My Congress,
I am inspired, my Congress, and let me tell you why.
Because for the first time in my life, I am seeing people come together to action. Larger numbers of voters are mobilized than ever before. People are speaking the same voice, are giving of themselves, are motivated to work and reach out to others. And it is in the name of Change for all of us.
For the first time in my life, I'm seeing the real America - a unified people from small and large towns, demanding Change. A hint of the America of which our founders dreamed…an America where the people are bonding together to make a difference, mobilizing to effect change. I'm seeing the America we talk about when we read the Preamble to our Constitution:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
These rights, including free speech and religion, are integral to our shared experience as Americans, allowing Lincoln’s words to ring true:
...that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
It is this government of the people that our founders wished for us, and that we have slowly let slip through our fingers. The dream of the forefathers set up a representative structure where each of you, members of Congress, serves as a trumpet for us. You are our elected spokesperson, our clarion call of what we want for our society.
And we want Change.
What is this Change? Everyone I speak to agrees: we need leaders that inspire and represent the America we want to see regardless of party-affiliation. 80% of Americans feels that we have a leadership crisis – in our businesses, in our government, among our own people. We are not happy with where we have gone, the course that our country has taken and how uninvolved we have become. What was originally an American Dream has now become its nightmare as we learn some valuable lessons about economics and leadership. We recognize a crisis, and we understand that we have been part of the problem.
I feel that this is why so many Republicans and Independents have come to support Obama: he is a leader for all people, not just one side or another. Not the rich over the poor, or the poor over the rich. He represents a responsibility of the people to take care of the people, of Americans to support America!
But it didn’t have to be Obama. Any leader who truly represented the interests of everyone should have been able to step forth and rally the American people behind them. Because as the leadership poll shows, the majority of people want the President to do what the American people think is right. Not what the individual him/herself feels is right.
And what the American people feel is right often transcends party-lines. From the leadership report, again:
Americans have specific desires of our government, and a growing number do not care about a label of one party or another, but instead are looking for leaders that take up the platform of the people and work to make it happen.
Why can't our politics always be thus, my Congress? Why must one don the banner of one party or another, conservatism or liberalism, and not appreciate that a strong country is flexible. By refusing to yield, we are broken - as we have seen in our foreign policy. By bending, we are made stronger.
Why must our future leaders choose one side or another, when America needs candidates that are able to see all sides of the picture and make the right choices for America at that time? Whether that choice be conservative or liberal, social or fiscal? Why must we choose sides and belong to one method or another, when in truth, a marriage of the two is usually the best action altogether? Why not a leadership that has all options available in order to move in the direction that is best for Americans?
I am excited to see that we are stepping up and accepting responsibility for ourselves and our actions. Many might say that we are lazy and merely want to bring in “leadership” that will decide things for us, as long as we can continue to watch our sit-coms and reality TV. That the American spirit is a thing of the past.
But this election shows that is not so: We The People feel left out of the mix, constantly given leadership options that do not inspire us, do not make us feel as if we are being represented, spend efforts only to discredit others instead of supporting US, the people.
Too long has our government been incestuous and broken, over eight (and more) long years of constant fear and frustration. Confidence that we could do anything to save ourselves was lower than ever before. Instead we hung our heads and tried not to look the world in the eye, shuffling our feet and saying, “Yeah…I know. I feel helpless too.” We huddled up, ready to endure a long winter of failed confidence and leadership. Many talked of leaving the country. Others vowed to fight on. Still others descended into a pessimistic hole of distrust of any candidate, taking the latest administrative as just a sign that Lincoln’s words were the past, and fear was our future.
But We The People are now standing up and taking back our country. Having had the taste of hope, the taste of what being a citizen really means, we awake to our charge: We The People are going to hold our leaders responsible, and ourselves responsible for bringing the right leaders in. We need an ideology change, a thread of something that will allow us to hold our heads high. We need to feel as if those “rights” we fought for so many years ago really exist and mean something. We need to know that we can make a difference.
As America, we are so close to stepping away from the adolescent behavior of the past eight years, reminiscent of a spoiled, rich teenager who is the bully of the world playground. I am eager to see us move beyond that into our young adulthood to being more responsible, more thoughtful country.
And it only took being thrust out on the ledge of utter downfall for us to pull back, and pull together.
I am also scared, my Congress.
I am scared that we will not learn from this unifying experience and divisive politics.
I am frightened that we will choose Change, and then sit back and wait for change to happen to us, instead of realizing that it starts with us.
I’m afraid that We The People will feel the burden of Change will be too much after so many years of being downtrodden. We will forget the sacrifices that our forefathers and ancestors made to seek a better country, a better life. We will forget how much they gave up, and how much many of our people still give up, to make sure that America is the country of opportunity and freedom, where people have the right to speak their minds and worship how they wish.
