I read David Brooks column in the New York Times this morning. The Times still gives me plenty of material to analyze and consider, even if it is only a vestige of its old 'get them the objective news and get it to them right now' self. David Brooks wrote a very fetching article about dignity and manners, and how we have, as a culture lost both of those things. He used the incidents of Governor Sanford's blatheringly stupid comments about his own infidelity, Micheal Jackson's conduct of a child-like life, and finally Sarah Palin's applied confusion about life itself, as his examples of a culture gone to the dogs. There is no dignity left, he asserts. There are no manners, public or private, which are consistently followed or applied. It is all out here right in front of us. Brooks rails against self-promotion, even to the extent of running for the office of President of the United States (that insults the dignity of the candidate). But then he turns, in typical, and very modern Republican form, to use Ronald Reagan as an example of a relatively current public figure who had dignity. A bigger self-promoter there never was, except maybe P.T. Barnum, but that is ignored by Brooks.
The entire neo-con rant by Brooks is about being wealthy. You can ignore everything if you are wealthy. You do not need help, or money, or even much in the way of relationship, if you have enough money. That is the man's basic forlorn tenant. He harkens back to a day, George Washington's, to be exact, when a man like our first President could exercise all of the well-mannered characteristics of not promoting himself or herself, speaking when spoken to, standing when spoken to, and, of course, not requesting or even accepting help from anyone. That George Washington was extremely wealthy is not mentioned at all.
You read an article like the one I am discussing and the material almost sounds rational. You almost pine for those old days when such great-seeming principals of conduct supposedly ruled all of social life. Until you begin to think about it. Washington's family had droves of slaves and tons of servants. I wonder how they conducted themselves with respect to the 'rules of dignity.' There were throngs of struggling new Americans trying to barely get by or survive on subsistence farming or in slave-like manufacturing jobs. We still had bond-servant versions of slavery all over the countryside. What a load of dignity they possessed, and displayed.
Today, we are all trying to make it. We are trying to feed our families, just like before. There is absolutely no dignity whatever in not paying your bills or being foreclosed on. None. Not one shred. Try it, if you think there is. I encourage anyone in dire financial straights to self-promote the hell out of him or herself. I absolutely encourage them to ask for assistance from their friends and family before putting their children in shelters or onto the mean streets of our downtown cities. Dignity be damned.
David Brooks is wealthy. Can you tell?
http://www.jamesstraussauthor.com
http://www.themastodons.com
http://www.from-the-chateau-dif.blogspot.com
Obama is not taking money from one and giving it to another. This is what McCain wants you to believe.
All Obama is doing is cutting taxes for the majority which just happens to be the middle class. You know... the ones who have been paying an unfair amount of taxes over the past 8 years to support the rich and wealthy Republicans!
You know the same rich and wealthy whom made tons of money off of the middle classes backs via the Wall Street CEOs... the same rich and wealthy whom made ridiculous amounts of money thru the McCain backed de-regulations put into motion in financial institutions and in the oil futures.
McCain is a hardcore supporter of De-Regulation!
The Rich and Wealthy Republicans are DE-REGULATORS!
De-Regulation is the reason for this financial crisis!
Read My Lipsticked Lips...
The Rich and Wealthy REPUBLICANS are the folks to thank for the financial mess that we are in right now!
Remember Phil Gramms, whom just happens to be filthy rich, McCain's buddy and economic advisor whom called us a nation of whiners. He and Enron made a ton of money as did speculators when he created and pushed de-regulation. He's the one you can all thank for the $4.00 - $5.00 per gallon for gas fiasco. Maybe you heard of the Enron Loop hole! After it got passed his wifey pooh received a real nice cushy job at Enron. Gasp! Can anyone spell Corruption?
Obama is simply not going to let Bush's Welfare Tax Plan for the Rich and Wealthy Republicans continue. He is rolling it back to what we had in the Clinton era. Which by the way was a prosperous time. In the past 40 years the ONLY administration to actually have a balanced budget instead of a deficit is Bill Clinton's administration. In fact he had a SURPLUS!
Ronald Reagan ... A republican president promoted the Progressive Tax system on this video and he also berated the republicans as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFhoM6xZpEQ
Teddy Roosevelt also a republican president ALSO believed in the Progressive tax system!
Both Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt have been listed by McCain as being his hero's. So by damning Obama for the progressive tax system by calling him a socialist aka redistributor also means his hero's Ronald Reagan and Teddy Roosevelt were also socialist and redistributors.
