Senator Obama has been campaigning for the past 15 months, and has literally spoken millions of words during hundreds of speeches throughout that time period. While this is not the first time he may have said something that the media has swarmed on like sharks in the water, this one come at a very decisive point in the campaign, therefore is more important, and Hillary Clinton is driving these tactics we are all sick of.
So what did he say? I don’t think the comment about people being "bitter" is even an issue, because to my experience from talking to the people I know, people are fed up and frustrated with the failing of the government and the economy. That is one of the main reasons Senator Obama’s campaign has seen the level of success it’s experienced.
What is more important here is how the Republican Party is going to try and paint Senator Obama as an "elitist" that is out of touch with regular people for saying things like "they cling to guns or religion". Now I won’t say that the word "cling" is the right word to use here, but the point he was making is this: The number one concern on everyone’s mind is the failures of the economy as we slowly fall to what looks like a recession. We are in the middle of a very destructive credit crunch, millions of people are on the verge of being foreclosed on, and tens of thousands of people are losing their jobs each month, with no sign of an upturn in sight. But despite how important people think the economy is, not to mention the war in Iraq, some people don’t trust the government to fix the problem because there is little evidence that it can. So instead of voting for someone that may represent good ideas on how to improve individual economic prosperity, they vote for someone that they think represents their thoughts on less individually important issues like gun rights. But this argument isn’t even the real issue with the current situation.
In 2000 the Republican Party made Al Gore look like a liar and an elitist by twisting his words to make it seem like he created the internet, among other things. And what did we do? We voted for the guy that we thought would be cool to drink a beer with. Then in 2004 the term "swift-boating" was created by the Republican Party while they made John Kerry, a Vietnam War hero, look like he didn’t love his country. And what did we get? What we got is this current economic crisis, a war that 2/3 of the American population doesn't agree with, a doubled national debt that currently sits over nine trillion dollars, an average budget deficit of $500 billion per year due to irresponsible tax cuts for the upper income, and more scandals and "executive privilege" then any time in recent history. Is that really what we thought we were voting for the past two presidential elections?
Hillary Clinton knows this just as well as anyone, but she is on the wrong side of this argument. Her campaign is desperate so she is willing to take whatever opening she gets. She has sat back and watched all this play out over the past two presidential election cycles and has been just as frustrated as any Democrat, but that doesn’t matter to her right now? I would think she would have been just as angry as anyone watching Gore and Kerry get pummeled by 527s, PACs, the media and that good ol’ vast right wing conspiracy. She should be just as opposed to these tactics of personal destruction as any member of the democratic party, but that doesn’t matter now. She has an opening and it doesn’t matter how low it is, she’s taking it.
This is a dangerous time for our country. We can sit back and watch Senators Clinton and McCain try to drag Barack Obama through the mud by twisting his words and misrepresenting his thoughts, but we know where that gets us. We see the pain it causes our country when we allow the media to distract us from what’s really important. I don’t know about you, but I am sick and tired of the way our politics is played. Politics is not a game. We have lost over 4,000 of my comrades in arms because of politics as a game. We have a nine trillion dollar debt because of politics as a game. But this is our turn to change the way our politics is conducted, and I don’t want us to miss our opportunity.
Here Obama talking on the Charlie Rose show about this exact same issue FOUR YEARS AGO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
Here's some analysist on CNN talking about this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BwG4BlK8w_Y
The following conversation was leaked by the Central Intelligence Agency through its unwarranted overseas eavesdropping program believed to be recorded while Senator McCain was last visiting Iraq.
PHONE RINGS TWICE AND IS ANSWERED; VOICE OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: Hello, this is Obama speaking.
SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN: Hey Barack! How's things going on the campaign trail for ya?
OBAMA: Hey John! It's going about as good as I could hope for, I guess. How are things in Iraq?
MCCAIN: Well, I took your advice and decided to actually see first hand this whole Sunni/Shia thing you were talking about, and HOLY CRAP! You were right! This is confusing. Did you know these guys have been fighting just like this since around 650 AD?
OBAMA: Yes John. I was aware of that. That's actually one of the reasons I have been against the war in Iraq since before it started.
MCCAIN: Oh, ok. I was just making sure. Well did you know that al Qaeda wasn't actually here before we got here?
