Barack Obama has talked about how we have “big elections about small issues.” For example, while the economy is in crisis, we spend time talking about his minister.
This doesn’t just apply to the presidential election. Consider the congressional campaign in Washington's 8th District. Dave Reichert, the Republican incumbent, has accused his Democratic challenger, Darcy Burner, of lying when she said she “got a degree in [Economics] from Harvard.”
After five minutes of in-depth research, I learned that Burner has a computer science degree from Harvard, with a concentration in economics. Evidently, Harvard doesn’t offer an economics degree. The closest one can get is “a primary concentration … in economics" (href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/undergrad), which Burner earned.
Before going on, I must admit that I can relate to Burner’s situation. I have a degree in English, with a concentration in writing, which I sometimes refer to as a degree in writing. This is a lot simpler than explaining that "my school didn't have a writing degree.…” I hope that doesn’t make me a liar.
Getting back to the Washington election, it would probably have been smarter for Burner to have said she “studied” economics at Harvard. This would have allowed her to avoid this tempest in a teapot while making the relevant point that, in an era of economic uncertainty, she has far more formal education in the field than Reichert does.
More importantly, when deciding how to vote, don’t be persuaded by insignificant arguments.
When I was making calls for Barack Obama's campaign the other day, I stopped to jot down a few of the reasons I support him:
I could have listed more but decided to resume making calls instead.
Things have gotten a little crazy. The other day, a coworker asked with great concern, “Why hasn't Obama produced his birth certificate," implying that the status of Barack Obama as a native-born U.S. citizen was in doubt. Of course, Obama has produced his birth certificate and, in fact, has posted a copy of it on BarackObama.com. To no one’s surprise, this isn’t good enough for his detractors, and elaborate conspiracy theories regarding Obama’s actual place of birth have emerged.
In an effort to address my coworker’s alarm, I went to that most respected of conspiracy theory debunkers, Fact.Check.org (an Annenberg organization), to see what I could learn about this mystery. In their article, “Born in the U.S.A.,” they say following:
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview [on Fox News] that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview [on Fox News] that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
FactCheck.org goes on to quote PolitiFact.org, which also researched the conspiracy, concluding, “It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over” (PolitiFact.org, “Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter”).
Not satisfied by actually holding the birth certificate in their hands at Obama’s Chicago headquarters, FactCheck.org revealed that a “a birth announcement [for Obama] … had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961.”
Always cautious to a fault, FactCheck.org indicates that “it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday,” but that, in the final analysis, “The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.”
I hope this information allays the concerns of my coworker, but last I heard, he was saying something about “the relationship between ACORN and Obama …”
It’s no accident that we’ve come to this. Losing in the polls and on the economic issues that now dominate the election, the McCain campaign has decided that it’s only hope is to demonize Obama.
Criticizing Obama for voting against a bill to pay for the troops in Iraq, Cindy McCain said, "The day that Sen. Obama cast a vote not to fund my son when he was serving sent a cold chill through my body." In truth, Obama has voted for Iraq troop financing except for one bill that did not specify steps for withdrawal. Ironically, she didn’t mention that her husband failed to vote for a troop-funding bill because it did call for withdrawal (Smear Campaigning Should Be Beneath John McCain).
At least this sort of criticism falls within the realm of issues and policy positions, an area where Obama rightfully feels free to criticize his opponent as well. The sort of attacks we’ve heard from Sarah Palin, however, clearly do not.
At an event in Colorado, she said, "We see America as the greatest force for good in this world. Our opponent though, is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country."
The terrorist Palin refers to is Bill Ayers, whose group, The Weathermen, carried out a series of attacks protesting the Vietnam War. After turning himself, Ayers has been a professor at the University of Illinois and was asked to chair a board for education by conservative Walter Annenberg, who also asked Obama to be on that board (Presidential terrorism).
As William Ibershof, chief prosecutor of the Weather Underground in the 1970s, wrote, "Because Senator Obama recently served on a board of a charitable organization with Mr. Ayers cannot possibly link the senator [who was eight years old at the time!] to acts perpetrated by Mr. Ayers so many years ago" (Assessing Ayers: Innuendo vs. Information).
