama will do more than give moral support to those nations. He will help them rebuild their countries. We must anticipate problems before they happen; we have been reactive. Russia is using petro money to intimidate her neighbors. When the U.S. and those other nations around Russa switch to alternative energy, Russia will have less money from petroleum to use against her neighbors.
19. Is Russia under Putin an "Evil Empire"?
=> Obama: No, but there are nationalists within the government.
=> McCain: No. "I looked in Putin's eyes and saw three letters: a K, a G, and a B." Putin still operates like the KGB that he was.
20. From the audience: If Iran attacks Israel, would you commit U.S. troops to support Israel?
=> McCain: Yes, even though that will mean we'll have to sort out some issues with China and Russia, who will not like our military action in support of Israel.
=> Obama: We don't give the U.N. veto power over what America would do in such a situation. But we must keep all options on the table, including talking to our enemies.
21. What don't you know and how will you learn it?
=> Obama will learn from his wife, Michelle, what he doesn't know. (A joke, I think.) He says the challenge of the presidency is not what you know but the problems you don't expect that can consume your time and energy.
=> McCain: "What I don't know is what all of us don't know." He says there will be new challenges, there will always be the unexpected.
Conclusion
=> The town hall setting is home turf for McCain, who enjoys engaging members of the audience. McCain was not as condescending towards Obama in this debate. This time, he did not repeat too many of those "Obama doesn't understand, Obama is naive, Obama's foreign policy is dangerous." And he did manage to say once, "I agree with Senator Obama", or something to that effect. Coming from McCain, that was huge. But he might have erased his points on congeniality when he referred to Obama as "that one". McCain needed to win big if he is to regain momentum in the national polls, but he probably fell short of that threshold.
=> Obama drastically cut back on his many instances of "I agree with John McCain, and John McCain is right" on foreign policy discussions. Also, Obama seems to be mastering the art of connecting with individual persons who ask him specific questions. It seems like Obama is behaving like former President Clinton in his personal touch and eye contact with voters. Obama is also Clintonesque in looking like a teacher-politician, who simplifies the issues. Either Mr. Clinton has been coaching Obama, or the latter has been watching Clinton campaign and debate tapes. There is just too much Clintonian similarity in Obama's style to be incidental.
=> Strikingly, McCain did not bring up Obama's association with Bill Ayres, an issue that the McCain camp has recently resurrected. Similarly, Obama bypassed McCain's link to the S&L scandal. A game of chicken there -- seems like either man was waiting for the other to go first on this line of mud-slinging attacks.
=> Over all, I grade the debate as a tie, but I do give Obama the edge simply, because McCain failed to dominate the town hall style that is his cup of tea, and Obama was able to hold his own on foreign policy. It should be pointed out that McCain is demonstrating greater knowledge of economic issues, and when he chooses to, he is naturally better at giving short, direct answers to questions than Obama.
The third debate between the candidates is scheduled for Wednesday, October 15, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. The theme of that final debate will be domestic and economic policy. Bob Schieffer will be the moderator. Many believe that theme should favor Obama in lieu of the current economic meltdown. But don't count Senator McCain out just yet; he's been doing much better at discussing economic issues. Keep in mind that McCain has made several comebacks in this campaign, not to mention the dramatic comebacks that form the narrative of his exceptional life.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Double Standard Politics
The 2008 presidential election season has no doubt been historic. For obvious reasons, which have been cited to death: Hillary Clinton, the first female candidate to win nearly 18 million votes; Barack Obama, the first black candidate to win the nomination of a major political party in America; Sarah Palin, the first female VP candidate for the Republican Party.
This election season has also been historic for another reason, a more personal one. Millions of people, myself included, are rethinking our political alignments. The double standard with which leading conservative Evangelicals have treated John McCain and Barack Obama has given me sufficient cause to question my politically conservative tendencies. In fact, I'm kicking the whole partisan bin; it's no longer my thing.
An article entitled "The Double Standard of American Politics" spells out some of the downright hypocrisies of my conservative buddies throughout this electoral season. Concerning Barack Obama, the writer says, "if you're black, raised by a single mother, lived on food stamps, help the community, get into Harvard, become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, build a great campaign organization from scratch, and are voted to be the presidential nominee by millions of people, you are just uppity."
Based on the above referenced article, let's pose some rhetorical questions for reflection, or just for the fun of it:
Educational Background
This election season has also been historic for another reason, a more personal one. Millions of people, myself included, are rethinking our political alignments. The double standard with which leading conservative Evangelicals have treated John McCain and Barack Obama has given me sufficient cause to question my politically conservative tendencies. In fact, I'm kicking the whole partisan bin; it's no longer my thing.
An article entitled "The Double Standard of American Politics" spells out some of the downright hypocrisies of my conservative buddies throughout this electoral season. Concerning Barack Obama, the writer says, "if you're black, raised by a single mother, lived on food stamps, help the community, get into Harvard, become the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review, build a great campaign organization from scratch, and are voted to be the presidential nominee by millions of people, you are just uppity."
Based on the above referenced article, let's pose some rhetorical questions for reflection, or just for the fun of it:
Educational Background
- Is it true that at the Naval Academy, John McCain graduated 894 out of 899? If the name were changed to Barack Obama, would not conservative radio and media personalities be shining the spotlight on his qualification to lead America?
