The inevitable Democratic presidential nominee Senator Hillary Clinton is currently campaigning as the candidate with solutions. For her sake, the Senator should hope her math skills have not eroded because her biggest problem will be obtaining the necessary 2,025 delegates needed to secure the Democratic nomination, and defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Barack Obama who is currently frontrunner for the presidential nomination. The path to the nomination is now a math problem.
According to the Associated Press (AP), Senator Obama’s delegate projection is 1,275. Senator Clinton’s delegate projection is 1,220. She trails the Illinois Senator by 55 delegates. The Illinois Senator needs 750 delegates to win the nomination. Obama needs to secure 57% of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination. Clinton needs 805 delegates, or 61% of the outstanding delegates to win the nomination. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton surpassed the 55% margin six times, including American Samoa. Senator Obama has exceeded the 55% threshold 14 times.
Currently, Senator Clinton is mired in a prolonged slump, losing eight straight primaries/caucuses to Senator Obama. The Illinois Senator won 22 states. Clinton won 13 contests, however the Senator from New York argues most of the states Senator Obama has won are small and insignificant. Clinton chief campaign strategist Mark Penn argues, “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states outside of Illinois.”[i] According to the Clinton campaign, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland are insignificant. Senator Clinton defeated her opponent in California and New York; therefore her victories are more valuable.
At their current pace, neither candidate will have the required 2,025 delegates needed to secure the presidential nomination, however Senator Obama will have a slim lead (1931 – 1876) over Senator Clinton, assuming the candidates split the delegates equally in the remaining contests. It is a generous calculation because the charismatic Senator from Illinois is beating the pantsuit off Senator Clinton. During his current winning streak, Senator Obama’s percentage of the vote routinely exceeded 55%. In the last 10 contests, Clinton surpassed 40% twice. It is a safe bet Senator Clinton will not win the nomination if she loses 30-35 states.
The Clinton campaign devised a new winning strategy. Just stay close to Senator Obama until the Democratic National Convention in August. President Clinton will attempt to seduce the undecided super delegates with his unique oratory skills. The super delegates will provide Senator Clinton with the margin of victory.
The concept of the super delegate is a creation of the Democratic Party establishment to correct a flaw in the nominating process. The flaw is the power of the voters to choose a satisfactory candidate who they believe is most likely to win the general election.
In 1968, the Democratic Party removed the party bosses from the process of selecting the nominee. The liberal, activist base of the Democratic Party seized control of the process. However, the party establishment became disenchanted with the nominees in 1972 and 1976. Blowout loses tend to create disenchantment. President Nixon trounced Senator McGovern. Ronald Reagan routed President Carter in 1980.
The super delegates were introduced in the 1984 campaign. Vice President Walter Mondale was the immediate beneficiary of the new process, defeating the insurgent campaign of Senator Gary Hart. Super delegates are supposed to be a reliable method of preventing unelectable liberal candidates from becoming the Democratic Party nominee.
Depending on super delegates is not “Plan A.” The Clinton campaign was predicated on the notion that the nomination process would be completed by the Super Tuesday primaries. In December, Senator Clinton declared, “I have a campaign that’s poised and ready for the long term. We’re competing everywhere through February 5th… So I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It’ll all be over by February 5th.”[ii] Senator Clinton was the odds on favorite to capture the Democratic nomination. With President Bush’s disastrous presidential term coming to an appreciative end, she was practically planning what pantsuit to wear on Inauguration Day.
It was the Spanish poet, essayist, novelist, philosopher George Santayana who uttered the famous quote, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Senator Clinton adopted President Bush’s winning strategy in 2000, to have someone other than the voters decide the outcome of an election. In 2000, it was the Supreme Court. In 2008, it will be the “Super Delegates.”
Perhaps Ms Clinton was so obsessed with her own election to the United States Senate in 2000 that she forgot the repercussions of the Supreme Court selecting Governor Bush as president. Senator Clinton is risking the legitimacy of her candidacy by having the Democratic Party elite select the next presidential nominee. She is in danger of alienating new voters, African Americans, independents, moderate Republicans, and the liberal base of the party. The Democratic National Convention is in August. If she walks away with the nomination even though she lost the popular vote, the majority of the states, and is behind the delegate count, then will face a hostile electorate in November. Senator Clinton may not have enough time to repair the damage caused by usurping the will of the voters.
The Clinton perception of campaigns as adversarial, nasty, and brutal affects their political judgment. Their strategy is to win with 50% + 1 of the electorate. Just win with a simple majority, get elected, then govern with the same mindset. Work enough to just win, instead of trying to overwhelm the opposition. Politics is a constant struggle – a jihad to use another term. The Clintons approach to governing is the constant struggle between them and the opposition.
The Clinton War Room was based on the need to quickly respond to attacks from the Republican Party. Granted the Republican Party is prone to manufacturing controversies, but the War Room served another function. Bill Clinton is an accomplished politician, but a flawed human being. Allegations of womanizing were expected. The War Room served to counter the allegations of womanizing.
To the Clintons, landslide victories are anomalies. That is why Senator Clinton can blithely dismiss Senator Obama’s victories in smaller states with insignificant Electoral College votes because these states are unworthy of attention. Bigger states matter more than smaller states because the reward is greater. She would gladly concede these smaller states to the Republican Party as long as she can win the bigger states in the general election. Their primary concern is winning 270 electoral votes.
However, Senator Clinton does not understand the electorate. Voters expect more. It wants unity instead of constant struggle. Senator Obama is running a presidential campaign in all 50 states. Every vote matters to his candidacy. As an African American candidate, Senator Obama needs to demonstrate he can get votes anywhere. In contrast, the Clinton campaign opened offices in Texas and Ohio this past week.[iii] Their campaign methodology did not extend beyond Super Tuesday. This is a challenge the Clintons were not expecting and are not prepared to contest.
Senator Clinton’s journey to the White House has not been smooth. She lost the Iowa Caucuses, was almost reduced to tears in New Hampshire, then witnessed former President Clinton inject race into the South Carolina primary, and she lost in 22 insignificant states. Senator Obama wants to introduce a change in attitude in Washington DC. Senator Clinton is reduced to constantly changing campaign strategies.
Desperation leads to bad judgment. Senator Clinton is running an anti-hope campaign to counter Senator Obama’s positive campaign for change. Senator Clinton argues Senator Obama just sounds pretty, but does not propose solutions to our problems. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescription or do anything about the stack of bills that keeps you up at night. That’s the difference between me and my democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches, I offer solutions.”[iv]
Clinton campaign flack Howard Wolfson advanced a new negative tactic by labeling Obama a plagiarist in an attempt to tarnish the gifted Senator’s image. His candidacy is fundamentally premised on the strength of his rhetoric and the strength of his promises… So when he is found lifting the rhetoric from another politician, it calls into question the premise of the candidacy.”[v]
In addition, Senator Clinton argues that talk is cheap. Being married to President Clinton makes her an expert on politicians who like to talk and make promises. Remember, “I feel your pain?”
Senator Clinton ignores American history when she claims talk is cheap. President Roosevelt was not being a Pollyanna when he said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” President Kennedy was not being cynical when he said, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what can you do for you country.” The Reverend Martin Luther King was not being naive when he delivered the iconic “I Have a Dream” speech. In his last speech as president, Eisenhower was not being an alarmist when he warned against the growing influence of the military industrial complex in the political process.
Speeches matter because it sets the tone of the debate. Ms Clinton argues she has 35 years of experience. She is ready to be president from day one. The Senator fails to understand that she is not interviewing for a job. She is campaigning for the presidency. Proclaiming, “I am ready” does not set a tone, or a mood. Leaders need to inspire.
Talk is cheap only when you are unable to enunciate an idea clearly, like Senator Clinton’s inability to create an effective campaign slogan. Even campaign flack Howard Wolfson agrees that Senator Clinton is rhetorically challenged. “Senator Clinton is not running on the strength of her rhetoric.”[vi]
Now she is the problem solver “because there’s a big difference between making speeches and offering solutions.”[vii] Offering solutions is the latest is a series of bumper sticker slogans the Clinton campaign has recited like “Big Challenges, Real Solutions,” or “Working for Change, Working for You” or “Ready for Change, Ready to Lead,” and lately “Solutions for America.”[viii]
Senator Clinton presidential campaign recently encountered financial difficulty. Maybe that is where the Clintons spent the money. Printing new bumper stickers and placards can be expensive.
Senator Clinton continues to make errors during the presidential campaign. She intends to make a valiant stand in the Texas and Ohio primaries in March. The Senator should consider a campaign rally in The Alamo for metaphorical effect.
Her strategy is flawed because she is ignoring Wisconsin, Hawaii, Rhode Island and Vermont. This error is not unprecedented. Mayor Giuliani thought he could start his presidential campaign in Florida after bypassing Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina. This strategy did not work for America’s Mayor.
Attacking Senator Obama is another failed strategy. It started in December 2007 when the Clinton campaign attempted to argue Obama was disingenuous when he said he never planned to run for president. Through hard work, the Clinton campaign uncovered essays titled “I Want to be President” written by the precocious Barack Obama as a child in the third grade and in kindergarten.
Negative attacks make her campaign appear petty. Attacking Obama reinforces the notion that Senator Clinton is incapable of changing “politics as usual” in Washington. Recently she joined Republican presidential candidate John McCain in attacking Obama. Both claim the Illinois Senator is changing his position regarding public funding during the general election. A Democratic candidate is coordinating attacks with the Republican nominee against her Democratic rival. According to Senator Clinton, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
Senator Clinton needs to employ a different strategy. She should run a positive campaign, emphasizing the policy differences between Obama and herself. She needs to run competitive races in Rhode Island, Vermont, Wyoming, Mississippi, West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, Montana and South Dakota. Ms Clinton cannot afford to concede the smaller states to Senator Obama. At best, Senator Clinton may secure 300 to 350 delegates in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. She will still need another 455 delegates to secure the nomination. Obama will win the nomination if Clinton disregards the remaining 962 delegates.
Senator Clinton overestimated her inevitability as a candidate. Inevitability has limits. She indubitably accepted the premise that the nomination was hers. The Clinton campaign took the process for granted. That was the biggest mistake, besides her inability to add.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[ii] Meet the Press, February 17, 2008.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[iv] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 14, 2008.
[v] Thomas DeFrank and Michael Saul, “Hillary Cries Plagiarism and Barack Sez She Has Borrowed Words From Him,” New York Daily News, February 19, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 18, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, February 15, 2008.
[viii] E.J. Dionne, “How Inevitable Got Outmaneuvered,” The Washington Post, February 15, 2008.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Because We Need The Eggs
Unfortunately the political evolutionary process triumphed by thinning the herd of Democratic Party presidential contenders before the primaries arrived to the great state of New York. Experienced and principled candidates such as Delaware Senator Joe Biden, Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich, and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards were forced to drop out of contention due to lack of support, but more importantly lack of campaign funds. Not only were these candidates the victim of a political form of evolution, but also by the “invisible hand” of the free market. Money, or lack thereof, talked. Free speech indeed.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Defying early expectations, there are now two Democratic candidates left competing for the Democratic nomination – one more candidate than the Clintons were expecting - New York Senator, by way of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the precocious, charismatic Senator from Illinois. It is interesting to note that of the original Democratic field of candidates, the two remaining Democratic candidates have the least experience in terms of elected public service.
Senator Hillary Clinton presents herself to the voting public as the Democratic candidate with 35 years experience, and with the general election campaign experience necessary to defeat the influential, vast and vaunted Republican Party attack machine. Senator Hillary Clinton argues she is the best candidate who will be ready to lead the country effective the expiration date of the Bush Administration, and is best qualified to solve the myriad of problems facing the United States.
Senator Barack Obama positions himself as an agent of change, a generational candidate who will be able to move beyond the divisive political battles of the past, and who is best able to unite the country.
A vote should matter. In a perfect world, a vote should say something more than I’m voting for the person most likely to win, or the guy I would like to have a beer with. I intended to vote for Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich for the Democratic Party nomination because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq War, and his advocacy for a single payer health care system in the United States. Voting for Kucinich declares I am against the war in Iraq; I am against the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war; and affirm it is time to implement universal health coverage in the United States because medical coverage should not be based on a free market, capitalistic ideal. The mainstream media refused to allow Congressman Kucinich to participate in televised debates. Sadly, he was forced to drop out of the race soon after.
Issues are supposed to matter in a political campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media depicts the Republican and Democratic campaigns as glorified beauty pageants. The candidates are debutantes. Debates become an opportunity for the candidates to demonstrate their ability to recite campaign slogans, sound bites, and applause lines by rote. Debates become entertaining only when the candidates verbally spit on each other. Furthermore, debates are not structured to elicit substantial discourse. Instead, debates included “lightning rounds” in which the candidates had to answer useless, inane questions in 30 seconds or less. The only things missing from the political debates are the sashes to identify the home state of the contestants, door prizes for the losers, a crown for the winner, and the late great Bert Parks serenading the winner – “There he is, Mr. President.”