OBAMA: Yes, I have actually been saying that for quite some time now. Maybe you should try listening every once and a while. I found it actually helps a lot.
MCCAIN: Yeah, you're probably right. Man! How did you know all that stuff?
OBAMA: (laughs humbly) Oh John.
MCCAIN: Anyway, that's not why I was calling.
OBAMA: Oh?
MCCAIN: I was actually following up on your message the other day about the economy, and I had a couple questions for you on policy.
OBAMA: Ok, shoot.
MCCAIN: As you know, I voted against The President's tax cuts because I thought it was irresponsible to give those that didn't really need it a break.
OBAMA: Yeah, pretty much the same reason I am against them.
MCCAIN: But in this whole campaign atmosphere, I was persuaded by the president and Karl [ROVE] that the American people have been buying the republican talking point for years on this "supply side" theory without much question.
OBAMA: I'm listening.
MCCAIN: You know (chuckles), I actually don't even know what they mean by "supply side"?
OBAMA: (laughs)
MCCAIN: So I just (chuckling) figured that since Americans pay so little attention to really important things like facts, I could adopt this idea as one of my principles for the campaign to try to win over fiscal conservatives.
OBAMA: I tried to give you facts.
MCCAIN: Al Qeada Iraq?
OBAMA: Huh?
MCCAIN: Did you say "al Qeada Iraq"?
OBAMA: Huh? No.
MCCAIN: Oh, sorry. They say the hearing's the first thing...
AWKWARD PAUSE
MCCAIN: Anyway, I was saying.
OBAMA: Yes.
MCCAIN: Well it appears that a lot of people are blaming those same tax cuts for the housing crisis and credit doohickey.
OBAMA: Well, that's part of it.
MCCAIN: I was wondering if you could help me by explaining why you don't like them?
OBAMA: Oh sure. No problem. You see John, when President Reagan introduced them, his administration made the argument that lower taxes would give regular people more incentive to work longer or get a better education so they can make more money. But that never really happened, so...
MCCAIN: Uh-huh.
OBAMA: ...This president said that by cutting taxes for the big spenders, their increased economic activity would have a trickle-down effect to the normal people and increase GDP growth. Kind of the same thing as how Iraq was about WMDs, then regime change, then liberation, then al Qaeda, then...well, you get the point.
MCCAIN: Wait, Hold on! GDP?
OBAMA: Yes, Gross Domestic Product, the total value of all income or expenditures within a nation; it's an important measure of our economic health.
MCCAIN: Hold on, let me get a pen.
OBAMA: Huh? No, no. I will send you a link to a pretty good website that explains the more technical terms.
MCCAIN: A link?
OBAMA: Just check your email later today.
MCCAIN: On the computer? Oh, ok. Go on.
OBAMA: Anyway. Where was I? Oh yeah, GDP.
MCCAIN: Right, that thing.
OBAMA: Well, we really haven't seen this proposed growth in GDP and, for all intents and purposes, we are basically in a recession right now?
MCCAIN: Is that like a "depression" like the Great Depression?
OBAMA: Yeah, almost, not as bad.
MCCAIN: Oh, I remember that thing.
OBAMA: Well, I think that the government should stay out of the way, and if everything is working well the market should decide its own direction.
MCCAIN: Right.
OBAMA: But everything is not working well, and it's mostly because of President Bush's failed policies on the economy.
MCCAIN: Yeah, I need you to explain this one.
OBAMA: Oh, sure. Since the president signed on to the tax cuts, we haven't seen a significant change in tax revenue. But the amount of government spending has increased over 50% in the past seven years.
MCCAIN: WHAT? I hate that government spending thing.
OBAMA: And...
MCCAIN: Did I tell you I have a friend, Senator Colburn, that has pledged to punch me in the face if I sign a bill that has any earmarks on it? He's pretty scary.
OBAMA: Huh? Oh.
MCCAIN: Yeah, he doesn't like government spending either.
OBAMA: I see.
OBAMA: As I was saying, with relatively no increase in tax revenue, and a budget that has grown over 50%, partly by funding two wars (one of which should have never been authorized and never been waged), we have watched our national debt increase by almost four trillion dollars. Our currency is quickly falling in the world market, and that one of the big reasons why oil prices are getting so high, which in turn, is why we have seen consumer prices rise and so on. You see John, it's all connected. Plus we could have been spending that twelve billion a month in Iraq on our own economy to create jobs and make better schools and do some things to better our country in the long-run.
