In the Internet, Google, and You Tube era, Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a startling discovery. Reverend John Hagee made several disparaging remarks about the Catholic Church and preached Adolph Hitler was a divine instrument in compelling Jews to return to Palestine. Reverend Rod Parsley preached the United States founding principle was to destroy Islam.
Senator McCain’s pastor problem reminded me of a Seinfeld episode, but not because Senator McCain’s haphazard attempt to mollify the Christian Right or the Seinfeld episode were funny.
The Seinfeld episode is called “The Puerto Rican Day.” It was broadcast on May 7, 1998. The plot is about Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer driving into Manhattan on a June afternoon after a New York Mets game, but they are trapped in a traffic jam. The protagonists are unaware the Puerto Rican Day parade was scheduled on the same day as the baseball game.
During the episode, Kramer accidentally sets the Puerto Rican flag on fire. Kramer tries to put out the fire by stomping on the Puerto Rican flag and raucous comedy follows. A group of Puerto Ricans witness Kramer stomping on the Puerto Rican flag. The mob of angry Puerto Ricans chase Kramer. Kramer gets away from the mob, but the mob vandalizes Jerry’s car and throw the vacant car down the stairs. Kramer makes the observation that “it’s like this every day in Puerto Rico.”[i]
Burning the American flag is protected free speech in the context of political protest, but is considered sacrilegious by patriotic Americans regardless of context. However, burning the Puerto Rican flag as a comedy prop was acceptable.
What does a tasteless Seinfeld episode have in common with Senator McCain’s pastor problem?
Alec Berg, Jennifer Crittenden, Larry David, Spike Feresten, Bruce Eric Kaplan, Gegg Kavet, Steven Koren, David Mandel, Dan O’Keefe, Andy Robin, Jeff Schaffer and Jerry Seinfeld wrote “The Puerto Rican Day.” Not one writer was Puerto Rican judging from the surnames. A Puerto Rican writer would have objected to the blatant misuse of the Puerto Rican flag.
Senator McCain’s campaign staff is as limited in worldview as is Seinfeld’s writing staff. The Seinfeld writing staff did not recognize that burning the Puerto Rican flag would be offensive. Senator McCain did not recognize that accepting Reverend Hagee and Reverend Parsley would offend Catholics and Muslims.
Republicans will cite the “God damn America” and “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” statements made by Senator Obama’s former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, arguing the statements are worse than the endorsement of the bigoted preachers.
Statements removed from context always appear worse. When Reverend Wright said “God damn America,” he was making a distinction between governments and religion.
“Where governments lie, God does not lie. Where governments change, God does not change,” said Reverend Wright. “And I’m through now. But let me leave you with one more thing. Governments fail. The government in this text comprised of Caesar, Cornelius, Pontius Pilate – the Roman government failed. The British government used to rule from East to West. The British government had a Union Jack. She colonized Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Hong Kong. Her navies ruled the seven seas all the way down to the tip of Argentina in the Falklands, but the British government failed. The Russian government failed. The Japanese government failed. The German government failed. And the United States of America government, when it came to treating her citizens of Indian descent fairly, she failed. She put them on reservations. When it came to treating her citizens of Japanese descent fairly, she failed. She put them in internment prison camps. When it came to treating citizens of African descent fairly, America failed. She put them in chains. The government put them on slave quarters, put them on auction blocks, put them in cotton fields, put them in inferior schools, put them in substandard housing, put them in scientific experiments, put them in the lowest paying jobs, put them outside the equal protection of the law, kept them out of their racist bastions of higher education and locked them into position of hopelessness and helplessness. The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law, and then wants us to sing God bless America? No, no, no. Not God bless America; God damn America! That’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating her citizen as less than human. God damn America as long as she keeps trying to act like she is God and she is supreme!”[ii]
The sound-bite repeated by the mass media used 32 words out a total of 306 words in the previous paragraph. Without context, these 32 words will offend.
Furthermore, the majority of Americans do not understand that the perspective of a black man, who was raised in a segregated country, is different than the perspective of a white man who never suffered the indignity of racial discrimination. The Mainstream Media tends to skewer the perspective of African Americans.
The Mediacracy’s misuse of the “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” quote is more disingenuous and egregious because Reverend was quoting Ambassador Edward Peck, a retired career diplomat, in the sermon. The Mainstream Media does not mention Reverend Wright is quoting Ambassador Peck.