In a cynical world, issues don’t matter in a political campaign because, once elected, presidents are rarely able to keep their campaign promises. The campaign speeches sound pretty and are intended to galvanize support, but campaign promises are rarely implemented after the contest has ended.
Ronald Reagan campaigned on the platform of reducing the size of government, overturning Roe v Wade, implementing prayer in school, and reducing taxes. In his State of the Union addresses, Reagan frequently asked for line item veto power to eliminate wasteful government spending, but he was denied the executive budgetary privilege. Of his stated goals, President Reagan was only able to cut taxes.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor Bush disparaged President Clinton’s foreign policy regarding military interventions promising he would not engage in nation building. In his second inaugural address, President Bush presented a bold foreign policy agenda, to introduce democracy to countries currently ruled by tyrants. The President, acting more like Chairman Mao, wants to democratize the Middle East through the barrel of a gun.
In the absence of real political debate, voters should focus on individual qualities, intangible character traits that may give a hint into the thinking process of the candidates. To quote the great actor Al Pacino from the movie The Devil’s Advocate, “Pressure. Some people, you squeeze them, they focus. Others fold. Can you summon your talent at will? Can you deliver on a deadline? Can you sleep at night?”
Hillary Clinton is an intelligent, thoughtful, caring, hard working Senator who would make a first-rate, able president. She possesses admirable qualities that could translate into a successful presidency. However, during the presidential campaign, she exhibited some apprehensive characteristics.
Early in her political career, Senator Clinton positioned herself as a hawk regarding national security issues. During the campaign, Senator Clinton wanted to reassure voters she could be an effective Commander in Chief. In past presidential campaigns, Democratic candidates were portrayed as soft.
Senator Clinton initially supported the worst foreign policy decision since the last contrived war in Vietnam. She voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Saddam Hussein despite sufficient evidence indicating the Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction. First mistake. Her second mistake was not reading the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). Instead, Senator Clinton admitted she was briefed on the contents of the NIE. However, the NIE contained admonitions regarding the intelligence that was gathered. Not reading the NIE is contrary to being the hands on, detail oriented, policy wonk she claims to be.
Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence the Bush Administration manipulated the intelligence indicating Iraq was attempting to obtain aluminum tubes necessary for centrifuges; Iraq was attempting to obtain yellow cake uranium from Niger; and Iraq was somehow connected to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In fact, the Center for Public Integrity created a database of statements made by the Bush Administration regarding the alleged threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and concluded President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and others made 935 false statements. Senator Clinton accepted the dubious evidence presented by the Bush Administration, and ignored the factual evidence indicating Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Clinton has refused to admit she made a mistake in authorizing President Bush’s inevitable march towards war against Iraq, contrary to Senator John Kerry in 2004 presidential campaign and former Senator John Edwards in 2008. The reasons may be tactical. Senator Kerry was unable to clearly express his position regarding the Iraq War in the 2004 presidential election. The Republicans argued Senator Kerry was a flip flopper. Presidential candidate Clinton assumed she would be the Democratic nominee. She did not want to give any ammunition to her numerous detractors in the Republican Party. Presidential ambition may have affected her judgment.
Michigan Senator Carl Levin proposed an amendment to the Iraq war resolution to purposely slow down the Bush Administration’s progression towards war with Iraq. The intention of the amendment was to have the United Nations pass a resolution “explicitly authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it did not permit thorough inspections of its weapons programs… Second, the amendment required the president to return to Congress if his United Nations efforts failed.”[i]
Senator Clinton voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use military force against Iraq, but voted against the Levin Amendment. She argues that voting for the Levin Amendment would have ceded military control to the United Nations Security Council. During the presidential campaign, Senator Clinton distorted the actual meaning of the Levin Amendment.
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted for the Kyl – Lieberman Amendment, a non-binding resolution suggesting how the United States should approach its military strategies in Iraq because it “will have critical long term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security in the region.”[ii] In addition, the amendment called for declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton’s vote for this resolution was a mistake. The Bush Administration has demonstrated they are predisposed to launching preemptive attacks against its enemies, real or imagined. The Kyl – Lieberman amendment created an opportunity for the Bush Administration to start another war in the Middle East.
The Republican nomination is settled. Senator McCain is the presumptive candidate. He argued in favor of the surge in Iraq. He stated the United States would maintain a military presence in Iraq for 100 years – granted 100 years is an exaggeration by the maverick Senator from Arizona, but the Iraq War will cease being an issue in the presidential campaign if Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic Party nominee. Clinton may be reluctant to introduce the Iraq War in the campaign because she voted for the resolution. She may avoid reminding the Democratic Party base of her original position regarding the war. Senator Obama is better positioned to debate the war in Iraq against Senator McCain because the young Senator from Illinois did not support the war and will campaign to end it.
Political tradition dictates the presidential campaign begin with the Iowa Caucuses, and the New Hampshire primary. Presidential campaigns usually end quickly, thus making the other states practically irrelevant in the process. Michigan and Florida broke with tradition, and scheduled their primaries before Iowa and New Hampshire without consent from the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The calendar had to be rearranged. As punishment, Michigan and Florida lost their delegates. The Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in the delinquent states.
Senator Clinton needed to change the news cycle in her favor after losing the South Carolina primary. She needed a victory before the Super Tuesday primaries. The Senator from New York made a personal appearance in Florida to thank the voters for her victory. She promised to work towards getting the Florida delegates seated at the convention. Clinton reneged on her word.
Finally, there is a question that has not been asked during the Democratic campaign for the nomination, but will be asked before the general election in November. Can Hillary Clinton unite the country? The question is galling considering the Republican Party instigated the divisiveness in 1994. Senator Clinton is the dream candidate of the Republican Party. The Republicans will conjure the ghosts of presidents past, and relive the horror of the Clinton presidency – a horror the Republicans initiated and perpetuated, mostly as a fund raising tool. Democrats have an opportunity for a landslide election in 2008 after the disastrous presidency of George Bush. Is Hillary Clinton capable of taking advantage of voter dissatisfaction and deliver a landslide victory?
Senator Clinton voted for an unnecessary war. She failed to counter the weak arguments made by the Bush Administration regarding Iraq’s involvement in the September 11th attacks, and Saddam Hussein’s alleged threat to national security. The Senator misrepresented efforts by her colleagues to stop President Bush from launching a war with Iraq. She reneged on her word to punish Florida for violating party rules. If elected president, she will be unable to unite the country. Senator Clinton has demonstrated she cannot be trusted.
Senator Obama carries some baggage as well. First, he is inexperienced, especially in foreign policy matters, having served only two years in the Senate.
Early in his term, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev. The charismatic Kennedy under whelmed the communist leader. Believing he had an advantage over the youthful president, Khrushchev implemented the policy of installing nuclear missiles in Cuba, which led to the tense standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Will an adversary underestimate a youthful President Obama?
Second, in interviews with the press, Senator Obama admitted that he delegates responsibilities to subordinates. We had two recent presidents who delegated responsibilities to their subordinates – President Reagan and current President Bush. You can argue that President Reagan’s detachment led to the Iran Contra scandal in which weapons were traded for hostages, and funds from the sale of the weapons were diverted to the Nicaraguan Contras. Reagan was not aware his subordinates were trading weapons for hostages.
Republican nominee George Bush entrusted the search for vice president to Dick Cheney. Cheney repeatedly stated he was not interested in becoming vice president, but after an exhaustive search, Cheney selected himself as George Bush’s running mate. Once elected by the Supreme Court, Vice President Cheney inserted many of his Neo-Con cronies throughout the Bush Administration.
Furthermore, in August 6, 2001 President Bush was given a Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US.” President Bush has admitted that he does not like to read. He probably pawned off the PDB on his subordinates. Whoever read the PDB either was too dense to understand the report, or decided it was not important enough to interrupt President Bush’s vacation in Crawford, Texas. Ultimately, the Bush Administration did not act on the PDB, we were attacked on September 11, and a year later President Bush initiated the campaign to preemptively launch a war against Iraq.
It is a big leap to imply an Obama Administration will resemble the Reagan and Bush administrations, but detached presidents usually encounter problems. Sometimes staff becomes overzealous. Staff may commit to a course of action without presidential authority. Also, Senator Obama will be overly dependent on his staff just as President Bush is dependent on Vice President Cheney’s Neo Con cronies.
Furthermore, Senator Obama argues he will be able to unite Democrats and Republicans, sounding eerily like Governor Bush’s promise of being a “uniter, not a divider.” Obama argues he was able to work with Republicans in the Illinois State Legislature, a similar boast made by Governor George Bush who claimed he was able to work with Democrats in the Texas State Legislature. Senator Obama is placing a lot of faith in an opposition party that specializes in exploiting differences, has not demonstrated an ability to work with Democrats in the past, and may oppose, sabotage, and disingenuously misrepresent his policies in the future.
Senator Obama’s campaign is based on the promise of hope. However, after eight years of divisiveness, fear mongering, and political stalemate, it is possible Senator Obama may be able to usher in a new thought process into American political life.
In a recent Op Ed column, Bob Herbert describes the natural forces at work in the Democratic campaign, realists versus the dreamers. Realists believe there are enough whites that will absolutely not vote an African American candidate. Realists argue Senator Obama does not have enough political experience to be president. Realists worry about losing the general election because another laissez faire Republican president may cause irreparable damage to the country.[iii] Realists argue Senator Clinton is the better candidate. She is more “electable” than Senator Obama. Realists, like former President Clinton, argue dreamers would be rolling the dice on a President Obama because he is an untested candidate. Obama supporters should not base their votes on the potential greatness of Obama instead of the actual, proven, capable qualities of Hillary Clinton. President Clinton argues Hillary Clinton has the skills to be a great president. And he swears he is not just saying that because the Senator is his wife.
The dreamers argue Senator Obama is new to the process, therefore not corrupted by it, he personifies hope, he is a political prodigy who will unite the country, inspire enough new voters to offset those who would refuse to vote for him because he is black, and demonstrate to the rest of the world that the United States has moved beyond race based politics.
Woody Allen concluded the iconic movie “Annie Hall” with an old joke as a metaphor describing the irrationality of love. It can also apply to the illogicality of the 2008 presidential campaign.
A man walks into a psychiatrist’s office. He says, “Doctor, doctor, my brother thinks he is a chicken!!!” The doctor says, “That’s terrible. You should have him committed.” The man says, “I can’t.” The doctor asks, “Why not?” The man answers, “Because I need the eggs.”
Why did I vote for a candidate who speaks eloquently, but vaguely of change, a candidate who promises hope instead of concrete policy proposals, someone who is unwilling to “lay out an ambitious progressive agenda on healthcare, housing and other domestic policy issues,”[iv] someone with no foreign policy experience.
Because we need the eggs.
[i] John Broder, “Clinton And The Iraq War Amendment,” New York Times, February 2, 2008.
[ii] Jim Ruttenberg and Michael Cooper, “Rivals Challenge Clinton On Her Vote for Iran Measure,” New York Times, October 31, 2007.
[iii] Bob Herbert, “Winds Of Change,” New York Times, February 5, 2008.
[iv] “Obama’s Promise,” The Nation, page 2, February 25, 2008.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
The Last Campaign of Mayor 9/11
America’s Mayor lackluster campaign for the Republican nomination for president ended after a disappointing third place finish in the Florida primaries. Just as famed Spanish Conquistador Juan Pone de Leon died while seeking the mystical Fountain of Youth in Florida, Rudolph Giuliani’s political campaign died a premature death in Florida in search of that elusive first victory in the 2008 Republican Presidential campaign.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
In August of 2007, Mayor 9/11 was leading national opinion polls, ahead of the monotonous campaign of the overestimated character actor and former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, current Arizona Senator John McCain and former governors Willard Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. Giuliani raised more money than his competitors. Had the presidential elections been held in 2007, Giuliani might have become 44th President of the United States. Instead, Mayor 9/11 hopes to continue making motivational speeches about leadership, and collecting handsome fees in the process.
There are numerous reasons America’s Mayor was forced to abandon his presidential aspirations. Not covered by the press was the fact that Rudolph Giuliani was a demographically challenged candidate. Giuliani does not fit the profile of an average president, or a typical Republican candidate for president.
First, Mayor 9/11 is bald. Baldness may be sexy, but it is not presidential. Every white male who was elected President of the United States since General Dwight Eisenhower had a full head of hair. In fact, there have been only six bald presidents in the history of the United States: Eisenhower, James A. Garfield, Martin Van Buren, John Quincy Adams, James Madison and John Adams. There may have been more, but it is difficult to judge receding hairlines and comb overs from old pictures. It may be an accident of history, but baldness is a detriment in presidential politics.
Second, historically New York City mayors have never moved on to higher elected office. You can argue that serving as mayor of New York City is a political dead-end job. Also, in the history of the United States, no political candidate successfully made the jump from mayor to president. New York may be the most ethnically diverse city in the world, but the politics of New York does not translate beyond the city.
Third, the last Republican from New York to win the GOP nomination for President was in 1948 when Thomas Edmund Dewey who, according to Chicago Daily Tribune, defeated incumbent President Harry Truman. Unfortunately for Dewey it takes more than a newspaper headline to elect a president. The American electorate voted otherwise. Dewey would have stood a better chance with a sympathetic Supreme Court.