The Republican party, John McCain and Palin will go down in history as an absolute disgrace for their fear, hate, lies, racist, smear tactics in 2008.
Juli Norwood
Do you think John McCain would call Ronald Reagan a Socialist? LOL
I just found this little treasure...
Ronald Reagan's speech basically blaming Republicans for the financial blight of the nation. The same financial blight our middle class faces today! The rich get richer the middle class get poorer. Seems to me Reagan and Obama agree on one thing... that the middle class needs the break not the rich. Listen to the video clip sounds like an anti McCain speech to me.
If McCain calls Obama a socialist then he is ALSO calling former Republican President Ronald Reagan a socialist!
The current financial crisis is indeed grave, having resulted in the nation's largest bank failure (Washington Mutual) and taken down the nation's largest insurance company (AIG) and mortgage holders (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) as well as three of the top investment houses (Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., and Merrill Lynch) and threatening countless more failures both here and abroad -- in particular, there are hundreds of trillions of dollars tied up in bad securities in the interconnected international finance system; and most disturbingly, no one knows how much they are really worth, since no one wants to buy them. The credit system has frozen up; and without free-flowing credit, businesses go out of business.
Because this crisis is threatening the existence of banks and businesses it is threatening the life savings and jobs of millions of people in the United States and abroad. It is not an exaggeration for this to be called by so many the gravest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
And the causes of the current problem are much the same as those of the Great Depression. As my late father had been saying since the Reagan administration, as more and more of the New Deal safeguards set up under FDR and the Democratic Congress in the '30s were being torn down, we ran more and more risk of having a big financial collapse, as he lived through, in desperate conditions, during the Depression. So it's worth our while to look back briefly and see what worked and what went terribly wrong.
They didn't get it when Reagan was running for president?
He read one scripture out of the Bible and then set off his campaign in a place notorious for having murdered Civil Rights workers and said they were "going back to basics."
The black evangelicals rolled over themselves in Holy Ghost tongue-talking zeal, and then Reagan spent the next eight years in office turning back the clock on every Civil Rights Stride that had ever been made?
When are they going to get it, that Republicans don't care about them, all they care about is themselves, and they're using God and the name of Jesus to get the stench past you?
As my mama said,
"Fool me once shame on you."
"Fool me twice, shame on me."
The excuse they used back then to palm Reagan off on us? "You can't blame him for all the troubles of the world." They're still using that same Plantation Mentality Tactic now, and I refuse to believe black folks is falling for it all over again because a few of their 'christian' leaders have had their "palms greased" at the back door.
If they don't know their own history well enough to know that it was so-called 'christian tactics' like this (ones that had nothing to do with God) that got their ancestors enslaved and beat down in America in the first place, they need to suffer under the aftermath of racism just a little bit longer.
I'm a black woman. I approved this message.
One of the most stubborn holdovers from the glory days of the Republican Party is that it stands for low taxes, small government, and fiscal responsibility. Voters continue to be lured with the promise that they’ll get to keep more of their hard-earned money and that the government will use the money they do pay responsibly. These are the values that swept Ronald Reagan to power so overwhelmingly and they continue to pervade the world view of many Americans. It’s a compelling story: Vote for us, or the “tax-and-spend liberal Democrats” will take all your money away.
But when will people ever understand that there is no free lunch? That continually failing to match government expenditures with enough tax revenues to produce a balanced budget creates grave problems for this country and by extension to all of us?
I used to be a fan of Ronald Reagan, but he almost tripled our national debt from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion, which means he accumulated more debt in 8 years than all the presidents combined before him. George W. Bush started office with a balanced budget which, incidentally, he inherited from a “tax-and-spend liberal Democrat,” but by the time he leaves office, our national debt is estimated to be close to $10 trillion. What’s more, he squandered the one opportunity we had after 9/11 to tell people that yes, taxes are needed to finance government programs, especially wars, and told us to go shopping.
This Republican administration will leave behind the biggest budget deficit we’ve ever seen. But why should we care, you might ask? If I get to keep more of my money, what does it matter to me if the government doesn’t seem able to do the same with theirs?