I worry that we will feel that there is too high a price to pay for Change. That We The People will be too afraid of uncertainty to push for a better country and world. Much like the uncertainty of death that begets strict religion but no enlightenment, We The People could fall into greater fear of Change than fear of dying out. And we will balk, and remain the same.
But have no doubt – we will still pay the prices we thought we were avoiding.
I’m fearful that people will cling too much to labels and ideologies, eschewing flexibility and evaluation. They will be unable to cast off the chains of “my way or the highway” for self-review and broad perspective. That We the People will turn our backs on ourselves and everything we could be in order to follow a regimented doctrine from a corrupted era.
And I'm sure you are scared too. Because despite the label of "democrat" that Obama runs under, in reality he is very middle of the road, and represents many of the views of both conservatives and liberals. And that means that perhaps it might not be about large parties, facing off mano e mano, anymore. Perhaps all our hopes will be realized and we will have flexible, thoughtful leadership that will listen to We The People, and move forward step by step to becoming a stronger, greater nation. And this means We The People will demand Change of You, my Congress.
No, it will not change overnight, or even with one president. All of our troubles will not vanish, and no one person is the answer to the days ahead. We may endure some difficult times and much will be demanded of us to put our best foot forward for the slow steady climb.
But it must start somewhere, it must start with one step. One Step towards Change and Hope, a step that will restore confidence in our own leadership. This will allow us to feel strong enough to lift our heads and look towards the horizon of becoming a better country, a better We The People, and a better citizen in this world. We will be able to look ahead and see that the sun is rising on America, and hope renews with the coming Spring.
“To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under the sun.”
I raise my head and look forward to the rising of the sun, so that we may prepare for a new season of growth and confidence in The United States of America – United Again. Perhaps then we can achieve what Lincoln spoke of in his second inaugural address:
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
This blog, Exponential, endorses Barack Obama as the next president of the United States of America.
Lane BurnsConcerned Citizen of the United States of America
How frustrating. So, let's go through this latest fear-tactic, shall we?
Enough Democrats will be elected into the Congress to create imbalance. Choose a Republican for president to balance them out.
A number of reasons why this irritates me:
Imagine McCain. His sneers. His air-quotes. His privatization and his flippancy towards the rest of the world. Do we really want someone who believes in supporting his private investors more than the common American people? Do we really want someone like McCain or Palin, who immediately turn to smearing opponents instead of dealing with issues? Do we think that is an effective way to lead a country?
Remember when Bush mentioned the "Axis of Evil" and we were all ashamed that our leader so brazenly bypassed diplomacy and called names? Or how about when he called the leader of North Korea, a "pygmy"? Don't we see that now, in our own country, with McCain/Palin throwing out labels and accusations of socialist, terrorist, and "celebrity"?
We aren't happy with Bush's diplomacy methods - how could we support the same in McCain and Palin?
How many times have we shaken our heads when Bush would come out with gaffes and errors in his statements? And now we want to elect McCain and Palin, the top gaffe-makers in our country today?
And how many times have we questioned the Bush tactics and strategies that deliberately lead us into situations that are designed to benefit himself and his cronies? And now McCain and Palin are using the same cronies and political campaign advisers as Bush did. How many times did we say we disliked "flip-flopping" but ignore the fact that McCain's entire campaign has been a flip-flop. He was against torture, but ended up supporting Bush in it anyway. He was for campaign reform, and now he's been taking advantage of every loophole that exists. He was against tax cuts for the wealthy, and now supports them again. He left the 2000 campaign after Bush's campaign smeared him and his family terribly. Now he's using the same people to smear Obama. He says he puts his country first, but ask Americans how they feel Palin fits that theme. He claims he's moderate, but then takes up all the most conservative ideals of his party.
He's shown his disdain for what Americans want at every turn. We don't like the negativity - he does more of it. We don't like the idea of privatizing health care, he makes it a pivotal part of his campaign. Just what does McCain stand for that Americans really want?
Fear-mongering is tiring. Our country has been at Orange Alert for so long that no one even pays attention anymore. McCain wants people to question "Who is the real Obama?" when we really should be asking, "Who is the Real McCain - and which one is trying to be president?"
(originally posted at Exponential)
(Ok, I couldn't help it. I like acorn squash.)
Let's deal with the ACORN rumors, shall we? I think anyone who has worked with a non-profit will feel pain at reading this, because it is so often that when you are trying to do the most good for a non-partisan cause that bad nuts get into the batch. Whether they are employees or volunteers, sometimes your own people undermine your goals.
Does this make your efforts worthless? No. Does that mean that your organization is the problem? No. Is is frustrating and disheartening? Heck yes.
