Words not Meeting their Requirements

Admittedly, I was largely reticent to even begin writing about last night, 4-November’s events. While I could talk or write about it endlessly, I’ll try and keep my words to a minimum. I don’t think I have the time or concision to keep my thoughts on yesterday’s events well enough edited to keep my audience reading.

I’m sitting down today refreshed; refreshed, because my confidence in this country is still in tact. A friend and I emailed yesterday, and we were both nervous about the day’s events. Of course, we had hope, but the consequences of the contrary were too frightful to rest easily.

I digress. I was going to keep this somewhat concise; largely, because I didn’t think I could put together something worthy of our new direction.

First, as McCain had mentioned in his gracious concession speech, what an historic achievement for this country and our integrity for equal protection and equal rights, for all people. I watched young women and men in Spellman College, in Atlanta, dancing and tearful at their hopes and dreams finally coming to reality. In addition, to all of that, to see Oprah and Jesse Jackson in Grant Park, also with tears of joy and solace in their eyes, was simply majestic. Quite clearly, I cannot begin to imagine what the election of an African-American President must feel like to a race of people who have dealt with oppression, in some fashion, since our continent was settled; nevertheless, I have to imagine it was quite reconciling, a final triumph over Jim Crowe.

Secondly, as I was watching the shots from Spellman and Chicago’s Grant Park, I saw a camera shot of young white men and women, jumping around and dancing; also, as though they were in a frat house. I suppose that goes back to something I wrote about some time ago; quite simply, Obama is meta-racial—some refer to it as post-racial, but since I called it “meta-racial” I am sticking with it for consistency’s sake.

Of course, speaking to what a diverse group of young men and women were dancing about, all at the same time as a largely African-American group were dancing down in Atlanta, it was not only change in the face of the races of those that hold the White House. No, right now, our country has finally decided to overwhelmingly depart from the politics of this administration and the politics of the boomer generation’s “liberal vs. conservative.”

When Obama spoke last night, he gracefully mentioned those who will immaturely mock the efforts to progress this country, moving it back from these horrible eight years of Republican Rule. We have so much work to do, and it is going to be difficult; however, we are in the process of correcting things, only to make them better for us and our children. Even having to get up from a comfortable night of sleep this morning, I was comforted by the fact that I can now look at the outcome of this election with satisfaction about its outcome. It’s been time for too long now, and we can rejoice that someone intelligent and right headed is heading back to the White House.

A Wonderful Letter - Please Read

I Didn't Vote For Obama Today
November 4, 2008, 9:37AM

I have a confession to make.

I did not vote for Barack Obama today.

I've openly supported Obama since March. But I didn't vote for him today.

I wanted to vote for Ronald Woods. He was my algebra teacher at Clark Junior High in East St. Louis, IL. He died 15 years ago when his truck skidded head-first into a utility pole. He spent many a day teaching us many things besides the Pythagorean Theorem. He taught us about Medgar Evers, Ralph Abernathy, John Lewis and many other civil rights figures who get lost in the shadow cast by Martin Luther King, Jr.

But I didn't vote for Mr. Woods.

I wanted to vote for Willie Mae Cross.
She owned and operated Crossroads Preparatory Academy for almost 30 years, educating and empowering thousands of kids before her death in 2003. I was her first student. She gave me my first job, teaching chess and math concepts to kids in grades K-4 in her summer program. She was always there for advice, cheer and consolation. Ms. Cross, in her own way, taught me more about walking in faith than anyone else I ever knew.But I didn't vote for Ms. Cross.

I wanted to vote for Arthur Mells Jackson, Sr. and Jr. Jackson Senior was a Latin professor. He has a gifted school named for him in my hometown. Jackson Junior was the pre-eminent physician in my hometown for over 30 years. He has a heliport named for him at a hospital in my hometown. They were my great-grandfather and great-uncle, respectively.But I didn't vote for Prof. Jackson or Dr. Jackson.

I wanted to vote for A.B. Palmer. She was a leading civil rights figure in Shreveport, Louisiana, where my mother grew up and where I still have dozens of family members. She was a strong-willed woman who earned the grudging respect of the town's leaders because she never, ever backed down from anyone and always gave better than she got. She lived to the ripe old age of 99, and has a community center named for her in Shreveport.But I didn't vote for Mrs. Palmer.

I wanted to vote for these people, who did not live to see a day where a Black man would appear on their ballots on a crisp November morning.

In the end, though, I realized that I could not vote for them any more than I could vote for Obama himself.

So who did I vote for?

No one.

I didn't vote. Not for President, anyway.

Oh, I went to the voting booth. I signed, was given my stub, and was walked over to a voting machine. I cast votes for statewide races and a state referendum on water and sewer improvements.

I stood there, and I thought about all of these people, who influenced my life so greatly. But I didn't vote for who would be the 44th President of the United States.

When my ballot was complete, except for the top line, I finally decided who I was going to vote for - and then decided to let him vote for me. I reached down, picked him up, and told him to find Obama's name on the screen and touch it.