- Had John McCain graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, as Barack did, would conservatives not be cheerleading him as the smartest man who ever ran for the highest office, instead of painting him as an empty suit puffed with nothing but sweet-sounding words?
Approach to Diplomacy
- Did not this Republican administration (John McCain's political cousins) hold talks with Iran and North Korea? And did they not call that diplomacy? But then we should label it "appeasement" when Barack Obama proposes talking not only to our friends but to our enemies as well?
Charisma & Political Skill
- If it were possible under the sun for John McCain to motivate and appeal to more than two million Americans and bring them into the political process, won't McCain be hailed as the political genius of our time? But when Barack Obama achieves this great feat, he is attacked as having an over-inflated ego, thinking he's the Messiah?
- If John McCain had defeated the politician machine of the Bush dynasty, as Obama overcame the combined political talents and charisma of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, would McCain not have been lauded as nothing less than a political Albert Einstein for having the organizing skills to win that uphill battle?
It is getting more and more evident that the ability to keep America divided along partisan lines has become a booming industry to both the left and right wings of American politics. One can only hope that were not the case.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Barack Obama Lacks the Experience. What Experience?
Beginning with the presidential primary elections, we have been told for about 19 months now that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to hold the most important office in the United States of America, that of president. This line of attack continues to be the best that Obama's opponents can deliver. Some of us would rather debate the man's ideas instead.
I have a few questions for those who have convinced themselves of the seeming logic of the argument that because Obama does not have the experience he should not be elected president.
What exactly is "the experience" that Obama lacks? Is there a special set of experiences that qualify one for the presidency? If so, where does one get such an experience? From a governor's mansion? From the halls of congress? From where exactly?
Why doesn't any of Barack's life experiences count? The man earned a law degree from Harvard and served as president of the Harvard Law Review. So his educational experience does not count? Barack has been married to one woman for 16 years; there has been no charge of him cheating on his wife, which cannot be said of some of his opponents. His experience of marital fidelity doesn't count? He has been raising two daughters as a responsible father, unlike his own father, who abandoned him. Why doesn't his fatherhood experience mean anything to a nation that claims to be big on family values?
After graduating from Harvard, Barack sacrificed potential fat-cat jobs, and, instead went to Chicago to work as community organizer for the downtrodden. Why is that not experience that means much? Also, he taught constitutional law at Chicago Law School. Should we not take his teaching experience into account, though he may not have been a law professor?
Why shouldn't we take into account his experience in the Illinois legislature? Legislative experience is legislative experience whether in Illinois or Washington. Is that not true?
How could a guy who is not qualified to lead America have succeeded against all odds to defeat the well-connected first lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton, with the full political genius and machinery of her powerful husband, former President Bill Clinton, arguably the best politician alive? Keep in mind that from the get-go, Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. How in the world did this political junkie pull off this major offset? Very few politicians in our lifetime could have succeeded against the combined political force of both Clintons. Why shouldn't we be impressed by such a feat? Should we choose rather to keep underestimating this guy?
How could an unqualified man have organized and run the kind of successful grassroots movement that Obama has led, especially his inspiring thousands of young voters? Are to to look at this level of administrative skill and consider it zip? Are you kidding? And have we not seen how the just-ended Democratic convention succeeded in unifying the party rather than revealing the fatal disunity many observers and pundits were expecting? And do we not attribute at least some of this success to Barack's leadership ability? By the way, did you notice that Barack proved his doubters wrong by filling up Mile High stadium with more than 80,000 people? Are we to look that and just label it dung?
And where in the constitution of the United States does it mention "the experience" required for anyone to be elected president of this great nation? Can we prove from American history that most of America's successful presidents were the most experienced candidates prior to being elected to the highest office?
Finally, are we really saying that Barack Obama cannot do the job that Mr. George W. Bush has done for about8 years? And what has Mr. Bush's experience done for our country, our economy, our international reputation? Don't get me wrong, I used to be a big Bush fan; I shook hands with Candidate George Bush when he visited our city during his campaign, and I enthusiastically voted for Bush twice. But to say that Mr. Obama will do any less or worse than Mr. Bush has done just defies common sense.
We can keep chanting "he lacks the experience, he lacks the experience" until November 4 th , but much of what America has seen thus far of Barack Obama reveals and confirms that this man is anything but an inexperienced figurehead. Though it's kind of scary to say it, this guy is a natural leader of the rare sort. And I say that as one has been arguing with my wife a lot about Obama's ideology. Some of his beliefs and ideas give me cause for concern.
I'm not yet sure I'll actually vote Obama for president. But this "he lacks the experience" line is nothing more than a purely subjective call, an opinion that ignores Obama's amazing leadership qualities of which we now have much evidence. If on November 4 th I vote McCain instead of Obama, it will be because of either man's ideas, not his experience. After all, experienced people have done some very dumb things that have harmed America, and some of those experienced people have been our political leaders, including presidents. In my experience, experience is usually overrated. Life itself, simply sharing in the human experience, can be the best experience for any job, including that of commander-in-chief.