The purpose of the sermon was to illustrate a similarity between Psalm 137 and the present unending violence towards civilians. Psalm 137 ends with, “Babylon, you will be destroyed. Happy are those who pay you back for what you have done to us – who take your babies and smash them against a rock.”[iii]
The sermon was delivered on the first Sunday after September 11th. “I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox news. This is a white man and he was upsetting the Fox news commentators to no end. He pointed out. You see him John? A white man he pointed out – an Ambassador,” said Reverend Wright. “He pointed out that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Mohammad was in fact true. America’s chickens are coming home to roost! We took this country by terror away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism! We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers and hard-working fathers. We bombed Gadafi's home and killed his child. ‘Blessed are they who bash your children’s head against a rock!’ We bombed Iraq. We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living. We bombed a plant in Sudan to payback for the attack on our embassy. Killed hundreds of hard-working people; mothers and fathers who left home to go that day, not knowing that they would never get back home. We bombed Hiroshima! We bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye! Kids playing in the playground, mothers picking up children after school, civilians – not soldiers – people just trying to make it day by day. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and Black South Africans, and now we are indignant? Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yards! America’s chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred and terrorism begets terrorism. A White Ambassador said that y’all not a Black Militant. Not a Reverend who preaches about racism. An Ambassador whose eyes are wide open, and who’s trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised.”[iv]
Granted, excerpts taken out of context from Reverend Wright’s sermons are offensive to most Americans, but Reverend Wright’s comments do not have foreign policy implications.
Reverend Hagee called the Catholic Church “the Great Whore,” said the Catholic Church was a cult, and preached Adolph Hitler learned anti Semitism while attending Catholic School.
Reverend Hagee not only offends American Catholics with his statements, but Catholics throughout the world – including world leaders. Do you think the leaders from Spain, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile would grant goodwill to an American president who sought the endorsement of a Catholic hating bigot?
An influential Catholic in the McCain campaign would have warned the Republican nominee that accepting Reverend Hagee’s endorsement would risk losing the support among Catholics in the United States, and alienate Catholic leaders throughout the world.
However, it was Reverend Hagee sermon from the late 1990’s preaching Hitler was a part of God’s divine plan to shepherd the Jews back to Israel that forced Senator McCain to repudiate and refuse the Christian preacher’s endorsement. “Behold, I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters and they, the hunters will hunt them, that will be the Jews,” said Reverend Hagee. “From every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks. If that doesn‘t describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust, you can‘t see that. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended.”[v]
“I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee‘s endorsement. And I feel I must reject his endorsement as well,” said Senator McCain.[vi] The Republican nominee was unable to resist the temptation to include the presumptive Democratic nominee into his controversy. “I have said I do not believe Senator Obama’s shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views but let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor and I did not attend his church for 20 years.”[vii]
Senator McCain has a double standard. It is permissible to have the support of a Catholic bigot, but the bigot has to be dismissed when he claims the Holocaust was divinely inspired. Mr. McCain fails to understand a bigot against one segment of society is predisposed to being bigoted against other segments of society.
Reverend Rod Parsley’s bigotry is reserved for Muslims. According to Senator McCain, Reverend Parsley is one of the United States “truly great leaders, a moral compass, a spiritual guide.”[viii] Reverend Parsley was a great leader at least until May 23, 2008 when a portion of Reverend Parsley’s sermon appeared on television.
“Islam is an anti-Christ religion that intends, through violence, to conquer the world. What some call extremists, are instead mainstream Muslim believers who are drawing from the well at the very heart of Islam,” said Reverend Parsley. “I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I’m not shrinking back from its implications. The fact is that America was founded – I’m going to stagger you right now – America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.”[ix]
Senator McCain refused and rejected Reverend Parsley’s endorsement after ABC News broadcast the sermon on television.
Mr. McCain’s initial acceptance of Reverend Parsley’s endorsement indicates he does not have a Muslim working for his presidential campaign. A Muslim would have warned Senator McCain about Reverend Parsley’s anti-Islamic sermon. A Muslim campaign staff member would have objected to the endorsement.
Muslims do not constitute a sizable voting bloc in the United States. It is a safe to assume you will not see a right wing conservative politician actively campaigning in Muslim communities.