SILENCE
OBAMA: John? John?
MCCAIN: (grunts) Huh? What? Hello?
OBAMA: John? Are you there?
MCCAIN: What? Yes, yes. I'm here. I must have dozed off. Sorry about that.
OBAMA: Did you hear what I said?
MCCAIN: The last thing I remember is something about al Qaeda in Iraq.
OBAMA: What? Come on, John. Please try to pay attention here.
MCCAIN: I'm sorry, sorry. I am listening.
OBAMA: Again, these tax cuts and the completely irresponsible budget management is probably the biggest reason our economy has slowed to the break of recession.
MCCAIN: Are you serious?
OBAMA: Yes John, I am. That's why I have been telling the American people that voting for you is like voting for a third term of George Bush.
MCCAIN: Really? I thought you were complimenting me?
OBAMA: Hardly.
MCCAIN: But.. but...we are finally making progress in Iraq.
OBAMA: This is bigger than that, John.
MCCAIN: And I was planning...
OBAMA: What we do in Iraq, and any country for that matter, has repercussions around the world.
MCCAIN: Nuh-uh. If we succeed in Iraq everything will work out. If we leave, like you say, we are surrendering to al Qaeda and they will scream victory from the mountaintops of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
OBAMA: You're making my point for me, John.
MCCAIN: What?
OBAMA: Never mind, I will save that one for another time. The point I want to make is I am not talking about recklessly withdrawing troops from Iraq to the point we ruin the country. I have always said we need to be just as responsible getting out as we were careless getting in.
MCCAIN: Yeah, I still don't understand what you mean. That stuff is also confusing. I thought it was going to be so easy. We kicked their assess back in Desert Storm.
OBAMA: We're diverting. So do you understand my point about the tax cuts?
MCCAIN: I think so, but I'm not sure. I think I am just going to stick to the plan and call you a "tax and spend liberal".
OBAMA: That's what I thought. Well, good luck on the trail.
MCCAIN: You too Obama. Oh, and one last thing. Are you going to send me that "link" in the mail like you said earlier?
OBAMA: Oh, yes. I will send it right away.
MCCAIN: Is it a "YouTube"?
RECORDING ENDS
The following transcript is a phone message acquired from Senator John McCain's home phone sometime in the past..which isn't even past.
PHONE RINGS FOUR TIMES, ANSWERING MACHINE PICKS UP.
RECORDING OF JOHN MCCAIN'S VOICE: "Hello my friends. You have reached the home of Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain. I'm sorry I am unable to answer the phone, but I cannot miss this opportunity to travel the world, all on US taxpayers dollar, and visit with every one of the important world leaders (Brown, Sarkozy, and al Malaki) while my rivals hammer each other every single hour. I am also looking for a better way to somehow link al Qaeda to Iran like my hero linked al Qaeda to Iraq. If this is someone asking for a comment on Senator Obama's plan for the economy, I must confess that I didn't actually hear any of his speeches or study his plans. But my closest advisers have assured me that he is nothing more that a "tax and spend Liberal", and that can be on the record. Please leave your message after the beep."
PHONE RECORDING ENDS; BEEP!
VOICE OF SENATOR BARACK OBAMA: "Hi John, this it's Barack. I was just calling to update you that Senator Clinton still hasn't dropped out, so you still have plenty of time to do as you please without much reprisal because the press is too focused on our race. I am looking forward to debating with you on the major issues that are affecting our country, and I wanted to thank you for being a gentleman about the whole Wright controversy, something my other opponent couldn't leave alone. As a matter of fact, I am confident that our debate will, for the most part, stay above the fray because we both believe in sportsmanship and realize some things don't belong in politics.
"I do want to warn you, however, that you should probably do some reading-up on things like "economy" and Sunni vs. Shia to name a few. It has been brought to my attention that both of these very important topics seem to confuse you quite a bit, and I am dedicated to making this country better so I want you to be prepared when we finally are on stage together. I think the American people are a little tired of your friend George, and it's possible that the people don't vote for you because they want to have a beer with you. The fact is, John, that those same old Republican talking points don't look like they're going to work this time; like the ol' Oki-doke "tax and spend liberal" label and "weak on national security" things you guys have done to our party for the past few decades.