So, on to the reality check. I'm using FactCheck.org and the ACORN website as my sources.
WHAT IS ACORN?
WHAT IS THEIR PROCESS?
ACORN VOTER FRAUD
John McCain stated in the final debate that ACORN is "now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."
Goodness, McCain - embellish much? FactCheck.org disagrees with this outlandish statement about the fabric of democracy being unwoven by voter registration. But I'll put it together for all of us (majority of information from FactCheck.org):
OBAMA'S CONNECTION TO ACORN
FactCheck.org says:
The ad says that "Obama's ties to ACORN run long and deep" – that he "taught classes" for the group, paid a "front" $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president.That last one's true – ACORN's political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement.It's also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer "motor voter" registration at DMV offices. Obama has said [but no longer says- LEB] that this is his only association with ACORN, but that's not the case – he has had other, though less direct[emphasis mine], interactions with the organization. After law school, Obama directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote, which works closely with ACORN. And when Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants. The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI's services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election. As for "teaching classes" for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot "initially considered Obama a competitor" when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that "she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that "we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year" between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.
The ad says that "Obama's ties to ACORN run long and deep" – that he "taught classes" for the group, paid a "front" $800,000 for get-out-the-vote efforts, and was endorsed by ACORN for president.
That last one's true – ACORN's political action committee did offer an Obama endorsement.It's also true that Obama has worked with the group in the past. In 1995, Obama helped represent ACORN in a successful lawsuit to require the state of Illinois to offer "motor voter" registration at DMV offices. Obama has said [but no longer says- LEB] that this is his only association with ACORN, but that's not the case – he has had other, though less direct[emphasis mine], interactions with the organization. After law school, Obama directed a Chicago registration drive for Project Vote, which works closely with ACORN. And when Obama was on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, the foundation gave grants of $75,000 in 2001 and $70,000 in 2002 to ACORN's Chicago office. The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee cite an additional grant of $45,000 in 2000. The Woods Fund has not responded to our calls about their 2000 grants. The Obama campaign also paid Citizens Services Inc., a group affiliated with ACORN, more than $800,000 for get-out-the-vote (not voter registration) efforts during the primary election. The nature of CSI's services was initially misrepresented on the Obama campaign's disclosures to the Federal Election Commission, which the campaign describes as an oversight. The Obama campaign says it has not been involved with ACORN during the general election. As for "teaching classes" for the group, the McCain campaign cites a March 2008 Newsday article, which says that ACORN organizer Madeleine Talbot "initially considered Obama a competitor" when both were working to get asbestos insulation removed from a Chicago housing project, but that "she became so impressed with his work that she invited him to help train her staff." Newsday does not say whether Obama accepted the invitation. An article by Chicago alderman Toni Foulkes says that "we [ACORN] have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year" between 1992 and 2004, when the article was written. The Obama campaign says that Obama participated in two, one-hour trainings in a volunteer capacity. Foulkes could not be reached for comment.
So, before we get all wound up in trying to pin massive voter fraud on anyone, perhaps we should do our own reality check of the facts.
Can we get back to talking about real issues again?
(originally posted at Exponential )
The previous post was about the cohesiveness of the branding message on the Obama camp. This has allowed for the message to be easily picked up and used by others - whether to support Obama or themselves. It shows pretty clearly that Change sells.
The Capitalism of Hope
Support from large and small business has been amazing. Everyone wants to be a part of the movement that will change the course of our country's leadership - whether through belief in that movement or just wanting to say that they were a part of the historic event.
Take UncleBrutha, for example. Obama likes hot sauce (who doesn't?) and so Uncle Brutha decided to make The Audacity of Hot Sauce to raise money and support for Obama. Hot Sauce? Why not?
Or how about Ojamas? The Obama pajamas that help you sleep easier. (ok, cheesy line, but it was too easy to avoid.)
Numerous other sites exist too - artists, cafepress, and more. Some are donating the funds to the Obama campaign, but others are just capitalizing off the fervor for a new voice.
This might be proof that Obama isn't going to make us all socialists - his cohesive campaign branding incites hyper-capitalism in the people, and propels new entrepreneurs to get their hand in the action. Obama's campaign alone might stabilize the government.
Artistic Expression
I showcased some artistic support for Obama in my last post. However, the lengths to which artists are rallying their skills for Obama is expansive. Some of these are being picked up by the Barack Obama website and raising money, while others are raising awareness or giving quality design to people willing to share the art with others.