Fourth, the last Republican from New York to actually win the presidency was Theodore Roosevelt in 1904. Roosevelt served a term as president prior 1904 due to the assassination of President William McKinley by a lone gunman – a uniquely American phenomenon.
Fifth and sixth, Rudolph Giuliani is Italian and Catholic, although not in good standing with The Church due to his position on abortion. There has never been a president of Italian ancestry, or a presidential candidate from either political party of Italian lineage. It was in 1992 when Conservative political pundits wondered derisively if the United States was ready to elect an Italian American (Mario Cuomo) president.
In fact, only two “ethnic whites” have won the presidency and both were Irish, John F Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. When it comes to the presidency, ethnicity counts.
In addition, in the rich history of the United States there has been only one Catholic President, John F Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, one Catholic who secured the Democratic nomination for president, New York Governor Al Smith, one campaign ended abruptly due to the assassination of Robert Kennedy, and one unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination, Ted Kennedy in 1980.
As New York Senator Hillary Clinton was anointed the early front-runner and inevitable candidate of the Democratic Party, it became statistically improbable for two candidates from New York to win their respective nominations in the same year – even if one of the candidates is not really from New York.
And then there is Mayor 9/11’s position on abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration. Giuliani is liberal to moderate on these issues. The Republican Party positioned itself against these issues because the Conservative Right wrestled control of the party away from the Country Club, Moderate and Liberal wings of the GOP. To borrow an ad concept from the Republican attack machine, Rudolph GIULIANI, wrong on abortion, wrong on gay rights, wrong on gun control, wrong on immigration, WRONG FOR AMERICA!!!
Former President Bill Clinton used the term “fairy tale” against Senator Barack Obama during the South Carolina Democratic campaign, but sadly Rudolph Giulani’s attempt to secure the Republican nomination for president can be interpreted as delusional. America’s Mayor is a bald, Italian, former mayor of New York City who is pro abortion, gay rights, gun control, and immigration who was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. The odds were against Mayor 9/11 from the start of the campaign.
The early opinion poll numbers of America’s Mayor were built on two faulty premises: name recognition and Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat New York Senator Hillary Clinton who at the time was considered the inevitable Democratic Party nominee.
Early opinion polls in presidential contests are driven by name recognition, and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani name was instantly recognizable after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Right or wrong, September 11th made Giuliani a celebrity.
President Bush was absent from the television screens that day as the Secret Service kept the President out of sight, in the air and out of potential danger. Vice President Dick Cheney was in a bunker meticulously calculating what measures needed to be taken in order to create The Imperial President. Former Secretary of State Al Haig was not available to take charge.
Mayor Giuliani spoke for New York City on that terrible day. He demonstrated courage, composure under pressure, and was able to convey and communicate a deep sense of sorrow and pain with dignity. Time Magazine chose him as “Person of the Year” in 2001. Giuliani became an active public speaker who routinely collected $100,000 fees throughout the world. It was only natural for people to respond to Giuliani’s name when given the choice of Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul or John McCain.
However, evoking 9/11 like an allergy sufferer who constantly sneezes during pollen season, may have diminished America’s Mayor to a punch line in a pathetic joke. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden said it best. “There’s only three things he mentions in a sentence: a noun, a verb and September 11th.”
Early opnion polls also indicated Giuliani was the only Republican candidate who could defeat former First Lady and current New York Senator Clinton in the general election. The mainstream media fantasized about a potential presidential campaign involving Giuliani and Clinton because the contest would have been enthralling as long as the election was presented in the proper ratings seizing context. Will the power hungry and opportunistic Senator from New York become the first woman president (God help us), or will America’s Mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, the hero of September 11th prevent the dastardly Hillary Clinton from seizing the White House in a blatant attempt to circumvent the United States Constitution by inserting former President Bill Clinton in a de facto third presidential term and at the scene of his most obscene and dastardly act as president? Stay tuned to find out more as CAMPAIGN 2008 continues.
Mayor 9/11 echoed these poll results frequently in his campaign speeches, but as Senator Barack Obama ascended in opinion polls and Senator Clinton was engaged in real fight for the Democratic nomination, Giuliani’s poll numbers began to decline. If Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, then Rudy doesn’t have to be the nominee. Makes you wonder if Mayor 9/11 stopped trying so hard to be president because he did not want to campaign against another African American candidate.
It did not help that the skeletons clanging in Giuliani’s crowded closet forced themselves out of the darkness and into the bright spotlight of the presidential campaign. Not that the mainstream media was eager to expose Mayor 9/11’s faults. President Clinton’s presidency was virtually ruined because he cheated on his wife, but the Mediacracy euphemized Giuliani extramarital affair. Instead of a mistress, America’s Mayor had a girlfriend. In a press conference during his lethargic second term, Mayor Giuliani announced he was leaving his wife – which was news to Donna Hanover. The remarkably romantic Mayor also told us he had a special friend – Judith Nathan – who unbeknownst to New Yorkers was the beneficiary of a police security detail, a fact disclosed in December, 2007 when Mayor 9/11’s poll numbers were dropping.
Another special friend of Mayor Giuliani was, ironically, in trouble with the law. Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was greeted with a 16 count federal indictment on fraud and corruption charges. Kerik, who once upon a time was Giuliani’s chauffeur, had relationships with individuals in organized crime. The Police Commissioner of the Law and Order Mayor was a crook. Mayor 9/11 brushed off this scandal by saying his only mistake was not sufficiently vetting Bernard Kerik, but any mistakes by the former Police Commissioner was outweighed by Kerik’s successful leadership in the war against crime.
These types of revelations diminished Mayor 9/11’s chances to capture the Republican nomination. However, it was his campaign’s decision to bypass the Iowa Caucus, and to stop campaigning in New Hampshire that proved disastrous.
To campaign in Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate has to master the art of retail politics. In small states with demanding electorates, a politician must meet and engage voters on an individual basis. Instead, Giuliani flooded local media with commercials, conducted town hall meetings, gave his customary campaign stump speeches, left without taking questions from the audience, and created an impression that he was aloof. Furthermore, his wealthy, executive friends allowed Mayor 9/11 to speak to their employees during their lunch hours in company cafeterias thus insuring a captive audience. Giuliani kept his distance from the voters and they responded. His poll numbers dropped.
Giuliani did not lose in New Hampshire because of a lack of effort. He campaigned hard, had a command of the issues, but the electorate did not respond, exposing another problem. The more you saw Mayor 9/11, the less you liked him.
Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York three times. He lost in 1989, but won in 1993 and 1997. In the 1993 mayoral election, Giuliani received 930,236 votes. However, in the 1997 mayoral election only 615,829 New Yorkers voted for the incumbent mayor - 314,407 votes less than 1993. Giuliani’s first term was widely perceived as successful. Crime was reduced and New York City became a livable city. Giuliani demonstrated that New York was governable, not unmanageable. Giuliani failed to expand his base of support during a successful first term in which New York City experienced a renaissance. Instead, Giuliani’s heavy handed approach to governing, and his gruff personality inhibited voter turn out. In fact, Giuliani is indebted to his base of support in Queens and Staten Island. Giuliani would have lost the 1993 without their overwhelming support.
Another failed campaign tactic was not fully participating in the early primaries. Giuliani stopped campaigning in Michigan and South Carolina. Instead, Mayor 9/11 concentrated his efforts in Florida. Voters have short attentions spans. If a candidate does not participate in the process, if the candidate does not win, then the candidate becomes irrelevant and invisible. To Giuliani’s detriment, he did not employ anyone with experience in conducting a national campaign. Instead, Mayor 9/11 was surrounded by his team of arrogant New Yorkers who were deeply enveloped in Giuliani’s cult of personality.
A presidential campaign, flush with money, with soaring name recognition is derailed because the candidate does reflect the values of his political party, and executes a flawed campaign strategy. And to think, America never got the chance to find out Rudolph Giuliani does not like black people.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Manchurian Gambit
In 2004, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry was denounced by a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who claimed the Massachusetts Senator lied about his service during the Vietnam War. Senator Kerry was awarded the Silver Star for the events on February 28, 1969 in which Kerry decided “to attack rather than flee from two ambushes, including one in which he led a landing party.”[i] The Swift Boat Veterans claimed Senator Kerry embellished his story and was not worthy of the Silver Star and Purple Heart medals awarded to him.
In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate and the incumbent Vice President Al Gore was labeled a serial exaggerator, liar and flip-flopper by his opponent George W. Bush, the Republican Establishment, and the mass media.
Even though the 2008 Democratic contest has not been decided, a narrative involving Illinois Senator Barack Obama is slowly developing.
Mr. Obama is the progeny of a biracial couple – his father is of Kenyan ancestry, and his mother is white, from Kansas. As a child, he lived in Indonesia and studied in a “madrassa.” Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country.
The narrative implies Senator Obama is a closet Muslim who was indoctrinated in radical Islam while attending a madrassa in Indonesia. The fear is that once Barack Hussein Obama becomes president of the United States, he will disclose his Muslim identity and impose Shariah Law against the will of the people.
This is not paranoia from the left talking. An email is circulating throughout the Internet from the Republican Party Committee of Clark County, Washington. Posted on the front page of their official Republican Web site is a dire warning. Obama “takes great care to conceal he is a Muslim… [It’s] reported he swore his oath of office on the Koran and pictures have shown him standing for the pledge but not reciting it and holding his hands to his sides while others held their hands over their hearts. This is chilling information about a candidate for the highest office in the country, especially given the radical Muslim claims that they will destroy America from the inside.”[ii]
Senator Obama unknowingly disclosed his secret identity. Every patriotic American knows that standing with your hands by your sides and keeping your mouth shut while the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited is a verifiable sign someone is not a real American.
Parenthetically, it was Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District and the nation’s first Muslim who swore his oath of office on The Quran. The error is understandable. All black people look the same to most racist, deluded, paranoid, fear mongers.
This dark fantasy – a Muslim taking over the country – does not live and sustain itself in a vacuum. As a nation, we are currently at war against terrorists, radical jihadists, and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden issued a fatwa in the mid 1990’s directing jihadists to kill Americans wherever “they” can find them. What better way to destroy America than concealing a sleeper Muslim in the country of your worst enemy.
It takes an overactive imagination to create such a paranoid narrative, and it’s not even original because it borrows heavily from the brilliant 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate,” directed by John Frankenheimer.
Unfortunately, the people who concoct these wild fantasies would flunk an elementary school civics test.
Assume the worst. Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Manchurian Candidate. He is a closet Muslim with an agenda. After being sworn in as our next president, President Obama states his intentions as soon as his right hand comes off the Bible. “Surprise!!! I’m really a Muslim. Life as you know it is over.” President Obama proclaims Americans will be living under Shariah Law, will have to change our American names to Arabic names, men will have to grow beards, women will have to wear burkas, homosexuality will be criminalized, all the majors sports will be outlawed, prohibition will be reinstated, the mass media will be nationalized, movies, music, porn and mass entertainment will be banned, the Internet will be shut down, we all have to live in tents, Americans will have to learn Arabic, and Americans will be forced to convert to Islam.
Let us assume further that men dressed in white coats, with oversized butterfly nets and a white jacket with extra long sleeves that wrap around the torso, do not haul off the new President of the United States to a nice farm where it is peaceful and quiet, “with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes, where life is beautiful all the time and [he’ll] be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats.”[iii]
Our political system is structured to prevent radical change. Suppose President Obama wanted to substitute our current Constitution for Shariah Law. He cannot do it by decree or by President Bush’s current method of circumventing the Constitution – the infamous signing statements. To amend the Constitution, the proposal to implement Shariah Law would need the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives (287 congressmen), two-thirds of the Senate (66 Senators), and three-fourths of the states (37 states). Senator Obama prides himself on being the candidate of change, but to affect that type of change, you will need an awful lot of Manchurian Candidates.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama wanted to incorporate Shariah Law into American law. According to Civics 101, a bill would have to be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. After the introduction, the bill is sent to the Judiciary Committee, and then to a subcommittee. The subcommittee may hold hearings. The hearing may be open to the public. However, in this case the hearings will be closed. Congress will prefer to keep these hearings a secret. No need to alert the public. After the hearing process, the subcommittee sends the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with recommendations. Presuming the bill to incorporate Shariah law is accepted, the bill is placed on the calendar. Afterwards, each house will vote on the bill. If the bill is approved, then the president can sign it into law. This process usually takes longer than it took God to create the universe – at least according to some people. And this is how a bill becomes a law boys and girls.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama attempted to impose Shariah Law by force. To accomplish this act, he would need the complete loyalty and support of the United States military in order to declare Marshal law. Congress, state and local governments would have to be disbanded. The president would have to assume control of the state National Guards (all 50 of them), and take control of all state and local law enforcement agencies. Under the United States Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief, but the brave men and women of the military take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not obey the whim of an individual determined to eliminate our way of life.
