As we come down to the final days of the 2008 election cycle, perhaps we should make a close examation of why we choose to vote the way we do. Our country has managed to divide itself fairly equally between two different and vastly opposing ideologies. And as tends to be the case with extreme idealogues...the more committed they are, the more vocal and uncompromising they are. And this is NOT a good thing. No ideology whether liberal or conservative fits all situations all of the time. The result is a blind committment to what may be a good idea in theory but simply doesn't work in a pragmatic way.
The idealogue will follow the party line all the way....regardless of where it leads. The gay rights idealogue will insist that gay marriage is a right...and nothing less than legal marriage is acceptable. He will continue to insist on his right, even turning down the compromise of "domestic partnership". That means that when his partner lies near death in a hospital, that partner can be kept from the hospital bed by the partner's parents. The pragmatist says, "what's in a name"? Domestic partnership would give you the rights you deserve without incurring the anger and conflict that the term marriage will bring to the discussion.
The idealogue will insist that "gun ownership" should have NO limitations and that any law curtailing your right to a weapon is unconstitutional and must be fought! The pragmatist asks, "what happens when a 14 year old boy walks into your daughter's middle school with an automatic weapon and an attitude?"
The idealogue believes in "my way or the highway" while the pragmatist looks for the compromise solution.
One of the greatest complaints I hear about our government is the assertion that they don't get anything done. But that's to be expected. We vote our ideology. And as a nation we are pretty evenly split down the middle between conservative and liberal. We have reached a national road block with neither conservatives or liberals being enough of a majority to make any progress on real solutions to real problems. And that is why I am supporting Sen. Obama for President.
Two years ago I read both of the Senator's books and was especially impressed with THE AUDACITY OF HOPE. In it he discusses his political philosophy which is very dependent upon the belief that policy only works with a majority concensus. He wrote of two incidents that stuck in my mind that illustrate how a President Obama would approach policy. Both anecdotes involved "hot button" issues designed to upset both the right & the left. But the Senator's take on the Death Penalty and Separation of Church & State was what first led me to think that a President Obama might be a good idea.
While an Illinois State Senator, Obama worked on a bill concerning the death penalty. On a personal level, Senator Obama is against the death penalty in most cases. A liberal group had brought up the issue of Chicago cops who would allegedly beat a confession from a suspect and then have him charged with a death penalty crime based on that coerced confession. The liberal idealogue would insist on trying to ban the death penalty. Obama instead stated the obvious, most Americans support to one degree or another the death penalty. He sat down with representatives of the police and with those advocating the end of the death penalty. He then passed legislation that limited death penalty convictions to cases where the confession is video taped. If a confession was given without the videotape, then the man would only be sentenced to life imprisonment. He found a solution based on the limited common ground of the two sides. Neither was completely happy with it but both sides agreed that it worked better than the status quo.
He also addressed the issue of separation of church & state. As he put it, you can't let the government endorse a particular religion or religious belief. But the flip side is that those who watch that "line in the sand" need to be aware that the world does not stop is someone mentions "God" in public. There needs to be a balance that reflects the differing opinions of the public.
One of Obama's favorite sayings is, "I know you want to go to the moon, but we only have enough gas to get this far". He is pragmatic about what can and cannot be done. I would be willing to bet that all of the screams of outrage against his candidacy from the right will be nothing compared to the screams from the left when they realize that he listens to both sides before acting.
I would prefer to vote for the candidate who is going to realize that America is made up of many differing opinions. I will vote for the candidate who considers the middle ground when enacting policy. To be honest, I think McCain has many pragmatic traits about him. It was one of the things that attracted me to his candidacy in 2000, but he is definitely an idealogue on foreign policy. More importantly, he is an old man and his number two is an unprepared idealogue. And that a recipe for disaster!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
DID YOU CONTRIBUTE TO THE PALIN WARDROBE FUND?
Just a quick question for donors to the Republican Party. It's been difficult economic times for everyone. Do you mind that the McCain Campaign spent $150,000 on a new wardrobe for Sarah Palin or would you like your money back?
Or as Mike Murphy (McCain's 2000 campaign manager) put it:
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PITBULL & A HOCKEY MOM?
