Take Care ol' Buddy

Off the top of my head, I probably disagree with every one of his policies. At times, especially concerning the Iraq war, I found him to be pigheaded and hawkish, a bit of a naive cowboy I guess. I thought his positions were favorable to the wealthy upper crust and terrible for Middle America, where most live; yet I must admit it, there’s somethin bout that good-ol-boy I’ll really miss.

There’s an extremely easy and likable earthiness about George W. Bush. Maybe he’s a tad too earthy for my taste regarding the Presidency; but while I wouldn’t vote for any of my close buddies either, obviously I enjoy their company. And I sort of enjoyed George W.’s as well. Additionally, something tells me that the nation will endure withdraw from comic relief in the next four years, of that I’m certain. There's a simple quality about the man that our politics could use more of.

Who can deny it; when George W. Bush spoke on the behalf of doctors, specifically those in the field of gynecology it was a rare moment of down home uproariousness: “Too many good docs are going out of business; too many OBGYNs aren’t able to…share their love with women all across this country” There’s simply something very agreeable about Gorge W.’s unbending candor and undaunted nerve in how he speaks to folks. With the voice and rhetoric of a true commoner his linguistic fumbling inspires one to feel as if they really know him – and regardless of my utter disapproval of his job performance – it’s hard to dislike the guy.

Unlike the animosity one might feel at the mere sight of Vice President Dick Cheney’s smugly bent grimace, George W.’s confused innocence inspires a certain congenial compassion for him. He’s the kind of guy you’d like have over during the holidays to liven up the same old mundane gathering as last year, like the colorful uncle who slips the kids chocolate before dinner, or who randomly tells some female family member her “ass got a little bigger since last Christmas” because it did! In his own right, he reflects some liberating American principals, something rarely exhibited by our elected officials and almost never seen in the high seat of the Oval Office – that is, a carefree and youthful attitude, which seems to say, you can be yourself in America – and that it’s possible to be selected for the paramount task of having your finger on that all important launch button – without ever correctly pronouncing what kind of missile it operates. Ain’t America great.

Too bad W. couldn’t be designated as the lifelong, honorary, White House Dinner Guest for all major events, especially when foreign leaders are in town. Shucks, come to think about it, it’s kinda sad, picture’n him mosey’n down the road on his way out’a town for good. But may we take comfort in the true spoken words of a regular everyday type of fella, who with the utmost sincerity and gravity stated, “I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully.” Oh well, take care ol' buddy. We’ll miss ya… sort’a.

The Year of the Underdogs

Who could have seen it coming? In 2008 the N.Y. Giants won the Super bowl, the Phillies won The World Series – and Barack Hussein Obama, a lanky African American kid from Hawaii will be the 45th President of the United States – it just goes to show, in America, anything is possible.

Regardless of which candidate folks cheered for to win the White House, after the historic presidential election of 2008, every American can proudly claim victory. For our guiding principle, a creed laid down by great visionaries in their unlikely experiment in Democracy holds true; that in fact we do “hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” Although there are times when we might question our adherence to our Founder’s vision – this is not one of those times. And if we have in the past fret over the condition of our Democratic process, the reports are in – our Democracy is alive and well.

All across America, enduring the elements in long lines that wrapped around street corners, waiting eight hours in some places, folks came out to cast their vote like never before in American history. Voters young and old from all backgrounds convened at polling sites, sometimes as early 6:00 in the morning. Some had newspapers and packed lunches by their side. While some pushed strollers, others pushed elderly grandparents or the handicapped. I never witnessed such a voting frenzy to such a degree in America, though I longed to, especially after an enlightening trip two summers ago to Sierra Leone when I volunteered as an international observer of that poor country’s first crack at Democracy. These people were real underdogs – you could usually see it in their somber faces – but not on Election Day.


It was a wonderful spectacle. Watching a country vote for the first time made me appreciate our form of government; and I’ll never forget how outspokenly proud they were to be following the American model of democracy. They were empowered and they looked at us with wordless expressions, like a boy in little league does when he proudly glances at his father in the stands looking for approval after a good play. After a long civil war ripped through their small country on the African shore leaving it battered and before that, living under tyrannical, power hungry tribal rulers, it was the first time the citizen’s voices would be heard.

