An idea I'd like to float around these parts is for Barack Obama to take a page out of Ross Perot's book. Does everybody remember in the 1992 election when Ross Perot would purchase blocks of time on the major broadcast networks and expound on his plans in great detail, with charts and all. 1992 was a formative year in my political consciousness, I was 11 at the time, and following the Presidential race closely, hoping George H.W Bush would be defeated. Although I loved Bill Clinton and was in a naturally Democratic area, Ross Perot captivated my attention with his detail.
So I was thinking, maybe when things get close, and if Barack still has a good deal of money to spend at the end, he could take a similar approach and buy out some time and do some infomercials where he talks to the people directly. Perot almost won 20% of the electorate with a third party effort, and the TV broadcasts were an instrumental part of that.
Barack might not use as many charts and be as dryly detailed, but a clear, straight talking effort, to reach every American with a TV, and then to be rebroadcast whenever one wishes on YouTube and here on his sight, giving Barack a chance to talk to all the American people, unfiltered, AFTER the debates....might help seal the deal!!!!
I was checking out James Dobson's criticism of Barack Obama. I was thinking that he could use it to further neutralize the more radical perverters of God's word.
I think Barack Obama should introuduce a theme about personal faith and how no one else can control it, not even our pastors. That James Dobson and co do not own the Bible, they should be humble servants speaking for truth. He can even throw in how at one time there were forces in the church that did not want the Bible in English and in the common languages so that the regular person could not read it. He could paint political preachers of today as being in that same light.
It would also help distance Barack from Jeremiah Wright by emphasizing that although we have pastors who help us, WE control our own spirituality and humble relationship with God. Religous leaders help, but he can bring out since there is prayer directly to God's son, no one else will be standing with us on our "day of judgement" Not even James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. So in light of that, will we complain about things that have already taken place (like Abortion) or will we forge ahead and do the work God has for us to do today? Ask Christians, if God were running this society would there be poverty? would people lack health care? would we be agressors in wars? would there be rampant corporate greed?
I can't wait to read Scott McClellans book. I think it's one of the best possible things that could have come out at this point in time. Right here in an election year we have a book that intimiatiley details the type of "politics" that Barack Obama is trying to change.
Scott McClellan gives us a first hand account that George Bush was a war monger and had the thought of war in his mind from very early on in his administration. I think Barack should talk expressely about the fact some Bush aides have said he discussed war with Iraq at the first meeting of his administration. And this was before 9/11 mind you. Comparison should be made to McCain. We should wonder, "Will McCain be planning war with Iran on his first meeting in the White House?"
From what I hear Mr.McClellans book is a a damning indictment of an administration that played politics with American lives. Chuck Hagel, a Republican also complains about Bush on those lines. The point should be made that John McCain is honorable, but in a similar circumstance, with a war America dosent really want, he'll hafe to be just as devious as well to get his aims of war going. To continue Bush's policies his types of tactics will hafe to be used as well becasue the American people do not favor Bush's policies! This book should be studied and used by our man in Washington!
Just heard Bob Barr got the Libertarian nomination for President. GOOD. Here's hoping he can pull at least 3-5% of John McCain's voters out of the Republican party. It's high time a candidate run to the right of the Repbulican candidate and play the spoiler role as Ralph Nader did in 2000. Ralph Naders votes would have been enough to put Gore over the top in Florida, had Al Gore gotten them. I hope Bob Barr plays a similar role in this election, pulling votes away from John McCain's right flank. Also, hopefull Ron Paul continues to run and pull substantial votes away from John McCain as well.
I was talking (arguing) with a staunch conservative on YouTube and they felt that even though a vote for anybody other than McCain is a vote for Obama, he felt he HAD to vote his conservative principals in this election. Hopefull many others follow that path!
Senator Obama should not allow Senator McCain to get away with what he just did. He just gave a speech where he was envisioning what 2013 would be like, and he envisioned the troops home and the Iraq War over, by the end of HIS first term.
My friends, that is politics. He dosent forsee the troops coming home anyway but at the end of HIS term in office. By which time he can use the end of the war as a tool to win the 2012 reelection campaign. This is POLITICS. Senator Obama should put his head in a bag and turn the bag flat, red, and sticky for playing politics with Americans lives like that!
Here is an excerpt from the 1992 Debates. Remember a little while back one of Baracks' surrogates said that Clintons statement that it would be great to have "two people running for President who's patriotism couldn't be called into question", and he mentioned that Hilary and John McCain loved America? Then when one of Baracks' generals called it McCarthyism, Bill and the Clinton people called that dirty politics?