More to the point, conservative columnist George Will pointed out that, in the context of the financial crisis, “the McCain-Palin campaign's attempt to get Americans to focus on Obama's Chicago associations seems surreal."
And even if questioning Obama’s relationship with Ayers is legitimate, “coming that close to calling your opponent a terrorist himself is incredibly dangerous and [McCain’s] crowds seem to be flirting with that line between violent vocalization and violent action” (Presidential terrorism).
But this doesn’t keep Palin from saying that Obama "is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," because for her, stoking the fire of the McCain-Palin base in this way has traction, even causing one person at a rally to say, in reference to Obama, “Kill him!”
While Palin basks in the glory of her hateful rhetoric, McCain seems less enthusiastic, more concerned about the monster his campaign has unleashed, more aware of the violence (might I say terrorism) that such hate speech can incite.
As McCain told a man at a Minnesota town hall, “he [Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States,” many in the crowd booed.
Later, when a woman said that she didn’t trust Obama, because “he's an Arab,” McCain took the microphone from her and said, "No, ma'am. He's a decent, family man, a citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues."
At the same meeting, seemingly in response to his own question – "Who is the real Barack Obama?” – McCain said, “I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him, and I want … everyone to be respectful.”
Too bad the campaign messages he approves are not.
To address her apparent ignorance in this key area, Palin had a spate of meetings with foreign leaders on September 23 in New York City. She first met with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan and then talked to President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia. To end her big foreign policy day, she met with that quintessential American foreign policy wonk, State Henry Kissinger.
So I guess Joe Biden won’t be able to say during the vice-presidential debate that Palin has never met with a foreign leader, but I don’t think her instant educational will convince people who are truly concerned about her knowledge of international affairs.
Senator Chuck Hagel (R, Nebraska), member of the Foreign Relations committee, expressed similar feelings last week, when he said, “She doesn't have any foreign policy credentials.... You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don't know what you can say. You can't say anything." Responding to the assertion that the proximity of Alaska to Russia evidences her foreign-policy experience, Hagel added, "I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense.... That kind of thing is insulting to the American people” (Sen. Hagel doubts Palin's ready).
Even Laura Bush, of all people, said of Palin’s foreign policy background, “Well, obviously, of course, she does not have that.… but I think that she is a very quick study” (Laura Bush Calls Palin “Quick Study”)
Somehow I’m not reassured. When it comes to the person who is a heartbeat away from the presidency, I’d prefer someone who’s ready to do the job right now to a “quick study.”
Hopefully the American electorate is also concerned about Palin’s lack of qualifications and what McCain’s choice of her says about his leadership abilities.
When you hear one of the many distortions, misrepresentations, and downright lies about Barack Obama repeated, how do you respond? Here’s some provide information refuting five common misrepresentations.
1. Barack Obama has never introduced or sponsored any meaningful legislation.
Obama sponsored the following passed legislation:
2. Barack Obama has never reached across the aisle.
Obama reached across the aisle when he cosponsored The Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Initiative (detailed above) with Richard Lugar (R, Indiana).
3. Obama is not an agent of change, because he votes with his party.
This is a classic red herring. While it is true that Obama voted with his party 96% of the time during the current Congress (The Washington Post), in an election in which both sides proclaim that change is key, Obama’s voting record demonstrates that he represents change from Republican governance. John McCain, on the other hand, “in 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the time – the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office – and voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time” (“McCain voted with George Bush”). If the goal is change, it is clear that Obama votes against Republican government 96% of the time, while McCain votes for it 88%.
4. Obama puts politics before country.
We often hear McCain’s say, "I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war," and that Obama put politics ahead of country when he opposed the surge in Iraq. Lacking psychic powers, we can’t attribute Obama’s motives vis a vis this position. It is interesting, however, that the same accusation could be leveled against McCain for his pick of Sarah Palin as running mate. You don’t have to take my word on this. Here’s what Karl Rove had about choosing a vice president.
Discussing Obama’s potential choice of Tim Kaine, Governor of Virginia, Rove said, "With all due respect … to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years.… He was mayor of the 105th-largest city in America [Richmond, VA].… It's not a big town. If [Obama] were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice, where he's said, 'You know what? I'm really not first and foremost concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?'"