YOU CAN FEED A PITBULL FOR 368 YEARS ON WHAT IT TAKES TO CLOTHE A HOCKEY MOM!
WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: STEWARDSHIP
I have many reasons for supporting Sen. Obama's campaign. Some of those reasons are because I support specific policies that he has proposed. Some of the reasons are less distinct. An example of such is my belief that Sen. Obama would show the best stewardship of the country. Stewardship is defined as the act of caring for another's property or interests. It is an often neglected aspect of the job description of President. But ultimately the concept that the President is responsible for the wise use of the resources of government is one of the most important ideas to the running of good government.
Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives. They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives. Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. We may not want to be taxed: but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country. Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.
So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible. The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans. There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty. And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country. The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not.
Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.
I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older. Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren. Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS! I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.
It's much like the Biblical proverb: One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost. He was rebuked for the waste of potential. The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own. He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master. He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.
Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor. In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people." The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us. A way to keep us from examining the real issue: How do we use our resources to our best advantage?
The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now. And some are doing more than hurting. They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut. Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep. Why? Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off. I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year. I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.
We are a nation at war...on two fronts. We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us. We are a nation facing a severe recession. We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely. Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill. The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.
All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run. There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management. The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign. When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?" And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."
So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama. The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:
Many people believe that the government should have NO influence over their lives. They have a "survival of the fittest" mentality which denies any need of government influence in thier lives. Other people strongly feel that the government should solve every problem for them. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. We may not want to be taxed: but without those taxes there is no revenue to run the country. Without those revenues bad things happen...bridges fall down, military endeavors fail and economic failings can leave society at a standstill.
So we need government and we need the administration of that government to be wise and responsible. The degree to which we need that government is and always will be an issue of contention among Americans. There are many who believe that Sen. Obama will tax and spend us all into poverty. And that is an issue that has been discussed on many blogs, talk shows and at every bar in the country. The degree to which government needs to be involved is a matter for argument, the need for responsible use of those resources is not.
Simply put, I believe that Sen. Obama will be the better steward of America's resources. You may disagree with how much to give him, but he is the one who will best administer what he is given to work with.
I believe strongly that people fall into two categories as they grow older. Some see the future as a fragile gift to our children and grandchildren. Others believe (regardless of what theology they profess) that when they die....the world for all practical purposes STOPS! I do not profess to know for sure how Sen. McCain sees the future, but I am certain that the father in Sen. Obama looks to the future legacy he leaves his children.
It's much like the Biblical proverb: One servant buried his master's money to make sure that it stayed safe and wasn't lost. He was rebuked for the waste of potential. The wise servant cared for the money as if it were his own. He used it responsibly and produced a profit for his master. He wanted something better for the future...not just to maintain the status quo.
Many have called Obama a socialist or suggested that in "re-distributing the wealth" he would take from the rich to give to the poor. In many cases, this is a thinly veiled assertion that Sen. Obama will "look after his own" and give your hard earned money to those "other black people." The labels & name calling are merely a way to form divisions among us. A way to keep us from examining the real issue: How do we use our resources to our best advantage?
The truth is that Sen. Obama feels ALL Americans are hurting now. And some are doing more than hurting. They make just enough to pay the rent and keep the lights turned on but there is no "extra" to be cut. Under an Obama plan, the ones who make a quarter of a million dollars or more per year will pay more money towards our national upkeep. Why? Because that extra payment will not result in their utilities being turned off. I once listened to a woman ahead of me at the bank who was complaining that the economy was so bad that she couldn't afford to go to Europe for vacation and would have to settle on Mexico this year. I hope you don't mind if I don't get all misty eyed over her loss.
We are a nation at war...on two fronts. We are a nation that has ignored it's infra-structure to the point that it is falling down around us. We are a nation facing a severe recession. We must increase our revenues and we must use those revenues wisely. Never has our nation staged a war paid for by credit and now we must pay the bill. The manner in which that bill is payed is of extreme importance to our future.