Let me close this piece by quoting Geoff Elliott, writer of the Abraham Lincoln Blog:
"To summarize, Lincoln was a state legislator for 8 years and a U.S. Congressman for 2 years before he was elected president. He didn't have much experience as an office-holder, but he went on to become the country's greatest president. Other men (see John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) had far more experience than he, yet failed miserably in their presidencies. This is why in my opinion, at least, political experience is not a predictor of success or failure of a potential president."
When we overrate experience alone we are likely to underestimate other qualities.
I have a few questions for those who have convinced themselves of the seeming logic of the argument that because Obama does not have the experience he should not be elected president.
What exactly is "the experience" that Obama lacks? Is there a special set of experiences that qualify one for the presidency? If so, where does one get such an experience? From a governor's mansion? From the halls of congress? From where exactly?
Why doesn't any of Barack's life experiences count? The man earned a law degree from Harvard and served as president of the Harvard Law Review. So his educational experience does not count? Barack has been married to one woman for 16 years; there has been no charge of him cheating on his wife, which cannot be said of some of his opponents. His experience of marital fidelity doesn't count? He has been raising two daughters as a responsible father, unlike his own father, who abandoned him. Why doesn't his fatherhood experience mean anything to a nation that claims to be big on family values?
After graduating from Harvard, Barack sacrificed potential fat-cat jobs, and, instead went to Chicago to work as community organizer for the downtrodden. Why is that not experience that means much? Also, he taught constitutional law at Chicago Law School. Should we not take his teaching experience into account, though he may not have been a law professor?
Why shouldn't we take into account his experience in the Illinois legislature? Legislative experience is legislative experience whether in Illinois or Washington. Is that not true?
How could a guy who is not qualified to lead America have succeeded against all odds to defeat the well-connected first lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton, with the full political genius and machinery of her powerful husband, former President Bill Clinton, arguably the best politician alive? Keep in mind that from the get-go, Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. How in the world did this political junkie pull off this major offset? Very few politicians in our lifetime could have succeeded against the combined political force of both Clintons. Why shouldn't we be impressed by such a feat? Should we choose rather to keep underestimating this guy?
How could an unqualified man have organized and run the kind of successful grassroots movement that Obama has led, especially his inspiring thousands of young voters? Are to to look at this level of administrative skill and consider it zip? Are you kidding? And have we not seen how the just-ended Democratic convention succeeded in unifying the party rather than revealing the fatal disunity many observers and pundits were expecting? And do we not attribute at least some of this success to Barack's leadership ability? By the way, did you notice that Barack proved his doubters wrong by filling up Mile High stadium with more than 80,000 people? Are we to look that and just label it dung?
And where in the constitution of the United States does it mention "the experience" required for anyone to be elected president of this great nation? Can we prove from American history that most of America's successful presidents were the most experienced candidates prior to being elected to the highest office?
Finally, are we really saying that Barack Obama cannot do the job that Mr. George W. Bush has done for about8 years? And what has Mr. Bush's experience done for our country, our economy, our international reputation? Don't get me wrong, I used to be a big Bush fan; I shook hands with Candidate George Bush when he visited our city during his campaign, and I enthusiastically voted for Bush twice. But to say that Mr. Obama will do any less or worse than Mr. Bush has done just defies common sense.
We can keep chanting "he lacks the experience, he lacks the experience" until November 4 th , but much of what America has seen thus far of Barack Obama reveals and confirms that this man is anything but an inexperienced figurehead. Though it's kind of scary to say it, this guy is a natural leader of the rare sort. And I say that as one has been arguing with my wife a lot about Obama's ideology. Some of his beliefs and ideas give me cause for concern.
I'm not yet sure I'll actually vote Obama for president. But this "he lacks the experience" line is nothing more than a purely subjective call, an opinion that ignores Obama's amazing leadership qualities of which we now have much evidence. If on November 4 th I vote McCain instead of Obama, it will be because of either man's ideas, not his experience. After all, experienced people have done some very dumb things that have harmed America, and some of those experienced people have been our political leaders, including presidents. In my experience, experience is usually overrated. Life itself, simply sharing in the human experience, can be the best experience for any job, including that of commander-in-chief.
Let me close this piece by quoting Geoff Elliott, writer of the Abraham Lincoln Blog:
"To summarize, Lincoln was a state legislator for 8 years and a U.S. Congressman for 2 years before he was elected president. He didn't have much experience as an office-holder, but he went on to become the country's greatest president. Other men (see John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) had far more experience than he, yet failed miserably in their presidencies. This is why in my opinion, at least, political experience is not a predictor of success or failure of a potential president."
When we overrate experience alone we are likely to underestimate other qualities.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech: Did He Deliver or Disappoint?
America makes history again on this day, Thursday, August 28, 2008. Tonight Barack Obama, a man who embodies the melting-pot portrait of the United States, delivers his acceptance speech on the last day of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. He is the first black nominee of a major political party in the United States of America.
The expectation and hype that preceded Senator Obama's big speech must have made his supporters nervous for fear that the political junkie might not have been able to step to the plate and clear the bar that was set so high. Yes, he had made great speeches in the past, but everyone knew this was different, and no one seemed certain if he would deliver as hoped or hyped.