However Reverend Parsley’s initial endorsement of Senator McCain could have foreign policy implications. The United States gets its oil from Middle Eastern countries that are ruled by Muslims. Do you think the Saudi Royal family will increase oil production in order to reduce gas prices in the United States if our president associates with someone who believes our founding principle was based on destroying Islam? Do you think the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, Iraq, Morocco, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Malaysia will be receptive to our efforts regarding the war on terror if they believed the United States wants to destroy Islam?
Senator McCain will argue that Reverend Parsley was not his pastor and he never attended a service presided by the historically ignorant preacher. He may even take another cheap shot at Senator Obama’s association with Jeremiah Wright, but associations matter in an integrated world. Globalization makes the United States dependent on the goodwill of other countries. We will not endear ourselves to the rest of the world if our elected officials continue to associate with religious leaders who proudly display their ignorance and bigotry.
Senator Obama is an attractive presidential candidate because the Illinois Senator is a world citizen. His father is from Kenya. His mother is American. Senator Obama lived in Indonesia and Hawaii. He has relatives in Kenya. Mr. Obama has a perspective many Americans do not have.
Senator Obama’s nameless opponents attempted to label him a “closet Muslim” with the hope of discouraging support for his candidacy. But Mr. Obama’s candidacy inspires other world citizens.
Responding to an opinion column regarding Mr. Obama’s religious affiliation in the New York Times, Augustus Richard Norton wrote, “I have spent about half of the last two years in the Middle East (Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Kuwait, Lebanon) conducting book research. I have been struck by the profound disappointment that United States policy typically evokes among old and young, including ultra-pious and lax Muslims. These people do not see Mr. Obama as a lapsed Muslim but as a potentially empathetic American leader who grew to maturity as a Christian.”[x]
Responding to the same article, Zainab Bello, an American Muslim, wrote, “No candidate has a more colorful background, more dynamic life story and more mixed-race blood flowing in his veins than Mr. Obama. And with an inclination to talk to his foes, Mr. Obama’s excitement in the Muslim world lies less on his vaguely having a Muslim grandfather than on the simple fact that he’s lived in the Muslim world…”[xi]
“People in Muslim countries are aware that Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim,” wrote Zaid Shakir. “And yet he enjoys wide support in those countries. That support has nothing to do with Mr. Obama’s being a full, half or non-Muslim; it is rooted in the fact that he promises to change the kind of policies that have led to such a negative view of America by people in other countries, both Muslims and members of other faith communities.”[xii]
Change is the rallying cry of the Obama campaign. But change also describes the life of another prominent African American – Malcolm X. It is safe to say no other American figure metamorphosed as dramatically as Malcolm X. From petty criminal, to black nationalist, Malcolm X’s most dramatic transformation occurred during a pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia in 1964.
“You may be shocked by these words coming from me. But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has forced me to rearrange much of my thought patterns previously held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions,” wrote Malcolm X. “This was not difficult for me. Despite my firm convictions, I have been always a man who tries to face facts, and to accept the reality of life as new experience and new knowledge unfolds it. I have always kept an open mind which is necessary to the flexibility that must go hand in hand with every form of intelligent search for truth.”[xiii]
Malcolm X’s trip to the Middle East changed his perception of the world around him. “My pilgrimage broadened my scope. It has blessed me with a new insight. In two weeks in the Holy Land, I saw what I had never seen in thirty-nine years here in America. I saw all races, all colors, blue eyed blonds to black skinned Africans – in true brotherhood! In unity! Living as one! Worshipping as one! No segregationists, no liberals; they would not know how to interpret the meaning of those words.”[xiv]
Malcolm X no longer perceived whites as the enemy. “In the past, yes, I have made sweeping indictments of all white people. I never will be guilty of that again – as I know now that some white people are truly sincere, that some truly are capable of being brotherly toward a black man…”[xv]
Malcolm X went to Mecca, Saudi Arabia and it changed him. He grew and became a better man. Barack Obama years overseas gave him a different perspective.
During the campaign, Senator McCain said Iran was training Al Qaeda to fight in Iraq. All Muslims appear the same to Mr. McCain.
President John F Kennedy made a prophetic speech at American University in 1963. “So, let us not be blind to our differences – but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved,” said President Kennedy. “And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”[xvi]
The next president of the United States needs a better understanding of the world. Senator Obama has a perspective that will allow the United States to fully integrate into world affairs. Senator McCain’s initial embrace of Reverend Hagee and Reverend Parsley indicate he has a myopic worldview and is incapable of understanding the perspective of the world community.