Bill did the same in 1992, Bush was talking about his trip to Moscow and demonstrating in the 60s, and Clinton mentioned how his father fought McCarthy
BUSH: I think the American people should be the judge of that. I think character is a very important question. I said something the other day where I was accused of being like Joe McCarthy because I questioned -- I put it this way; I think it's wrong to demonstrate against your own country or organize demonstrations against your own country in foreign soil. I just think it's wrong. I -- well, maybe they say, "Well, it was a youthful indiscretion." I was 19 or 20 flying off an aircraft carrier and that shaped me to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and I'm sorry, but demonstrating -- it's not a question of patriotism. It's a question of character and judgment. They get on me -- Bill's gotten on me about, "read my lips." When I make a mistake I'll admit it. But he has made -- not admitted a mistake and I just find it impossible to understand how an American can demonstrate against his own country in a foreign land -- organizing demonstrations against it when young men are held prisoner in Hanoi or kids out of the ghetto were drafted. Some say, "well, you're a little old fashioned." Maybe I am, but I just don't think that's right. Now, whether it's character or judgment -- whatever it is -- I have a big difference here on this issue and so we'll just have to see how it plays out. But I -- I couldn't do that. And I don't think most Americans could do that. And they all say, "Well, it was a long time ago." Well, let's admit it then. Say, "I made a terrible mistake." How could you be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and have some kid say -- when you have to make a tough decision, as I did in Panama or Kuwait and then have some kid jump up and say, "Well, I'm not going to go. The Commander-in-Chief was organizing demonstrations halfway around the world during another era. So there are differences but that's about the main area where I think we have a difference. I don't know about -- we'll talk about that a little with Ross here in a bit.
LEHRER: Mr. Perot, you have one minute.
PEROT: I think the American people will make their own decisions on character and at a time when we have work to do and we need action I think they need to clearly understand the backgrounds of each person. I think the press can play a huge roll in making sure that the backgrounds are clearly presented in an objective way. Then, make a decision. Certainly anyone in the White House should have the character to be there. But, I think it's very important to measure when and where things occurred. Did they occur when you were a young person, in your formative years? Or did they occur while you were a senior official in the federal government? If you make it as a young man, time passes. So I would say just, you know, look at all three of us. Decide who you think will do the job. Pick that person in November because believe me, as I've said before, "The party's over and it's time for the clean-up crew." And we do have to have change and people who never take responsibility for anything when it happens on their watch and people who are in charge --
LEHRER: Your time is up.
PEROT: The time is up. (Laughter).
LEHRER: The time is up.
PEROT: More later.
LEHRER: Governor Clinton, you have one minute.
CLINTON: Ross gave a good answer but I've got to respond directly to Mr. Bush. You have questioned my patriotism.
BUSH: (Inaudible).
CLINTON: You even brought some right-wing congressman into the White House to plot how to attack me for going to Russia in 1969-70, when over 50,000 other Americans did. Now, I honor your service in World War II, I honor Mr. Perot's service in uniform and the service of every man and woman who ever served, including Admiral Crowe, who was your Chairman of the joint Chiefs and who's supporting me. But when Joe McCarthy went around this country attacking people's patriotism he was wrong. He was wrong. And a senator from Connecticut stood up to him named Prescott Bush. Your father was right to stand up to Joe McCarthy, you were wrong to attack my patriotism. I was opposed to the war but I loved my country and we need a president who will bring this country together, not divide it. We've had enough division. I want to lead a unified country.
(APPLAUSE)
I think Clinton is especially mad because Barack is what he was in '92, but even more so. Remember people were very afraid that the Clintons were counter culture 60s people and that they did some "un American" things back in the 60s. Bush attacked them very hard for being baby boomers. I don't think any candidate born after a certain time can be "perfect" in the old sense, due to what America has become. Look at George W Bush's alchoholism and possible drug use. FDR and those leaders back there didn't hafe to deal with that!
So Republicans coming up now will have ties to right wing extremists, many Democrats will have ties to socialists and revolutionaries, THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE ACTIVE ON THE GRASS ROOTS! The right wing Church groups are very effective on the grass roots for the Republicans, as are some quasi socialist radical people on the Democrats side, I think it's a phase all our politicians went through in the 60s/70s/80s/ on up to today (with right wing activism especially)
The constant feature of Repbulican Economic Policy since I've been alive has been a push to cut taxes. Even among more radical factions, a push to eliminate the income tax totally. Now that I've done my resarch I see that some factions in this country wish to return to the "Gilded Age" of incredible inequality for the rich in America and for everybody else...if the rich pay no income taxes, no income tax on gains made from Capital, do not hafe to provide services for their workers such as health care, medical leave, etc., also, are able to recieve government money for private school education, which takes money from the public schools as well as subjects a number of Americans to schools where the curriculum is outside of government control, not to mention policies more favorable for business in pricing, environmental regulations and many other issues, this is a formula for the prosperity of some...not the majority. Republicans often accuse "liberal Democrats" of being "elitest", but what's more "elitest" than calling for a repeal of the "Inheritance Tax?"