There are two reasons we should all care very much: Inflation and China. Mounting debt devalues a currency and creates inflationary pressure. As of July 2007, the rate of inflation in the U.S. has risen to 5.6%, the highest since 1991. Go ask your bank, but at my average money market savings rate of 2%, my money is worth less every year. Put differently, your money does not buy as much as it used to, as anyone lately visiting a grocery store or gas station can attest. And because our government has long run out of people in our country to borrow from, an ever bigger share of our national debt is financed by foreign creditors in Japan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Everyone can see the situation our dependence on foreign oil has gotten us into, but our dependence on foreign money is just as alarming.
The Republican Party has long ago abandoned its conservative values of small government and fiscal responsibility. Yet it continues to tell voters to be wary of the “spend-happy Democrats.” We continue to be told that our money is safe in the hands of the party that failed to manage our nation’s budget for the last eight years. So when John McCain tells us that he will lower taxes and somehow produce a balanced budget by 2013, remember that there is no free lunch. Why bet our future on a candidate who says there is?
I WILL NOT DONATE MONEY UNTIL I SEE OBAMA AND BIDEN FIGHT BACK ON KEY ISSUES THAT ARE CRITICAL ON HOW REPUBLICANS GOT US IN THIS MESS FROM 9/11, OUR FAILING ECONOMY, AND LACK OF MORAL AUTHORITY TO PROTECT OUR ALLIES ALLOWING US TO PEACEFULLY SPREAD FREEDOM!
1. RONALD REAGAN (AND MCCAINE) TRAINED OSAMA BIN LADEN AND PUT THE TALIBAN IN POWER WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS. (WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND). DO THE REPUBLICANS DESERVE ALL THE CREDIT FOR THE FALL OF THE USSR AND NONE FOR BRINGING US OSAMA AND 9/11?
2. DADDY BUSH ARMED AND FUNDED SADDAM HUSSEIN WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS WHEN SADDAM WAS GASSING HIS OWN PEOPLE (AS LONG AS SADDAM WAS KILLING HIS NEIGHBORS IN IRAN FOR US WE DIDN'T CARE WHAT ELSE HE WAS DOING BACK THEN WHY NOW)!
3. BABY BUSH INVADES IRAQ WITH THE ORIGINAL PREMISE THEY HAD WMD'S. WE FUNDED AND ARMED IRAQ WHEN THEY WERE USING WMD'S ON THEIR OWN PEOPLE!NOW WITH THE MILITARY SUCCESS OF OUR TROOPS THEY HAVE CALLED THE WAR A SUCCESS WHILE IT HAS KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS AND WEAKENED OUR STANCE WITH IRAN AND THE REST OF THE WORLD!
4. REAGAN, BUSH SR, AND BABY BUSH HAVE ALL BURIED US IN DEBT, SOLD OUT OUR UNION WORKERS, HELPED RICH BUSINESS OWNERS TRANSFER GOOD PAYING JOBS TO ASIA TO AVOID AMERICAN LABOR AND INSURANCE COSTS. (GET UP AND SHOW A DAMN CHART OF THEIR MASSIVE DEFICIT SPENDING COMPARED TO CLINTON AND EVEN CARTER)
5. ATTACK THESE DAMN TAX CUT STATEMENTS WITH THE TRUTH THAT WE NEED TO PAY FOR WHAT WE USE OR CONSUME, SERVICES LIKE AID FOR CHILDREN HAVING CHILDREN WITH NO MEANS OF FINANCIALY SUPPORTING A BABY! NO FREE RIDE!!!!!!! IF WE WANT SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WE MUST PAY FOR IT NOT OUR GRANDCHILDRENS' GRANDCHILDREN!
I SPEEK FOR MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS I KNOW HERE IN WISCONSIN WHEN I SAY WE NEED TO FIGHT THE REAL CAUSE OF OUR PROBLEMS! GET UP AND SWING DAMMIT!
NO MONEY UNTIL I HERE THE FACTS BELTED OUT THROUGH THE MIC, FIGHT TO WIN!
I was corrected on something and I try so hard to be right all the time. I just have to be perfect! (but I can't)
However, it was brought to my attention that Nasty Man Reagan was governor of California for far too long, so he DID have some made-for-TV political experience before he was elected president. He truly thought he was John Wayne AND Charlton Heston rolled into one.
Well, at least I know that the Czech Republic and Slovakia are two different countries...LOL! I'll get on the Heinzalmer's Bus with McCain on that one...