"You see we have these new things called the internet and YouTube, (maybe you have heard of them) and our party is extremely energized and is actually paying attention this time. People are actually watching the entire speeches and reading the complete plans and having a healthy debate on which way we should take this country. I know you don't like to do things like "pay attention", but we have had more democrats than republicans vote in virtually every primary so far. And we're still going strong. The bottom line is, John, that people really want to hear what we have to say, and I want you to have some good input on what we do as a country if the people choose me.
"Well, anyway, I have to get going. I guess Hillary just gave a press availability talking about how I'm really only half black and they want a response. One has to wonder when she's going to run out of things to hit me with. Anyway, you know I can get long-winded. I'll talk..."
PHONE PICKS UP; VOICE OF MCCAIN: "Barack? Are you there?
OBAMA: "Yes John, I'm here".
MCCAIN: "Sorry 'bout that. It takes me a while to get to the phone these days. Now what's a "YouTube?"
The following is a letter to the editor of the NY Times I found today. This is probably the best question I have ever seen to ask John McCain.
To the Editor:
It would be nice if one of the charmed-by-McCain reporters whom Neal Gabler describes would ask him the following question and tell us his answer.
“If winning in Iraq is absolutely critical to American security, will you raise taxes to pay for the victory?” If his answer is yes, the follow-up question could be: “Whose taxes?” If the answer is no, the follow-up question could be: “From whom are you going to borrow the money?”
Charles Adams Newark, Del., March 27, 2008
I watched the entire speech because I think it's really important to see exactly what each of the candidates have to say in their own words. The problem with that, in McCain's case, is it's very apparent those are not his words. I don't think he understood a word of what he said; completely not convincing. But what did he actually say? Well:
1. Increase down-payments on mortgages so homeowners have more equity from the beginning.
2. Only "homeowners" should be helped, never lenders that assumed too much risk.
3. Much of the risk the lenders took on was hidden off the balance sheets and banks don't trust each other.
4. Reduce the regulations that hinder financial firms from doing their jobs.
5. Have the major lenders "pledge" to do everything they can to keep homeowners in their homes.
6. Require mortgage contract to be in plain English so borrowers understand what they are getting into.
So what does all that say? Pretty much do nothing that will actually help. When was the last time the financial firms willingly did something in the best interest of the people without the government directing them? That's what I thought, never. How in the world is a "pledge" going to fix anything? What McCain fails to see is that the reason this crisis has occured in the first place is because nobody was telling them to do otherwise. He himself said that we should accompany any form of a bail out with regulation to correct the problem. So how in the world do you equate a lack of overwatch and accountability with a solution of lifting exsisting regulations?
I do agree that it's a good idea to increase the minimum downpayment, but not acrross the board. I think something linked to credit scores and other risk-management indicators would be a good idea. I also like the idea of using plain English on the contracts, but that's Barack Obama's plan.
Overall, Obama has a much, much better grasp on the economy. The root issues are accountability and transparency, fixing the loopholes, putting more money in the pockets of real Americans, and being proactive in creating jobs and correcting things that the free market fails to do.
Yes, this is the second time I am posting my thoughts today, this time on National Security. One thing I have been pondering for a while is the idea of a planned terrorist strike days before the general election as an attempt to influence our election in al Qaeda's favor.
I think most will agree that any national security issue close to an election will help John McCain due to his perceived "experience" on national security and foreign policy. But I think a very easy argument could be made that if al Qaeda wanted Senator Obama as our president because his policies are in its favor (making an argument), they, in fact, should do nothing because that would hurt his chances for being elected. So any terrorist attack close to the general election should be argued that al Qaeda wants McCain in office because his policies are more in its favor. I beleive that al Qaeda strongly wants John McCain as our next president because they get more of the same and we are playing into their favor.
I would suggest reading the book Brave New War by John Robb. Some interesting point he makes:
1. Al Qaeda wanted us to react to 9/11 exactly as we did, except they wanted our troop levels in Iraq to be in Afganistan (because they just fought and won the ultimate Jihad against the Soviet 40th Red Army). They are trying to bleed us, literally and financially, and that's exactly what they are doing.
2. The insurgency we are fighting is "open source" warfare, like Wikipedia is to information. Anyone with the very low cost of entry, and the misguided motivation, can participate fairly easily.