Or maybe Barack Obama is a Muslim Svengali who will hypnotize Americans with his beautiful oratory skills, and eventually lure us with his siren call to Islam. The media is already alluding to the Obama campaign for President as a cult of personality
The probability that Barack Hussein Obama is a sleeper, radical Muslim preparing to take over the country in the name of Islam is remote. Al Qaeda did not exist when Barack Obama attended the madrassa as a child. Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 until 1971. Al Qaeda was established in 1988. If Obama were a sleeper, radical Muslim, then he would have been indoctrinated into radical Islam 17 years before our enemy was founded and organized.
But the fear exists and an effort is being made to perpetuate this fear. Articles printed in the mass media imply a Muslim past. The articles were debunked by the same mass media, but Senator Obama still needs to reassure audience members at his rallies that he is not a Muslim.
Delusional conspiracy theorists fear an individual or a minority will impose its will against the United States, and we will not be able to stop them. As if Barack Obama is the modern day conquistador Hernando Cortes who sailed boldly to Mexico in March of 1519 with a horde of 600 men, captured Mexico in two years, and defeated the Aztec Empire. Granted, Cortes was a powerful motivator who burned his ships to prevent his men from retreating. “Conquer or Die” was the campaign slogan of the day.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Spanish Conquistadors adventurously sailed to the New World, and eventually acquired a continent. These men established the “Encomienda” system in which the indigenous population was indoctrinated in the Catholic faith, and the Conquistadors demanded tribute from the natives for protection and religious instruction. Sound familiar? President Obama will raise taxes on Americans, and use the revenue to brainwash Americans into accepting Islam.
A minority with superior firepower conquered the indigenous population of the New World. Furthermore, colonial powers installed indigenous ethnic minorities as rulers over their territories reasoning ethnic minorities will do anything to hold on to power. Not only will a Muslim be president, but also black people will rule over white people. First sports (except hockey), then America.
According to the delusional, Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Hernando Cortes, determined to establish a new, radical, alien form of religion and government against the will of the American people.
Conventional wisdom by political pundits claim the Republican Party is afraid to run against an African American because they would be afraid to run a campaign that will flirt with racist ideology. The Muslim narrative provides a reason to exploit fear of Muslims without having to resort to using racist code words against Senator Obama.
That is not to say there are people who are not trying. Karl Rove, the former brain and conscience of President Bush, is off to an early start. Unable to shake off his true nature, Rove in an article for The Wall Street Journal explained Senator Obama lost the New Hampshire primary because the voters perceived him negatively after he attacked Senator Clinton in a debate. Rove argues that Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.”[iv]
Furthermore, Rove argues, “He (Obama) is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[v]
You can almost see it on the side of a blimp as it sails over the United States. Barack Obama, trash talking, basketball player, not intelligent, hustler, lazy. Not right for America!
Too outlandish? Too paranoid? Tell that to Senator Kerry who repeatedly had to rebut charges of exaggerating his bravery during the Vietnam War.
[i] “Republican Funded Group Attacks Kerry’s War Record,” FactCheck.org, August 6, 2004.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 22, 2008.
[iii] “They’re Coming to Take Me Away,” Napoleon XIV (Jerry Samuels), 1966.
[iv] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[v] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
In 2000, Democratic presidential candidate and the incumbent Vice President Al Gore was labeled a serial exaggerator, liar and flip-flopper by his opponent George W. Bush, the Republican Establishment, and the mass media.
Even though the 2008 Democratic contest has not been decided, a narrative involving Illinois Senator Barack Obama is slowly developing.
Mr. Obama is the progeny of a biracial couple – his father is of Kenyan ancestry, and his mother is white, from Kansas. As a child, he lived in Indonesia and studied in a “madrassa.” Indonesia is a predominantly Muslim country.
The narrative implies Senator Obama is a closet Muslim who was indoctrinated in radical Islam while attending a madrassa in Indonesia. The fear is that once Barack Hussein Obama becomes president of the United States, he will disclose his Muslim identity and impose Shariah Law against the will of the people.
This is not paranoia from the left talking. An email is circulating throughout the Internet from the Republican Party Committee of Clark County, Washington. Posted on the front page of their official Republican Web site is a dire warning. Obama “takes great care to conceal he is a Muslim… [It’s] reported he swore his oath of office on the Koran and pictures have shown him standing for the pledge but not reciting it and holding his hands to his sides while others held their hands over their hearts. This is chilling information about a candidate for the highest office in the country, especially given the radical Muslim claims that they will destroy America from the inside.”[ii]
Senator Obama unknowingly disclosed his secret identity. Every patriotic American knows that standing with your hands by your sides and keeping your mouth shut while the Pledge of Allegiance is being recited is a verifiable sign someone is not a real American.
Parenthetically, it was Representative Keith Ellison from Minnesota’s 5th Congressional District and the nation’s first Muslim who swore his oath of office on The Quran. The error is understandable. All black people look the same to most racist, deluded, paranoid, fear mongers.
This dark fantasy – a Muslim taking over the country – does not live and sustain itself in a vacuum. As a nation, we are currently at war against terrorists, radical jihadists, and Al Qaeda. Bin Laden issued a fatwa in the mid 1990’s directing jihadists to kill Americans wherever “they” can find them. What better way to destroy America than concealing a sleeper Muslim in the country of your worst enemy.
It takes an overactive imagination to create such a paranoid narrative, and it’s not even original because it borrows heavily from the brilliant 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate,” directed by John Frankenheimer.
Unfortunately, the people who concoct these wild fantasies would flunk an elementary school civics test.
Assume the worst. Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Manchurian Candidate. He is a closet Muslim with an agenda. After being sworn in as our next president, President Obama states his intentions as soon as his right hand comes off the Bible. “Surprise!!! I’m really a Muslim. Life as you know it is over.” President Obama proclaims Americans will be living under Shariah Law, will have to change our American names to Arabic names, men will have to grow beards, women will have to wear burkas, homosexuality will be criminalized, all the majors sports will be outlawed, prohibition will be reinstated, the mass media will be nationalized, movies, music, porn and mass entertainment will be banned, the Internet will be shut down, we all have to live in tents, Americans will have to learn Arabic, and Americans will be forced to convert to Islam.
Let us assume further that men dressed in white coats, with oversized butterfly nets and a white jacket with extra long sleeves that wrap around the torso, do not haul off the new President of the United States to a nice farm where it is peaceful and quiet, “with trees and flowers and chirping birds and basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes, where life is beautiful all the time and [he’ll] be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats.”[iii]
Our political system is structured to prevent radical change. Suppose President Obama wanted to substitute our current Constitution for Shariah Law. He cannot do it by decree or by President Bush’s current method of circumventing the Constitution – the infamous signing statements. To amend the Constitution, the proposal to implement Shariah Law would need the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives (287 congressmen), two-thirds of the Senate (66 Senators), and three-fourths of the states (37 states). Senator Obama prides himself on being the candidate of change, but to affect that type of change, you will need an awful lot of Manchurian Candidates.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama wanted to incorporate Shariah Law into American law. According to Civics 101, a bill would have to be introduced in either the House of Representatives or the Senate. After the introduction, the bill is sent to the Judiciary Committee, and then to a subcommittee. The subcommittee may hold hearings. The hearing may be open to the public. However, in this case the hearings will be closed. Congress will prefer to keep these hearings a secret. No need to alert the public. After the hearing process, the subcommittee sends the bill back to the Judiciary Committee with recommendations. Presuming the bill to incorporate Shariah law is accepted, the bill is placed on the calendar. Afterwards, each house will vote on the bill. If the bill is approved, then the president can sign it into law. This process usually takes longer than it took God to create the universe – at least according to some people. And this is how a bill becomes a law boys and girls.
Assume President Barack Hussein Obama attempted to impose Shariah Law by force. To accomplish this act, he would need the complete loyalty and support of the United States military in order to declare Marshal law. Congress, state and local governments would have to be disbanded. The president would have to assume control of the state National Guards (all 50 of them), and take control of all state and local law enforcement agencies. Under the United States Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief, but the brave men and women of the military take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not obey the whim of an individual determined to eliminate our way of life.
Or maybe Barack Obama is a Muslim Svengali who will hypnotize Americans with his beautiful oratory skills, and eventually lure us with his siren call to Islam. The media is already alluding to the Obama campaign for President as a cult of personality
The probability that Barack Hussein Obama is a sleeper, radical Muslim preparing to take over the country in the name of Islam is remote. Al Qaeda did not exist when Barack Obama attended the madrassa as a child. Obama lived in Indonesia from 1967 until 1971. Al Qaeda was established in 1988. If Obama were a sleeper, radical Muslim, then he would have been indoctrinated into radical Islam 17 years before our enemy was founded and organized.
But the fear exists and an effort is being made to perpetuate this fear. Articles printed in the mass media imply a Muslim past. The articles were debunked by the same mass media, but Senator Obama still needs to reassure audience members at his rallies that he is not a Muslim.
Delusional conspiracy theorists fear an individual or a minority will impose its will against the United States, and we will not be able to stop them. As if Barack Obama is the modern day conquistador Hernando Cortes who sailed boldly to Mexico in March of 1519 with a horde of 600 men, captured Mexico in two years, and defeated the Aztec Empire. Granted, Cortes was a powerful motivator who burned his ships to prevent his men from retreating. “Conquer or Die” was the campaign slogan of the day.
In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Spanish Conquistadors adventurously sailed to the New World, and eventually acquired a continent. These men established the “Encomienda” system in which the indigenous population was indoctrinated in the Catholic faith, and the Conquistadors demanded tribute from the natives for protection and religious instruction. Sound familiar? President Obama will raise taxes on Americans, and use the revenue to brainwash Americans into accepting Islam.
A minority with superior firepower conquered the indigenous population of the New World. Furthermore, colonial powers installed indigenous ethnic minorities as rulers over their territories reasoning ethnic minorities will do anything to hold on to power. Not only will a Muslim be president, but also black people will rule over white people. First sports (except hockey), then America.
According to the delusional, Barack Hussein Obama is a modern day Hernando Cortes, determined to establish a new, radical, alien form of religion and government against the will of the American people.
Conventional wisdom by political pundits claim the Republican Party is afraid to run against an African American because they would be afraid to run a campaign that will flirt with racist ideology. The Muslim narrative provides a reason to exploit fear of Muslims without having to resort to using racist code words against Senator Obama.
That is not to say there are people who are not trying. Karl Rove, the former brain and conscience of President Bush, is off to an early start. Unable to shake off his true nature, Rove in an article for The Wall Street Journal explained Senator Obama lost the New Hampshire primary because the voters perceived him negatively after he attacked Senator Clinton in a debate. Rove argues that Obama’s “trash talking was an unattractive carryover from his days playing pickup basketball at Harvard.”[iv]
Furthermore, Rove argues, “He (Obama) is often lazy, given to misstatements and exaggerations and, when he doesn’t know the answer, too ready to try to bluff his way through.”[v]
You can almost see it on the side of a blimp as it sails over the United States. Barack Obama, trash talking, basketball player, not intelligent, hustler, lazy. Not right for America!
Too outlandish? Too paranoid? Tell that to Senator Kerry who repeatedly had to rebut charges of exaggerating his bravery during the Vietnam War.
[i] “Republican Funded Group Attacks Kerry’s War Record,” FactCheck.org, August 6, 2004.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 22, 2008.
[iii] “They’re Coming to Take Me Away,” Napoleon XIV (Jerry Samuels), 1966.
[iv] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
[v] Karl Rove, “Why Hillary Won,” The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2008.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Mystery in New Hampshire
After all the ballots were counted, the mainstream media talking heads and political pundits were involved in a mystery, trying to explain how and why Hillary Clinton was able to defeat Barack Obama by two percentage points when every poll conducted prior to the New Hampshire primary predicted an Obama victory by an average eight points. Furthermore, exit polls indicated the young Senator from Illinois would defeat the battle tested Senator from New York by five to twelve percentage points.
Even Senator Clinton’s staff expected defeat, and was headed for the life rafts and life preservers. Clinton staffers were in danger of losing their jobs. The campaign itself would have to be restructured.
If you look closely, the pollsters were half right. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, New York Times/CBS, Rasmussen, WNBC/Marist College polls predicted Barack Obama would capture 32% to 37% of the vote.[i] Obama’s actual percentage of the vote was 37%.
The polls were correct about Obama, but were wrong about Clinton. She was polling in the 25% to 30% range. Instead, the former Inevitable Candidate lives to fight another day after the late surge of support in New Hampshire.
What happened? Why were so many polls wrong? And where did Hillary Clinton’s 10% increase come from? There are three theories.
The Rick Lazio Effect, named after the New York Republican candidate for the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton’s campaign opponent in 2000. During a debate, Mr. Lazio pulled out a folded sheet of paper, walked over to Ms Clinton, and demanded she sign a pledge not to accept “soft money.” Mr. Lazio was rather belligerent.
After the debate, a woman in the audience approached the moderator Tim Russert, and said she liked the Republican candidate until he decided to stalk the former First Lady. “At that moment, she confided, the Long Island congressman suddenly conjured up the image of her husband, waving a credit card receipt in her face, yelling at her that she had overcharged, his eyes bulging, his veins popping, screaming at her to return everything to the store.”[ii]
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, her male opponents roughed up Senator Clinton in a debate, and she became emotional during a question and answer session the day before the primary. The perception of unfairness towards a female candidate may have been enough to convince the legion of women over the age of 45 to support Clinton against her male bullies. Over 55% of the women in New Hampshire voted for Ms Clinton, a 25% increase in support she received in Iowa. Obama captured 34% of votes cast by women besting Clinton who was supported by 30%.