And so it came to pass that Alexander Reed, age 5, read the voting screen, found the right candidate, touched his name, and actually cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Oh, the vote will be recorded as mine. But I didn't cast it.

Then again, the person who actually pressed the Obama box and the red "vote" button was the person I was really voting for all along. It made the months of donating, phonebanking, canvassing, door hanger distributing, sign posting, blogging, arguing and persuading so much sweeter.

So, no, I didn't vote for Barack Obama.

I voted for a boy who now has every reason to believe he, too, can grow up to be anything he wants...even President.

Good News in the Morning

I woke up this morning, and was delighted to hear Colin Powell endorsing my candidate for President. Powell is a respected and intelligent man; moreover, he was betrayed by the current administration, which gives him all the more cause to fight for Obama’s campaign. Let’s be frank about something, John McCain, while he is angered at the allegation, does not represent a shift in policy from the current administration—probably the worst President in our history.

I digress. I was delighted to see one more component fall to Obama’s favor, and glad to see it was someone whose support could silence one of the many attempted criticisms of Obama. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see McCain and his surrogates clutching at straws, attempting to find something that works against Obama. It will be obnoxious and annoying, but it’s the cost of doing business.

Out of respect for John McCain, after he hopefully loses, I hope he returns to the Senate, and will end his campaign. McCain’s campaign and his erratic behavior in it have changed my opinion of the man and his faculties. It’s too bad, but he doesn’t care what I think, so it simply is what it is.

Joe the Plumber—What Happens When the Economy Falls out from under Him?

Senator McCain,

You performed better last night than you did in previous debates. Of course, our friend (the guy over here to the left), he can’t afford to provide his family healthcare, send his kids to college or to pay for his fleet of trucks’ gas. Why? How can he not? Let me give you the quick and dirty:

1) Your healthcare plan is horrible. No one in their right mind, when studying it, will give it the time of day. It’s poor. While you speak about competition and deregulation, in concert with a $5000 tax cut, which will nullify existing employer-based healthcare, you are forgetting one thing: healthcare needs regulation to protect the sick and poor huddled masses. If you weren’t in the Senate and didn’t have a job, because you’ve had skin cancer, you couldn’t go out to get your own private plan. Insurance companies are in a numbers game; therefore, they do not like folks who have reoccurring conditions—cancer-survivor? Living with lupus? Have multiple sclerosis? Sorry, tough luck. Your healthcare plan promotes exactly the opposite of health.

2) College under you, well you’re offering nothing different. Moreover, your economic policies show no substantive difference to that of the preceding President. If our buddy to the left can’t afford it now, he sure won’t tomorrow. Ergo, continuing on the downward spiral—strike two.

3) Gas? Drill baby drill? No – that won’t work either. As Senator Obama has stated on more than one occasion, we have 5% of the world’s resources and use 25%. Math and economics might not be your strong suit, but seriously, play that out over five-ten years. Yeah – that doesn’t work. Meanwhile, because of the continuation of Republican not “tax and spend” but “run-up-debt and spend,” our US Dollar is worth even less against the world currency market. In short, your planned continuation of this imbecile’s administration, well, it’s just not going to work.

In short, in case you haven’t figured it out, we’re stuck with a problem, and you’re not offering anything distinguishable. Watching you last night, you could have done something revolutionary. Right during your rant about not being George Bush, you could have laid out a point-by-point list of things that separate you from him. Oh yeah, that’s right, you didn’t.

Sincerely,

Matt

Graciousness and Allowing Things to Fold over on Their Own

I’ve been a bit out of the news cycle as of the past few days, but I was unsurprised by the outcome of Pain’s “Troopergate.” In addition, of course, I did see news footage showing McCain’s delusional claim, “We have him right where we want him,” to a group of supporters. It’s entertaining and sadly ironic how McCain, his team and the RNC are losing this campaign all on their own.

Like our current President, McCain and his team haven’t seemed to garner lessons history teaches us. Since their Convention bubble, burst by the economy’s misfortune, they’ve spent all of their time speaking negatively about Barrack Obama. Ironically, when Hillary’s campaign fell into its dregs, it did the same thing. I say “ironically,” because that was only five-six months ago the wheels fell off the Clinton’s bus, campaigning against Barrack Obama.

What is quite amazing, aside from the shear number of “Hope” stickers one sees around any given city, is that Obama and his campaign are legitimately campaigning through a means of “New Politics.” In Obama’s case, in spite of character assassination attempts by his opponents, he’s kept his cool. In all of these cases, the man has simply brushed this proverbial “shit” off his shoulder.

It delights me to see that Obama has simply stood back, allowing McCain to lampoon himself. Obama has played it quite clean, and has done little quid-pro-quo with the character assassination components. Outside the advertisement acknowledging McCain being one of the Keating Five, outside of speaking to it during speaking engagements, he has spent little time being bothered. It’s quite delightful to see a campaign and its surrogates allow their opponents to self-disintegrate.