3. The return this type of insurgency is getting on its return is phenomenal. A five man team with about $5,000 in supplies can wreak havoc on oil lines and other forms of infrastructure causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage.
4. We are playing the game exactly how they want us to play.
As long as John McCain is keeping these same policies, al Qaeda is getting what they want. I think this needs to be thought about and addressed before it's too late. I don't know an easy way to come out and say "if we are attacked it's because al Qaeda wants John McCain", but that's what I think needs to be the message.
I just wanted to give my thoughts on the controversy over Jeremiah Wright. After reading pretty much all sides on the argument and listening, very closely, to Senator Obama's explanation, I think the only fair question left is: Why did he never say anything to Pastor Wright if he thought his comments were hurtful?
I think what many are trying to do is draw a line connecting Obama's attendance in church over the past 20 years and making it appear that Wright has been saying things justs as controversial and hurtful that entire time. I am a 27 year old white male (an Army officer, HOOAH!), and i have been trying to put this into perspective by asking all my black friends who attend black churches to explain what their churches are like. Did they ever hear their pastor speak hurtful words comparable to those of pastor Wright? How did they react to them? Why didn't they address the issue and say something if they were offended?
I have received some very common responses form those I have asked. Almost everyone I asked said they have heard some very controversial remarks by their pastor, and even about the same issue Wright made about 9/11. Many have attended several churches in their lifetimes and this is a reoccurring theme and a normality that pastors in black churches speak out in these way, from what I have gathered. I heard that "the black community places their pastors at a higher level than others, and nobody wants to question him", appearing that they get away with things that others cannot. also heard a few times that most people dismiss language like this, and it's up to the individual to accept or reject the pastor's words (you go to church for the book, not the man).
I try to place myself in Senator Obama's shoes, 20 years ago, as a black man attending a black church. That would make him the same age as I am now, and in a church where these types of controversial remarks are normal, I wonder if I would show the courage to question my pastor over something that seemingly nobody else wants to touch. I think that is what leadership is all about--making the hard decision instead of taking Easy Street. So the question will still remain: Why didn't he say something?
I do not believe that Senator Obama, in any way, agrees with any of these controversial remarks. But the fact remains that he should have said something if he knew it wasn't right. I think Senator Obama, when in the face of difficulty, sees opportunity; he wouldn't have shown the political courage he demonstrated by speaking on such a sensitive topic and taking the position he did if he did not feel this way. So I too see an opportunity here for Senator Obama--an opportunity to address the bigger problem that this type of language and thinking needs to be addressed and treated as such.
By denouncing Wright's comments, he has already started this process. I think he should be up front and continue to show leadership on the issue by telling all Americans--including those in the black church--that this type of talk should not be overlooked and must be addressed any time and every time it comes around. Since I think the only legitimate question left on this issue is answering why he never said anything to Pastor Wright, I think he should be honest and explain that he regrets not saying something at the time (he said himself "inaction can be as harmful as misguided action), but that we should take the opportunity to fix the entire system right now and lead the nation to make the correct judgment. When Grandma says things that are hurtful, regardless of the setting, we should speak up and shed light on the topic.
There is no better disinfectant than sunlight.
Thanks for your time.
I am sick and tired of the way our media operates, so I sent the following letter to over 25 of the largest news media outles in the nation.
Like many Americans, I have been captivated by the current presidential race. But the more I watch and read, the more I get fed up with the stories that make the cut along with an almost complete lack of things like Truth and Facts. Instead we are fed full of opinion and distortion and are expected to select the man or women to the most powerful office in the free world once this process runs its course. Watching this all develop, it’s no wonder half the country is turned off to this process and decides to stay at home instead of practicing democracy. I am sending this letter to every major newspaper, news television station, and news website in the country with the hope that someone understands my argument.