[i] “NBC Apologizes for ‘Seinfeld’ Episode on the Puerto Rican Day Parade,” New York Times, May 9, 1998.
[ii] Bill Moyers’ Journal, April 25, 2008.
[iii] Psalm 137.
[iv] Bill Moyers’ Journal, April 25, 2008.
[v] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 21, 2008.
[vi] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 21, 2008.
[vii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 21, 2008.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 22, 2008.
[ix] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, May 22, 2008.
[x] “Frank Talk About Obama and Islam,” New York Times, May 14, 2008.
[xi] “Frank Talk About Obama and Islam,” New York Times, May 14, 2008.
[xii] “Frank Talk About Obama and Islam,” New York Times, May 14, 2008.
[xiii] The Autobiography of Malcolm X as Told to Alex Haley, First Ballentine Books, November, 1992, page 340.
[xiv] The Autobiography of Malcolm X as Told to Alex Haley, First Ballentine Books, November, 1992, page 362.
[xv] The Autobiography of Malcolm X as Told to Alex Haley, First Ballentine Books, November, 1992, page 362.
[xvi] John F Kennedy, “Commencement Address at American University,” June 10, 1963.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
A Presidential Decision
The vice presidency is a fabric of our democracy mockingly derided as “not worth a bucket of dry spit.” However, the selection of a candidate for vice president is important because it is the first choice a presidential nominee makes. The selection is indicative of the judgment of the prospective president. A good choice can build momentum towards victory in the general election. A bad choice could sabotage a political campaign. A great choice can make history.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but the ticket was doomed to fail because this particular Democratic ticket could not agree on the right slogan for their bumper sticker. Senator Kerry campaign slogan was “Help is on the Way.” Senator Edwards was partial to “Hope is on the Way.”
In 2000, Vice President Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate was a bold choice, however the move backfired because, in southern Florida, elderly voters were unable to master the infamous butterfly ballot. Numerous votes were lost because the ballots were insufficiently perforated. Also, Senator Lieberman turned out to be a neo-conservative who is actively campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain.
In 1972, Senator George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However Mr. Eagleton removed himself from the ticket when newspapers reported Mr. Eagleton received electro-shock therapy.
Not all Democratic vice presidential nominees were losers. Governor Clinton’s selection of Senator Al Gore was an excellent choice. Breaking with tradition, Governor Clinton selected a fellow southerner who was a centrist like himself.
Senator Lloyd Bentsen overshadowed Democratic presidential nominee Governor Mike Dukakis. Vice President Walter Mondale courageously made history by selecting Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman who was nominated to be vice president. Governor Jimmy Carter chose an able running mate in Senator Walter Mondale.
But the best Democratic ticket of all time was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority leader.
Senator Barack Obama will become the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, despite the blowout loss in the West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party is fractured along racial, ethnic, gender, class and education fault lines.
Senator Clinton’s supporters changed their position regarding the Democratic ticket. Earlier, they argued Senator Obama should be the vice presidential nominee even though Senator Clinton lost the majority of the contests, was behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, Senator Clinton’s operatives hinted she would be receptive to the idea of becoming the vice presidential nominee.
The Mainstream Media joined the chorus, reporting the benefits of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton running together, indicating such a ticket would unify the Democrats after a divisive campaign.
The temptation to select Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential nominee is strong. Senator Obama should resist that temptation.
Senator Clinton should not be the vice presidential nominee because she is responsible for the division in the Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a tough, negative campaign against the Illinois senator.
It was President Clinton who attempted to diminish Senator Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina by declaring unprompted that another African American presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson) also won the South Carolina primaries in 1984 and 1988.
Also during the South Carolina primary campaign, Senator Clinton said the Reverend Martin Luther King (a black man) made great speeches, but it was President Lyndon Johnson (a white man) who passed the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, Clinton operatives argued a black man could not win the presidency.
Senator Clinton has mocked Senator Obama’s impressive oratory skills. She diminished Mr. Obama’s political resume to simply delivering a great speech. His supporters are portrayed as delusional. The Clinton campaign labeled Obama’s supporters as “Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.” Her operatives dismissed the states Senator Obama won during the primaries calling these states insignificant.
Senator Clinton argued the super delegates should overrule the will of the voters, and give her the nomination because she has a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Obama. The voters made a mistake in supporting Senator Obama.
Her campaign “leaked” the picture of Barack Obama wearing African garb to the media. The picture reinforced the mistaken perception that Senator Obama is a Muslim.