I know this, though, if nothing else:
The Mainstream Media's pro-McCain bias
I was shocked the other day to hear a Republican claim that America's mainstream media has a pro-Obama bias. Where do the Republicans get this stuff?Despite the absurdity of it, the claim has been repeated over and over and over again, apparently in an attempt (as George W. Bush would say) to catapult the propaganda.The truth of the matter is that John McCain has been benefiting from a very strong pro-McCain bias in America's mainstream media.Back in March the New York Times called McCain, “a national security pro.”
McCain has repeatedly made the ludicrous claim that Al Qaeda insurgents were being trained in Iran. He claimed that it was "common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran, that's well known."It's not "well known". It's not even true. Al Qaeda would be even less welcome in Iran than they were in Saddam's Iraq. There is no way in the world that A Shiite nation is going to invite Sunni terrorists into their country and help them with their Sunni Muslim cause. McCain's claims show that he's either ignorant or dishonest, but the American mainstream media refuses to accuse him of being either one. Instead of pointing out how his claims are childishly dishonest or childishly ignorant they keep calling him "presidential".Senator McCain's stance on the new G.I. Bill puts him in opposition to the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the American Legion, as well as the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, however the American mainstream media doesn't seem to think that this is at all newsworthy and will not report on it.The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of American gave Senator McCain a grade of “D” for his voting record against veterans, while in contrast Senator Obama received a grade of “B+.” The Disabled Veterans of America credited McCain with a 20 percent voting record on veteran’s issues, while Obama was credited with 80 percent, according to statistics posted on Think Progress. And yet, the allegedly "pro-Obama" media does not report on these facts! Why not? Why would a "Pro-Obama" news media cover up the fact that military veterans strongly prefer Obama over McCain?John McCain voted for legislation (the Military Commissions Act) that suspends the right of Habeas Corpus. This legislation is unconstitutional and violates one of America's oldest and most cherished principals, but the American mainstream media has never called him on this. If the American Mainstream Media is so "pro-Obama" why did they give McCain a free pass on this issue?Getting back to Iraq, John McCain claimed that the troops in Iraq have been drawn down to pre-surge levels, despite the fact that they're just as high now as ever. John McCain's claim is clearly false, but the "pro-Obama" people in the American mainstream media gave McCain a pass again.John McCain went on Good Morning America and told Diane Sawyer that he was concerned about the volatile "Iraq/Pakistan border" and Barack Obama's plans to attack Pakistan if he becomes president. The problem here is that there is no Iraq/Pakistan border (Iraq and Pakistan are 1,500 miles apart) and Barack Obama never said he would attack Pakistan if he became president. Diane Sawyer could have called out John McCain on both of these points, but she let him off the hook for both.If the American Mainstream Media is so "pro-Obama" why is it that McCain is getting a free ride? Why aren't they calling him on this stuff?Then is an interview with Katie Couric, John McCain actually tried to credit the Anbar Awakening as the product of the surge. The fact that the Anbar Awakening began before the surge (before Bush even announced he was planning one) was never mentioned by Katie Couric. Indeed CBS cut out the part of the interview where John McCain claimed that the surge came first, thus protecting him from looking like an idiot (or a liar) in front of millions of people. If CBS is so "Pro-Obama" why do they work so hard to protect John McCain?And why did Katie Couric work so hard to ridicule Barack Obama's stance on the surge when she interviewed Obama?Where is this "pro-Obama" media I keep hearing so much about?
great website by the way! perfect design in every approach.
i was enervated by your 'LINKED-IN' profile (where u will notice i was the only guy to dare give "you" an endorsement - as if I actually worked with you!) ;) _ all very honest musings, actually. i am a very effective international, marketing strategist and have become expert at parsing politics and how (they) affect market behaviour. american racism (as a "thing"...) is very rancid, quite virulent and as u saw with the clever "race-card"- which was an abrogator-organism. (it) created this after the erstwhile 'OJ Trial" -- effectively enabling modern racism.
[ only obama or omar wasow could possibly understand that concept ] ;)
it can recover in any form. it will appear sober and even rational -- and will try to seduce you into compliance ... catch you looking. (Obama's) reaction to the New Yorker magazine was incredibly astute. the attack from "it" was (a) tip of a fuse .. and he snuff'd it by defining it as an attack on Muslims -- which is actually what it is and nothing more ...
brilliant work. the action of the tiger.
Barack Obama’s first trip to Europe as the “presumptive” Democratic nominee will consist of stops in Great Britain, France and Germany. Only one public speech is planned on July 24 in Berlin. The exact location is not yet announced. But psericks has provided fascinating political, historical and even architectural details about the Brandenburger Tor and other possible venues.