The one thing that Senator Obama can not do is to allow Republican calls for "tax cuts" to be seen as some new or good economic policy. He must emphasize that Bush cut taxes in 2001 and the Economy did not, and has not responded with the type of robust economic growth that was predicted. Tax rates are the lowest on the top bracket that they've been probably since Ronald Reagan briefly brought it down to 28%. Also I would like some language finally from a Democrat about how the Republicans try to impair the governments ability to function. Basically, it's not even a secret, even many Republicans have made a point of using the phrase, "starve the beast." Meaning that if taxes are very low, they know good and well that there is not going to be enough money for the government to provide the services it is comiitted to providing, and certainly not for an expanison of those services. I think Senator Obama can bring out that that type of thinking is unpatriotic and cynical and undermines NATIONAL SECURITY.
I think that also Senator Obama can make taxes a national security issue. The disasterous thing about Ronald Reagen and George W Bush is that they tried to fight wars on lower tax revenues. If you look at World War 2, tax rates on the highest incomes eventually got up to 91%. And an income tax would be even more impactful than a capital gains increase, in fact, to please the right, Senator Obama could cut the capital gains tax and still hit many at the top bracket because I just read an article detailing how many in the top bracket make their money these days on high income compensation (like corporate CEO's and ballplayers) rather than from Capital sales.
Senator Obama could make tax increases on the rich a responsibility issue in a time of war. He could totally take away patriotism from the Republicans by painting some higher tax rates in a time of war as, "a matter of duty." The thing about it is, I'm not against low tax rates. I think that Democrats and Republicans should raise or lower tax rates as the American economic and world situations call for them. I think that if Senator Obama cuts the debt, ends the war, establishes national health care, and a more environmentally focused economy, and these policies have the country with a surplus and a healthy growth rate, and inflation is not an issue, maybe he could reduce taxes in his second term or his succesor could.
Democrats should take tax cuts off the table as a "Repbulican" issue. JFK cut taxes and a Democratic Congress proposed a tax cut under Gerald Ford. It all depends on the times. Sometimes low tax rates are beneficial. But in a time of war, health crisis and diminishing educational acheivement?....NO. I think Senator Obama could bring a new maturity to American politics by pointing out that both low tax rates and high tax rates are effective at certain times. So lets not make it a political issue. When Senator McCain argues that this election is crucial because it's during War time, Senator Obama should point out the government dosent have enough revenues for war time, and (by supporting the Bush tax cuts) Senator McCain is calling for even less (over time). Of course Senator Obama shouldn't commit the political suicide of Walter Mondale in running on "tax increases", but he should make it a point that it is part of the national duty to pay taxes and support war efforts or the nations aims, like the Interstate Highway system back in the '50s
The firestorm touched off around the sermons and beliefs of Rev. Jeremiah Wright are another example of how rich this particular campaign will be in terms of veiwpoints and beliefs not commonly heard in America being brought to light. Being the hardcore Obama supporter I am, as well as an African American male, I thoroughly expect to have ALL of my buttons pushed this election season. I'm a little bit afraid that racism, both subtle and overt, will be a big part of this campaign. And unfortunately, we have seen it. The latest examples of it are the comments of Geraldine Ferraro, and now the firestorm touched off over the comments of Revered Jeremiah Wright.
I'm not fully aware of all of what this pastor has to say, but honestly, from the clips they have been airing, his type of rhetoric is NOTHING new to me. Living in the black communities of America, those types of views are extremely common. The feeling that America's hands are not completely clean, that is a feeling that runs deep in the black community.
Also however, there is a great deal of conservative hypocrisy on this issue. One commentator I'm watching on Lou Dobbs right now is saying that Jeremiah Wright's comments were not "religous, but political." And that the great deal of Americans would, "walk out", if a preacher started making political comments. That statement to me is bull...it's not true. In the sense that there are and is a huge segment of the electorate in America that strives right now to make religon POLITICAL. Ronald Reagens election in 1980 was heavily supported by Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" movement. Pat Robertson ran for the Republican nomination for President. Mike Huckabee in this election called for a constitution that was in harmony with "the Bible." The last 25 years has seen every issue, from abortion, to wars, to gay rights to probably even tax cuts (TAXES ARE FROM THE DEVIL....lol) been "theocratized" by primarily, those on the right. So now to act like religion and politics should be seperate is foolish and hinges on a willingness to have Americans forget history, which is more like 1984 than anything else I can remember. I often hear people on the right refer to Liberal government as "Big Brother, 1984esque", but one of the primary tools of repression in that George Orwell novel was the powers that be's freedom and power to reinterpret history for their own current, immediate political gain.