Well, as a habitual critique of Barack Obama throughout this election, I am forced to admit that not only did Mr. Obama meet those high expectations, he totally surpassed them.
Among the many words I could use to describe the historic speech, let me capture the essence of Obama's rousing speech in three key words: prescriptive, combative, and inspirational.
The speech was prescriptive. The first part of the speech had the touch and style of President Bill Clinton, taking and making simple the complex policy issues of the economy, taxes, national security, international affairs, and social programs. Obama finally was able to answer his critics on the charge of being big on rhetoric but slim on substance. Tonight there was more than enough meat on the plate. In the prescriptive part of the speech, Barack basically stated, 'This is the issue or problem; here is how I will solve it; this is how we will pay for it; and here is the difference the solution will make.' That is the style of speech making that Mr. Clinton has mastered; Obama has borrowed Clinton's style well and yet made it uniquely his.
The speech was combative. At several points during the primary, it seemed like Mrs. Hillary Clinton had the fight and killer instinct that Obama supporters wished for their guy. Tonight, Barack showed a side to himself that we have not really seen: just like Mrs. Clinton, he has what it takes to take the fight to his opponent. His supporters need no longer worry about the three upcoming presidential debates between Obama and McCain. Yes, Senator McCain holds the record as the soldier, but Senator Obama now seems and sounds ready for a real verbal combat, whether defensive or offensive. Die-hard Democrats got the red meat they've been craving for, and that should result in even more grassroots efforts aimed at getting out the vote on elections day.
The speech was inspirational. The home stretch of the speech connected the oratorical dot all the way back to none lesser than Dr. Martin Luther King himself. What a trick of history it was that Obama's speech fell on the 45 th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech! This was the original Barack Obama, the master public speaker that stirred much of America during the early part of the primary elections. It was good to hear that Obama again. This means that Obama has finally ignored his opponents' attempt to sever him from his rhetorical strength by calling him nothing more than a man of fluffy words. It would have been a huge mistake for Obama to dumb his inspirational charisma in an effort to prove that he can talk straight like McCain. Let Senator McCain keep his mantle as "Mr. Straight Talk Express". Barack Obama does not have to apologize for being a charismatic orator.
Beyond this night, one can only hope that Obama will stick to this more complete version of his delivery, which mingles and mixes the prescriptive (Bill Clinton's simplicity) with the combative (Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit) and the inspirational (that lifts people's spirits for something bigger and higher than routine politics).
One other thing was striking about the experience, even for those who were not physically at the stadium in Denver: more than a political event, the climax of the convention seemed to have become a religious encounter, with so many people shedding tears as they sought to take in and savor the moment.
What more can I say? Never in my lifetime have I heard such a political speech. Simply put, it more than got the job done. The speech was a blast, and whether Obama is elected president of the United States or not, history has already been made, in that he and our nation have proven that America can and will elect a non-Caucasian for the highest office in the land. Obama's success proves America's progress toward a more perfect union. We are getting there, and the destination is finally at hand.
Note: Dear reader, thanks in advance for your comments!
The expectation and hype that preceded Senator Obama's big speech must have made his supporters nervous for fear that the political junkie might not have been able to step to the plate and clear the bar that was set so high. Yes, he had made great speeches in the past, but everyone knew this was different, and no one seemed certain if he would deliver as hoped or hyped.
Well, as a habitual critique of Barack Obama throughout this election, I am forced to admit that not only did Mr. Obama meet those high expectations, he totally surpassed them.
Among the many words I could use to describe the historic speech, let me capture the essence of Obama's rousing speech in three key words: prescriptive, combative, and inspirational.
The speech was prescriptive. The first part of the speech had the touch and style of President Bill Clinton, taking and making simple the complex policy issues of the economy, taxes, national security, international affairs, and social programs. Obama finally was able to answer his critics on the charge of being big on rhetoric but slim on substance. Tonight there was more than enough meat on the plate. In the prescriptive part of the speech, Barack basically stated, 'This is the issue or problem; here is how I will solve it; this is how we will pay for it; and here is the difference the solution will make.' That is the style of speech making that Mr. Clinton has mastered; Obama has borrowed Clinton's style well and yet made it uniquely his.
The speech was combative. At several points during the primary, it seemed like Mrs. Hillary Clinton had the fight and killer instinct that Obama supporters wished for their guy. Tonight, Barack showed a side to himself that we have not really seen: just like Mrs. Clinton, he has what it takes to take the fight to his opponent. His supporters need no longer worry about the three upcoming presidential debates between Obama and McCain. Yes, Senator McCain holds the record as the soldier, but Senator Obama now seems and sounds ready for a real verbal combat, whether defensive or offensive. Die-hard Democrats got the red meat they've been craving for, and that should result in even more grassroots efforts aimed at getting out the vote on elections day.
The speech was inspirational. The home stretch of the speech connected the oratorical dot all the way back to none lesser than Dr. Martin Luther King himself. What a trick of history it was that Obama's speech fell on the 45 th anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech! This was the original Barack Obama, the master public speaker that stirred much of America during the early part of the primary elections. It was good to hear that Obama again. This means that Obama has finally ignored his opponents' attempt to sever him from his rhetorical strength by calling him nothing more than a man of fluffy words. It would have been a huge mistake for Obama to dumb his inspirational charisma in an effort to prove that he can talk straight like McCain. Let Senator McCain keep his mantle as "Mr. Straight Talk Express". Barack Obama does not have to apologize for being a charismatic orator.