All sides, whether they support Obama's bid for presidency or not, have commented on the way his campaign has been run. There have been conservative Republicans who have publicly held the Obama Campaign as a shining example of executive management. The same cannot be said of the McCain campaign. When Obama was asked by the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, "why when you have no executive management experience, should we believe you can run America?" And Obama replied, "Watch how I run my campaign."
So on Nov. 4th, I will look to the future and cast my vote for Sen. Barack Obama. The Senator summed it up best today in a speech:
"We can choose hope over fear, unity over division, the promise of change over the power of the status quo...In one week, we can come together as one nation, and one people, and once more choose our better history. That's what's at stake."
"The change we need isn't just about new programs and policies...It's about a new attitude, it's about new politics _ a politics that calls on our better angels instead of encouraging our worst instincts."
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
NEW ENDORSEMENT FOR McCAIN
Sen. John McCain's presidential bid received a new endorsement today. Several bloggers on a web site called al-Hesba have endorsed Sen. McCain as the best choice for an American President to promote their agenda. Normally, the McCain campaign would be thrilled at a new endorsement....but this web site is a password protected site sponsored by Al-Qaeda!
They feel that a President McCain will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.
It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement". Many on the left are having a field day with it. Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows. But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore. We still live in dangerous times! One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.
"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."
As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in. That is simply not correct. Al-Qaida IS still a danger. But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis. Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy. Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation. (Look at the economic crisis.) When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation. We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had.
You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict. He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions. If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians. That action may strengthen the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat. The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians. That is a matter to be judged each time by the President. I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building. I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation. (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)
While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous. The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them. McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.
There is danger in the world today. An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in! A new direction is needed!
They feel that a President McCain will continue to occupy American military resources in Iraq and that his "impetuous" character will lead him to make decisions that will increase the Anti-American sentiment that feeds Al Qaeda funding and recruitment.
It's very easy to make light of this "endorsement". Many on the left are having a field day with it. Look to see it as the "joke of the week" on any number of late night shows. But it alludes to an extremely serious issue that many would like to ignore. We still live in dangerous times! One of the many pro-McCain quotes also suggests that an attack before the election could swing the vote enough to allow McCain to win.
"If al-Qaida carries out a big operation against American interests," the message said, "this act will be support of McCain because it will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaida. Al-Qaida then will succeed in exhausting America till its last year in it."
As a liberal, I am often accused of being blind to the dangers of the world we live in. That is simply not correct. Al-Qaida IS still a danger. But it is important to consider how the next President will react in a moment of crisis. Conventional wisdom suggests that the ex-military pilot would have a better grasp of what is necessary to combat the enemy. Unfortunately, all we have seen from Sen. McCain are knee-jerk reactions to events as opposed to a clear, concise response to a situation. (Look at the economic crisis.) When you examine the irratic manner in which he has managed his own campaign, it calls into question his judgment in managing a military operation. We should also keep in mind that our actions in Iraq have been one of the best recruitment tools Al-Qaeda has ever had.
You see, it is not enough for a President to only understand the military aspects of a conflict. He must be equally versed in the political ramifications of his actions. If you blow up a building to kill a terrorist, you will probably also kill civilians. That action may strengthen the resolve of the people to support the terrorists you are trying to defeat. The importance of the target may outweigh the political risk of killing civilians. That is a matter to be judged each time by the President. I have no doubt that McCain can blow up the building. I am no longer sure that he has the wisdom to see the end result of his actions or the political impact they will have on the situation. (Remember, McCain is one of those who insisted that we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people.)
While it has been suggested that an Obama Presidency would be "tested" to see how he would react early in his term, it could also be suggested that the predictability of McCain's temperment is equally dangerous. The first rule of war is to understand your adversary's strengths & weaknesses in order to exploit them. McCain's predictability is very easily exploited.
There is danger in the world today. An "impetuous" president will NOT help us navigate the dangerous waters of the world we find ourselves living in! A new direction is needed!
WHY I SUPPORT OBAMA: THE CONSTITUTION
When I was in grade school it was required that every student memorize the Preamble to the Constitution. In middle school we were required to read the entire document...test on Monday. We were taught the three branches of government and how they were to be a system of "checks & balances" on each other. And in high school, we discussed the implications of that document in a class called Comparative Political Systems taught by a man who took great pride in his nickname..."BETTER DEAD THAN RED" CHARLIE. This was during the Reagan years and the end of the Cold War, it was a class that left an impression.