Second, The Richard Roma Effect. In the movie Glengarry Glenross, Richard Roma, as portrayed by the great actor Al Pacino, walks up a bar and orders an alcoholic beverage on a very hot and humid day. “They say you should not drink alcohol when it’s hot.” Another bar patron asks, “Who says that?” Roma answers, “Something I read. For they say it dehydrates you. They say you should drink water, but I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say bet the other way.”[iii]
The second theory could easily be called the New Hampshire Effect, but I wanted to make it sound cooler by interjecting a pop culture reference, thus named The Richard Roma Effect.
New Hampshire prides itself on its au contraire spirit during the election process, and has had a history of turning the presidential election process upside down. The political pundits and the talking heads celebrated New Hampshire’s defiant spirit after Senator Obama was defeated, claiming it was too soon to anoint the young charismatic Senator from Illinois as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This theory implies a sophisticated level of Groupthink in which the citizens of New Hampshire collectively agreed to halt the momentum of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton, thus extending the political contest further instead of holding a coronation ceremony for the Senator from Illinois on January 8, 2008 on their turf.
New Hampshire’s contrarian spirit may explain the sudden jump in support for Senator Clinton, but it does not explain why exit polls indicated Senator Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by 5% to 10% points. “According to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.”[iv] In fact, both theories do not account for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual result. But one theory does.
The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, Mayor Bradley was the Democratic candidate for governor. Prior to Election Day, Bradley was ahead of the Republican candidate George Deukmejian by 7%. Unfortunately, Mayor Bradley lost the election by 1%.[v]
This is a statistical “phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.”[vi]
Mayor Bradley was not the only black candidate whose poll numbers mysteriously decreased. In 1989, David Dinkins was leading the Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani by 14 points, but won by a narrow margin. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder was leading the Republican candidate by 11 points, but also won by a narrow margin. Harvey Gantt was running against the racist Senator from North Carolina - Jesse Helms. He also had a big lead in the polls, but lost. Barack Obama joins the list of black candidates who lost after seemingly having a lead in the polls.
It is important that New Hampshire is not labeled a racist state simply because a percentage of the population lied regarding their exit polls. However, it would be foolish to pretend the race factor does not exist.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and former pollster for Mayor David Dinkins, acknowledges the “longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.”[vii]
Kohut argues “poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.”[viii]
A counterargument against Kohut’s theory regarding the New Hampshire primary is someone who is predisposed to vote strictly on race may also be predisposed to vote against gender. In other words, the racist is not a feminist.
The counterargument to the Bradley Effect is Iowa. Senator Obama won a predominately white state. Why wasn’t race a factor in Iowa?
There are two possible explanations. First, Senator Obama received overwhelming support from voters under the age of 30, and voters who were participating in their first caucus. Young people are less likely to judge someone according to race. Also, first time voters are less jaded by the political process.
Second, Iowa was a caucus. A caucus is different from a primary in which an individual enters a private area, and casts a secret ballot.
Caucuses are not secret ballots. They are public events. Residents gather in schools, public libraries, and private homes. Supporters divide themselves into groups. This could lead to a form of peer pressure. Groupthink can assert itself. Imagine an individual who supports Hillary Clinton, but finds out the majority of his friends and neighbors are supporting Obama. Even if the Clinton supporter walks over to Clinton group, this individual can be subjected to peer pressure in order to change his vote. We are social beings who crave acceptance. It is only natural for someone to bend to the will of a larger group for the sake of acceptance. In the case of Obama, the pressure is greater because you want to appear enlightened and cool to your neighbors.
The Bradley Effect is the only theory that explains the discrepancy between the exit polls and the results of the New Hampshire primary. Racism does not have to manifest itself in large numbers to impact an election. Five percent of the electorate can decide an election.
The race factor explains why presidential candidate John Edwards desperately wants to be the last white candidate standing against Barack Obama. Even on a subconscious level, Edwards understands the importance of the last white candidate running against the black candidate. At some point, the Bradley Effect will assert itself, and Edwards wants to benefit from it, although he will never admit it in public.
Furthermore, the Bradley Effect does not have to based solely on racism. And it does not have to be malicious in nature. It could be based on white guilt. A white individual who meets a black pollster conducting an exit poll may simple lie to the pollster out of guilt.
The only way to find out how much of an impact the Bradley Effect may have on the election is to observe, study polls before the primary, then compare them with exit polls and the actual results. If the Bradley Effect exists, then it will manifest itself again.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 9, 2008.
[ii] Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; Her Brute Strength,” New York Times, September 17, 2000.
[iii] Glenngarry Glenross, 1992.
[iv] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[v] Michael Fauntroy, “Don’t Overplay The Bradley Effect,” The Huffington Post, January 9, 2008.
[vi] Andrew Sullivan, “The Daily Dish,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 8, 2008.
[vii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
Even Senator Clinton’s staff expected defeat, and was headed for the life rafts and life preservers. Clinton staffers were in danger of losing their jobs. The campaign itself would have to be restructured.
If you look closely, the pollsters were half right. The Fox News/Opinion Dynamic, New York Times/CBS, Rasmussen, WNBC/Marist College polls predicted Barack Obama would capture 32% to 37% of the vote.[i] Obama’s actual percentage of the vote was 37%.
The polls were correct about Obama, but were wrong about Clinton. She was polling in the 25% to 30% range. Instead, the former Inevitable Candidate lives to fight another day after the late surge of support in New Hampshire.
What happened? Why were so many polls wrong? And where did Hillary Clinton’s 10% increase come from? There are three theories.
The Rick Lazio Effect, named after the New York Republican candidate for the United States Senate and Hillary Clinton’s campaign opponent in 2000. During a debate, Mr. Lazio pulled out a folded sheet of paper, walked over to Ms Clinton, and demanded she sign a pledge not to accept “soft money.” Mr. Lazio was rather belligerent.
After the debate, a woman in the audience approached the moderator Tim Russert, and said she liked the Republican candidate until he decided to stalk the former First Lady. “At that moment, she confided, the Long Island congressman suddenly conjured up the image of her husband, waving a credit card receipt in her face, yelling at her that she had overcharged, his eyes bulging, his veins popping, screaming at her to return everything to the store.”[ii]
Prior to the New Hampshire primary, her male opponents roughed up Senator Clinton in a debate, and she became emotional during a question and answer session the day before the primary. The perception of unfairness towards a female candidate may have been enough to convince the legion of women over the age of 45 to support Clinton against her male bullies. Over 55% of the women in New Hampshire voted for Ms Clinton, a 25% increase in support she received in Iowa. Obama captured 34% of votes cast by women besting Clinton who was supported by 30%.
Second, The Richard Roma Effect. In the movie Glengarry Glenross, Richard Roma, as portrayed by the great actor Al Pacino, walks up a bar and orders an alcoholic beverage on a very hot and humid day. “They say you should not drink alcohol when it’s hot.” Another bar patron asks, “Who says that?” Roma answers, “Something I read. For they say it dehydrates you. They say you should drink water, but I subscribe to the law of contrary public opinion. If everyone thinks one thing, then I say bet the other way.”[iii]
The second theory could easily be called the New Hampshire Effect, but I wanted to make it sound cooler by interjecting a pop culture reference, thus named The Richard Roma Effect.
New Hampshire prides itself on its au contraire spirit during the election process, and has had a history of turning the presidential election process upside down. The political pundits and the talking heads celebrated New Hampshire’s defiant spirit after Senator Obama was defeated, claiming it was too soon to anoint the young charismatic Senator from Illinois as the inevitable Democratic nominee.
This theory implies a sophisticated level of Groupthink in which the citizens of New Hampshire collectively agreed to halt the momentum of Barack Obama by voting for Hillary Clinton, thus extending the political contest further instead of holding a coronation ceremony for the Senator from Illinois on January 8, 2008 on their turf.
New Hampshire’s contrarian spirit may explain the sudden jump in support for Senator Clinton, but it does not explain why exit polls indicated Senator Obama was going to win the New Hampshire primary by 5% to 10% points. “According to exit polls the 17 percent of voters who said they made their decision on Election Day chose Mrs. Clinton a little more than those who decided in the past two or three weeks. But the margin was very small — 39 percent of the late deciders went for Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent went for Mr. Obama. This gap is obviously too narrow to explain the wide lead for Mr. Obama that kept showing up in pre-election polls.”[iv] In fact, both theories do not account for the discrepancies between the exit polls and the actual result. But one theory does.
The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley. In 1982, Mayor Bradley was the Democratic candidate for governor. Prior to Election Day, Bradley was ahead of the Republican candidate George Deukmejian by 7%. Unfortunately, Mayor Bradley lost the election by 1%.[v]
This is a statistical “phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate. Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.”[vi]
Mayor Bradley was not the only black candidate whose poll numbers mysteriously decreased. In 1989, David Dinkins was leading the Republican candidate Rudolph Giuliani by 14 points, but won by a narrow margin. In Virginia, Douglas Wilder was leading the Republican candidate by 11 points, but also won by a narrow margin. Harvey Gantt was running against the racist Senator from North Carolina - Jesse Helms. He also had a big lead in the polls, but lost. Barack Obama joins the list of black candidates who lost after seemingly having a lead in the polls.
It is important that New Hampshire is not labeled a racist state simply because a percentage of the population lied regarding their exit polls. However, it would be foolish to pretend the race factor does not exist.
Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center and former pollster for Mayor David Dinkins, acknowledges the “longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.”[vii]
Kohut argues “poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews.”[viii]
A counterargument against Kohut’s theory regarding the New Hampshire primary is someone who is predisposed to vote strictly on race may also be predisposed to vote against gender. In other words, the racist is not a feminist.
The counterargument to the Bradley Effect is Iowa. Senator Obama won a predominately white state. Why wasn’t race a factor in Iowa?
There are two possible explanations. First, Senator Obama received overwhelming support from voters under the age of 30, and voters who were participating in their first caucus. Young people are less likely to judge someone according to race. Also, first time voters are less jaded by the political process.
Second, Iowa was a caucus. A caucus is different from a primary in which an individual enters a private area, and casts a secret ballot.
Caucuses are not secret ballots. They are public events. Residents gather in schools, public libraries, and private homes. Supporters divide themselves into groups. This could lead to a form of peer pressure. Groupthink can assert itself. Imagine an individual who supports Hillary Clinton, but finds out the majority of his friends and neighbors are supporting Obama. Even if the Clinton supporter walks over to Clinton group, this individual can be subjected to peer pressure in order to change his vote. We are social beings who crave acceptance. It is only natural for someone to bend to the will of a larger group for the sake of acceptance. In the case of Obama, the pressure is greater because you want to appear enlightened and cool to your neighbors.
The Bradley Effect is the only theory that explains the discrepancy between the exit polls and the results of the New Hampshire primary. Racism does not have to manifest itself in large numbers to impact an election. Five percent of the electorate can decide an election.
The race factor explains why presidential candidate John Edwards desperately wants to be the last white candidate standing against Barack Obama. Even on a subconscious level, Edwards understands the importance of the last white candidate running against the black candidate. At some point, the Bradley Effect will assert itself, and Edwards wants to benefit from it, although he will never admit it in public.
Furthermore, the Bradley Effect does not have to based solely on racism. And it does not have to be malicious in nature. It could be based on white guilt. A white individual who meets a black pollster conducting an exit poll may simple lie to the pollster out of guilt.
The only way to find out how much of an impact the Bradley Effect may have on the election is to observe, study polls before the primary, then compare them with exit polls and the actual results. If the Bradley Effect exists, then it will manifest itself again.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, January 9, 2008.
[ii] Maureen Dowd, “Liberties; Her Brute Strength,” New York Times, September 17, 2000.
[iii] Glenngarry Glenross, 1992.
[iv] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[v] Michael Fauntroy, “Don’t Overplay The Bradley Effect,” The Huffington Post, January 9, 2008.
[vi] Andrew Sullivan, “The Daily Dish,” The Atlantic Monthly, January 8, 2008.
[vii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
[viii] Andrew Kohut, “Getting it Wrong’” The New York Times, January 10, 2008.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
The Politics of Words
Labeling is a uniquely American phenomenon. It is our way to simplify something we would otherwise do not understand, or are too lazy to fully investigate, or comprehend. During the current presidential campaign, an ugly word is being tossed around, with complete disregard, to describe a threat to the American way of life: Islamofascism.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
After 9/11, we needed a label to identify the enemy. “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists” and “Islamists” replaced the old enemy from the past – the Soviet Union. Except that “Islamic radicals”, “militant jihadists”, and “Islamists” are not frightening enough. The names are a little too exotic.
Calling the enemy by its actual name (Osama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda) is insufficient because it narrows the enemy to one individual and an organization. Designating Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and other terrorist organizations as enemies in conjunction with Al Qaeda leads to confusion – too many names to remember. The new label must represent a threat of global proportions and should be able to incorporate a large swath of people.