The sight was sad and astonishing. Lining muddy clay streets that flowed with rusty water from the rain on that humid morning, every fifth voter waiting in those endless lines seemed to be missing at least one appendage from the massacre that took place not long ago. You passed them hobbling in the street all the time. Propping the poor souls up, as they stood in the voting lines, makeshift canes were fashioned from branches or scraps of wood from one of the flattened buildings. Many structures were like that. One questioned the stability of the taller structures that still stood; ripped by shrapnel a few missed entire sections where piles of rubble lay in front. In the heart of Freetown where the streets were paved there was sporadic craters from mortar-fire, creating impossible potholes that slowed careening cabs. A sickening, synthetic-smokiness lingered as the remnants of war filled certain sections of the city, like burnt plastic. But voters stood ecstatic in the middle of it, in chaotic lines that seemed to have no beginning or end of which you couldn’t tell where one began and another ended. After they voted they proudly displayed their purple, ink-stained index finger as evidence of their task completed to the others waiting, who shook their heads in happy affirmation of a hard-fought victory. The place bustled excitedly; it seemed they had total disregard for their hellish surroundings, as if they couldn’t even see or smell it. They came to vote. Where the long lines bottlenecked, I saw two young men hoisting a hefty elderly woman over a porch wall so she could get to the polls. One by one, they helped those that were too weak to fight through the conventional way. Noticing our credentials draped from our necks, nearly every one of them joyfully repeated their honored motto, “Free and Fair – Free and Fair Elections.” Understandably skeptical of their government, they seemed assured by our presents.

Although there were observers from around the world the natives specifically questioned our group from the States about our voting process. They were eager to get it right and seemed to look up to us as the stewards of democracy and freedom. Small friendly groups surrounded us in the streets just to make conversation, as if something about America would rub off on them. This was their endeavor in Democracy. The startling thing was – election observers from other countries stood with them and participated in asking us about our experience. I was proud, humbled and slightly ashamed. Unlike them, I knew Americans lack that degree of gravity concerning our democratic process. These people took nothing for granted. I felt like a spoiled kid. It took two years until our election in 2008 for that remorse to completely subside, replaced by a sense of worthiness. The government “of the people,” of which “all men are created equal” – America, has lived up to its name.

Who are the ‘Real American’ Americans?

During a Chris Matthews’ interview[1] on MSNBC, when Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minnesota) called for the media to do a “penetrating expose” revealing any "anti-American members of Congress," it sent levelheaded Republicans running in the other direction. Following Bachmann’s Macaca moment, the G.OP. pulled support from her 2008 reelection campaign. Though during this election cycle, suggesting certain Democrats are anti-American is becoming more common. While campaigning for his brother, Joe McCain called Democratic-leaning areas of Northern Virginia "communist country." Similarly, while on the stump, Sarah Palin has repeatedly referred to “real America” implying that some areas of the country are less than patriotic. But what’s the basis for such despicable attacks and exactly who are these anti-American Americans?

The common example cited by the real Americans above is Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former preacher whom has been known to provocatively speak-out against American policies both past and present. He objected to the use of torture by our military, our past treatment of Native Americans, the black community and Asian Americans (and to be fair, a few silly falsehoods as well). While I wouldn’t adopt his overly aggressive demeanor to express it, I happen to agree with the Reverend on his more valid objections.

I’m not alone. Speaking of the same concentration camps that Wright spoke of, which corralled roughly one-hundred-thousand Asian American citizens post WWII, Ronald Regan proclaimed, “those camps were motivated by race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” Is Ronald Regan anti-American? By Bachmann’s standards he is – although, these recent attacks hopefully aren’t really meant to rally a pro-American lynch mob and embark on a witch-hunt for so-called America haters. It’s more likely that while their party has run out of political ammo, a select few G.O.P. members are exhibiting pure desperation by resorting to the theater of the absurd.

This squawking from the extreme right seems like a political Hail Mary, and whether or not they actually believe their own quasi-patriotic psychobabble, this notion of smoking-out anti Americans in itself, is something we would expect from a more fascist country – not “the land of the free”! The viscous divisiveness of this rhetoric aside, such talk rails against a fundamental American principle, as set by our forefathers such as Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive!” and Abraham Lincoln, who affirmed, "To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” Are these men promoting anti-Americanism or are they prompting us to exercise our rights when we detect our Country has fallen short of her trumpeted ideals?

Granted, Lincoln wouldn’t say, “God damn American,” but the basic idea behind unrest with one’s government is parallel to his statement. Would Rep. Bachmann, Palin or Joe McCain classify our forefather's voices as anti-American? I doubt it (unless they have hopes of being hauled off the public stage, and wrapped in red, white and blue colored straight jackets as permanent residents of the United State Hospital for the politically insane!).

My point is that these ridiculous charges not only stand in stark opposition to a very American principle, but they dangerously flirt on fringe of fascism. Now I don’t think these folks are fascists (not consciously anyway); but by scorning any opposition to U.S. policy, they sponsor an extreme hawkish nationalism, which do expresses some sickening elements of it.