First, how about Design for Obama? Revisiting the era of propaganda posters, designers have put forth their efforts to do what they can to support the movement. From their site:
Design/ers for Obama was created when Design Observer essentially asked the question, “how can graphic designers best support Barack Obama?” Our answer ended up extending the question to cover visual communicators at all levels. In addition to supporting Obama for America we jumped at the opportunity to bring the spirit of grassroots style organizing and collaboration to poster design which, to us, meant not only forming communal bonds but sharing the fruits of our efforts equally and in such a way that anyone can enjoy and benefit from (because most of us do not own our own printing presses).
Again, it seems that the quality of branding and message of the Obama campaign has inspired widespread activism, and have people giving of themselves in ways they might not have considered before. In honor of this, I'll feature some of my favorite posters in my blog up until the election.
Other poster sites that have sprung up: 30 Reasons. Each day, a new poster is added to showcase reasons why you should vote for Barack Obama.
Perhaps Sketch For Change has something you'd be interested in.
A way to keep up on the Art being made for Obama? The Obama Art Report.
But the art isn't just for designers or serial artists. It's for everyone. For example, Spelling Change offers everyone an opportunity to create a letter for the website.
My local sewing co-op and fashion store, Fasten Collective, has WeHeartObama as their designer of the month.
Needless to say, the Obama campaign has been inspiring for artists everywhere.
DIY = the Unity of Grass Roots Action
I've also never seen so many people mobilized to take a symbol and make grass-roots creations, and then share them with others. In my own community, the organizer of Milwaukee Renaissance promoted an Art for Obama gathering where people came together to make Obama yard signs - homemade ways of expressing support.
Or you could organize a Yes We Carveparty and carve pumpkins with various logos, mottoes and other Obama supporting messages. Patterns are provided at the website, along with instructions, and an opportunity to join a contest.
Want to wear your own support? How about a knitting pattern for the logo? Like to see the results?
Many of these items are described in the Obama Craft Project. Which includes a post(complete with video) on how to create your own Obama pin. DIY or DIE features some Barack Obama jewelry on Etsy and other places.
In the spirit of FreeCycle, there's an ObamaCycle - a way to get Obama gear into the hands of people who want it but can't afford it.
It must be true that this campaign has organized more people than has been seen for a long time. Either people are really tired of the same political ways - which McCain seems to represent to them - or they really believe in the Obama message.
Either way, it seems to point towards greater unity for all.
I've been wanting to discuss the Obama Design since day one. Many people have agreed that the design behind the Obama campaign has been stellar and reaching people unlike previous elections. What is behind this?
The Symbol
So, never before have I seen such a flawlessly run design campaign.
Politics aside, the mobilization of the logos, the diverse options, and the inspiring mottoes and - dare I say - typeface have people eager to put stickers on their bumpers.
Seriously, never before have I been thinking about putting a bumpersticker on my car. Bumpersticker activism isn't how I want to change the world.
But the simple circle with the new day dawning over the striped fields...something about that image just gets into the core of me. It doesn't just represent Obama - it represents something deeper, something organic and powerful that connects us all to the earth beneath our feet and the people on the street.
Even if Obama didn't win, I really think this logo could be something people across the country could unite under. It represents the best of us, the intrinsic American spirit that is about community and roots, as well as change and growth.
You have to admit, it's fabulous design that manages to take one symbol and tweak it to fit so many different people. It gives credence to the underlying statement: that we are all equally important and united, despite our individual differences. (For a sample of the logos as made individualized for each voting group, you can check the BarackObama website, or you can read this blog that includes a sample of each. )
Designbay did a study of winning presidents and their logos, and then compared this year's candidates. The Obama logo is designed to win.
Designers Review the Branding
K-Co, my top-notch designer friend, and I have discussed the Obama branding and what makes it so alluring. The branding has a lot of designers talking. One designer and critic, Michael Beirut, was asked to give his opinions of the Obama branding and the effort that has gone into it. His views seem somewhat amazed at the level of detail put into the branding, and his tone sounds a bit conflicted. But he says it clearly - the design and branding are impeccable.
The website is part of the branding technique, and people definitely have opinions about that. Friends I've talked to find it simultaneously helpful and beautiful, but expansive and overwhelming. Back in 2007, the Bivings Report took a look at the Obama campaign site. They gave it pretty high reviews, although some issues were noted. Additionally, Brian Yerkes provided his own review in June of '08, which goes through some detail as to why the Obama website is superior.
In January '08, the Boston Globe put together a review of fonts by The Font Bureau, Inc. focusing on which fonts in the campaigns really speak of change.
The Website and the Store
Have you been to the BarackObama store? Not just your typical cheesy election stuff. The designs are quality and make you feel inspired and happy to be a part of the experience. In addition, if you're looking for something higher end, there are the Runway to Change and Artists for Obama lines. SwissMiss featured the newest art poster in a blog post a few days ago, referring to it as a "typographic waterfall" as lovingly as any designer might.