Needless to say, we are a country fighting a two-front war in the Middle East where we are wrapped up spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayer dollars towards a cause that nobody can determine the outcome. We have lost almost 4,000 of the nation’s best, and even the smartest experts can’t say with any conviction what lies ahead tomorrow. The American People are skeptical at best about our national security, but we have not suffered another large terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. We are a People with increasing skepticism about our own economic health, and all major indicators look dismal in the immediate future. Many have lost their homes, even more have humongous levels of individual debt, prices of core consumer goods continue to rise faster than income, our national debt is over 9 trillion dollars with record budget deficits each passing quarter, and the dollar is falling in the global market. The education system is broken and the opportunity gap grows with each passing day. Over 40 million Americans are not covered under the current structure of the health care system, and many go bankrupt and expend their life savings to treat a sickness. Many will argue that this agenda blames America first, but the second we stop trying to improve our great country is the exact instant when we start going backwards as a nation. This election is more important than any election in the past two generations, and we all owe our great country the chance to make the right decision.
When the Founders inked our Constitution into form, the pillars for the experiment of Democracy were created. The principles of this great achievement are still valid today more than ever—a representative government that is elected by the people and for the people; by majority rule and minority rights; three co-equal branches of government that have the ability to check and balance each other; and ten basic civil liberties, including the right of due process, to bear arms, and freedom of worship and speech. This last right—free speech—created the informal fourth branch of government (an independent free press) that can be argued to be the most important branch of all. Virtually none of the population has access to the government directly, and we depend on the press and media outlets to feed us information so we can exercise our right to elect those that will best represent our concerns, and speak up and sometimes protest when they don’t live up to their promises. Without a completely independent source of information, our government can, will, and does fall to the temptation of corruption and deception. The mainstream media outlets have a responsibility to report the news without distraction— as the main-stream media this is your duty to this wonderful country, and is failing like many other parts of government. At no other time is this responsibility more important than during the election period.
The single most important job of the media is to report the news, not create it. Too much of what is reported today claiming to be news is no more than opinion from journalists that attempt and succeed to pass their stories as news. Much of this opinion has become extremely persuasive and your average American doesn’t know what’s real and what’s not. This is not the people’s fault, because any story that is given the right touch can pass for the Truth to the untrained eye. Instead of opinion that makes empty claims, we need a press that explains and helps to clarify the various positions of the ever-complicated topics such as the economy and foreign policy. The media should be helping to progress the ongoing debate, not creating it for the sake of ratings and sales volume. Instead of attacking a candidate’s position on the free market or health care, we need a media that explains the perceived costs and benefits of the complex topics. Not everyone has a PhD in economics from Yale, and we need clarity instead of distraction. The candidates themselves do a fine job of attempting to distort each other’s proposals; we need someone to sort out the Facts and explain to us when and why something doesn’t add up.
There are many things that affect a news outlet’s credibility that should be completely left out during such important times. A news outlet should never ever take sides with a candidate. How can a newspaper claim to be independent and still endorse a candidate? The decision of who to vote for should be completely left up to the people and the media’s only assistance should be to report what’s going on. Too many times we read articles about hearsay from sources that don’t want their identity to be revealed. If a person isn’t willing to put their good name on the line because of the damage the information could do, then the media should never put its own name on the line to make a buck. But the one thing I believe hurts a new outlet’s reputation more than anything is when it tries to create news when there is nothing to report. This happens a lot today, and the faster each news cycle (whatever that is) gets with improvements on technology, the more this is going to happen in the name of competition. This has gotten so out of control that we now make news about the news, like a he said she said argument between news agencies. We have to resist at all costs making up stories where the Facts don’t live.
So what is news? Any news about the ongoing debate on public policy is fair game. If Candidate A claims Candidate B’s policy on health care misses the mark, the press should report what was said, and what is the difference between their two conflicting views. We have over 230 years of historical data on our country alone, so I am confident that if you take your time and research a little more, we will all benefit from the clarification you provide.
Any Facts about the candidates are free to report on, but too often propaganda and rumors are passed as Facts. If a candidate claims to have 35 years of experience, then we should be reading about the past 35 years of that person’s life and his or her accomplishments and downfalls during that time period. If another candidate points out he or she lived overseas at some period during their life, unless something of significance occurred during that period, a journalist’s opinion on how valuable this experience was has little relevance and is not helpful. If lobbyists are not illegal and a candidate chooses to use some lobbyists to help with the campaign, unless another candidate makes a specific argument against such conduct, I don’t see how this help our decision especially if his record working with lobbyists is squeaky clean.