Beyond this night, one can only hope that Obama will stick to this more complete version of his delivery, which mingles and mixes the prescriptive (Bill Clinton's simplicity) with the combative (Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit) and the inspirational (that lifts people's spirits for something bigger and higher than routine politics).
One other thing was striking about the experience, even for those who were not physically at the stadium in Denver: more than a political event, the climax of the convention seemed to have become a religious encounter, with so many people shedding tears as they sought to take in and savor the moment.
What more can I say? Never in my lifetime have I heard such a political speech. Simply put, it more than got the job done. The speech was a blast, and whether Obama is elected president of the United States or not, history has already been made, in that he and our nation have proven that America can and will elect a non-Caucasian for the highest office in the land. Obama's success proves America's progress toward a more perfect union. We are getting there, and the destination is finally at hand.
Note: Dear reader, thanks in advance for your comments!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
The Main Reasons Why Barack Obama May Lose the Elections
The wonder of the 2008 presidential contest between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain is that it is still a contest at all. Of course, we may tote the tired line that polls prior to the political parties' conventions mean little or nothing. But one can't help but wonder why this race is a contest at all.
You can bet your horse, if you have one, Democrats are very nervous already. Some party leaders are still questioning Barack's judgment. "Why didn't Obama put Hillary on the ticket as his VP, if winning the presidency was his number objective? How will Joe Biden help him win those angry Hillary supporters, not to mention those battleground states?"
Here is why John McCain should be trailing Barack Obama by at least 10 percentage points at this point in the game:
-
Economic Recession: The economy is in the tank, with failing banks, high gasoline price, rising food price, and floods of foreclosures as the housing sector swims in the sewer of recession.
-
Unpopular President: For months now, President George Bush's job approval rating has been in the 20s and low 30s. As of August 24, a CNN poll showed the president with a 30 percent approval by Americans.
-
McCain Attachment to the Bush Agenda: If you can believe some of the reports and talking points, Senator John McCain has voted with Mr. Bush about 90 to 95 percent of the time. That means, there is no way McCain can be regarded by American voters as a change agent, since he may be able to only deliver a 10 percent change different from the Bush agenda.
In spite of all these factors favorable to a Democratic landslide in November, Barack Obama is in a dead heat with Senator McCain. If this trend continues – Barack losing his lead over McCain, then tied with McCain, and now trailing McCain in the latest Gallup poll – the Democrats may actually see another Republican in the White House, to continue what Democrats like to call "a third Bush term".
What is going on? Political pundits are awash with theories as to the reason for the close contest between Obama and McCain. Here is my best bag of speculation.
One reason is that domestic issues have been truncated by international concerns. The leading culprit is Russia's invasion of Georgia. To make matters worse, Russia is on track to annex parts of Georgia. Such a turn of affairs usually favors the Republican hawkish tendency. It may actually be Vladimir Putin of Russia who who defeats Barack Obama on November 4th. What does not seem to make sense about America's preference for McCain in dealing with the Russian-Georgian crisis, though, is that Russia has boldly marched into Georgia under the very nose of a Republican president, despite President Bush's warnings, rebukes and threats aimed at Russia. What is a President McCain going to do to the Russians that President Bush has not been able to do – start bombing Moscow?
Another reason: The harsh attacks on Barack Obama by fellow Democrats during the primary season have come home to roost. Those relentless attacks have taken their toll on the political junkie, and they may yet do further damage. The McCain campaign has seized the audios and videos of the repeated pounding against Obama of "lack of experience" and "not ready to lead" by Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. McCain does not even need to use his own words, except to say, "I am John McCain, and I approve this message", every time they play the words of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden (now Obama's VP), slamming Barack for his perceived inexperience.
A third reason: Clever underhand maneuvers by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party are starting to undermine Obama's chances of winning this race. As some of us have maintained for months now, it does not serve Hillary's presidential aspirations for Obama to be elected President of the United States. If Barack wins, Mrs. Clinton may have to wait for 8 years before she can make a second run for the White House. But if McCain wins, she can run again as early as 2012.
Fourth reason: Hillary Clinton supporters have now gone beyond partisan politics to religious zeal and devotion to their defeated candidate, whom they now treat as a feminist deity, a goddess, whose worship deserves any level of sacrifice they can make, even if it means the forfeiture of the presidency by the Democrats in 2008. There is hardly anything Mrs. Clinton can say to dissuade these ardent worshipers, not to mention that, to these disciples, Clinton's hidden actions and visible body language speak much louder than any clarion call she may send forth for her followers to vote Obama for president. Besides, the Clintonites will love nothing less than to suck it to the likes of Michelle Obama, Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi, and the entire Barack wing of the Democratic Party. Barack's loss will amount to the biggest "We told you so" from the Clinton establishment.
Sixth reason: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright hangover has helped to create or confirm doubts about a black man that may be too liberal for America. Though from everything the nation has observed so far, Barack does not seem to share Rev. Wright's militant spirit, a good number of white voters may harbor sufficient doubts to tilt the elections in McCain's favor. At present it seems the only black man some white voters can accept is someone like General Collin Powell, who has an approval rating in the 70s.