The problem? Everything I want (or can afford) is sold out! (Perhaps I should check out the Democratic Stuff website.)
Next Post: Capitalism, Artists and DIY Speak Up For Obama
Today, my boyfriend and I made a date for the betterment of both of us: We're going to watch our debates at the gym while we work out together. Typically I don't watch a lot of TV - we don't have cable and are never home to watch it.
But SNAP! Fitness has TV's attached to their cardio machines. Typically, I find this annoying, but tonight I'm completely excited to combine my workout with civic duty.
Both ways, we are fighting for change.
You probably heard it, unless you were in the middle of the HarleyFest. My jaw dropping and hitting the desk when I read that McCain chose Sarah Palin as his running mate.
I don't remember what my first thought was. It was one of the two: "Wow. Stupid." Or "Wow, that pisses me off."
I hope that all the Hilary supporters see through this really clumsy action. This isn't McCain for Change. This is Same Old, Same Old. With the goal of attempting to reach out to the Hillary supporters who didn't see their candidate, Republicans chose a young beauty queen to make McCain look less stodgy and more "reform".
This proves, beyond a doubt, that Republicans have lost touch with reality, and the American people. By bringing in a "token" woman, Republicans have shown that they are still classist, still separatists that live in an America of the 50's, rather than the global community.
The part that really burns my britches is the fact that it completely reveals Republican platform on women: attractive, a nice smile, and willingness to play the game of the boys matters more than brains, wits, or real experience. The fact that they think that women might choose to vote for Palin because of gender rather than skill or capability COMPLETELY MISSES the Hillary campaign phenomena.
Hillary was such a movement for many reason, but one of the strongest ones was that women FINALLY had a quality candidate that was a woman, not a female playing the typical political game. This candidate had experience, intelligence, wits and skills. Hillary managed to reach out and touch real topics that affect both men and women, and wasn't afraid to grapple those topics that still are real issues - Choice, Rights, Equality for Women.
To choose Palin, who lacks experience, background, and any connection to the issues that women are concerned about, is a slap in the face of women. It's the Republicans believing that "Tits, not Wits" are what get the female vote. It shows that they just don't get it, and Republican Party just doesn't understand how Americans think or vote.
The only "change" Palin represents is that an old white guy is willing to have the woman stand next to him, instead of behind the desk out front.
Let's look at the facts:
In the face of a 72 year old president, we have a barbie doll in place in case he goes down. This isn't change, guys. It's sad. It's proof that you just don't get it.
(originally posted at Exponential on August 31st.)
I don't think there's any way to deny it - to vote for McCain/Palin really WOULD be voting for another four years.
Seriously, do I need to go any further? McCain/Palin represent the same old way of putting corporations over populations.
You want to say that social views don't matter? An administration's social programs and beliefs directly impact their fiscal beliefs. Those out there saying, "Well, I prefer Republican fiscal views" need to take another look at their fiscal views. Our debt has gone up astronomically, we are paying for a war that should never have happened, and social security is in danger.
You want to say that the Vice President doesn't do anything really? Hmm, perhaps you should talk to Cheney, who has managed to twist many deals in the White House offices.
You want to cite experience? Perhaps we should contemplate the experience of some of our founding fathers, or perhaps of myriad presidents before now? Or Senators, or leaders of any movement? Do you think that a preacher would be a good civil rights movement leader? Perhaps we should consider the person, and not the background, the skin color, or gender. Perhaps we should consider their ideas, the people they surround themselves with, and their ability to take on the burden of leading this country. Perhaps we should consider how they reach out to us instead of how they ask us to reach out to them. Perhaps we should look at what a person stands for, instead of stands ON.
Perhaps we should remember what Margaret Mead said:
So apparently, McCain/Palin refuse to respond to the legislative investigation about Palin's abuse of power as Governor. Let me be specific to the article: "allegations that she and her advisers pressured then-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to fire a state trooper going through a bitter custody dispute with her sister -- and that Monegan was terminated when he refused. "
McCain/Palin refuse to respond on the basis that the investigation is all a dramatic partisan attack by Obama operatives. (They really did use the word "operatives", I am (unfortunately) not making this up.)
So, an inquiry into poor decision-making and qualifications by a candidate is deemed "partisan politics" and can be dismissed? If you're running for office, you can just refuse to cooperate with a formal, legal investigation?
Wow, that sounds like some Privilege. I don't think the average American is able to do that.
But wait...this sounds familiar...I'm trying to remember ...Oh Yeah! When Cheney refused to respond to the Supreme Court about his Energy Council. A quote from this write-up:
Indeed, the Court may have avoided an ultimate decision in the case in part because of the political reverberations that would doubtless have resulted from their examining the separation of powers issues (read: the secrecy powers of the presidency) in an election year.