Ideologically speaking, as communism is the opposite of capitalism in economics, fascism is contradictory to our governmental system of free democracy. Furthermore, the right to oppose one’s government as detailed by our First Amendment is an important safeguard, primarily cemented in place, ensuring that all citizens shall forever have the means of notifying their leaders when they disagree with them. When dissenters are bludgeoned into silence for fear of being deemed anti-American and shunned like would-be terrorists – the means to learn from our missteps or change course will be forfeited and the voice of the people snuffed-out. Any silencing of the people cannot espouse the democratic concept of a Government “of” “for” and “by” the people. Thus, contrary to incendiary voices like Congresswoman Bachmann’s, if there is such a thing as “real Americans,” as put by Abraham Lincoln, they are not the cowards who, refusing to dissent, swallow whatever they are fed – they’re the voices who bravely “keep alive” Jefferson’s “spirit of resistance to government” and refuse to gulp down what they don’t agree with. In that spirit, without the likes of brave women suffragists, jailed and force-fed refusing to eat, dissenters who risked their well-being by demonstrating for what they believe – what of our blessed America would we be so proud of?

Dangerously Articulate!

Being cursed with a natural aptitude for communication, Barack Obama just can’t seem to catch a break. To make matters worse, he is also physically attractive, a good listener, young, charismatic as well as masterful in mentally navigating complex issues. These are all great qualities to have it seems – unless of course you are running for the Presidency of the United States, in which case they will only be a hindrance and you’ll be mocked relentlessly and charged with, if I dare say it – being smart!

Many radio heads and weekend political pundits regularly rail on Obama for having what some see as good communication skills. And folks who write or speak of Obama’s mental fortitude are attacked even worse, everything short of having their houses firebombed! Just recently, a classmate of mine, a well-spoken and intelligent person herself, commented on an article written about Obama, “I just can’t stand that tone; it implies he’s so much smarter than everyone, like he’s better or above them. So what if he’s smart or a good listener. Everyone who likes Obama talks like that about him – It just, makes me CRAZY!” Some have also said he’s TOO clever, that there’s something about him eerily untrustworthy. Once on the radio, I heard a guy actually ask what the talk show host knew about Bible verses that prophesied the coming of the Antichrist. In a suspicious tone he asked, “Isn’t the Antichrist supposed to be very convincing and attractive?” Is this what American politics has become?


More reasonable charges against Obama from earthlings, merely carry the nauseated tone of my female classmate, sickened by the very thought that perhaps a leader might be smarter than the average voter (the nerve of these elites to even run!). Are we that insecure that we are reluctant to award anyone who seems to outshine our own facilities? With everything the next President will face, why wouldn’t we want him or her to be a great communicator, an intent listener, articulate and intelligent? Do you want Joe six-pack or Joe the plumber negotiating peace or arms deals with other nations; should the criteria for choosing the future steward of our failing economy include a genuine folksiness or the look of a promising beer-buddy? I don’t know about anyone else, but most of the beers I’ve had in my life were with people that if they ever became President, would inspire me to become CANADIAN! Perhaps tilting a few back with someone intelligent, who has a wide range of knowledge wouldn’t be so bad. That is, if he’s not the Antichrist – or even worse – articulate!

Pit Bulls and Pigs and Lipstick – Oh My!

Recently on the campaign trail, Sarah Palin quipped that the only difference between a hockey-mom and a Pit Bull is the "lipstick". So when Barack Obama made the comment, “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig…” it left pundits disputing if the shot was aimed at Palin.

Some believe that because John McCain (most likely) never wore lipstick, it's logical to say Obama’s cosmetically charged remark was meant to belittle Palin's hockey-mom status. The McCain campaign responded by calling his comments “sexist” and demanding an apology. Some women would certainly be offended by Obama’s mixing of “lipstick” and “pig”, especially considering the rumors circulating on the Internet that falsely accused Sarah Palin of having an extramarital affair with her husband’s past business partner, while serving as Mayor of Wasilla AK. With all those facts in from of us, we might be led to beleive, "The lipstick comment was clearly a reference to Govoner Palin" – that is, at least when the argument was presented by Nancy Pfotenhauer, a McCain Spokesperson, on MSNBC yesterday.

Though taken in context, Obama's statement proves to be much less controversial or even slightly sexist. For he never mentions Palin. His illustration was meant to describe the policies of John McCain, highlighting the maverick's audacity to call his plans "change". But when inflammatory words are mixed with charges of sexism, the result is much more palatable to the hungry media. The facts of the story are a bit blander. Speaking to an excited crowd in Lebanon, Virginia, Barack Obama fired at McCain:

[John McCain says he’s about change too…Watch out George Bush, except for economic policy, health care policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove style politics, we’re really going to shake things up in Washington…You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change; it’s still going to stink after eight years. ]

Notice, Obama names his target “John McCain says…” He then refers to McCain’s “economic policy, health care policy…” and so on. Then why would one think this is aimed at Sarah Palin, simply because of the term “lipstick”? That’s a limp assumption at best; yet what's worse than a total lapse in simple logic, is to knowingly pluck two words out of a phrase, while disregarding the others, in order to make a connection that completely distorts the real meaning. The McCain camp would rather Barack Obama attack Sarah Palin, then point out the failed policies of John McCain.