Obama’s campaign has proven itself as masterful (if you forgive the faux blue Presidential seal and treatment of ladies in head scarves) at choreographing the backdrop for his speeches as he is in delivering them. Berlin should be no exception. It is a thriving pan-European cultural center 63 years after WWII and two short decades since German unification. And it is full of people who, like a majority of Germans, are wildly enthusiastic about Obama. Europeans generally appear to hope Obama will be the anti-Bush, sent to heal America’s heart and soul. So at whatever place Obama eventually speaks, there should be an enthusiastic throng and prospects for a great “photo op.”
Of course, photo ops can be tricky (see insert for a personal recollection of Jimmy Carter’s missing Caracas photo op). And truly meaningful and lasting memories, like the words and visuals of the Kennedy and Reagan visits, require an almost divine alignment of man, space and time. It is not certain that all these constellations are yet in proper orbit for Obama’s visit, however. For one thing, he will actually be speaking to two important but very different audiences.
Quest For The Perfect Photo Op President Jimmy Carter made a visit to Caracas, Venezuela in March 1978. I only vaguely recall the event even though I was personally there. It was supposed to be the start of an important visit to Latin America in the wake of the Panama Canal Treaty having been signed, ushering in a new era of US-Latin American relations. However, from my vantage point as a very junior officer serving at U.S. Embassy Caracas, it was not particularly eventful. And while the embassy’s senior staff jostled for “face time” with the President, I was assigned minor logistical duties. I do clearly recall though that the White House advance team was obsessed about finding the perfect photo op. There were rumors it might appear in or maybe even make the cover of Time magazine. They decided to go for a still shot of Carter and Carlos Andres Perez (CAP), at the time riding high at the peak of Venezuela’s oil boom, walking through the colorful gardens at La Casona, the presidential mansion. I’ve searched, but could not find such a photo through Google. There is, however, a small picture of the airport arrival ceremony in Google images and The American Presidency Project’s transcript of both presidents’ remarks. Reading the remarks today evokes pathos. For less than a year later, Ayatollah Khomeini would return to Iran, another OPEC country, to lead the revolution that would ultimately cause Carter’s downfall. And in his second term 15 years later, CAP would be forced from of office on corruption charges after surviving a military coup in 1992 by a young lieutenant colonel named Hugo Chavez. The online transcript of the ceremony says that Carter delivered his speech at Simon Bolivar airport in Maiquetia in Spanish. If he did, I missed it. I was too busy behind-the-scenes making sure the President’s entourage boarded the cars waiting on the tarmac to whisk them all to Caracas.
Quest For The Perfect Photo Op
President Jimmy Carter made a visit to Caracas, Venezuela in March 1978. I only vaguely recall the event even though I was personally there. It was supposed to be the start of an important visit to Latin America in the wake of the Panama Canal Treaty having been signed, ushering in a new era of US-Latin American relations. However, from my vantage point as a very junior officer serving at U.S. Embassy Caracas, it was not particularly eventful. And while the embassy’s senior staff jostled for “face time” with the President, I was assigned minor logistical duties.
I do clearly recall though that the White House advance team was obsessed about finding the perfect photo op. There were rumors it might appear in or maybe even make the cover of Time magazine. They decided to go for a still shot of Carter and Carlos Andres Perez (CAP), at the time riding high at the peak of Venezuela’s oil boom, walking through the colorful gardens at La Casona, the presidential mansion. I’ve searched, but could not find such a photo through Google.
There is, however, a small picture of the airport arrival ceremony in Google images and The American Presidency Project’s transcript of both presidents’ remarks. Reading the remarks today evokes pathos. For less than a year later, Ayatollah Khomeini would return to Iran, another OPEC country, to lead the revolution that would ultimately cause Carter’s downfall. And in his second term 15 years later, CAP would be forced from of office on corruption charges after surviving a military coup in 1992 by a young lieutenant colonel named Hugo Chavez.
The online transcript of the ceremony says that Carter delivered his speech at Simon Bolivar airport in Maiquetia in Spanish. If he did, I missed it. I was too busy behind-the-scenes making sure the President’s entourage boarded the cars waiting on the tarmac to whisk them all to Caracas.