Perhaps I am blinded by my bias? If I am missing something, please comment on this, because I am quite interested in anything Obama has done on par with the Ayers/Wright/Rezko nonsense, none of which are new, nor have the past relationships received “unethical” status from any bodies of Law.
For my Conservative friends and family, I cannot imagine the embarrassment you must have over Sarah Palin. I can now see why I heard her too easily dismissed back in June, during that VP-speculation period.

A Momentary Lapse of GOP-Backing Responses

While I’ll occasionally receive a forward about Obama being a suspect alien, I’ve not heard a thing of substance arguing against Obama in weeks. Have Obama supporters, like me, made so many good points that these friends now see the light? Is the campaign that far gone for those rooting on McCain? Have McCain and Palin done so horribly that those supporting them no longer have the strength or desire to continue doing so?

Sincerely, you know who you are. If you at one point were supporting McCain, why has the conversation ceased? I’m trying so hard to figure out why none of my GOP-backing friends are telling me about Obama’s middle name, how he is just too “Liberal,” or how McCain is so much the better American.

Is it the VP pick, in the face of what has turned out to be the worst economic crisis since our grandparents were children? If I were a McCain advocate, I would have lost my marbles on the Palin pick with the economy in its dire straights. McCain has Mitt Romney for all of his flaws, who was a successful businessman; moreover, he fits most of the Right’s plank positions. Why didn’t McCain pick Mitt Romney?

Let’s back that up a bit, perhaps Romney could have been McCain’s golden goose. Why not? For one, we know that McCain hated Romney, so much so that McCain couldn’t face him during their debates. Senator McCain, that sounds like a temperament issue. Okay, that to the side, even if that was not an issue, what else is there? Oh – I get I, Romney is a Mormon. In part, because of Mike Huckabee’s mid-primary efforts, Romney’s religion would have likely kept many in the South sitting on their couches on 4-November. At least that was the GOP establishment, ala Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, were probably saying—underground, at least.

For Senator McCain, we have a downward trending economy—we’ll call it that; although, it’s an understatement. In addition, we have an uninspired pick for Vice President, for which the following nicely sums up: http://www.salon.com/opinion/keillor/2008/10/08/palin/. Friends and countrymen, I know it must suck advocating on behalf of a party and candidate continuing George W. Bush’s incompetence right into the next campaign. I feel bad for you. I don’t think anyone will smugly laugh at you if you just concede that it’s about time for genuine change in Washington.

Feelings on Reproductive Rights - Either Way, the Verdict Is for Obama

I received the following from the Matthew 25 Network, and thought I would share. In spite of your opinion on Reproductive Rights - please read the following from Douglas W. Kmiec:

Can you be pro-life and support Senator Obama? The answer - upon even a moment's reflection - is "unequivocally yes."

Please visit our new online resource Pro-Life, Pro-Obama created for those in the Pro-Life community that may be considering support for Barack Obama for President.

Learn the facts to share with your friends, family and faith community members. I hope you will visit today at: ProLifeProObama.com

We are all called to build a culture of life - but there's more to it than just hoping that the next Supreme Court justice somehow deals with Roe v. Wade. A bad economy is threatening to human life. Women facing the moral tragedy of abortion - are facing it, now, today - and they need a supportive community and tangible help, not condemnation.

As Ronald Reagan's legal counsel and as a dean and professor at Catholic University and Notre Dame, I have worked to put the law on the side of life.

But after 35 years, a new approach is needed. Barack Obama's strengthening of support for prenatal care, health care, maternity leave, and adoption will make the difference. Studies confirm it.

We are but a few weeks away from a new beginning in America.


I am inspired by what Senator Obama calls "the promise of America -- the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation in the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper. That's the promise we need to keep."

That is the change we need right now. And it is within our grasp.

Thank you for visiting the site and we look forward to being in touch,

Douglas W. Kmiec
In Partnership with the Matthew 25 Network

Listen to our latest radio ad featuring Douglas Kmiec and his message of support for Senator Obama. Help us run this ad in key battleground states by making a donation today.
Douglas W. Kmiec holds the endowed chair in Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University. Prior to that, he was dean and St. Thomas More Professor of Law at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC. He also served as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is author of the new book, Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama.

* The views and statements expressed by Professor Kmiec are personal and are not intended to represent the views of Pepperdine University or any other institution.

Poll of Economists from the Economist

http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12342127

Smearing the Good Guys – How My Relationship with the Right Wing Has Forever Been Damaged

If you have email, and you go to the Internet, undoubtedly, you’ve received email forwards. Beyond that, undoubtedly, you’ve received something akin to: “I love John Adams, and the ghost of John Adams wrote something you can’t argue with. 5 Facts about Obama!

1. He’s a closet alien
2. His father, not from Kenya, is from Mars
3. Obama is one of the Decepticons
4. Obama has been known to say, “ more than meets the eye.”
5. Even though Obama calls Chicago home, he likes Hawaiian food!