Oh wait. Maybe I meant the case where the Bush Administration invoked executive privilege regarding the EPA inquiry into emissions in California. That happened just in June of this year.
Or perhaps I'm thinking of the firing of 9 U.S. Attorneys, at which the Bush Administration ALSO invoked executive privilege, AND tried to make it so that the courts could not decide otherwise. In what the article claims -
"What this statement is saying is the president's claim of executive privilege trumps all."
It looks like the Bush Administration feels that they don't actually have to be held accountable for anything they do, which means the law of our country doesn't apply to them. If they say they aren't going to tell us why, we can't do anything about it. It would be deemed a "purely political" act to pursue justice.
This time, McCain/Palin are using the idea that this is all cooked-up by partisan politics from the Obama campaign. I'm wondering if "partisan politics" is now the fall back until they are elected and can use "executive privilege" instead. One way or another, it appears that McCain/Palin have taken lessons straight from the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney book of Checks and Balances - when questioned, refuse to address the question.
Wish they could teach Bush that, I imagine - but he's got "when questioned, act dumb" down perfectly.
Seriously, when is this campaign going to stop being juvenile? From bogus claims of sexism about the word "lipstick" to the dismissal of ANY inquiry about the candidates' qualifications as being "partisan politics", I'm just astonished at how stupid the Republicans must think we Americans are. Perhaps that is why McCain is long on war-hero stories and short on actual descriptions of his plans to deal with the issues facing this country.
It's all fluff, smoke and mirrors. Because in the end, the Republican Candidates are privileged...and they don't have to live up to their responsibilities like everyone else.
First, Let's Show the Crime:
Republicans seem to continually have email problems.
First, McCain indicates that he "doesn't do email." Another link for that, if you'd like. Surprising, but many elderly are not interested in the technology. Heck, my mother feels no need to use hers very often, although she checks it once every couple of weeks.
Also, remember when I posted in November about the 5 million emails that the Republicans "lost"? Oh, and let's not forget the fact that they were conducting white house business over Republican National Committee emails.
Now, Sarah Palin's Yahoo account got hacked, and it appears that she may have been using the email for official state business...which is against the law.
The Alaska Governor could also face charges for conducting official state business using her personal, unarchived e-mail account (a crime), with some critics accusing her of skirting freedom-of-information laws in doing so. An Alaska Republican activist is trying to force Palin to release more than 1,100 emails she withheld from a public-records request, the Washington Post reported last week.
Seriously, is it too much to ask the Republicans to get more creative in their illegal endeavors? It's one thing to commit crimes, it's another to repeat crimes done by the failing administration before you that you claim to be completely against.
Biden was right. A sequel IS always worse than the original. We are beginning to see the stumbling truth of that.
Conspiracy Theory? You bet.
However, this has deeper, conspiracy-theory implications. If you read the Time article above about how Sarah was being investigated for several items, it contains this brief tidbit:
After the hacks were made public, both private accounts were deleted — an act that could technically constitute destruction of evidence.
No one can expect you to keep the email accounts active once you've been "hacked," which gives plausible reason to delete the accounts in the name of privacy (4th Amendment). Once the accounts have been deleted, how exactly is the Palin administration going to turn over the evidence for the inquiries? How can it be proved that she was using the email for official state business?
Perhaps this is a little more creative. Palin's got the Bush administration experience to know that "losing evidence" works for stalling or even curtailing investigations. Getting "hacked" allows for an outside force (presumably not under your control) to conveniently lose the evidence.
It even gets MORE creative to see that the Palin administration may have actively studied how to avoid public records laws. (h/t K-Co) Here's a quote from the New York Times article: [emphasis mine.]
Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.
This feels sort of like the cronie-like administration we are currently dealing with, complete with the nepotism and favortism given to buddies and insiders to top administration positions of influence. Business Week magazine opined: "Dads, sons and other relatives reign so widely in this administration that there have never been so many family combos in an administration at the same time." The Seattle PI says something similar. The Bush Administration is built on these sorts of "loyalties" and insider actions. It looks like Palin's practices continue to follow the same manual, use the same methods, assume the same privileges, even hire some of the same people. More of the same.
And what's more, if you speak against it, you aren't patriotic.
Speak no evil, hear no evil, see no evil...or else.
All those saying Sarah’s “experience” as a governor is typical, watch this.
Actually, everyone should watch this.
In fact, Sarah Palin - you may want to watch this. It may give some insight into what a VP is expected to bring to the table, and what the VP does.
It is, arguably, more review of the qualifications of people to be vice president than she ever received.