If Tim Kaine would have been a “political choice,” because he lacked sufficient experience, what does that say about McCain choice of Palin. Palin was mayor of Wassila, Alaska, a city significantly smaller than Richmond. (Richmond's population is over 200,000, while at the end of Palin's tenure as mayor in 2002, Wassila had about 6,300 residents.) Also, while Kaine has been governor of Virginia for almost three years, Palin has been governor of Alaska for less than two. If we apply Rove’s logic, McCain’s choice of Palin is clearly political, because, based on her relative experience, she is obviously not qualified to assume the job of the presidency.
In this case, it appears that McCain put politics before country.
5. Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama, because she has executive experience.
If executive experience, at any level, is the sole criterion for qualification, then Sarah Palin is more qualified than John McCain as well as Barack Obama, yet I don’t hear the Republicans saying she should be their presidential.
Using Rove's logic again, Palin is not qualified to be Vice President.
While we've heard innumerous critiques of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, I thought it might be instructive to hear what Bob Barr, former Republican congressman and presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, had to say about his one-time party in a recent interview by Amy Goodman on the “Democracy Now” radio program.
Why he left the Republican Party: "The Republican Party of this early twenty-first century ... has no regard for individual liberty ... [and] is focused dramatically on increasing the size, the scope, the power of the federal government, particularly in the executive branch. We have an administration and a party that supports it, that believes that habeas corpus is no longer important, that the government can spy on its citizenry without going to a court and really without any cause whatsoever. We have a government that is utterly spendthrift, yet which still calls itself conservative. This is a party that bears no relationship to the Republican Party of ages past."
Granting of immunity to the telecoms that spied on Americans: "It didn't surprise me that the Republicans went along with it. They’ve been absolutely feckless in standing up to ... the dramatic erosion of civil liberties, including the right to privacy, by this administration."
Iraq war: "The resolution initially that the administration presented to the Congress, of course, was based on information that was provided to us that turned out not to be the case. There were no weapons of mass destruction; therefore, there was no imminent threat and no capability to use them, since there weren't any weapons of mass destruction. Also, the resolution was presented as an authorization to allow a specific military action. There was never a consideration or a rationale that this would provide for a multi-year occupation at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars. So it was sort of a bait and switch by the administration."
Power of government: "What we've seen since 9/11 with the Bush administration and a compliant, if not complicit, Congress is an administration that believes that it is, as an institution, above the law and separate from the law."
Arrest of protestors in St. Paul during the RNC: "What disturbs me ... is the preemptive use of police force to try and identify those that might be demonstrating, might be pushing a particular point of view, and using the powers of the government to stop them in advance, sort of this notion of preemptive war applied to preemptive law enforcement."
Lack of impeachment investigations of the Bush administration: "There are very serious questions about violations of law by this administration. But the Congress hasn't done its homework to answer that question."
You couldn't find a more powerful indictment of the Bush administration and the Republican Party. Maybe Barr should be allowed in the presidential debates!
_______________
For a complete transcript of the interview, see Libertarian Presidential Candidate and Ex-Republican Rep. Bob Barr on Impeachment, Opening Up the Debates, and Why He Left the GOP.
Republican Convention--At the Republican Convention tonight, Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman informed us that things need to change in a Washington that has become overly partisan and that John McCain is the one to take on the establishment.
Thompson said that McCain "led battle after battle to change the acrimonious, pork barreling, self serving ways of Washington."
Lieberman said, "John McCain is the best choice to bring our country together and lead America forward."
What both Thompson and Lieberman failed to mention was that the Republican Party has controlled Washington (and deliberately increased this level of acrimony) for 6 of the last 8 years, and of course, they have held the presidency for that entire period.
It seems the Republicans are running against themselves!
The Republicans are going to try to grab the "family values" voters with the Sarah Palin story, especially regarding her daughter's pregnancy.
The irony, of course, is that the Obama's - with Michelle staying at home to take care of the kids - should be the real "family-values" story.
Obama should saturate the airways with commercials showing how typical his family is, with Michelle talking about how she chose to forgo her career to take car of their kids.