The point is, the Right Wing, from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the latest and greatest smear-whisper Internet forwards, does nothing but play dirty.

Note: immediately, they will cite Democrats who were in trouble back in the 1980’s, with the House’s post office scandal. Duly noted; however, for ever line item of corruption the Democrats had twenty years ago, Jack Abramoff’s GOP has done just as bad, if not worse. Going beyond that, one doesn’t see too many forwards about Republicans. Why is that? My goodness, could it be that while the Right claims to have moral superiority, they use that to justify shady political tactics? Maybe I’m missing great examples from the other side of things; however, I’d love to hear about them. Because unlike forwards I get about Obama’s middle name being Hussein, etc…, I seldom receive anything short of the facts from Democrats. Whose side do people want to be on, those with honor and dignity or those who play dirty? I am not down with dirty politics; it simply leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The GOP—Taking Pride in Stupidity? Say It Ain’t So…

It seems quite obvious that there is something endearing to listening to one with whom we could see ourselves having dinner or grabbing a drink; however, it seems as though there could be a limit to this. I don’t expect this blog posting will be written before we hear out of the GOP the words “Joe6Pack” or “HockeyMom.” That’s unfortunate. For the sake of likeability, in the past eight years, the GOP has nominated tickets with the intellectually incurious.*

I recently saw an article, which stated that this began with Dan Quayle, but I think its roots are farther reaching than that. Let’s backup a minute. Right now, we can say that appealing to “Joe6Pack” or “HockeyMoms” is similar to trying to being a populist. “Populism,” for the GOP to continue down this road takes a great deal of chutzpah. This is quite something for a party that has provided for the largest and most disparate gap of wealth in recent history. One could reduce this to “what’s the matter with Kansas” thinking.

Ultimately, where this finds its roots is with the 1968 Republican Convention and its nomination, where Richard M. Nixon and Kevin Phillips successfully devised his “Sothern Strategy.” In a 1970 New York Times article, Phillips said:

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats” (Boyd, James (May 17, 1970). "Nixon's Southern strategy: 'It's All in the Charts'", The New York Times, pp. 215.)

This was the strategy of the GOP back in the 1970’s, and it’s what then worked well for them. Since, the Democrats have only been able to successfully elect two Presidents, both of whom were from the South.

I would argue, thus far, the Southern Democrats have been the exception, largely because aesthetically they relate best to those the GOP began to attract as its stronger base following the 1970’s Southern Strategy. The continuation of the Seventies’ Southern Strategy was the “Reagan Democrats” in the 1980’s. At that point, due to both the Soviet Union’s menace and a bad economy from Carter’s term, Reagan was able to successfully appeal to blue-collar union folks. Due to escalating the Cold War, Reagan made himself the only option come 1984, as we were then ruled by the politics of fear. Ironically, one could cite the same strategy in 2004—fascinating.

I digress—apologies. Right now, we’ve witnessed two Republican administrations in the past thirty years utilizing the remnants of the “Southern Strategy,” by utilizing populism with a twofold attack.
Quite simply, the Republican Attack can be reduced in two components: One, attack the opponent’s character, highlighting a perceived disconnection with values of the larger portion of the population; two, demonstrate and embellish fear of that opponent’s capabilities against enemies of the United States.

Over the past twenty years, they did this by appealing to the wedge issues around abortion, social welfare, marital infidelity, and the Middle East. When Democrats—Bill Clinton, won, they did so because the economy hits bottom following long Republican terms in office; moreover, there is a reduced air of insecurity, which allows voters to focus on the economy. In this case, following the Bush Administration’s atrocious eight years of office, we have the former, and the latter’s strategy has been massive enough to call that component into question as well.

Quite simply, with John McCain (security) and Sarah Palin (“value”-identification/photogenic), right now, are in front of us. As such, with Palin’s limits to values/photogenic appeal being transparent, in the face of her Bush-like incompetence, even the Reagan Republican Swing Voters know better. Of course, this is why McCain’s ticket’s numbers are as low as they are. Ergo, we are going to see a blitz of character assassination in the coming weeks, which will be the only thing their party’s horrible platform can conjure. It’s unfortunate that we have to suffer. Fortunately, it’s been so transparent leaving Bush and Cheney in office for this length of time.

I have one last favor to ask: please when receiving forwards about the candidates, go to http://www.snopes.com/. Even for McCain-Palin, please go to the website. It’s non-partisan. It simply exists to provide dimensions of truth to the Internet and forwards.







*One could take that even further, and mention Dan Quayle, but for the sake of brevity, I thought I’d keep it to this millennium.

Bill – Waiting until after the Jewish Holiday?

I guess this sums it up. If you comb back through the Matty blog, you can see my open letter during the primaries. I feel like much of what Clinton is bringing to the table right now is a bag of sour grapes… Maybe it’s just me….

The First Forward I've Received in a Long Time, which Makes Sense

Subject: I'm a little confused...
I'm a little confused. Let me see if I have this straight.....