True, there is enough time for things to change, but right now, one cannot but ask, "Is there still hope for Barack Obama to win on November 4th?"
If there is such a hope, it may come from two sources. One is Obama's own "audacity" to hope against hope. Boy, does he need that "audacity of hope" right now?!
The other source of hope is something that some die-hard Obamaians have floated. They suggest that the traditional polls being taken by CNN, Gallup, and other pollsters are missing an important demographic ~ the cellphone generation of young (college) voters, who proved to be firebrands for the Obama movement during the primary elections. Those who hold this view say that traditional pollsters normally call landlines, not cellphone numbers, to poll voters. Mr. Obama can only hope that there is some truth to that rumor, which may serve as his trump card come elections day. We shall see.
Note: Your comments to this article are more than appreciated.
Friday, August 22, 2008
What? Another Barack Obama Re-Introduction?
Last night (August 20, 2008), I turned on cable television, and there on CNN Presents was the latest biography on Mr. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee for president of the United States. Perhaps CNN produced this show to counteract that slanderous book Obama Nation.
Frankly, I learned not much new about Mr. Obama. There is very little left to be learned about the man. Barack (Barry) was born to a black (Kenyan) father and white mother. His father abandoned him; his dad, born 1936, died 1982 in Kenya. Barack married Michelle Robinson in October 1992. His mom died in 1995.
Can we move on now, please? How many times will Barack Obama have to introduce himself or have CNN or any other entity introduce the man to America? Was he a naturalized citizen or something? Really, why does the man need to be introduced and re-introduced to his own country over and over? Barack has been on the national stage for months now. By now anyone interested in learning more about him should have checked Wikipedia or some other independent source on the candidate.
All this pretend curiosity about getting to know the real Barack Obama is getting kind of old. And it is getting some of us to ask, “If this guy were a white presidential candidate, named William Baron, would we still be wanting to know 'The Real William Baron', or would we rather be more concerned about William Baron's ideas?”
This is insane, and I'm about to lose more of my already vanishing hair strings. Look, people, the only important questions to ask of any presidential candidate of these united states should be those contained in the Constitution of our country. Perhaps a little civics review will do the trick:
First important question: Does the candidate satisfy the age and citizenship requirements as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution? The founding document reads, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.”
Second important question: Does the candidate meet what may be called the no-dynasty, no-ruling family requirement? The term limit amendment ratified February 27, 1951, reads, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
The person does not have to be a certain height. Does not need to have been in Washington for decades; two to three years in the legislature plus numerous appearances on the national stage is plenty of time to know someone who wants to be president. Besides, the media, especially in the Internet Age, littered with blogs, will definitely leave no stone unturned in the effort to reveal, uncover or expose any politician aiming for Pennsylvania Avenue.
No, the candidate does not have to be a certain gender. Does not have to be married. Does not have to have children. Does not have to graduate from a certain school. Does not have to be a Jew, Christian, or Muslim. Does not have to be Evangelical, Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, or Charismatic. Does not have to be a governor, representative or senator. And no, the candidate for the oval office does not have to own a dog or cat, or have his last name be Kennedy, Bush or Clinton. His/her name does not even have to be or sound American.
I thought the United Sates were the great, big cultural melting pot of the world. Has that changed all of a sudden, because a guy's name is or sounds Eastern? What am I missing here?
Yes, the presidential candidate must have character or integrity, as defined and accepted by American society. But if the person lacks moral integrity, the electorate will filter him/her out with their votes.
On August 25th the convention for the Democratic Party kicks off, to be followed on September by the Republican Party convention on . May America be treated as an adult, not expecting or waiting for an encore introduction of Obama or McCain. May we see and hear a serious presentation of the big issues this election should be about from now until November 4th.
“What are those issues?” one may ask. Those issues are not McCain's war record or prisoner of war accolade. Not Barack's last name or middle name; not his pastor or any other associates of decades past. Personality will not win or lose this election. What we want to hear are the candidates' ideas and plans concerning national security, energy, health care, taxes, judges, abortion, and the international scene.
How will either man deal with each of the following? The recessive economy; America's bankrupt social security scheme; the costly war in Iraq, costing the American taxpayer $10 billion per month; angry Russia, now occupying the sovereign nation of Georgia; ambitious Iran, with its unpredictable ruler; illusive Afghanistan, where the Taliban resurges; the explosive dilemma that is the Israeli and Palestinian question; the rising super power that is China; nuclear Pakistan, with increasingly bold and blatant suicide bombers; Darfur, the humanitarian disaster of Sudan; the AIDS epidemic.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Barack Obama & John McCain: Flip Flop Comparison Chart
Both Senators Barack Obama and John McCain have done the flip on major issues. Saying that one man is a bigger flip flopper than the other is like getting out a scale to weigh their summer sauts to decide which man is the greater flipper flopper. Obama and McCain are well matched in the flip flop arena. It does not seem like McCain's greater age and experience give him an edge over the younger Obama when it comes to the skill of flip flopping.