Speaking of those policies gets to the heart of a much larger issue that‘s directly connected to the reasons why the McCain Campaign was so eager to level “sexism” charges against him - the possibility of "sexism" in politics eclipses Obama's point - that is, if you remove the appealing wrapping paper labeled "change" you'll find nothing but a rotting fish carcass!

In response, the Republican strategy is twofold. John McCain gains ground in the polls while on the attack because it drags Obama down, while shifting the focus from McCain's major policy positions. Sometimes the best defense is a relentless offense. McCain's trumped-up charges of “sexism” are simply the latest round of diversionary attacks. Before that it was that Obama was "a celebrity not ready to lead" and "just to liberal". When all the national headlines are splattered with witty references to cosmetically endowed swine there’s no room for analyzing the differences in economic policies, positions on mortgage foreclosures or rising unemployment numbers, kitchen-table-issues that are the main concerns of middle-class voters, the largest voting block.

Middle America is hurting. And put simply, Barack Obama’s policies are centered on helping that mass of people, more so than the positions of John McCain. Of course, some can argue that observation, but the facts cannot be clearer (Forbes.com): Obama’s tax-cuts for middle-income families, verses cuts for corporations and the wealthy, Obama's tax-cuts for companies that hire American workers here at home, verses open access to tax-free trade and unrestricted outsourcing, which as we can see, has resulted in depressing unemployment numbers and less American manufacturing. So it's apparent that the McCain Campaign is simply stoking the fire to fill the airwaves and create a political smokescreen.

Either that’s the case, or they truly believe when Obama said “lipstick” he really meant that that ol’ pit-bull Sarah Palin is a pig! Something tells me these folks are a little smarter than that. Plus, a stir-up that implies Barack Obama is slinging “sexist” remarks, couldn't’t hurt in getting McCain the outraged female vote. Although, I’m pretty sure that most women will see the Republican’s empty accusations for what they are, simply, lip service.

<

Barack Obama gives historic speech to an audience of 84,000, at Mile High Stadium, on August 28, 2008 (full speech)

Exactly forty-years ago, less than a month before his assassination, Bobby Kennedy had a premonition of sorts: "There's no doubt about it. In forty-years a Negro could achieve the same position my brother has." (Washington Post, May 27, 1968). Tim Russert recaps the quote on Meet the Press.

Whether one supports Barack Obama or not, it's well worth the time to watch this groundbreaking event. It is a powerful, unifying address. It signifies the passing of a once far-off mile-marker by America, on her ideological journey to toward equality. Forty-years ago in 1968, the day before he was assassinated, Martin Luther King Jr gave, his last speech , in which he declared:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop...

Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!

There's a certain irony that Obama's victory speech was at Mile High Stadium (I picture MLK is smiling). MLK is not speaking of any one group when he says "we, as a people". On this night when the first African American accepts the Democratic nomination for the highest office in the world, it is not merely his victory or Dr. King's; it's not only the much-deserved victory of African Americans in their trudging haul through history - It's OUR victory in realizing one of our most fundamental ideals "that all men are created equal". We should celebrate our generation's place in history. And proudly passing that torch, the beacon of equality on to the next generation, we will know that we have been worthy stewards.

Sarah Who?

John McCain may have taken all the news from him the day after Obama made his groundbreaking acceptance speech. But in choosing Sarah Palin, the two-year Governor from Alaska - did McCain hand the Oval Office over to Barrack Obama in the process? Along with many others, I think so.

What were they thinking! The McCain campaign seemed to be swirling in a desperate frenzy after Obama delivered a powerful message laced with both promise and particulars. Did McCain shoot from the hip, in hopes to overshadow the change candidate by trying to outdo him; or is this a simple ploy to wrest the supporters of Hillary Clinton - or both?

Palin has been the Governor of Alaska for a year-and a-half and lacks any foreign policy experience whatsoever. Before that she was the Mayor of a small village, literally! No offense to any moms, but is Sarah Palin, the self labeled "hockey mom" ready on day one if she needs to assume the position as leader of the free world! And with that resounding NO in mind, did John McCain make his choice based on the best interests of America or on his very own self interests? In other words, would he rather win an election than make certain his V.P is capable of protecting American citizens from all sorts of catastrophes if she has to assume the seat?

I think we know that answer.

Assuming that Hillary supporters will flock to vote for his new ticket, isn't McCain implying that women are easily swayed and simple-minded, to presume that they will vote for any woman candidate, regardless of what she stands for and even if she lacks the knowledge on so many issues, as far as we know. (For she refuses to talk to the media and show us otherwise. I found her one interview with ABC showed a real unfamiliarity with the issues on her part ).