"Charlie" is dead now. And as conservative as he was, I can't help but think that he would be horrified to see what has happened to his favorite document during the past 8 years. Because the greatest casualty to 9/11 has been the Constitution! Under the guise of "homeland security", President Bush has used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the gutting of the most impressive document of government written since the Magna Carta.
It can now be stated of America that under the leadership of President Bush, we have legalized the following acts that are considered by many to be unconstitutional:
* The government can imprison ANY AMERICAN whom the government has determined to be an "enemy of America". There is no need for a warrant.
* Suspension of Habeas Corpus. The right of an individual to petition the court for release from incarceration. This is the right to a trial. You can't simply be held indefinitely without a court appearance.
* While Congress has passed laws during the Bush Administration prohibiting torture, the President has issued a "signing statement" allowing it under his own interpretation of the law but in violation of the Constitution.
* Up until the passing of the most recent FISA Bill, President Bush authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping of American citizens.
The argument offered by the administration to justify these acts consists of the establishment of the never ending War on Terror. Then the President claims the additional powers offered to him by the Constitution in times of war and national emergency. The problem with this is that it has become a very open ended commitment on the part of the President. If the war never ends....you don't have to give up the extra power you wield.
President Bush & Vice President Cheney have long felt that the Executive Branch was stripped of it's power following Watergate. They have used the excuse of 9/11 to take power that Nixon never dreamed of.
Please don't misunderstand, I am aware that we face many dangers in today's world. But I fear anything that disrupts the delicate balance established by our founding fathers between the duty of the Executive Branch to execute the laws and the oversite obligation of the other branches.
These changes can be as dangerous in the long run as the threat of terrorism is in the short term. It sounds good to say that the President won't be bothered with liberal courts and evidence when terrorists stalk our streets to kill us. But in a few years, we could find that the "terrorists" are no longer Muslim but something much closer to home. You see the Patriot Act doesn't discriminate between citizen and non-citizen. So the next time it's used to arrest an "enemy of America" it might be you! And then you have no right to a trial or even to see the evidence presented against you.
This may sound silly, but if you have been called traitor and un-American as often as I have by bloggers, you get a little nervous when a candidate for vice-president starts talking about the "REAL AMERICA". I often argued in 2005 that you should never give President Bush power that you would not want a President Hillary Clinton to have.
I don't mind wiretapping of citizens. I do mind when it is done without a court order. I know I should trust the government to act responsibly, but as we learned last week...it often doesn't. We now know that countless American service men were listened in on while they called home. And instead of catching terrorists, we established a military intelligence 900 number. Military Intelligence was listening to phone sex between soldiers and the partners left at home. Worse, they were passing the BEST calls on to others to enjoy! Please explain to me how this is either making me safer or is protecting my constitutional rights.
Earlier this year, Sen. Obama showed that he understood the tightrope that must be walked between keeping the country safe and protecting the rights of its citizens. When the FISA bill was first presented, he worked to ensure that it required a court order be obtained for any wire tap. FISA was a very hot button issue for the liberal side of the Democratic party. He upset many of them when he voted for the FISA bill because he felt the need for safety outweighed the minor problems of the bill once oversight was established. In this, he showed a clearer understanding of the true intent of the Constitution than our current president has.
As a Constitutional Law professor for one of the best law schools in the US, Senator Obama offers our best hope for restoring the mindset of government to one that believes in the importance of the Constitution. He understands that it is our Constitution that makes America different from the rest of the world. We have seen this recently when the Supreme Court overruled a ban on handguns within a municipality. Sen. Obama disagreed with their ruling, but pointed out that while he didn't like it, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling....that's the law. How nice that he accepted it when he didn't get his way. Refreshing after the last eight years.
The Constitution is the single most important legal document in the history of our country. Sen. Obama is the candidate most inclined to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (and not just the parts that he likes!)