First and most important is the audience that will not even be there: the American people. They, of course, will elect the next President. In a normally slow summer news cycle, Obama’s current world tour -- which also includes stops in Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Afghanistan -- will be closely watched here at home. However since the US media cannot be relied on to accurately report this trip, the Berlin speech is probably the most important opportunity between the last primary in early June and the Denver convention in late August for Obama to speak directly to American voters. The other audience will include the people at the speech itself, as well as millions of other Europeans who are watching our presidential election with awe and expectation. For reasons related to their education, media focus and historic reliance on America, this audience is extremely well-informed about our politics. In fact, the average European may be as well or better informed about our national politics as the average American. But after the 2000 and 2004 elections, many Europeans have lost confidence in our ability to conduct elections and in our capacity to make a rational decision about who will lead us.
As much as Americans and Europeans have in common, and there are many ties that remain strong, these two audiences will assess Barack Obama’s performance in Berlin with different concerns and sometimes contradictory perspectives. Americans need to get to know Obama even if they don’t want to. Europeans want to get to know him even if they don’t need to.
Americans face this summer preoccupied by immediate economic problems here at home: the rising cost of gas and food, loss of jobs, home foreclosures and failing financial institutions. As Europeans head out on their traditional extended summer holidays they worry that America’s economic meltdown is dragging down their own banks and jeopardizing their unprecedented standard of living.
America worries about how it can safely extricate its troops from Iraq and restore the rule of law undermined after 9/11. Europe worries that it will be pressured to step up its commitment of forces in Afghanistan. And many Europeans wonder if the next Administration will be prepared to prosecute US officials responsible for violating international laws, conducting renditions, maintaining secret prisons and practicing torture.
America is struggling to assimilate the latest wave in a long history of immigration. Europe is wondering it its current immigrant population explosion is a threat to its religious and cultural identity, like the Ottoman conquest that was blocked somer 300 years ago.
Americans were united geographically following the Civil War, but national partisan divisions based largely on “values” and ideology now stymie government’s ability to provide for the public weal. European countries have for the first time achieved a semblance of transnational unity based on voluntary association, but they now struggle with how further to proceed further with institutional and policy harmonization.
When Barack Obama speaks in Berlin, he will be simultaneously addressing these disparate and sometime conflicting realities. His greatest challenge will not be adapting his style, but accommodating the substance of his oratory. For trying to satisfy one audience may not please the other. The challenge calls for an artful and nuanced construction of both words and ideas. We know that Obama is capable of meeting that challenge, but it will help considerably to have a great speechwriter who can provide the quotes to go along with the visuals.
wizinit is the nom de guerre of a veteran diplomat and fan of the late columnist Art Buchwald who writes serious analysis and political satire. If you would like to be notified whenever wizinit posts a new article click on the logo to join Food Tasters For Obama.
Obama accused of 'distorting' the Bible
The founder of Focus on the Family is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of distorting the Bible "to fit his own confused theology." Conservative Christian leader James Dobson, reacting to comments Obama made to a liberal Christian group, also said the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee is "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter."
In 1984 Ronald Reagan laughed the age issue off the stage during the Presidential debates, then soundly defeated the much younger Senator Mondale in the general election. Senator McCain attempted to do the same thing during his recent appearance on Saturday Night Live. It occurs to me that he will not succeed, especially if Senator Obama presses the significant differences between McCain and Reagan.
In my opinion, President Reagan succeeded where Senator McCain will fail because he brought two qualities to his campaign that flatly contradicted our conventional expectations about old people. First, Ronald Reagan was the most articulate spokesman for the cornucopia of new ideas that the resurgent U.S. conservatism had been nurturing since Senator Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964. The significant point here is not the merits of the specific ideas he proposed, many of which remain anathema to Democrats. The point is that this old man was a highly enthusiastic proponent of new ideas. Our conventional expectations associate new ideas with youth, not advanced age. But we are aware of brilliant exceptions, e.g., Igor Stravinsky, Frank Lloyd Wright, Pablo Picasso, Deng Shao Peng.
His second contradiction was his amiable optimism. Where many people become cranky pessimists as they grow older, Reagan was highly optimistic that his new ideas would solve our problems. The nation welcomed his sunny optimism as a refreshing contrast to Senator Mondale's dour realism. Indeed, Reagan's assertion that that it was "morning in America" was all the more reassuring precisely because he was so much older than most of us. He had lived through all of the major traumas of the 20th century, so if he said things were going to get better, then maybe the rest of us should pull up our socks and have more faith in our tomorrows.