• If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents and a single mother, you're "exotic, different."
• If you grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, a quintessential American story.
• If your name is Barack you're a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
• Name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, you're a maverick. *Graduate from Harvard law School and you are unstable. *Attend 5 different small colleges before finally graduating, you're well grounded. *If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer with a constituency of over 100,000 people, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
• If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.*If in those 4 in Washington you were able to author about half a dozen major laws (working with fellow Democrats and Republicans) and have 4 pass and signed, you don't have enough experienced.
• If you serve 22 in the Senate, authored less than half a dozen laws and have only one signed (the McCain Amendment prohibiting torture in the armed forces which he, himself no longer supports) you're qualified to run the country.
• If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian. *If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, then left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
• If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
• If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system, while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
• If your wife is a Harvard graduate laywer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If you're husband is nicknamed "First Dude", with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
  OK, much clearer now....
  

Why vote Barack Obama?
His work as a community organizer provided him with a profound understanding of what real people need from their president. At the Republican National Convention, in which the theme was service, Republicans mocked Obama's willingness to put his country first. Obama. See Obama's response to the disrespectful Republicans.
McCain is bad for our foreign policy! He may have experience, but is it backed by a thorough understanding? Both he and Governor Palin have chiseled out an image of them leading America with absolute confidence, and have said time and time again that they would not blink to push that red button, but confident as they are, would it be an educated decision? It's been duly noted that McCain lacks enthusiasm for the details that the other senators, Obama and Hilary Clinton included, are quick to pick up. Time and time again he has been profoundly mistaken on foreign policy decisions, most notably on his recent tour in the Middle East, mistaking Sunni and Shia, sects that fundamentally do not get along. And he doesn't do it just once, he does it five times!! He's a "warrior who is dumb about war.As the Chairman of the Subcommittee of US Foreign Relations on European Affairs and through his voting record in the Senate, Barack Obama has repeatedly been right on Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and supports our troupes, even after the war's ended, and he always has!
He wants to provide affordable healthcare and cut taxes for working Americans, taxing only those who make over $250,000. He would also eliminate taxes for seniors making under $55,000 per year.
McCain will overturn the historic Roe vs. Wade decision. In this respect, McCain exemplifies the contradiction that exists within the "sanctity of life" defense in which the majority of Republicans use in the same breath as "abortion," but according to Gallup, 80% of Republicans are also staunch advocates of the death penalty. There is quite a double standard. And how is wanting to protect the life of a mother not a reflection of the belief of every American - that life should be cherished and preserved?
As we all know, and are humbled by, John McCain was physically tortured for years during his service in Vietnam. We expect John McCain to hold a firm stance against such dehumanizing practices, however McCain has been swayed yet again to align with his party and now supports waterboarding. In fact, he seems to be changing his mind or confused on his stance for many other topics as well: click here to see. An exception being his stance on gay marriage. He's still against that.
Republicans like to note that Obama marks present when it comes time to vote, but what they don't tell you is how much more Obama gets done. The Library of Congress makes this information available at http://thomas.loc.gov/. Searching the list of bills/resolutions in the current congress (111th), Obama is listed as a sponsor or co-sponsor for 130, McCain is listed for 38. Search of the 110th congress came up with 660 bills/resolutions that Obama sponsored or co-sponsored, compared to McCain's 252. In the 109th congress Obama sponsored 579 bills/resolutions to McCain's 337. In the past three congressional sessions that adds up to 1,369 bills/resolutions sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama compared to McCain's 627 during the same period. Obama is over twice as productive in the Senate as McCain. Imagine what he could do as President!

Speaking of Liberal vs. Conservative…

What’s quite amazing is how the AM radio conservatives of the past thirty years have turned “Liberal” into a pejorative word. It’s impossible to hear a political discussion, and not hear the word “Liberal” used in a context meaning something unfortunate or negative. Those who’ve claimed a “Liberal Media Bias” are the same individuals who make “Liberal” so negative.

Let’s see what we can do to disassociate this word with terms so negative. I am sure Derrida or Wittgenstein would have something to say on this. I digress, these days, when I hear the word “Liberal,” this is what I think. The United States is a “Liberal Democracy.” Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson were all Liberals.

If the above four were Liberals and William F. Buckley is a conservative, I’ll take the former. Of course, this recent administration has been a betrayal of Buckley’s movement, which is to say that even those who argue on behalf of the Bush Administration, Cheney, Hannity, Limbaugh, McCain and Palin are opposing the political party’s legacy principled for which they singed up.

In short, being “conservative,” isn’t what it used to be, and I’d rather be fiscally conservative with our treasury, which means I’ll probably be voting the other direction than the GOP this year. My goodness…

Drilling, Drilling, Drilling

What is it that makes me laugh? It’s every time I enter a political discussion about why Obama over McCain, those advocating the Republican Party bring up drilling. Drilling is the attempt of the Republican Party to command a wedge issue with the Democrats, those who opposed ANWAR. Drilling is the reason the GOP puts Sarah Palin up on stage, and justifies her being on the ticket. This last Saturday, at my running club, a guy with whom I am a friend mentioned, “if they would have done what Gingrich proposed back in ____, we wouldn’t be in this mess.”