"Charlie" is dead now. And as conservative as he was, I can't help but think that he would be horrified to see what has happened to his favorite document during the past 8 years. Because the greatest casualty to 9/11 has been the Constitution! Under the guise of "homeland security", President Bush has used the attack on the Twin Towers to justify the gutting of the most impressive document of government written since the Magna Carta.
It can now be stated of America that under the leadership of President Bush, we have legalized the following acts that are considered by many to be unconstitutional:
* The government can imprison ANY AMERICAN whom the government has determined to be an "enemy of America". There is no need for a warrant.
* Suspension of Habeas Corpus. The right of an individual to petition the court for release from incarceration. This is the right to a trial. You can't simply be held indefinitely without a court appearance.
* While Congress has passed laws during the Bush Administration prohibiting torture, the President has issued a "signing statement" allowing it under his own interpretation of the law but in violation of the Constitution.
* Up until the passing of the most recent FISA Bill, President Bush authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping of American citizens.
The argument offered by the administration to justify these acts consists of the establishment of the never ending War on Terror. Then the President claims the additional powers offered to him by the Constitution in times of war and national emergency. The problem with this is that it has become a very open ended commitment on the part of the President. If the war never ends....you don't have to give up the extra power you wield.
President Bush & Vice President Cheney have long felt that the Executive Branch was stripped of it's power following Watergate. They have used the excuse of 9/11 to take power that Nixon never dreamed of.
Please don't misunderstand, I am aware that we face many dangers in today's world. But I fear anything that disrupts the delicate balance established by our founding fathers between the duty of the Executive Branch to execute the laws and the oversite obligation of the other branches.
These changes can be as dangerous in the long run as the threat of terrorism is in the short term. It sounds good to say that the President won't be bothered with liberal courts and evidence when terrorists stalk our streets to kill us. But in a few years, we could find that the "terrorists" are no longer Muslim but something much closer to home. You see the Patriot Act doesn't discriminate between citizen and non-citizen. So the next time it's used to arrest an "enemy of America" it might be you! And then you have no right to a trial or even to see the evidence presented against you.
This may sound silly, but if you have been called traitor and un-American as often as I have by bloggers, you get a little nervous when a candidate for vice-president starts talking about the "REAL AMERICA". I often argued in 2005 that you should never give President Bush power that you would not want a President Hillary Clinton to have.
I don't mind wiretapping of citizens. I do mind when it is done without a court order. I know I should trust the government to act responsibly, but as we learned last week...it often doesn't. We now know that countless American service men were listened in on while they called home. And instead of catching terrorists, we established a military intelligence 900 number. Military Intelligence was listening to phone sex between soldiers and the partners left at home. Worse, they were passing the BEST calls on to others to enjoy! Please explain to me how this is either making me safer or is protecting my constitutional rights.
Earlier this year, Sen. Obama showed that he understood the tightrope that must be walked between keeping the country safe and protecting the rights of its citizens. When the FISA bill was first presented, he worked to ensure that it required a court order be obtained for any wire tap. FISA was a very hot button issue for the liberal side of the Democratic party. He upset many of them when he voted for the FISA bill because he felt the need for safety outweighed the minor problems of the bill once oversight was established. In this, he showed a clearer understanding of the true intent of the Constitution than our current president has.
As a Constitutional Law professor for one of the best law schools in the US, Senator Obama offers our best hope for restoring the mindset of government to one that believes in the importance of the Constitution. He understands that it is our Constitution that makes America different from the rest of the world. We have seen this recently when the Supreme Court overruled a ban on handguns within a municipality. Sen. Obama disagreed with their ruling, but pointed out that while he didn't like it, once the Supreme Court makes a ruling....that's the law. How nice that he accepted it when he didn't get his way. Refreshing after the last eight years.
The Constitution is the single most important legal document in the history of our country. Sen. Obama is the candidate most inclined to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (and not just the parts that he likes!)
Monday, October 20, 2008
REST IN PEACE
"Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That's not America. Is there something wrong with a seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing he or she could be president? Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion that he is a Muslim and might have an association with terrorists. This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel particularly strong about this because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who were serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay, was of a mother at Arlington Cemetery and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone, and it gave his awards - Purple Heart, Bronze Star - showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death, he was 20 years old. And then at the very top of the head stone, it didn't have a Christian cross. It didn't have a Star of David. It has a crescent and star of the Islamic faith.