The comments that Rev. Jeremiah Wright made about America being partly guilty for 9/11 is a veiw understood in the black community. It may not be widely agreed upon, but many African Americans feel it has "the ring of truth." Obviously this is due to a very problematic history that African Americans have had in the United States of America. But to go even deeper, the view that America is partly responsible for what happened during 9/11 is a veiwpoint shared by many sincere religous people, regardless of race. People forge this, but I believe Jerry Falwell made the exact same arguement after 9/11 happened, that it was America's fault, but he made it from the right...he claimed that 9/11 was due to America's sins (http://www.actupny.org/YELL/falwell.html). So here we have a pastor on the conservative/Republican side making the same contention that Rev. Jeremiah Wright made, that 9/11 was a result of America's own policy!!!!
The difference in a Jeremiah Wright and a Rev. Jerry Falwell is they have differing views of America. In Rev. Jermiah Wrights veiwpoint, America has NEVER been right, or at the least rarely been right, and he takes that from his history. In Jerry Falwell's viewpoint, America was once right and slipped off. But they are similar in that they are both pastors and they both believe in divine retribution. The idea that 9/11 is punnishment for America's sins, either political or moral, is straight out of the old testement of the Bible. Remember many in America have always thought of America as "gods nation." George Bush himself invoked that language after 9/11. Now if you read the same Bible I've read all my life, whenever God had a nation, such as the Israelites, when they disobeyed him in any way, after giving sufficient warning, he punnished them, usually by letting a foreign nation invade them. That's the Biblical viewpoint that BOTH of those pastors were coming from. George Bush did the same thing Barack just did, which was to denounce those comments. I've heard Republican commentators say that Jermiah Wrights views are exceptionally troubling due to the fact he "helped shape Obama's thinking." But Jerry Falwell helped shape Republican thinking from 1979 on and was essential to Republican political victory since that time. Being that he was so central to the party, why and how could he be denounced so easily when he got "off message" and Barack is not being granted the same pass by certain people now?
The feelings of Jermiah Wright and the fact that so many blacks can empathize with them, is a sign of why we need Barack Obama so much! There are whole groups of Americans who feel profoundly disenfranchised and who are not sure that as Curtis Mayfield once sang so eloquently, "this is our country." The feeling is the SAME on the other side. On the conservative side, there are those who feel the advancement of "intrest groups" such as blacks, latino's, women, gays, etc., has taken a country that was once assuredly theirs into one that is now hostile to them. Senator Obama is here with an olive branch to heal oall of that.
But the country is better for knowing there are people that feel this way. There are people in America who push a idea of hegemony that squashes every voice of dissent. Except those from their own political camps. Due to slavery, reconstruction, American Apartied, racial inferiority theories, suppresion of black movements, a lack of political and financial support for black areas, many blacks in America HAVE NO FAITH, or have little faith in their country. That's a problem. Only a person like Barack Obama and his family can bring us in the direction of healing it.
But what nobody is acknowledging here is that there are people on the right who feel the same way. In the 1990s I as a teenager actually remembered individuals on the right/Republican side having sympathy for individuals who opposed the United States government. Ron Paul, who actually serves in the Congress right now, was one of them!!! (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca). This is outrageous, it's like an elected official in the 1960s having sympathy for the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground.
So paranoia and feelings of being let down by government are not only the domain of blacks or "country rednecks", it's a feeling that's deep in our society. The times of America being truly free and reflecting the constitution in terms of race are very recent. Americans are still really learning how to live together in some ways. Then in other ways, we have always known.
But the views of a Jeremiah Wright are just the extreme form of the progressive belief that there are forces resistant to change and equality in America. The views of the extremists on the right are a charictacure of the basic conservative belief that there are forces trying to change what is right and essential about America. The same feelings from different points of view.
A televison pundit I saw recently claimed that the presence of a Jeremiah Wright in Obama's background belies his promise of racial reconcillation. I believe that is political spin from a mind that's afraid of the spiritual elbow grease that true reconcilliation always requires. Many in America, liberal and conservative, as exemplefied by Geraldine Ferraro's statements, believe that racial reconcilliation happens simply by "forgetting" all of the negative things that have happened in this country. But as my main man Larry Graham once sang many years ago, "you've got to go through it to get to it." You can not heal something by hiding it. Psychologists will tell us that. Why we'll accept it from Dr. Phil and not our politicians or tolerate it in our national debate, the world may never know