Let’s back up for a minute and discuss simple economics. There are two things that affect price, supply and demand. In this case, Supply is the argument for more drilling. The theory being that if there was more oil in the market, it would be worth less per barrel. Okay, in a vacuum, that would be true – ceteris paribus. Of course, what we aren’t in is a vacuum.

What every advocate for drilling fails to mention, when they speak to greater expansion of drilling, is that there has never been such a strong demand for petroleum. China and India, these two little countries in Asia, with a good 35-40% of the Earth’s population, now have middle classes. These two countries’ middle classes now are purchasing cars and driving them. Of course, with their currencies on the incline, and their “demand” for petroleum increased, that throws the market into flux.

As it stands, we have limited petroleum in the United States. Even with further drilling, off shore, right off the beach in California and Florida, or up in ANWAR, our addition to the World Crude Supply would be nominal; therefore, it would do very little to drop the price in petroleum.

Let’s take it from the “Liberal” side of the fence, and talk about conservation of the resource. What if we all used less gas, well, that would help our pocket books, but it would do little to change the price of gas:
“Oil consumption, for example, has been falling in rich countries for over two years. Goldman Sachs expects them to use 500,000 fewer barrels a day (b/d) this year than last. But it reckons that decline will be more than offset by an increase of 1.3m b/d in emerging markets. It predicts China’s demand for oil will grow by 5%.” (Endurance test, Economist, August 21st, 2008)

Folks, no matter how much we drill in addition to that which we do not already drill—in the areas oil companies already can drill, we are not going to cut the price of oil for you and me at the pump. Gas is going to stay expensive, and the Republicans are going to continue to talk about more drilling. Of course, stock holders of Exxon Mobile, et al, gain more value, as do the executives’ salaries increase, when we increase drilling, it has little effect on our price at the pump, while reducing our environmental safety – to drilling I say, “Supply and Demand – it is demand affecting price, not a lack of supply.”

“Attacking” Sarah Palin’s Daughter

I received a text today from a dear friend, one supporting McCain. This friend is a great person, and a very astute individual. As we support opposite sides of this race, we’ve been known to taunt one another via both email and text messages. Today, I received a text from him, giving me grief for stooping low to “attack” Palin’s teenage daughter.

Not knowing whether the text was predicated off of what I shot to him yesterday via text or yesterday’s blog, I wanted to clarify something. In the event I didn’t state this clearly in my blog yesterday, my issue is not with an impregnated teen, or giving her grief. It’s that she comes from a family with a mother espousing a reduction in sex education in favor of abstinence education.

Governor Palin is an advocate of abstinence education, which is something I find too naïve and unrealistic to supplant informative sex education. It’s unrealistic and naïve, and in Palin’s advocacy of it; seemingly, she must have diluted herself into believing that her kids weren’t engaged in sexual activity. That’s just it, isn’t it?

The religious-right have always diluted their policy positions predicated on the instruction of values, which will keep teens from having sex or getting into drugs. Of course, for adults these same values mean full and gainful employment, passing these things on to children, and abstinence from substance abuse and anti-social behavior. Moreover, these values are also predicated on a divorce-free family, a stay-at-home mother and an SUV in the garage. Okay, perhaps the SUV is taking it a bit far, but is it?

The religious right’s promulgating this idea of their “values” saving civilization from itself are all well and good, so long as they do not preach hate or discrimination against those who perhaps have “alternative” lifestyles. Of course, we know better than this, right?

I just cannot yet square how and why we should take these folks seriously. Their policies do not work for them, in their own families, nor have they proven them elsewhere. For this daughter of Sarah Palin’s, a teen, she has the benefit of a mother who is the governor of her state. What about all of the underprivileged teenage women without good sex education or family support? What about these young women? They are told by the Right to have their children, and put them up for adoption, if they cannot afford to tend to them.
Of course, in the meantime, they might not have the health insurance to provide them healthy and good obstetrics. Beyond that, if they choose to keep their child, they would then need to support them, but receive grief from our society for needing assistance (not from the government, per se, but from those that lambaste “welfare moms). Lastly, when the kid is being brought up underprivileged, she or he is more prone to anti-social behavior, and on and on.

The point is simple, because not every teen mother has the benefit of having a family with her parents together, and a boyfriend marrying her, they should not all be subjected to education that clearly does not equip them with the tools to avoid unwanted pregnancy. So I am clear, it’s not to the detriment of this young woman being pregnant. It’s to the stupid naivety of her mother and her mother’s party. To make a simple cliché, they should practice what they preach, and for her daughter, while she might not agree with her mother, clearly she wasn’t in a household where she felt comfortable asking for a prescription for birth control—same story. Maybe Sarah Palin can learn from her daughter, and provide her other children with birth control, rather than leaving them without, rushing into shotgun weddings (as Palin is a big NRA member, maybe it’s a 7mm wedding…)

Keeping Families "Off Limits"

I respect Obama for stating that the campaigns should keep one another’s families off limits—they should. I note that, having watched Karl Rove state on Fox that Obama was going after Cindy McCain, when he made fun of McCain not knowing how many homes they owned. Hey Karl, Cindy’s name wasn’t mentioned once, and to infer from Obama, acknowledging McCain not knowing how many homes he owned, an attack on Cindy, that’s what we call a non sequitur.