And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan. And he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was fourteen years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could serve his country and he gave his life."
Ret. General Colin Powell, MEET THE PRESS, October 19, 2008
Thank you, Sir. For reminding us what it means to be an American. There are over 20,000 Muslim-Americans currently serving in our Armed Forces. We must remember them and their sacrifices with all due honor and respect. May the blessings of God & Allah be upon you.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
MUCH ADO ABOUT ACORN
It's October of an election year. And as predictable as the turning of the autumn leaves, comes the Republican cries about the evils of ACORN and voter fraud. Now don't get me wrong, I am not trying to make light of what could be a serious problem. But listening to the Right will cause you to confuse the crime of Voter Fraud (a major offense) with the lesser crime of voter registration fraud. They are screaming about the potential problems of the oak when all they really have in hand are a few nuts.
ACORN is an organization dedicated to being a political voice for the poor. They are involved in a number of projects that include working on housing issues, rebuilding New Orleans, school lunch menus, etc. The most visible arm of their work is their voter registration drives. Both in 2004 & 2006 there were allegations that ACORN was submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registrations. These allegations have resurfaced this election cycle as well. The Right would have you believe that these registrations are being done in order to alter the results of the election. They will remind you that Sen. Obama once represented ACORN as an attorney and has worked for them repeatedly over the years. They then allege that the Obama campaign is behind this "conspiracy". They point out that the Obama campaign gave 830,000 dollars to ACORN and on an FEC report listed it for "event management" instead of voter registration. (We know this because the Obama campaign amended the report without prompting. If they hadn't we would never know this.)
I have a lot of trouble with "conspiracy theories". For a conspiracy to be big enough to make a difference in the real world, it requires a lot of people's active participation. It also requires them to keep quite about it. (And nobody has ever accused Democrats of being "quiet" or of being able to keep a secret.) What I think has happened instead is an organization with lofty goals being bogged down in the nuts & bolts operation of their agenda. The incompetence of the organization is then used as "evidence" of massive wrongdoing with large leaps of assumption thrown in to smear both the organization and the Democratic candidate. A review of their operations is not out of line, but to condemn them for "fixing" an election is a stretch of the imagination.
It is a fact that ACORN has submitted many fraudulent voter registrations. We know this in part because ACORN flags many of these when they turn them in. But the law requires them to turn in all registrations they take, regardless of ACORN's belief in their authenticity. (If this was not the case, you would be hearing cries that ACORN throws away any registrations they think would vote Republican.) The legal requirement to turn them in is a safe guard to protect both sides.
The next major question is why take fake registrations in the first place if not to alter an election? Well, the fraud is not being perpetrated by the organization on America, but by the workers of ACORN on ACORN itself. ACORN hires out of work people to do the registration. They are trying to give a "hand up" to the poor by giving them a paycheck. In many cases this is a great thing, but some of the people they hire are more interested in getting a paycheck than in helping out. If you are told you must get 25 registrations per day to keep your job, then a few will always decide to take the cards home, look through the phone book and make up the names. This way they can keep their paycheck (without going through the hassle of the work). Eventually they are caught & fired...but the law requires that they submit their registrations regardless.
Now Sen. Obama did as an attorney represent ACORN in Illinois. What the right doesn't want you to know is that his co-council for this was the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. And his involvement with them afterwards has been as a guest speaker twice to the Chicago branch as a motivational speaker to a group of about 50. Now if the fact that he still spoke to them twice bothers you, keep in mind that in February 2006, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a major immigration rally in Florida sponsored by (drum roll please) ACORN. It is even more interesting to note that much of the speech was to praise the work of ACORN. Talk about flip-flops!
It is also interesting to note that while voter fraud registration is evident.....THERE HAVE BEEN NO CASES OF TRUE VOTE FRAUD! No trials, no convictions, not much of anything except cries of cheating ALWAYS timed just before the next election. And that brings me to my final observation. Does anyone really believe that if this was a true danger to Democracy, that Republicans would just drop it every year after the election is done? Wouldn't they spend the next two years making sure that they weren't cheated again?