I believe that journalists should use their own knowledge to argue policies and positions, but without attacking a specific candidate. We need to know the difference between the two positions, and plenty of opinion can be used to give the pros and cons of a liberal heath care agenda verses a market-based system of providing it. When a journalist crosses the line and makes such claims as “his policy is wrong”, this is not a Fact and there is no way for the people to dispute that.
Also, if a candidate makes a claim, but the Facts suggest otherwise, we have a right to know the Truth. If a candidate quotes a source, we have a right to know where the source came from and its credibility. This is especially important when a candidate “goes negative”, and when a claim of “a trillion dollar tax increase” or “NAFTA is a ‘boon’ to our economy”, show us the numbers or explain the full context the claim was made in. The media should always provide the full context of any negative claims made against a candidate.
Let the candidates decide what experience counts and is helpful, and provide us with the Facts on the positions and judgment so we can better make our decision. War is one of the most complicated topics, and we need to understand what the difference is if we “remove all combat troops in 16 months” verses “we will stay until we achieve victory”. What do the numbers say? What do former military commanders say? What is the cost/benefit analysis depending on which one we decide to choose? I don’t care if one candidate claims the other lacks sufficient experience to be Commander in Chief; I want to know his or her thought process on the use of military force and what they plan to do with the current situation. We can make up our own minds about who is best prepared if we are given the right information.
So what else is not helpful? There is too much to cover here. Any claim against a person’s “patriotism” has nothing to do with their views on public policy, and is not news. John McCain has served an honorable life towards our country, but that doesn’t give him or his supporters the right to attempt to publicly discredit another candidate’s own patriotism. Any story about someone’s personal life is never news, especially if nobody wants to put their own name on the line to defend the claim. What someone does in their personal life, as long as it doesn’t affect the public policy, is not news. If a campaign staffer slips a story about another candidate, but is not willing to show their face, it is only a distraction. We are tired of everyone looking for the next Monica Lewinsky, but if it happens and the Facts are indisputable, then we need to know about it. The health of one’s campaign is not news, and the media is in no position to write off any candidate regardless of how bad things may seem. This is exactly why we have an election at the end of this process, and any attempt by the media to make up our minds for us distracts from the principles of democracy. A journalist has no right to make any claims about a candidate’s voters and supporters, and calling a campaign rally “cult-like” has no business in the debate. If a candidate is older than usual, since nobody knows what’s going to happen tomorrow and you can’t prove that silly 3-1 ratio which means nothing anyway, this is a non-issue and doesn’t belong in the news. We have nothing but Senators left (pending a Huckabee “miracle”) and we don’t want to hear about anyone’s voting record in the Senate unless you can provide the reasons why he or she voted a certain way. Congressional votes are black and white, but none of the issues we face are that simple. We need to know what principles and judgment the candidates are using when casting these votes. It’s getting ugly out there, and you are the ones that need to clean up.
I am not looking for this to be published anywhere. I am simply exercising my own freedom of speech to try and help get this country back on track. As I write this from the side of my bunk in the Al Anbar province of Iraq, while my wife and two children await my return, I can only hope this catches someone’s eye and makes a difference. God Bless America!
Hello all,
I want to take this opportunity to address the attacks on our next President. We all have our own reasons why we support Senator Obama, but I think the one thing we can all agree on is that our politics is completely rediculous and most of the time doesn't even cover the issues at hand. The GOP's lack of good arguements agaisnt Senator Obama leaves them no choice but to resort to trying to distort his record. It really looks like there is going to be a huge campaign attacking his and Michelle's "lack of patriotism", which should not even be allowed in politics because it's counterproductive to the debate that we should be having on what direction to take the country. I am sure Senator Obama is going to be able to make his own argurment very well on the national stage of his dedication to the USA, but that will not stop the never ending attacks. We need to come together as a people and demand that this crap coming from the GOP and the right-leaning media is not acceptible and focus on the issues at hand. We all see what Senator Obama can and will do to change our country for the better, but he is going to need "those millions of voices calling for change" to stand up against exactly what is wrong with our politics.
What are some of your ideas on how we can counter the BS that doesn't belong in this debate?
I think the best way to address attacks that are petty and unfair is to point out, while staying on the high ground,
1) that those types of attacks are not going to help the USA
2) are in fact unpatriotic because it wastes energy away from what should be the focus
3) and Senator Obama's success is proof that the American people want to get rid of exactly this type of attacks because we are sick and tired of it.