Okay, sorry for going a bit tangential. Here’s the gist of where I am going. Governor Palin, being an advocate of Religious-Right "birth control through abstinence," watches her argument crumble with a child having a child while still in high school out of wedlock. Right now, Palin cannot stand on a stage, in an auditorium, in Congress, or in a high school gymnasium speaking about waiting until marriage or until one has graduated from high school.

Governor Palin as VP and McCain as a President would be an administration against sex education, speaking in favor of abstinence education. As a student, in both Jr High and High School, I never sat through a safe sex discussion without someone mentioning abstinence being the only 100% effective prevention of pregnancy and STD’s. With that, a proper education on various means of birth and disease control, following a statement on abstinence, should be the standard with which sex education is provided. To preach abstinence education supplanting comprehensive sex education, for Governor Palin, would now be hypocritical.

That’s the point – while I think we should keep the families off limits, Bristol Palin is proof that her mother’s platform is ineffective and unrealistic. In my opinion, while Obama and Biden should take the high ground, the public should be mindful of what that approach to birth control provides, in a wealthy and successful family. Let us not forget that Bristol Palin is by no means an underprivileged young woman in a rural setting or the inner-city, with less of a chance to successfully raise her child. In my humble opinion, this is quite relevant, and calls into question the GOP’s platform on health education and birth control.

Confusion: Is It That McCain Is Too Old?

Waking up this morning, with Morning Joe on the TV, as I prepared my oatmeal, I heard nothing but conjecture about Obama’s campaign, and the angle they are taking with McCain. A few days ago, on the Today Show, to Matt Lauer, McCain said,

“not too important” when American forces could come home from Iraq and that, “What’s important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea;
Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine.”

To McCain’s credit, he is analyzing Iraq with a naïve sense of pragmatism, which would be fine were it somewhere in Africa or Asia, but history has shown the contrary; hence, my use of “naïve.”

Due to McCain’s age, I don’t suspect many in the press will use the adjective “naïve” in referring to his comments on Iraq, not in analysis. Rather, we have Obama’s campaign surrogates or John Kerry using the word “confused.” Quite simply, that word is somewhat fitting, in the same way one calls someone’s child “confused,” when they are espousing naïve claims.

All of this is perfectly understandable. Right now, for Obama’s campaign to use the word “naïve” would open the door to Obama’s relatively short tenure in national politics. Rather than using “naïve” or “confused,” in my humble opinion, they should switch to “strategically flawed,” for the same line of attack. By all means, they are working to do that, but McCain’s comments are so absurd, it’s hard not to speak to quick pejoratives, as that is what comments like this deserver.

I look most forward to a live debate on the subject. I would love to hear Obama utter the words, “Senator McCain, you are wrong. Let’s step back and game this. Right now, we have 100,000+ troops in this country, one we invaded on a cause, which was later demonstrated to be false. There is a region that has theological and culture division from us, whose activists and terrorists are using the above premise, the invasion, to justify terrorism and anti-Americanism. In the meantime, we have not caught or killed Bin Laden. What strategic benefits to maintaining an occupation in Iraq do we have?”

The quick and dirty of it is that while McCain’s age is something to avoid outwardly discussing, his ideas and beliefs in foreign policy are antiquated. McCain is still thinking in terms of “us versus them,” which would be fine; however, “them” is something much more amorphous than it was when it was the USSR. In short, we are fighting a culture, one which uses our “fight” as justification for further violence. While I am not saying we stop being violent towards those trying to kill us, I am suggesting, we work differently than treating our current enemies as Nation-States. This isn’t the Cold War, nor do we have a draft.

Realizations

I realize that this has been all over the media, and if you read this ever you are probably expecting me to make comments akin to those of Tim Russert or Tom Brokaw last night. Obama’s completion of the primacy season with the presumption of his nomination, as a candidate for President of the United States, will be viewed as among the most historically significant occurrences to have taken place during our lifetimes.

Again, if you’ve watched the news in the last twenty-four hours, you may have already heard this realization. Whether you are for or against Obama, you think he is too Liberal, or you feel his position on the War in Iraq is wrong, this is a milestone for Western Civilization.

Barrack Obama is the first person of color to be in the running for the top job in a Western Democracy. We have progressed beyond the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, all of our peers, in this respect! In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been a fan of Obama’s for quite a while, as I am sure if you are reading this you know. Nevertheless, this is something about which I cannot help to write with excitement.