Islamofascism conveys a perceived threat of an external force determined to impose its way of life against the will of free people all over the world. The theoretical threat of Islamofascism is manifested in The Caliphate who imposes Shariah law, and creates a world government above all others. Therefore Islamofascism is a threat to America.
The word Islamofascism suggests an image. Fascism reminds you of Nazi Germany. Adolph Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Hitler had facial hair – a funny mustache. The Nazi’s wanted to take over the world. Hitler wanted to eradicate the Jews from the face of earth.
If you accept the premise that Islam equals fascism, then Osama Bin Laden is the leader of militant Islamists/jihadists. Bin Laden has facial hair – a beard. The militant Islamists/jihadists want to take over the world. Bin Laden wants to become The Caliphate, rule the world, and kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.
Islamofascism is a curious combination of two words. Like “jumbo shrimp,” Islam and Fascism is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron that is being said by actual morons.
Fascism is “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”[i]
Islam means peace, is derived from the word salaam, and is defined as complete submission and obedience to the will of God.
Most (if not all) of the people who shout “Islamofascism” do not know anything about Islam. It is clearly stated in the Quran, “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256), therefore it would be highly unlikely that Islam, which believes in religious freedom, would encourage a worldwide movement against religious freedom.
Second, fascism by its very nature is a racist doctrine. Islam is a universal religion open to all nationalities and ethnic groups. It is contrary to Islamic faith for one Muslim to believe he has a higher status or is better than another Muslim. To God, all Muslims are equal.
In “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell argues the English language is being corrupted. “It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.”[ii]
Corruption of language is due to laziness. Regarding Islam and Muslims, the corruption is worse because Arabic words are incorrectly translated, and in most cases given new, sinister definitions. In this context, “Islamofascism,” the religion of Islam becomes a threat to national security.
Orwell argues “In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics’. All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.”[iii]
In addition, “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better.”[iv]
There are other examples involving incorrect use of language. During the current presidential campaign, several news organizations have reported that Barack Obama attended a “madrassa” in Indonesia. By implication, Obama is labeled a closet Muslim. He should not be trusted, and we should make sure he does not become the next president.
“Madrassa” is the Arabic word for school. Barack Obama lived in a predominatly Muslim country as a child, therefore he attended a school or “madrassa.”
Would we become suspicious if someone reported that Governor Bill Richardson attended an “escuela” as a child? Would we refuse to support Mayor Rudolph Giuliani if we discovered he attended a “scuola cattolica riservata?” Would we deport Governor Arnold Schwarznegger if it was disclosed he attended a “schule?”
The reason for the apprehension over the word “madrassa” is because of a perceived link to terrorism. The media has reported that Saudi Arabia funds religious schools or “madrassas” throughout the Islamic world. In addition, the Saudi Royal family follows a particular form of Islam know as Wahhabism – which has been labeled as a militant/radical anti-American form of Islam. Muslims are learning Wahhabi Islam in madrassas, therefore Muslims are learning anti-American propaganda in their schools.
Wahhabism is a movement named after Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. In modern terms, Mr. Wahhab was a fundamentalist preacher who travelled throughtout Saudi Arabia warning Muslims not to deviate from Islam as originally taught by Muhammad. He also preached the belief in the oneness of God.
At the time, Arabs were incorporating other beliefs into Islam which is forbidden. Muhammad Wahhab’s preaching was rejected by several tribes until he met Muhammad bin Saud. Wahhabism is the dominant form of Islam in Saudi Arabia.
Wahhabism is associated with terrorism and anti-Americanism which is curious because Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab died in 1792 – four years after the United States Constitution was ratified. How can someone (Wahab) be considered against something (the United States) that did not exist.
Jihad is another word that has been incorrectly translated. Jihad literally means “to strive,” as in strive to become a better Muslim, a better human being. It does not mean holy war. Parenthetically, the term “holy war” does not appear in the Quran.
Fatwa is another Arabic word that has experienced an alteration. Unfortunately, the word is associated with Ayatollah Khomeini’s death sentence of British author Salman Rushdie for blaspheming the Prophet Mohammad in his novel “The Satanic Verses.” In addition, Osama bin Laden issued an infamous fatwa in the 1990’s instructing his followers to kill Americans.
A fatwa is a legal/religious ruling issued by an Islamic cleric. Currently, a fatwa is considered a death sentence because of the actions of Khomeini and bin Laden.
Allah is an Arabic word that is treated with disrespect. It is as if Allah is the equivalent of Zeus, a figure of another religion that is only culturally important to Arabs just as Zeus would be to the Romans.
Allah is a unique Arabic word. In Arabic, there is only one thing that can be called Allah and that is The God. In the English language, there is God with a capital “G”, and god with the lower case “g,” and we differentiate The God from Apollo the sun god by the use of the letter “G.”
In Arabic, there are no capital and lower case letters, and there is only The God – Allah, and there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah. For example, in the sixties there were signs proclaiming, “Clapton is God.” In English, we understand that Eric Clapton is a guitar god, but you will never see an Arabic sign proclaiming, “Clapton is Allah.”
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote, “Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”[v]
It is important that we understand that words hurt. Words harm. Words cause damage. When we weaken Arab words, we are diminishing Muslims, and the religion of Islam. We are not treating Muslims with respect. With disrespect comes alienation.
It is a constant question, “Why do they hate us?” In the battle for their (Muslims) hearts and minds, equating Islam with Fascism will not change any minds. Islam and fascism do not belong in the same sentence, much less in the same word. Politicians should stop insulting Islam.
[i] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
[ii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iii] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[iv] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
[v] George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language,” 1950.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Regarding Divine Intervention
Recently, the archaic news program 60 Minutes broadcast a story about Christians who are being persecuted in Iraq. At the end of the report, the lathered 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asked Reverend Canon Andrew White, “Some of your parishioners must ask you, ‘Why is God allowing this to happen to us?”1
It is a question that I have heard before in the context of the Holocaust. How can a just and caring God allow the Holocaust to happen?
Maybe it was the implication - God is allowing Muslims to massacre Christians in Iraq - that angered me.
Had I been asked that question, I would have answered by asking the reporter the following question: Can you give me an example in the last 2,000 years in which God intervened on behalf of a people who were threatened with extinction?
This isn’t a God hating atheist arguing that God does not exist. I believe in God, but I perceive the relationship between God and humanity from the perspective of a deist. God is the creator of the Universe who after setting it in motion, withdrew from the creation, relinquished control over life, and exerts no influence on natural phenomena.
My favorite God metaphor is that of The Watchmaker. “If you found something like a watch in the desert, you would of course suppose it was an artifact of an intelligent watchmaker. Here we find ourselves in an intricate world that we think of as an elaborate mechanism, so there must be an intelligent worldmaker.”2
However, contrary to deist philosophy I do believe in revelation. Revelation is God’s way of restraining “the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings.”3
And I also believe God created man with free will. We are not automatons and we are not predestined to live out our lives according to a divine plan. It is not to say that God cannot or is incapable of exerting influence over his creation. God created the universe to be a self-sustaining, self-controlling mechanism. On Earth, man is the x factor, capable of changing this biosphere in numerous ways through his action and inaction.
The reason God does not intervene in our petty affairs is because we were created with the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. It would be ludicrous for me to blame God every time I committed a sin. Frankly, it’s cheap to blame God for the excessive violence of mankind.
“In 1939, both Cuba and the United States refused to admit 937 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the transatlantic liner St Louis. The ship was forced to return to Europe where, ultimately, many of the passengers perished in concentration camps or killing centers.”4
It would be easy to blame God for allowing many of the Jewish refugees from the St Louis to die in concentration camps because if God had willed, they would have been saved.
However, the lesson from the Holocaust is not that God did not care, but man’s indifference or hatred towards man doomed the passengers on the St Louis. The Holocaust happened because we, as a species, let it happened. During the 1930's, a group of people was in mortal danger, yet we could not let go of our petty hatred for a moment to save them. Our unproductive political leaders at the time were more concerned about Jews exceeding subjective and arbitrary immigration quotas.
Somehow in our minds, genocide is equated with natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. People die in natural disasters and we take comfort in their deaths by saying it was God’s will. However, genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a preventable catastrophe.
In the United Nations charter is a stipulation that in the event of genocide, the UN would intervene. Since the inception of the overestimated United Nations, there were at least three major incidents that could be classified as genocide - Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. We did not act to prevent these massacres, but someway this is God’s fault because God let it happen.
The only sign of man’s progress is the amazing ability to euphemize the English language, watering down the word genocide to the popular term “ethnic cleansing,” as if the Tutsis were expunged from Rwanda like a regrettable bowel movement after eating a bad meal at a fast food restaurant.
I also believe we are accountable for our actions. I wonder if on the day of our ultimate judgment, when our morally inept political leaders will have to account for their abominable behavior, they will attempt to rationalize so many massacres. They will look straight onto God and dare say, “Don’t look at me, it was Your fault. You let it happen.”
1 “Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians,” 60 Minutes, CBS News (December 2, 2007)
2 Ian Hacking, “Root and Branch,” The Nation (October 8, 2007), p30.
3 David Brooks, “Faith vs. The Faithless,” New York Times (December 7, 2007).
4 “Voyage of the St Louis,” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
It is a question that I have heard before in the context of the Holocaust. How can a just and caring God allow the Holocaust to happen?
Maybe it was the implication - God is allowing Muslims to massacre Christians in Iraq - that angered me.
Had I been asked that question, I would have answered by asking the reporter the following question: Can you give me an example in the last 2,000 years in which God intervened on behalf of a people who were threatened with extinction?
This isn’t a God hating atheist arguing that God does not exist. I believe in God, but I perceive the relationship between God and humanity from the perspective of a deist. God is the creator of the Universe who after setting it in motion, withdrew from the creation, relinquished control over life, and exerts no influence on natural phenomena.
My favorite God metaphor is that of The Watchmaker. “If you found something like a watch in the desert, you would of course suppose it was an artifact of an intelligent watchmaker. Here we find ourselves in an intricate world that we think of as an elaborate mechanism, so there must be an intelligent worldmaker.”2
However, contrary to deist philosophy I do believe in revelation. Revelation is God’s way of restraining “the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings.”3
And I also believe God created man with free will. We are not automatons and we are not predestined to live out our lives according to a divine plan. It is not to say that God cannot or is incapable of exerting influence over his creation. God created the universe to be a self-sustaining, self-controlling mechanism. On Earth, man is the x factor, capable of changing this biosphere in numerous ways through his action and inaction.
The reason God does not intervene in our petty affairs is because we were created with the capacity for choosing between right and wrong. It would be ludicrous for me to blame God every time I committed a sin. Frankly, it’s cheap to blame God for the excessive violence of mankind.
“In 1939, both Cuba and the United States refused to admit 937 Jewish refugees who had sailed from Hamburg, Germany, on the transatlantic liner St Louis. The ship was forced to return to Europe where, ultimately, many of the passengers perished in concentration camps or killing centers.”4
It would be easy to blame God for allowing many of the Jewish refugees from the St Louis to die in concentration camps because if God had willed, they would have been saved.
However, the lesson from the Holocaust is not that God did not care, but man’s indifference or hatred towards man doomed the passengers on the St Louis. The Holocaust happened because we, as a species, let it happened. During the 1930's, a group of people was in mortal danger, yet we could not let go of our petty hatred for a moment to save them. Our unproductive political leaders at the time were more concerned about Jews exceeding subjective and arbitrary immigration quotas.
Somehow in our minds, genocide is equated with natural disasters like earthquakes, volcanoes and hurricanes. People die in natural disasters and we take comfort in their deaths by saying it was God’s will. However, genocide is not a natural disaster. It is a preventable catastrophe.
In the United Nations charter is a stipulation that in the event of genocide, the UN would intervene. Since the inception of the overestimated United Nations, there were at least three major incidents that could be classified as genocide - Cambodia, Rwanda and Bosnia. We did not act to prevent these massacres, but someway this is God’s fault because God let it happen.
The only sign of man’s progress is the amazing ability to euphemize the English language, watering down the word genocide to the popular term “ethnic cleansing,” as if the Tutsis were expunged from Rwanda like a regrettable bowel movement after eating a bad meal at a fast food restaurant.
I also believe we are accountable for our actions. I wonder if on the day of our ultimate judgment, when our morally inept political leaders will have to account for their abominable behavior, they will attempt to rationalize so many massacres. They will look straight onto God and dare say, “Don’t look at me, it was Your fault. You let it happen.”
1 “Vicar: Dire Times for Iraq’s Christians,” 60 Minutes, CBS News (December 2, 2007)
2 Ian Hacking, “Root and Branch,” The Nation (October 8, 2007), p30.
3 David Brooks, “Faith vs. The Faithless,” New York Times (December 7, 2007).
4 “Voyage of the St Louis,” The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Gaffe in the Eye of the Beholder
Gaffes are the entertainment portion of political campaigns. A candidate makes an unfortunate statement or a mistake, and then has to spend the next week trying to clean up the mess as the media and late night comedians regurgitate the gaffe in a continuous loop.