In short, John McCain is no Ronald Reagan. Where Reagan promised victory, McCain merely pledges no defeat. Where Reagan was amiable, McCain is cranky. Where Reagan challenged us to take a chance on his untested new ideas, McCain clings to the status quo. Where Reagan was youthful and optimistic, McCain is crabby and fearful.
McCain is also poor, correction, his campaign is relatively poor compared to that of Senator Obama. One of the best things that money can buy is gaggles of smart policy wonks who can spin up articulations of new policies on short notice.
Therefore I recommend that Senator Obama immediately launch a barrage of specific new policy proposals at Senator McCain on a broad range of issues. It's time to move from general exhortations of change to specific remedies. It's time for "Shock and Awe". Senator McCain cannot launch such a massive policy offensive because a) he doesn't have enough money to develop a large arsenal of proposals, and b) he has a conventional old man's mindset -- he rejects new ideas. If Senator Obama lobbed at least one major policy initiative at Senator McCain every week from now until the November election, he would quickly leave him gasping in an exhausted defensive crouch.
Of course this strategy would not have worked against Reagan. A fantasy "Battle of Ideas" between the young Barack Obama and the old Ronald Reagan would undoubtedly become a drawn out slugfest between two equally youthful mindsets. ... :-)
Change the doesn't racially profile blacks?
Change that doesn't kill unarmed black men who are committing no crimes and have no previous criminal records?
Change where blacks in need of medical care get equal healthcare quality to their racial counterparts?
Change where poor struggling African American women are not labeled welfare queens because some filthy rich man who owns at least five homes in four states, a private plane, a charter boat, and receives $99,000 every six months in investment equity in real estate in a nation and has millions of dollars in his checking account in a nation that blacks built and in which they never profited from would begrudge a woman $300 a month and some food stamps to feed and clothe five children?
Change where black men without tons of money get a fair trial BEFORE they are exonerated of their alleged crimes by DNA evidence 20 years too late? (These are not isolated cases...)
Change where blacks who aren't on welfare actually get to benefit off the tax dollars they pay?
Change where the maximum penalty for taking a black person's life is more than four or five years in prison and where the murders of innocent African Americans is also grounds for capital punishment?
Change where there are no more sundown towns, racially segregated neighborhoods, or blockages to blacks in fair and equal housing, and where certain neighborhoods are not "upcharged" in order to exclude blacks who typically have 2-3 times less income than their racial counterparts unless their name is Oprah Winfrey or Bill Cosby?
Change where African Americans finally realize that all of the above is true here and now in the New Millennium and no one can fix it except themselves once they stop giving money to Eddie Long, Creflo Dollar, Joel Osteen, and T D Jakes to pray for prosperity that they themselves will never have?
This kind of change that deals honestly, fairly, and justly with truth instead of being in denial about it, jaded, and accusatory that the man who fights against historic racism is, instead, its instigator and "agitator"? Ronald Reagan, of course, didn't know his left nuts from his right ones and had the Heinzalmers to prove it, but his despicable behavior towards blacks in America lives on.
We can be a party that says there's no problem with taking money from Washington lobbyists - from oil lobbyists and drug lobbyists and insurance lobbyists. We can pretend that they represent real Americans and look the other way when they use their money and influence to stop us from reforming health care or investing in renewable energy for yet another four years.
Dear Barack,
I want you to be the next President of The United States. So do (apparently) millions of other citizens. We are tired of the slash-and-burn tactics of campaigns that began around 1968 in Chicago. How have we gotten to such a point in our society that the framing of the message is more important than the content (style vs. substance)?
Now the media, which once was hailed as 'The Fourth Estate' and, as Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, an effective means of keeping government in check, serves not the people but rather, it's corporate masters who have their own agenda. And it doesn't include us, the unwashed masses.
The media circus around the primary process sells lots of newspapers and puts a lot of eyeballs in front of the telly, great for media owners (corporate America). But it distorts and manipulates events in order to increase viewership as the media moguls have learned by creating the <i> appearance </i> of conflict.
Here is the point I want to make: Do you, Barack Obama, want the media to exert undue influence on your campaign for the Presidency, or do you have the chops to set the tone for the media to follow you and come to you? Will the tail wag the dog or will the dog wag the tail?