The list of tumbles is too long to continue here. It includes changes of positions on national security, foreign policy, domestic policy, energy policy, etc. But you can find more flip flops by Senators Obama and McCain on these links:
=> For a complete list of Barack Obama flip flops, click here.
The list of tumbles is too long to continue here. It includes changes of positions on national security, foreign policy, domestic policy, energy policy, etc. But you can find more flip flops by Senators Obama and McCain on these links:=> For a complete list of Barack Obama flip flops, click here.
=> For a complete list of John McCain flip flops, click here.
What these men have done is make flip flops so common that before this elections season is over, Americans will be desensitized to flip flops by politicians. As we've been lied to by our parents, pastors, priests, players, politicians and other people of influence, so that we say hopelessly and simply, "Everybody lies". So, in future elections, whether local or national, flip flops (lying) will become a minor thing to worry about, unless it is something like perjury or "lying under oath". We are poised to start saying with reference to politicians, "Everybody flip flops".
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Barack Obama Flip Flops Again - Good!
It was just yesterday that I blogged that Senator Barack Obama would lose the 2008 presidential elections to Senator John McCain over the biggest issue of this time: energy. My prediction was that Obama's insistence on toting the party line against offshore drilling puts him on the wrong side of the sensible majority of the American public, who have made it known that they want America to drill for its own oil.
I even emailed the Obama Campaign about this, and I suppose countless other Obama admirers did the same.
Well, guess what? It seems like Obama has already felt the heat and smelled the coffee. He is now modifying his position, saying he is open to offshore drilling, depending on how the plan is structured. Good for this guy, he's not afraid of flip flopping, since changing position on any issue fits right into his template of being the "change candidate".
Because Obama was/is a far left liberal, every flip flop moves him closer to the moderate end of the ideological spectrum. I kind of like that.
You know, something in me told me that Obama would prove to be a real politician by changing his position on this matter, once he was convinced that he was losing the popular support for more drilling.
So after months of singing the anti-drilling song, "We can't drill our way out of this," Barack Obama is about to join a different choir, singing, "We can partly drill our way out of high gas prices."
Instead of being upset with Obama for flipping, I'm actually elated that he's coming around to the American people's side on this all-important issue, while he still has time.
Next, let's watch, listen and see if Mr. Obama actually believes in offshore drilling now and will begin to hammer the point as part of a comprehensive energy solution that will both lower gas prices immediately and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil eventually.
Keep flipping and flopping, Barack Obama, and you might just become President Obama, after all. I'd rather have you do 360s on important issues that you are wrong on than stick to your far-left guns and bite the dust on November 4th.
There are bad flip flops, and there are good flip flops. This was certainly a good one. Is there another on the way, Obama, Sir? I sure hope so...
I even emailed the Obama Campaign about this, and I suppose countless other Obama admirers did the same.
Well, guess what? It seems like Obama has already felt the heat and smelled the coffee. He is now modifying his position, saying he is open to offshore drilling, depending on how the plan is structured. Good for this guy, he's not afraid of flip flopping, since changing position on any issue fits right into his template of being the "change candidate".
Because Obama was/is a far left liberal, every flip flop moves him closer to the moderate end of the ideological spectrum. I kind of like that.
You know, something in me told me that Obama would prove to be a real politician by changing his position on this matter, once he was convinced that he was losing the popular support for more drilling.
So after months of singing the anti-drilling song, "We can't drill our way out of this," Barack Obama is about to join a different choir, singing, "We can partly drill our way out of high gas prices."
Instead of being upset with Obama for flipping, I'm actually elated that he's coming around to the American people's side on this all-important issue, while he still has time.
Next, let's watch, listen and see if Mr. Obama actually believes in offshore drilling now and will begin to hammer the point as part of a comprehensive energy solution that will both lower gas prices immediately and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil eventually.
Keep flipping and flopping, Barack Obama, and you might just become President Obama, after all. I'd rather have you do 360s on important issues that you are wrong on than stick to your far-left guns and bite the dust on November 4th.
There are bad flip flops, and there are good flip flops. This was certainly a good one. Is there another on the way, Obama, Sir? I sure hope so...
Friday, August 1, 2008
President Barack Obama: You May Never Have to Say It
Barack Obama will lose the November presidential elections, if...
First, some context...
President Bush has done his part by lifting the ban on offshore drilling from the Executive side. Of course, the president could ask Congress to hold special session on the energy issue. But some reason, Mr. Bush may not want to do so. Does the President realize he could give John McCain the edge on this win-or-lose issue by insisting on a special session of Congress?
When will Barack Obama wake up to the fact that he's on the wrong side of the oil issue by continuing to say lifting the ban won't do a thing to lower gas price?
The Democrat-led Congress has succeeded in shielding Obama from actually casting a vote against lifting the ban on offshore drilling. They've done this by blocking the issue from coming for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. What these clowns fail to realize is that they cannot shield their candidate from defeat on November 4th, Elections Day, unless something positively drastic happens to the price of gas and diesel.