At best, the gaffes will make the politician look human. At worst, it can cost an election, for example, President Ford, in a nationally televised debate said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was double teamed by the media and his Democratic rivals over comments he has made during interviews, televised debates and campaign stops. The media labeled his comments as “gaffes.” His rivals, namely Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, argued that the Senator from Illinois is naïve and inexperienced.
The first so-called gaffe from the Senator from Illinois was in May 2007 when the young Senator stated, “In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas.” He mistakenly said 10,000 people had died in Kansas as a result of a tornado. In reality, only 12 people died. Senator Obama “blamed tiredness for the gaffe… A spokesman later said Mr. Obama meant to say at least 10 instead of 10,000.” Later on in the speech, Mr. Obama acknowledged, “there are going to be times when I get tired… There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”[i] The junior Senator from Illinois underestimated the level of attention his mistakes would attract.
On July 17th, the Senator gave a speech at Planned Parenthood. Senator Obama was talking about a prior campaign smear against him in 2004 by his opponent Alan Keyes. The Republican candidate suggested Mr. Obama favored sex education for children in kindergarten.
The Senator stated he supported “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” The Obama campaign used a prior newspaper report from The Daily Herald on October 6, 2004 to clarify his position. Senator Obama “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” Furthermore, “the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate… envisioned teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’”[ii]
In fairness, Senator Obama could have said something worse, for example, “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” (George W. Bush, Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000).
However, the media focused on “sex education” and “kindergarten” – words that would question the judgment of anyone running for public office who thought sex education for young children would be appropriate.
During the You Tube debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he would consider meeting with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to discuss US relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba face to face.[iii]
Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on him, saying he was naïve and inexperienced. Media pundits also attached the inexperience label on the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois. But at least he was able to spontaneously name foreign leaders.
In a foreign policy statement, Senator Obama said “he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country’s tribal areas…
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said, “we will.”[iv]
The media completely misrepresented Senator Obama’s statement, instead reporting that Mr. Obama would invade Pakistan. ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper – who often finds the need to state the Senator’s full name: Barack Hussein Obama – said “Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.”[v]
Incidentally, during the January 16 2007 edition of Nightline, ABC’s Jake Tapper said, “If three years ago, in January 2004, someone had told you that this man, then an Illinois state legislator named Barack Hussein Obama, was thinking about running for president, you might have thought he was, well, unhinged…. But beyond the excitement among Democrats and some in the media, it's not tough to discern a certain sense of confusion up here on Capitol Hill, fueled, in part, by jealousy and resentment, sure, but the question you hear bears answering: Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?”[vi]
ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported Senator Obama would “be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.”[vii]
CBS Evening News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported, “that during Obama’s speech, he said he would ‘possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan.’”[viii]
An August 2 article about Obama’s speech in the Los Angeles Times “reported” that Senator from Illinois said “the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.”[ix]
The factually challenged newspaper The New York Post, invented a quote in its August 2 edition claiming Senator Obama “warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren’t doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil.”[x]
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped into the fray saying, “It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say ‘we’re going to go into your country unilaterally.’ Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.’ We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet.”[xi]
In the case of the Bush Administration, first you wait for disaster to strike, then you express your option to unilaterally invade - Iraq.
During another interview with the Associated Press, Senator Obama talked about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At first, he ruled out using nuclear weapons because he was concerned over civilian casualties.
Sensing he made a mistake in discussing the use of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”[xii]
Again, his rivals pounced and “questioned his foreign policy experience.” Senator Clinton declined to comment on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, but the Senator from New York said, “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”[xiii]
Under-whelming second tier Democratic contender Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut issued a statement to draw attention to his faltering campaign and slammed Senator Obama. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”[xiv]
Senator Obama is learning the hard way that statements, no matter how well thought out, no matter how eloquent will somehow or someway will be twisted to look like something else. To counter his critics, he should say, “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” (George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000).
But Americans can be forgiving when it comes to mistakes or gaffes on the campaign trail. It helps when the media under reports or ignores the gaffes.
Campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, former New York City Mayor, 9/11 hero and current Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani praised the United States heath care system, arguing that it is better than Europe’s and Canada’s because “it’s private, competitive, and for profit.”[xv]
That statement is almost as entertaining as “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (George Bush Cleveland, Ohio, July 11, 2007).
Furthermore, America’s Mayor compared the health care industry with purchasing plasma TVs. Mr. Giuliani argued that “if the federal government required all Americans to own a plasma TV and paid for those who could not afford it, lower quality televisions would cost upwards of $15,000 today.” However, thanks to the invisible hand of the free competitive market, “higher quality [TVs are] now available for only $2,000.”[xvi] Sometimes I wonder if the media has a sense of humor.
Mayor Giuliani focuses his presidential campaign on the leadership he provided to New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, America’s Mayor is not immune to hyping his own biography. Recently he boasted, “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers,” Mr. Giuliani said last week in Cincinnati. “I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”[xvii]
Giuliani realized he made a mistake, and attempted to explain the statement. He meant to say that he felt their (the workers) pain, and his thoughts were with them everyday.
Unfortunately for the 9/11 hero, with great power comes greater scrutiny and Mayor Giuliani’s public record contradicts his statements. “A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”[xviii]
And how did America’s Mayor spend those 29 hours. “The 29 hours Mr. Giuliani spent at ground zero involved 41 appearances, mostly to give tours to other officials and foreign dignitaries. Many entries include meetings away from the site before the tour. For instance, the schedule included 30 minutes on Nov. 15, 2001, for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but Mr. Putin’s tour of ground zero was widely reported to have lasted 13 minutes.”[xix] In other words, he was having his picture taken at Ground Zero with famous people.
America’s Mayor Giuliani is not the only presidential candidate who said or did something stupid that was ignored by the media.
Former Governor – of a Northeastern State he is too ashamed to mention (Massachusetts) – Mitt Romney employed great wisdom in having his picture taken with someone who was holding an “Obama is Osama” sign. Later on that same day, a questioner at a town hall meeting jumped on the ex Governor, informed Mr. Romney that comparing a wanted fugitive and mass murder with the Senator from Illinois was wrong. Flustered, Mr. Romney responded by saying we should all lighten up.
In the spirit of jocularity, the former Governor from Massachusetts won’t mind if you call him Mitt Romney Bin Al Shibh.
At a June Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked Governor Romney if it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will,”[xx] answered Mr. Romney. First, he misused the term “non sequitur.” This should disqualify him outright for the presidency.
But I digress. The Governor said, “If you’re saying, lets turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”[xxi] Mr. Romney echoed the Bush Administration argument that Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in the country.
In fact, Saddam Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and as of March 17, 2003 found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The only reason weapons inspectors were forced to leave was over concerns for their safety because the Bush Administration was about to invade Iraq.[xxii]
The media gave Governor Romney a pass on his gaffe, instead focusing a more “egregious” gaffe from Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said “Today’s the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”[xxiii] By the way, the reported gaffe was Huckabee not knowing Reagan’s birthday. Reagan’s triumphant victory over the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union, is supposed to be a fact.
At a campaign stop in Iowa, Mitt Romney – a big supporter of the “WAR ON TERROR” – spoke about the military and his fives sons and their devotion to America. “The good news is that we have a volunteer army and that’s the way we are going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”[xxiv] Comedians at gunpoint could not write funnier material.
The difference between Mr. Obama’s so called gaffes, and the Republicans is that in the case of the former, his Democratic rivals and the media hammer the Senator from Illinois whenever he makes a “mistake” reinforcing the notion that he is inexperienced. In contrast, the Republicans do not beat on each other during the debates, and the media under report and ignore their gaffes.
But we should not use gaffes made during a presidential campaign against the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. We should judge them on the standard set by our current president who has elevated gaffes into an art form.
“This is what I’m good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them.” (George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000). You would almost expect Mr. Bush to also say, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.”
“I don’t think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.” (George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000). Subliminal: adjective, inadequate to produce a sensation or perception; existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness. President Bush was correct. He is inadequate to produce a sensation or perception, and he exists and functions below the threshold of consciousness.
“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.” (George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000). I’m sorry, the word you are looking for is antidote – noun, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison, such as your presidency.
“It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.” (George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000). Import: verb, to bring from a foreign or external source – like an idea.
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000). Thank God, or else we would have to fight them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here.
“I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” (George W. Bush, second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000). This is the sad result when two thoughts collide – racial profiling and education.
“It’s important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It’s not only life of babies, but it’s life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.” (George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000). Does the president know the Internet is not an actual place?
“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.” (George W. Bush, Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000). The word you’re looking for is resonate, as in your lack of command of the English language resonates throughout the land.
“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” (George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000). Social Security is a federal program, duh!!!
“If you don’t stand for anything, you don’t stand for anything! If you don’t stand for something, you don’t stand for anything!” (George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000). President Bush never heard the axiom, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Furthermore, during a Republican debate in 2000, when asked who was his most influential political philosopher, Governor Bush answered, “Jesus.” By the way, J.C.’s critique of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is inspiring. Also worth reading is Jesus’ article about Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”
In 1999, during a television interview, Governor Bush was asked who were the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The best he could come up with was “Lee” for Taiwan.
And don’t forget some of his gaffes as President of the United States. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003). Probably?!!!
“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” (George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003). Excuse me Mr. President, we have weapons of mass destruction.
Also, Iraq is an imminent threat, and has weapons of mass destruction, or his GI Joe Mission Accomplished photo op in which President Bush said, “my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”, or “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007).
If we did not hold George Bush accountable for the countless gaffes he has entertained us with from the moment he announced his candidacy for president, then why should we start now.
News has become entertainment. It stands to follow we should not be surprised if we elect clowns for political office.
[i] BBC News, “Tired Obama Makes Tornado Gaffe,” (May 9, 2007).
[ii] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Carlson Claimed Obama’s Sex Ed Policy Provides Powerful Fodder to Deride Him,” (July 20, 2007).
[iii] Alexander Cockburn, “How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months,” The Nation, (August 27/September 3, 2007), page 10.
[iv] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times (August 2, 2007).
[v] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed He Didn’t See Anyone Reporting That Obama Wanted to Invade Pakistan, (August 8,2007).
[vi] Media Matters for America, “Tapper’s profile of “Barack Hussein Obama” asked: “Just who the hell is Barack Obama?,” (January 17, 2007).
[vii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[viii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[ix] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[x] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[xi] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Reid aired “Strangelove” attack, but didn’t note Romney’s agreement with Obama on substance,” (August 7, 2007).
[xii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiv] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xv] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvi] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xviii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xix] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xx] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s Iraq Falsehood, Wash Post Called Huckabee’s Reagan Remark the Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxi] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiv] Media Matters for America, “The Media Misses Mitt Romney’s You Tube Moment,” (August 13, 2007).
At best, the gaffes will make the politician look human. At worst, it can cost an election, for example, President Ford, in a nationally televised debate said, “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford Administration.”
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was double teamed by the media and his Democratic rivals over comments he has made during interviews, televised debates and campaign stops. The media labeled his comments as “gaffes.” His rivals, namely Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, argued that the Senator from Illinois is naïve and inexperienced.
The first so-called gaffe from the Senator from Illinois was in May 2007 when the young Senator stated, “In case you missed it, this week there was a tragedy in Kansas.” He mistakenly said 10,000 people had died in Kansas as a result of a tornado. In reality, only 12 people died. Senator Obama “blamed tiredness for the gaffe… A spokesman later said Mr. Obama meant to say at least 10 instead of 10,000.” Later on in the speech, Mr. Obama acknowledged, “there are going to be times when I get tired… There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes.”[i] The junior Senator from Illinois underestimated the level of attention his mistakes would attract.
On July 17th, the Senator gave a speech at Planned Parenthood. Senator Obama was talking about a prior campaign smear against him in 2004 by his opponent Alan Keyes. The Republican candidate suggested Mr. Obama favored sex education for children in kindergarten.
The Senator stated he supported “age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.” The Obama campaign used a prior newspaper report from The Daily Herald on October 6, 2004 to clarify his position. Senator Obama “does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten.” Furthermore, “the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate… envisioned teaching kindergarteners about ‘inappropriate touching.’”[ii]
In fairness, Senator Obama could have said something worse, for example, “Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?” (George W. Bush, Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000).
However, the media focused on “sex education” and “kindergarten” – words that would question the judgment of anyone running for public office who thought sex education for young children would be appropriate.
During the You Tube debate in South Carolina, Senator Obama stated that he would consider meeting with Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro to discuss US relations with North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Cuba face to face.[iii]
Hillary Clinton immediately jumped on him, saying he was naïve and inexperienced. Media pundits also attached the inexperience label on the Democratic presidential candidate from Illinois. But at least he was able to spontaneously name foreign leaders.