I implore you, sir. Once and for all, tell the media (both print and broadcast as well as blogs) that YOU will determine what they will report. That you will control the tone and temper of your campaign, not the media.Tell the media that they can speculate from here to kingdom come about the importance of Hillary-this and Hillary-that. YOU, Barack Obama, are the one, the final authority who will put your message forth.
Now comes the most important part. You must, through your actions, DO JUST THAT. Do NOT allow anyone from your campaign to comment on anything that detracts from your message of changing the way that Washington works. From this day, April 8, 2008 forward your campaign must totally be about how your Republican opponent, John McCain will be as detrimental to the good of this country as his predecessor, our current President.
You must make Hillary Clinton IRRELEVANT. Starting today. You must look and act the part of the Democratic challenger in an election that will change the disastrous course this nation has followed since January 2001. That you have the skills and knowledge necessary to be a great leader of a great nation.
Show some real leadership, Mr. Obama. Ronald Reagan was once defined as "...an amiable dunce...", but he understood better than anyone else how to SELL his message, a skill he acquired as a B-grade actor. THAT enabled him to project an aura of infallibility and sagacity that kept him in office longer than the four years he earned after defeating Jimmy Carter.
I would suggest that when the media ask you, "Mr. Obama, how do you respond to the Clinton campaign's (insert blah-blah-blah at this point)...", you respond by saying words to the effect of, "..we are moving forward, taking our message to the people that hope is here today for a new and better tomorrow and that we shall seek, in partnership with the American People, and all those who wish to work with us for beneficial and permanent change in a future much brighter for all of us..."
THAT Mr. Obama is how to seal the deal with the American People. And the sooner you deliver that message, the sooner you can look forward to occupying the oval office.
Oh, and by the way, in my humble opinion and For What It's Worth, Bill Richardson would make an excellent Vice-Presidential running mate and energize the Democratic Party as it has not been since the days of John F. Kennedy.
Key point: “In 2000, Mr. Gore lost the white working class by 17 points and in 2004 John Kerry lost it by 23 points.” This article from Feb 19 2008 Financial Times is an excellent history lesson to understand why blue collar Reagan Democrats, here called Webb Democrats, vote for Republican presidents. Obama and his supporters need to learn how to talk to all these deservedly angry white men and women to ease more attacks against “latte-drinking, Prius driving liberals.”
By Michael Lind Published: February 19 2008 18:27
That is one possibility. But it is worth considering the possibility that US politics has not changed much at all. The era of Republican presidential hegemony that began with Richard Nixon may not be over.
Consider the performance of the Democratic party in contests for the White House since Nixon ran against Hubert Humphrey in 1968. In that period, Democrats have won only three out of 10 presidential elections – Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. And those victories were in highly unusual circumstances. Mr Carter ran against an unelected, appointed vice-president, Gerald Ford, who had angered many Americans when he pardoned Nixon for his Watergate crimes. In 1992 and again in 1996, a slight majority of Americans voted against Mr Clinton, who nevertheless won only because each time third-party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off Republican presidential voters. If not for Watergate and Perot, the Republicans might have enjoyed an uninterrupted string of presidential victories since the late 1960s.
The enduring Republican presidential majority originated in 1968, when the populist Democrat George Wallace won 13.5 per cent of the popular vote as an independent who drew his strength from the white working-class backlash against the civil rights revolution and cultural liberalism.
Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the last Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of the white vote, in a country where roughly 70 per cent of the population is “non-Hispanic white” and where half of Hispanics identify themselves as white. The white working-class deficit of the Democrats in presidential elections is worsening. Mr Clinton carried the white working class by 39-38 per cent in 1992 and again by 44-43 per cent in 1996 – but only because Mr Perot, who was popular with this group, reduced the Republican numbers. In 2000, Mr Gore lost the white working class by 17 points and in 2004 John Kerry lost it by 23 points.
But the constituencies that are supposed to save the Democrats have been part of the post-McGovern coalition since the 1970s – and yet the Democrats have lost the White House repeatedly.
To win back the White House this year, the Democratic presidential nominee, whether Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, must win the votes of millions of Webb Democrats – the heirs to the Wallace and Reagan Democrats. If many voters return to the practice of dividing their votes for president and Congress between the two parties, then the future may hold Republican presidents facing Democratic Congresses, as in most of the period from 1968 to 1994.
The writer is the Whitehead senior fellow at the New America Foundation and author of The American Way of Strategy
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/23e13d02-df03-11dc-91d4-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
original post February 20 by Birdalone revised March 5 2008 and reposted