Yes, as things stand right now, Democrats are bound to lose the White House, if they stick to the guns on maintaining the ban on increasing domestic production. Most Americans want the ban on offshore drilling lifted, so that America can produce more of her own energy, and stop buying from nations, where some of the profit from petroleum can go towards funding groups hostile to America's security interests. Why is that too hard for Democrats to grasp? I wish and pray the Democrats will lose their majority in Congress over this issue. May be that's when they'll see the light, I mean, see the oil.
We now have proof that the mere likelihood of greater supply will help lower the price of oil along with the price of gasoline at the pump. The price of oil had hit $147 per barrel when President Bush lifted the Executive Order against offshore drilling. As I blog this, the price of oil has fallen to around $125, a drop of more than $20. It's actually trending upwards again, thanks to the Democrats' effort to prevent increased supply.
Just the mere threat of increased oil production seems to tank the price rather quickly. The price won't stay high until the petroleum actually starts flowing from the ground, which may take two to ten years.
But Barack Obama is acting too smart to understand that if the speculators know America will drill for more ill, they will immediately begin to bid the future price of oil down. And this short selling will bring down the price of oil and grass right NOW, not in 10 years, as the Barack people want us to believe. Perhaps this simple threat-of-supply impact is too down to earth for Mr. Obama's superior intelligence. Instead, he prefers to be our nanny, talking down to us about keeping sufficient air in our tires and getting regular tune up.
Now, don't think for a moment that Mr. Obama is that ignorant or arrogant, as some conservatives think. No, Barack is not that dumb, puffed or full of it. Instead, he is beholden to the special interest known as radical environmentalists. Well, let him remain in bed with his environmental sweethearts. He may just wake up on November 5, 2008, to learn that he blew a once-in-a-generation opportunity to be called President Barack Obama.
First, some context...
President Bush has done his part by lifting the ban on offshore drilling from the Executive side. Of course, the president could ask Congress to hold special session on the energy issue. But some reason, Mr. Bush may not want to do so. Does the President realize he could give John McCain the edge on this win-or-lose issue by insisting on a special session of Congress?
When will Barack Obama wake up to the fact that he's on the wrong side of the oil issue by continuing to say lifting the ban won't do a thing to lower gas price?
The Democrat-led Congress has succeeded in shielding Obama from actually casting a vote against lifting the ban on offshore drilling. They've done this by blocking the issue from coming for a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives. What these clowns fail to realize is that they cannot shield their candidate from defeat on November 4th, Elections Day, unless something positively drastic happens to the price of gas and diesel.
Yes, as things stand right now, Democrats are bound to lose the White House, if they stick to the guns on maintaining the ban on increasing domestic production. Most Americans want the ban on offshore drilling lifted, so that America can produce more of her own energy, and stop buying from nations, where some of the profit from petroleum can go towards funding groups hostile to America's security interests. Why is that too hard for Democrats to grasp? I wish and pray the Democrats will lose their majority in Congress over this issue. May be that's when they'll see the light, I mean, see the oil.
We now have proof that the mere likelihood of greater supply will help lower the price of oil along with the price of gasoline at the pump. The price of oil had hit $147 per barrel when President Bush lifted the Executive Order against offshore drilling. As I blog this, the price of oil has fallen to around $125, a drop of more than $20. It's actually trending upwards again, thanks to the Democrats' effort to prevent increased supply.
Just the mere threat of increased oil production seems to tank the price rather quickly. The price won't stay high until the petroleum actually starts flowing from the ground, which may take two to ten years.
But Barack Obama is acting too smart to understand that if the speculators know America will drill for more ill, they will immediately begin to bid the future price of oil down. And this short selling will bring down the price of oil and grass right NOW, not in 10 years, as the Barack people want us to believe. Perhaps this simple threat-of-supply impact is too down to earth for Mr. Obama's superior intelligence. Instead, he prefers to be our nanny, talking down to us about keeping sufficient air in our tires and getting regular tune up.
Now, don't think for a moment that Mr. Obama is that ignorant or arrogant, as some conservatives think. No, Barack is not that dumb, puffed or full of it. Instead, he is beholden to the special interest known as radical environmentalists. Well, let him remain in bed with his environmental sweethearts. He may just wake up on November 5, 2008, to learn that he blew a once-in-a-generation opportunity to be called President Barack Obama.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Is Barack Obama Arrogant? That's a Good Thing!
What is this thing about Barack Obama being arrogant, having a big ego, and so forth?
In lieu of Obama being a black man, it is good that he comes across as proud and large. In America, a black man is supposed to appear timid and ignorant, not knowing what he's doing. After all, the black man is supposed to look and act inferior to the white man. And when he does not fit the mold, he's attacked as if he's out of place.
What John McCain and some in the US media are describing as presumptuous and arrogant is rather seen by millions of us as confident and intelligent. And it's about time for us to see a black man cast himself as a natural leader.
Yes, a black guy that dares to know what he is doing! What a change! And the McCain camp just can't stand it, or may be they choose not to understand it.
Call Obama arrogant, because he dares to look presidential. But it is McCain who continues to be whinny and nick picky. You call him presumptuous; we call him presidential. You call him arrogant; we see him as confident and intelligent.
What am I missing? When a white presidential candidate does and sounds the same as Barack Obama, he is called presidential and confident. But when a black guy follows suit, he's attacked as presumptuous and arrogant.
I guess arrogance is in the eye of the beholder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