(h/t Margaret)
http://vodpod.com/watch/1031406-lessig-compares-palin-to-every-vice-president-in-u-s-history
The majority of people are saying that Obama won the second debate. But it wouldn't be because either candidate really answered all the questions or shut out the other in policy. No - it was mainly because of presence, interaction, and tone. This NYTimes blogpost highlights a few of them (h/t K-Co).
That is an interesting item. Afterall, it is often said that little things make a difference in getting jobs - how well your suit fits, how fit you are, general attractiveness, and word choice. The Presidential debate is really the same thing - a HUGE job interview except where the candidates know who else is applying and get to fight each other for the seat.
Seriously, it was the first Reality TV, and it looks like Reality TV has taken a lot of pointers from elections.
The debate last night did not really deal with any new information or matters. But it was revealing for people to watch the two interact - with each other and with the audience. This debate became more about feeling and perception than about policy.
It seems that a lot of people were impacted by the tone of McCain's jokes, whining, and his (lack of)interaction with the audience. And in reality, McCain set himself up to be judged by a higher standard with his claims that he was going to "bring the fight to Obama" at this debate - and then fizzled under the pressure. There were times he actually looked maniacal, and others where he seemed tired. He behaved in ways that people felt were not appropriate - following up the rampant talk about not using Obama's honorific of Senator and not looking Obama in the eye with references to Obama as "that one!"
McCain's talk of using a "walk softly, and carry a big stick" doesn't come off so well when he's openly making snide remarks. (and besides...wasn't Reagan his hero in the last debate?)
There was even one point where McCain spoke his piece, and then walked back to his pad of paper and crossed out several things on the sheet - right in front of the camera!
Is this how a president comports himself? When McCain's speaking to the UN, is he going to be doing something similar, crossing out his talking points as he goes through them? It seems uncomfortable, distracting, and frankly, like he's just selling something based on bullets put together by his aides rather than speaking from his heart, his knowledge, or experience.
I don't have a problem with notes or bullets. But I am in favor of looking like you know what you're doing instead of constantly referring to your notes. That's a sign of a poor speaker - like the speaker is not really engaged with the audience, not knowledgable enough to really speak to the issues.
McCain did himself no favors by purporting to be energetic and ready to fight with his Straight Talk Express, and then completely being unprepared and lacking any real fire. People talk about how he over-used "my friends", and did not stay around after the debate. These things create an image of him as feeling above other people and uninterested in the feelings of the average person. McCain's claims of being active and charged up for this debate only resulted in him appearing completely out of touch.
If you'll note, Obama did not make such claims. Many people have been calling for more energy, more emotion, but now that you look back on the debates, people are stating that Obama seemed "more presidential" with his calm, friendly attitude. Obama's not trying to be something he's not - despite the fact that people are asking for him to make a scene. And in the end, it is working for him - he's playing up his strengths and refusing to follow the lead of the people hungry just for a scene, just for some sparks.
This is NOT a sitcom, people. It's the future of our country. And part of that future is selling ourself as being a quality place to be, to invest, to depend on and interact with. I'm not buying the America that McCain is selling. And as the economy shows, the rest of the world isn't either.
I think this comment really seems to sum up people's perceptions of Obama and McCain.
Obama = George BaileyMcCain = Mr. Potter
Obama = George Bailey
McCain = Mr. Potter
For stocks to rise? For the asteroid? For the inevitable collapse of capitalism as we know it?
No, I'm waiting for the McCain/Palin ticket to use common sense.
The actions of the McCain/Palin team as of late seem like the last ditch efforts of a desperate ticket. So desperate, in fact, that they aren't really thinking through the claims they are making... and how they may backfire on themselves.
1. Calling out "Who is Obama?" This is just another method of pulling the "inexperience" label back out and giving it a healthy dose of fear. But Obama's been majorly in the public light since 2004.
Before September of this year, when had ANY of us ever heard of Sarah Palin? Was she properly vetted?
Did the McCain/Palin ticket ever consider that people might turn around and think: but we barely know Sarah...if knowing a person mattered so much, why did McCain choose her?
2. "Palling around with terrorists." Sarah's able to string words together a little more coherently, but apparently still not able to really think about the fact that by calling for a review of people's connections to "questionnable" groups, she's asking for a load of her own trouble. As an article in the Huffington Post says:
But if McCarthy-era guilt-by-association is once again a valid political consideration, Palin, it would seem, has more to lose than Obama.
Palin's husband only recently cancelled his membership in the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP), a group that is just as volatile as Ayer's Weathermen. The difference? Obama was 8 when the Weathermen were active, and Ayers is now a recognized community contributor and professor. The AIP is still active, and her husband is an adult, choosing to associate with these people. Obama has denounced the actions of the Weathermen. Palin hasn't denounced anything.
Let's add in Palin's freaky religious affiliations are much more current and concerning than any Reverend Wright connection.