What are your thoughts???
I don't know what you think, but I feel the attack by MoveOn.org against General Petraeus yesterday morning in the NY Times was absolutely tasteless and should be condemned by every leader in this country.
General Petraeus is one of the most, if not the most capable military leader our country has, and his assessment should be the centerpiece of the debate that leads us is the right direction in Iraq. Throughout his extraordinary career he has shown nothing but courage and integrity, and nothing he has done deserves such attacks as we saw yesterday and throughout the week. He is accused of sugar-coating his assessment in Iraq to meet the President's objectives, but I don't buy any part of that argument. Petraeus is the leader of over 160,000 Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen that share the same suffer and sacrifice as he. His Soldiers are dying everyday, and the heartache and pain he feels for their families is more than most men could take. Nonetheless, he is still charged with making decisions that are in the best interest of our national security.
The problem that MoveOn.org has is the General’s assessment is simply not what they want to hear, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to persuade you and me to share their views. What I heard in his briefing was an honest and accurate assessment from the one man that has the best view on the situation. He stood in front of a very hostile Congress and, with great courage, spoke in his own words about the very things they asked him to do. He explained his recommendations for troop withdrawal and the coordinating timeline, but because that timeline is not tomorrow, some have the audacity drag his name in the mud and attack his character.
When the General was nominated by the President he was unanimously confirmed because everyone in that room believed he is the best man for the job. And the truth is he still is the best man for the job. How the presidential candidates react to his assessment is extremely important to me because the majority of them are also responsible for him being confirmed. Nobody has a better idea than he about what things are like on the ground right now, and presidents are not only successful for their own judgment, but their ability to listen top-advisors and re-assess the situation is equally important. Whether or not we should have ever gone into Iraq is in the past, and therefore irrelevant to what happens there tomorrow. But the truth is we have a very serious stake in that country, and the state of that nation when we leave it will have very serious implications to our own national security.
What hurts me most about MoveOn’s comments is I feel like they are attacking me. I, too, am an officer in the US Army, and hope to be blessed with the same judgment and courage the General has demonstrated throughout his career. But if I ever have the opportunity to hold a position of such importance I am afraid that my own integrity and selfless service will be attacked when it counts most.
I pray and hope for this war to end as soon as possible. I would like nothing more than to come home from Iraq to my wife and family. But if we have a legitimate opportunity to control thousands of years of fighting in this region, I am willing to make this sacrifice for the better of our future.
I Hope that the leaders of our nation recognize the importance of what has occurred and are willing to look past the politics in order to do what is right.
Matthew S. Finnie
As we all very well know, Mr. Obama is a leader for civil rights and regaining opportunity for all Americans regardless of their inheritance. So the headlines and following debate about Mr. Imus's comments about the Rutgers Women's Basketball team strikes up a very new topic I think should be brought out: Censorship in the media. While almost every American will agree Mr. Imus's remarks were hurtful and wrong, it is not what I am talking about. I want to take it one step further--why are his comments any more important than the lyrics in today's popular music? Why should Mr. Imus be scolded for what he said and we continue to ignore multi-platinum selling hip hop artists that use much more hurtful language much more frequently? What is the difference with CBS, NBC, or any other mainstream radio news source allowing Mr. Imus to speak the way he did, and one of those same company's subordinate radio stations be allowed to play music that thrives at degrading women, glorifying violence, and making the job of a drug dealer sound cool?
Now, don't get me wrong, I was raised on hip hop. Truthfully, the only music I really listen to is rap. But I have long wondered just how much of an impact on the inner city children--the kids who wear large pieces of jewelry and call women "hoes" because Snoop Dogg once did--if rappers changed their ways and sent a more positive message for America's youth to follow. If Ludacris stopped talking about fighting someone in a nightclub and spoke more about the importance of education and the responsibilities of being a man, just what do you think it would do to the inner city communities accross the country? If MTV and BET stopped showing videos that have a bunch of barely dressed women dancing in ways that make our grandparents sick, don't you think the result may be men slowly stop degrading women and start appreciating them for who they are? Where do you think Mr. Imus's comments came from anyway? I have heard those same words (virtually) in too many hip hop songs to count.
I don't think we should censor music; I would just like to see hip hop artists take a more positive roll in the shaping of America than they currently do. I don't think they understand their impact...