What is quite lovely about all of this is, in addition to the aforementioned statements or race, his positions are not those of the lunatic fringe. No, rather they are those of most Americans alive and voting.

In spite of what will be sold by McCain’s campaign, he is averse to affordable guaranteed healthcare for our citizens.[1] For the war in Iraq, I will not espouse McCain wants us to remain in Iraq for another hundred years; however, he has given no indication towards a clear exit strategy. On the economy and petroleum, in both cases, the two respective issues are intermingled. In fact, Iraq, Petroleum and the Economy are all, in multiple dimensions, connected to on another. McCain’s policies are a continuation of what is not working.

In essence, assuming Obama’s campaign is run correctly, the choice between the continuation of the worst presidency in our history and Obama make the choice seem rather easy. At this point, the question goes to running mates. I sincerely hope that Obama avoids nominating Hillary Clinton. While it could be a path of least resistance, there are others equally qualified and great for that which Obama could use. From my perspective, Joe Biden, Richard Lugar, or Christopher Dodd, they are all top tier candidates. While there is no gender diversity with that, I cannot see Obama being a candidate for change with Hillary that close to the presidency, with Bill that plugged into it as well.

[1] With friends who have survived cancer, the idea that for-profit companies could prevent them from being insured as private citizens repels me from the argument that government guaranteed healthcare is a step towards socialism or “big government.” If that were the case, our allies Canada, the UK, France, Norway, or Germany would all be socialists. In none of those cases is that true.

Vanity

I once dated a woman, and she wrote professionally. That point is not an important one, except that she was not especially good at writing. The reason I even bring it up, is that she once used the definition of “Perfection,” to start out an article about something. Yeah, agreed, it was something along the lines of eight-grade lit class, or something. I only bring it up, in that I wanted to define "vanity." With Hillary’s continued pursuit of the Democratic Nomination, one cannot help but note that her continuation of this, thinking she is the “best candidate,” is predicated largely on amour propre.

As that was the case, the vanity required to continue fighting what in one’s mind is a battle they must fight, requires a great deal of self-diluting vanity. I assume it’s the same sort of vanity that Presidents Bush and Cheney enwrap themselves about the war in Iraq. One makes a decision, and executes on that decision, with all their might. In so doing, they are fraught with self-belief so much so, they are now past a mental point-of-no-return.

For Hillary, one cannot think anything beyond that she is, right now, telling herself that, “I am the best person for this country. Things will change, and all of a sudden there will be a demand for me to be the nominee.” It doesn’t help that someone as self-indulgent, Bill Clinton, is her partner in this. The two of them feed off one another, both in the past, to the present, which is why neither of them have the wherewithal to resign from the campaign.

Certainly, it is their right to continue on this Bataan Death March, and if they do, that will be fine; however, they must know, the Clinton legacy is suffering terribly. It is quite transparent the self-indulgence and calculation, the more they are present (note: Hillary’s interview yesterday with USA Today—referencing her strength with “white” “hard-working people”). Undoubtedly, this is the way the Clinton’s speak amongst themselves, but the more fatigued and longer they are in the public face, the more transparent that will be to others. It’s not becoming, nor does it help the DNC, which is, in turn, why the Clinton Legacy will suffer in our recent memories following this election. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is. Alas, we will have quite the President out of this race in 2008.

A Prominent Conservative Endorses Obama

Endorsing Obama
Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen. I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

As a Republican, I strongly wish to preserve traditional marriage not as a suspicion or denigration of my homosexual friends, but as recognition of the significance of the procreative family as a building block of society. As a Republican, and as a Catholic, I believe life begins at conception, and it is important for every life to be given sustenance and encouragement. As a Republican, I strongly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States must be fully dedicated to the rule of law, and to the employ of a consistent method of interpretation that keeps the Court within its limited judicial role. As a Republican, I believe problems are best resolved closest to their source and that we should never arrogate to a higher level of government that which can be more effectively and efficiently resolved below. As a Republican, and the constitutional lawyer, I believe religious freedom does not mean religious separation or mindless exclusion from the public square.

In various ways, Senator Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view, and as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen.

9/11 and the radical Islamic ideology that it represents is a continuing threat to our safety and the next president must have the honesty to recognize that it, as author Paul Berman has written, "draws on totalitarian inspirations from 20th-century Europe and with its double roots, religious and modern, perversely intertwined. . . .wields a lot more power, intellectually speaking, then naïve observers might suppose." Senator Obama needs to address this extremist movement with the same clarity and honesty with which he has addressed the topic of race in America. Effective criticism of the incumbent for diverting us from this task is a good start, but it is incomplete without a forthright outline of a commitment to undertake, with international partners, the formation of a world-wide entity that will track, detain, prosecute, convict, punish, and thereby, stem radical Islam's threat to civil order. I await Senator Obama's more extended thinking upon this vital subject, as he accepts the nomination of his party and engages Senator McCain in the general campaign discussion to come.

Published Sunday, March 23, 2008 9:18 AM by Doug Kmiec

About Doug Kmiec
Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.