In a foreign policy statement, Senator Obama said “he would order strikes on Al Qaeda targets and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid if the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, did not blunt a resurging Taliban presence in the country’s tribal areas…
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Mr. Obama said, “we will.”[iv]
The media completely misrepresented Senator Obama’s statement, instead reporting that Mr. Obama would invade Pakistan. ABC News, senior national correspondent Jake Tapper – who often finds the need to state the Senator’s full name: Barack Hussein Obama – said “Obama will make extraordinary remarks about what he would do to combat terrorism, going so far as to invade Pakistan.”[v]
Incidentally, during the January 16 2007 edition of Nightline, ABC’s Jake Tapper said, “If three years ago, in January 2004, someone had told you that this man, then an Illinois state legislator named Barack Hussein Obama, was thinking about running for president, you might have thought he was, well, unhinged…. But beyond the excitement among Democrats and some in the media, it's not tough to discern a certain sense of confusion up here on Capitol Hill, fueled, in part, by jealousy and resentment, sure, but the question you hear bears answering: Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?”[vi]
ABC's World News Sunday, ABC News correspondent John Berman reported Senator Obama would “be willing to invade Pakistan to fight terrorism.”[vii]
CBS Evening News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reported, “that during Obama’s speech, he said he would ‘possibly even invade the U.S. ally Pakistan.’”[viii]
An August 2 article about Obama’s speech in the Los Angeles Times “reported” that Senator from Illinois said “the United States should reserve the right to invade the territory of its Pakistani allies and withdraw U.S. financial aid if it believed Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was failing to do enough to stop terrorists.”[ix]
The factually challenged newspaper The New York Post, invented a quote in its August 2 edition claiming Senator Obama “warned yesterday that he would use American forces to invade U.S. ally Pakistan if its leaders weren’t doing enough to catch terrorists on their soil.”[x]
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney jumped into the fray saying, “It’s wrong for a person running for the president of the United States to get on TV and say ‘we’re going to go into your country unilaterally.’ Of course America always maintains our options to do whatever we think is in the best interests of America. But we don’t go out and say: ‘Ladies and gentlemen of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country, and we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out.’ We don’t say those things. We keep our options quiet.”[xi]
In the case of the Bush Administration, first you wait for disaster to strike, then you express your option to unilaterally invade - Iraq.
During another interview with the Associated Press, Senator Obama talked about the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan. At first, he ruled out using nuclear weapons because he was concerned over civilian casualties.
Sensing he made a mistake in discussing the use of nuclear weapons, Senator Obama said, “Let me scratch that. There’s been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That’s not on the table.”[xii]
Again, his rivals pounced and “questioned his foreign policy experience.” Senator Clinton declined to comment on the hypothetical use of nuclear weapons, but the Senator from New York said, “I think that presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons. Presidents, since the Cold War, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don’t believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons.”[xiii]
Under-whelming second tier Democratic contender Senator Christopher Dodd from Connecticut issued a statement to draw attention to his faltering campaign and slammed Senator Obama. “Over the past several days, Senator Obama’s assertions about foreign and military affairs have been, frankly, confusing and confused. He has made threats he should not make and made unwise categorical statements about military options.”[xiv]
Senator Obama is learning the hard way that statements, no matter how well thought out, no matter how eloquent will somehow or someway will be twisted to look like something else. To counter his critics, he should say, “I think anybody who doesn’t think I’m smart enough to handle the job is underestimating.” (George W. Bush, U.S. News & World Report, April 3, 2000).
But Americans can be forgiving when it comes to mistakes or gaffes on the campaign trail. It helps when the media under reports or ignores the gaffes.
Campaigning in Davenport, Iowa, former New York City Mayor, 9/11 hero and current Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani praised the United States heath care system, arguing that it is better than Europe’s and Canada’s because “it’s private, competitive, and for profit.”[xv]
That statement is almost as entertaining as “People have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room” (George Bush Cleveland, Ohio, July 11, 2007).
Furthermore, America’s Mayor compared the health care industry with purchasing plasma TVs. Mr. Giuliani argued that “if the federal government required all Americans to own a plasma TV and paid for those who could not afford it, lower quality televisions would cost upwards of $15,000 today.” However, thanks to the invisible hand of the free competitive market, “higher quality [TVs are] now available for only $2,000.”[xvi] Sometimes I wonder if the media has a sense of humor.
Mayor Giuliani focuses his presidential campaign on the leadership he provided to New York City in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. However, America’s Mayor is not immune to hyping his own biography. Recently he boasted, “I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers,” Mr. Giuliani said last week in Cincinnati. “I was there working with them. I was there guiding things. I was there bringing people there. But I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I’m one of them.”[xvii]
Giuliani realized he made a mistake, and attempted to explain the statement. He meant to say that he felt their (the workers) pain, and his thoughts were with them everyday.
Unfortunately for the 9/11 hero, with great power comes greater scrutiny and Mayor Giuliani’s public record contradicts his statements. “A complete record of Mr. Giuliani’s exposure to the site is not available for the chaotic six days after the attack, when he was a frequent visitor. But an exhaustively detailed account from his mayoral archive, revised after the events to account for last-minute changes on scheduled stops, does exist for the period of Sept. 17 to Dec. 16, 2001. It shows he was there for a total of 29 hours in those three months, often for short periods or to visit locations adjacent to the rubble. In that same period, many rescue and recovery workers put in daily 12-hour shifts.”[xviii]
And how did America’s Mayor spend those 29 hours. “The 29 hours Mr. Giuliani spent at ground zero involved 41 appearances, mostly to give tours to other officials and foreign dignitaries. Many entries include meetings away from the site before the tour. For instance, the schedule included 30 minutes on Nov. 15, 2001, for President Vladimir Putin of Russia, but Mr. Putin’s tour of ground zero was widely reported to have lasted 13 minutes.”[xix] In other words, he was having his picture taken at Ground Zero with famous people.
America’s Mayor Giuliani is not the only presidential candidate who said or did something stupid that was ignored by the media.
Former Governor – of a Northeastern State he is too ashamed to mention (Massachusetts) – Mitt Romney employed great wisdom in having his picture taken with someone who was holding an “Obama is Osama” sign. Later on that same day, a questioner at a town hall meeting jumped on the ex Governor, informed Mr. Romney that comparing a wanted fugitive and mass murder with the Senator from Illinois was wrong. Flustered, Mr. Romney responded by saying we should all lighten up.
In the spirit of jocularity, the former Governor from Massachusetts won’t mind if you call him Mitt Romney Bin Al Shibh.
At a June Republican Presidential debate, the moderator asked Governor Romney if it was a mistake to go to war with Iraq. “Well, the question is kind of a non sequitur, if you will,”[xx] answered Mr. Romney. First, he misused the term “non sequitur.” This should disqualify him outright for the presidency.
But I digress. The Governor said, “If you’re saying, lets turn back the clock and Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors and they’d come in and they’d found that there were no weapons of mass destruction – had Saddam Hussein therefore not violated United Nations resolutions – we wouldn’t be in the conflict we’re in. But he didn’t do those things, and we knew what we knew at the point we made the decision to get in.”[xxi] Mr. Romney echoed the Bush Administration argument that Saddam Hussein would not allow weapons inspectors in the country.
In fact, Saddam Hussein had allowed weapons inspectors into Iraq, and as of March 17, 2003 found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. The only reason weapons inspectors were forced to leave was over concerns for their safety because the Bush Administration was about to invade Iraq.[xxii]
The media gave Governor Romney a pass on his gaffe, instead focusing a more “egregious” gaffe from Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who said “Today’s the birthday of Ronald Reagan. We all would believe that Ronald Reagan is the one who ended the Cold War and Ronald Reagan is the one who helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.”[xxiii] By the way, the reported gaffe was Huckabee not knowing Reagan’s birthday. Reagan’s triumphant victory over the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union, is supposed to be a fact.
At a campaign stop in Iowa, Mitt Romney – a big supporter of the “WAR ON TERROR” – spoke about the military and his fives sons and their devotion to America. “The good news is that we have a volunteer army and that’s the way we are going to keep it. My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard. One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”[xxiv] Comedians at gunpoint could not write funnier material.
The difference between Mr. Obama’s so called gaffes, and the Republicans is that in the case of the former, his Democratic rivals and the media hammer the Senator from Illinois whenever he makes a “mistake” reinforcing the notion that he is inexperienced. In contrast, the Republicans do not beat on each other during the debates, and the media under report and ignore their gaffes.
But we should not use gaffes made during a presidential campaign against the candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties. We should judge them on the standard set by our current president who has elevated gaffes into an art form.
“This is what I’m good at. I like meeting people, my fellow citizens, I like interfacing with them.” (George W. Bush, outside Pittsburgh, Sept. 8, 2000). You would almost expect Mr. Bush to also say, “You will be assimilated, resistance is futile.”
“I don’t think we need to be subliminable about the differences between our views on prescription drugs.” (George W. Bush, Orlando, Fla., Sept. 12, 2000). Subliminal: adjective, inadequate to produce a sensation or perception; existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness. President Bush was correct. He is inadequate to produce a sensation or perception, and he exists and functions below the threshold of consciousness.
“A tax cut is really one of the anecdotes to coming out of an economic illness.” (George W. Bush, The Edge With Paula Zahn, Sept. 18, 2000). I’m sorry, the word you are looking for is antidote – noun, a remedy to counteract the effects of poison, such as your presidency.
“It is clear our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas.” (George W. Bush, Beaverton, Ore., Sep. 25, 2000). Import: verb, to bring from a foreign or external source – like an idea.
“I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.” (George W. Bush, Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000). Thank God, or else we would have to fight them over there so that we would not have to fight them over here.
“I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children.” (George W. Bush, second presidential debate, Oct. 11, 2000). This is the sad result when two thoughts collide – racial profiling and education.
“It’s important for us to explain to our nation that life is important. It’s not only life of babies, but it’s life of children living in, you know, the dark dungeons of the Internet.” (George W. Bush, Arlington Heights, Ill., Oct. 24, 2000). Does the president know the Internet is not an actual place?
“They said, ‘You know, this issue doesn’t seem to resignate with the people.’ And I said, you know something? Whether it resignates or not doesn’t matter to me, because I stand for doing what’s the right thing, and what the right thing is hearing the voices of people who work.” (George W. Bush, Portland, Ore., Oct. 31, 2000). The word you’re looking for is resonate, as in your lack of command of the English language resonates throughout the land.
“They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it’s some kind of federal program.” (George W. Bush, Nov. 2, 2000). Social Security is a federal program, duh!!!
“If you don’t stand for anything, you don’t stand for anything! If you don’t stand for something, you don’t stand for anything!” (George W. Bush, Bellevue Community College, Nov. 2, 2000). President Bush never heard the axiom, “It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
Furthermore, during a Republican debate in 2000, when asked who was his most influential political philosopher, Governor Bush answered, “Jesus.” By the way, J.C.’s critique of Karl Marx’s “Das Kapital” is inspiring. Also worth reading is Jesus’ article about Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations.”
In 1999, during a television interview, Governor Bush was asked who were the leaders of Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. The best he could come up with was “Lee” for Taiwan.
And don’t forget some of his gaffes as President of the United States. “I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what’s moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003). Probably?!!!
“See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don’t attack each other. Free nations don’t develop weapons of mass destruction.” (George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003). Excuse me Mr. President, we have weapons of mass destruction.
Also, Iraq is an imminent threat, and has weapons of mass destruction, or his GI Joe Mission Accomplished photo op in which President Bush said, “my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”, or “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.” (George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007).
If we did not hold George Bush accountable for the countless gaffes he has entertained us with from the moment he announced his candidacy for president, then why should we start now.
News has become entertainment. It stands to follow we should not be surprised if we elect clowns for political office.
[i] BBC News, “Tired Obama Makes Tornado Gaffe,” (May 9, 2007).
[ii] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Carlson Claimed Obama’s Sex Ed Policy Provides Powerful Fodder to Deride Him,” (July 20, 2007).
[iii] Alexander Cockburn, “How the Democrats Blew It in Only 8 Months,” The Nation, (August 27/September 3, 2007), page 10.
[iv] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times (August 2, 2007).
[v] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed He Didn’t See Anyone Reporting That Obama Wanted to Invade Pakistan, (August 8,2007).
[vi] Media Matters for America, “Tapper’s profile of “Barack Hussein Obama” asked: “Just who the hell is Barack Obama?,” (January 17, 2007).
[vii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[viii] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[ix] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[x] Media Matter for America, “Kurtz Claimed… Pakistan,” (August 8, 2007).
[xi] Media Matters for America, “MSNBC’s Reid aired “Strangelove” attack, but didn’t note Romney’s agreement with Obama on substance,” (August 7, 2007).
[xii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiii] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xiv] Michael Luo, “Nuclear Weapons Comment Puts Obama on the Defensive,” NY Times, (August 3, 2007).
[xv] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvi] Matt Clark, “Giuliani Cites Energy Independence as Weapon to Fight Terrorists,” IowaPolitics.com, (July 20, 2007).
[xvii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xviii] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xix] Russ Buettner, “For Giuliani, Ground Zero as Linchpin and Thorn,” NY Times, (August 17, 2007).
[xx] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s Iraq Falsehood, Wash Post Called Huckabee’s Reagan Remark the Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxi] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiii] Media Matters for America, “Ignoring Romney’s… Gaffe of the Night,” (June 6, 2007).
[xxiv] Media Matters for America, “The Media Misses Mitt Romney’s You Tube Moment,” (August 13, 2007).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