McCain and Keating is another area they stand to lose, and it's a much more powerful connection today as the economic crises continues to barrel towards depression-era memories. McCain's campaign advisor connected with Fannie and Freddie as much as up to a few weeks before they fell, and McCain's constant "palling around" with George Bush do NOT paint a great picture.
If you're going to start going down the aisle of accusation merely by being in the same room with "questionnable people", McCain and Palin have a LOT to lose.
3. Angry Mob Rousing. Have you seen clips of these gatherings? The only thing McCain/Palin haven't yet started was handing out pitchforks and torches. I live in a battleground state. This is NOT what we look like, and the only people going to those rallies are people who already are planning on voting for McCain/Palin. It looks like they are trying to stirr up trouble, not voters.
4. We're Gonna Get 'Em. We're going to make those who brought us to this low economic predicament PAY. Oops...except that McCain is one of them. People point to the Democrats as the group that allowed Fannie and Freddie to make subprime loans, but the Republicans supported it too. And the people giving the mega tax breaks to the corporations are the Republicans - including McCain. He might want to be careful how much he points the finger at himself.
5. John's Got the Answers. If you watched Tuesday's debates, McCain repeated, over and over again, that he knew how to solve the problems. Not just one problem, but all of them. Social Security, Medicare, Iraq, Economic Meltdown - he's got all the answers, and...if you vote for him, he'll put them in action.
What kind of bribery is this? If you've got the answers, McCain, then friggin' suggest them. TELL US. TELL SOMEONE! Tell Congress. Behave like a leader and do what is best for your country. Take your straight talk express and put your country first!
6. New York Times Booing. What is this? First you don't let anyone interview you. Then you say that it's because the media won't interview you. Then you ask for them to be fair and report accuracy, consistently saying they are one sided and liberal. Then you point to them as a resource for information in the SAME BREATH as booing that resource? Consistency much?
Add in that this comes from Sarah "I like to censor books, and can't put a sentence together correctly" Palin. Perhaps the writing of the New York Times is beyond her comprehension. It at least has subject-verb agreement, which we already know Palin has issues with.
These are reasons the rallies of McCain/Palin carry the stink of fear and desperation - because they are afraid and desperate to do whatever Swift-Boat politics they can eek out before the big day comes.
So, I don't talk on here about McCain a lot. In general, I don't like what he's been saying or doing lately. A few years ago - even five months ago, I might have voted for the man. But then he seemed to undo everything that I thought was quality about him and walk his party line...as well as its ethics.
One thing that really gets annoying when listening to him is how his "experience in Vietnam" somehow ties to his capability to be president. People deem him a hero, a patriot and more. Having personally experienced some military service, I'm not exactly sure how that correlates to being the president of a country and dealing with economic and social issues.
Besides, haven't we already made too many choices based on the fear of Iraq? Perhaps it is time to make choices that encompass Iraq as well as the OTHER parts of running a country.
But I never thought to question McCain's military history. It was so often repeated, ad nauseum, that it didn't occur to me that his Vietnam experience might just be another fabrication, another bit of mediocrity dressed up in a few medals and punchy words like patriotism and hero.
Rolling Stone put together a 10 page writeup on the "maverick" McCain, and makes one consider what being a hero and a reformer really means. This writeup, using McCain's own words, his voting and political history, is very insightful on the man currently campaigning to be president.
Things like his infidelities, his risky behavior, his tendency to deregulate on behalf of his buddies - these are disturbing to read. How can we not pay attention to the man behind the curtain of the "straight-talk express" when his whole existence is built on priviledge, self-serving choices, and flip-flops to fit whatever check is heading his way.
It shows just how ingrained his ambition is, and adding Palin to the ticket makes them an ideal couple.
Read it and weep.
You saw it. I saw it. There is just something disconcerting about McCain's movements, his facial expressions. Something that says, to me, that he will say whatever he needs to say to get elected. Something that screams that he doesn't really believe in his words.
And Palin - something in the way she communicates puts me on edge, both in dislike and distrust. You know, beyond deliberately lying, being unable to form clear sentences, and not having any real knowledge about our country and how it works.
I found these two articles on Huffington Post regarding Body Politics and how reading the body can tell you a lot about the person and what they are feeling and thinking.
This seems a questionable science at first, but it is something that is widely used in investigations, medicine, psychology, and other science fields. It is amazing how much our physical presence says about us, and what we are unknowingly communicating to people through our movements, tone, and even the way we form our words.
I would like to see the same level of review of Obama and Biden, and perhaps a lot of other leaders (Bush, Cheney, Condoleeza, Hillary and Bill Clinton.) But what I have right now is McCain and Palin.
Not to be a fear-monger, but it makes me feel justified in the mistrustful feelings I have when I listen or watch them.