This is nothing more than a distraction. Republicans have controlled the House & Senate for so long that they don't want you to look at issues. They don't want you to think about the economy or Iraq or any of the real problems facing America. They want you to believe that Democrats are stealing the election by registering fictional cartoon characters in a Disneyland vote drive. But until Mickey Mouse shows up at the polls to vote: ACORN's stealing the election is just an urban myth. Much ado about NOTHING!
ACORN is an organization dedicated to being a political voice for the poor. They are involved in a number of projects that include working on housing issues, rebuilding New Orleans, school lunch menus, etc. The most visible arm of their work is their voter registration drives. Both in 2004 & 2006 there were allegations that ACORN was submitting thousands of fraudulent voter registrations. These allegations have resurfaced this election cycle as well. The Right would have you believe that these registrations are being done in order to alter the results of the election. They will remind you that Sen. Obama once represented ACORN as an attorney and has worked for them repeatedly over the years. They then allege that the Obama campaign is behind this "conspiracy". They point out that the Obama campaign gave 830,000 dollars to ACORN and on an FEC report listed it for "event management" instead of voter registration. (We know this because the Obama campaign amended the report without prompting. If they hadn't we would never know this.)
I have a lot of trouble with "conspiracy theories". For a conspiracy to be big enough to make a difference in the real world, it requires a lot of people's active participation. It also requires them to keep quite about it. (And nobody has ever accused Democrats of being "quiet" or of being able to keep a secret.) What I think has happened instead is an organization with lofty goals being bogged down in the nuts & bolts operation of their agenda. The incompetence of the organization is then used as "evidence" of massive wrongdoing with large leaps of assumption thrown in to smear both the organization and the Democratic candidate. A review of their operations is not out of line, but to condemn them for "fixing" an election is a stretch of the imagination.
It is a fact that ACORN has submitted many fraudulent voter registrations. We know this in part because ACORN flags many of these when they turn them in. But the law requires them to turn in all registrations they take, regardless of ACORN's belief in their authenticity. (If this was not the case, you would be hearing cries that ACORN throws away any registrations they think would vote Republican.) The legal requirement to turn them in is a safe guard to protect both sides.
The next major question is why take fake registrations in the first place if not to alter an election? Well, the fraud is not being perpetrated by the organization on America, but by the workers of ACORN on ACORN itself. ACORN hires out of work people to do the registration. They are trying to give a "hand up" to the poor by giving them a paycheck. In many cases this is a great thing, but some of the people they hire are more interested in getting a paycheck than in helping out. If you are told you must get 25 registrations per day to keep your job, then a few will always decide to take the cards home, look through the phone book and make up the names. This way they can keep their paycheck (without going through the hassle of the work). Eventually they are caught & fired...but the law requires that they submit their registrations regardless.
Now Sen. Obama did as an attorney represent ACORN in Illinois. What the right doesn't want you to know is that his co-council for this was the UNITED STATES JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. And his involvement with them afterwards has been as a guest speaker twice to the Chicago branch as a motivational speaker to a group of about 50. Now if the fact that he still spoke to them twice bothers you, keep in mind that in February 2006, John McCain was the keynote speaker at a major immigration rally in Florida sponsored by (drum roll please) ACORN. It is even more interesting to note that much of the speech was to praise the work of ACORN. Talk about flip-flops!
It is also interesting to note that while voter fraud registration is evident.....THERE HAVE BEEN NO CASES OF TRUE VOTE FRAUD! No trials, no convictions, not much of anything except cries of cheating ALWAYS timed just before the next election. And that brings me to my final observation. Does anyone really believe that if this was a true danger to Democracy, that Republicans would just drop it every year after the election is done? Wouldn't they spend the next two years making sure that they weren't cheated again?
This is nothing more than a distraction. Republicans have controlled the House & Senate for so long that they don't want you to look at issues. They don't want you to think about the economy or Iraq or any of the real problems facing America. They want you to believe that Democrats are stealing the election by registering fictional cartoon characters in a Disneyland vote drive. But until Mickey Mouse shows up at the polls to vote: ACORN's stealing the election is just an urban myth. Much ado about NOTHING!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)