The Clinton campaign attempted to exploit the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The controversy over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention was manufactured by the Clinton campaign mostly because she won two contests that were not sanctioned by the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton argued the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, is more qualified to be commander in chief than Senator Obama.
Choosing Senator Clinton as a running mate would be a mistake because she voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. The ticket should reflect Senator Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. The Democratic ticket should be an antiwar ticket.
It was Senator Clinton who divided the party and significantly damaged the Democratic Party’s chances of capturing the presidency. She created the problem; therefore she cannot be the solution.
Furthermore, an Obama-Clinton ticket is flawed. A presidential ticket needs ideological balance; therefore the Democratic Party should not have two liberals with identical voting records on the ticket.
Senator Obama is a basketball fan. He should use the 1997 NBA draft as a guide to selecting his running mate. Wake Forest center Tim Duncan was the first player selected in the draft. The talent gap between the first and second pick (Keith Van Horn) was huge. In fact, the 1997 draft only produced three All Stars: Duncan, Chauncey Billups and Tracy McGrady.
The talent gap between the first person who should be considered for vice president and the other contenders is also vast. There is truly only one viable Democratic vice presidential candidate: Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The credentials of any other nominee would pale in comparison.
Like Senator Obama, Mr. Webb is a published author. He wrote eight books, six are best selling novels. He has worked as a screenwriter and Hollywood producer. Mr. Webb won an Emmy award for the PBS coverage of the US Marines in Beirut.
Senator Webb adds military credentials to the ticket. Mr. Webb graduated from the Navel Academy in 1968. He received the Superintendent’s Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions.
Mr. Webb graduated first in his class at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico. He served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam. Senator Webb served in Vietnam with honor and distinction. He was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.
Senator Webb’s service in Vietnam counteracts Senator McCain’s service in Vietnam. In fact, Mr. Webb is a sharp contrast from current Vice President Dick Cheney who did not serve because he had other priorities during the Vietnam War.
Senator Webb’s service in the Marine Corps demonstrated strong leadership skills. Mr. Webb served as a platoon commander. He was an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. He served on the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff before he left the Marine Corps in 1972.
After the Vietnam War, Mr. Webb attended Georgetown University Law and graduated with a law degree in 1975. Mr. Webb was a staff member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Webb established his credentials regarding veteran’s issues. During this period, he represented veteran’s pro-bono.
Mr. Webb served, during the Reagan Administration, as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He became the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as Secretary of the Navy In 1987.
Democrats are portrayed as weak regarding national security issues. Selecting a marine who served in Vietnam, and was the Secretary of the Navy under conservative icon Ronald Reagan would counter that argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Webb is qualified to assume the presidency in the event of an emergency.
Senator Webb is a Reagan Democrat. He could attract other Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic Party as Senator Obama’s running mate. Furthermore, Mr. Webb balances the ticket ideologically. Mr. Webb is a conservative Democrat, thus strengthening Mr. Obama’s argument about unifying the country.
The Iraq War will be a major issue in the presidential campaign. Choosing a running mate who supported the war at its inception, but later changed his mind would encourage the Republican Party to attack the vice presidential nominee, labeling him a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry became a target in 2004 when he was unable to clearly explain his position on the war in Iraq.
Mr. Webb displayed leadership prior to the Iraq War. He wrote an article published in the Washington Post arguing against an invasion of Iraq before the Bush Administration initiated the public relations campaign to launch the war. His analysis demonstrated discerning insight. “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay… Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime, but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.”[i]
Mr. Webb had a better understanding of the politics in the Middle East than the Bush Administration. “The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.”[ii]
Mr. Webb’s foreign policy goals would correspond with Senator Obama’s. “Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.”[iii]
Senator Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq over the period of 16 months. He will need someone with a strong military background to counter the arguments from the neo-conservatives who will have a platform to make their accusations on cable talk shows and talk radio.
Selecting Senator Webb would demonstrate Senator Obama is not insecure or intimidated about choosing a running mate with stature and prestige, unlike former President George H.W. Bush who was criticized for selecting Dan Quayle, a political lightweight, as his running mate.
Race will be an issue in the general election. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,” said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.[iv] He was correct.
However, Senator Webb should be able to inoculate Senator Obama from white voters who would not consider voting for a black man. Mr. Webb could nullify the racist elements from the presidential campaign. In effect, Mr. Webb will vouch for Senator Obama’s character.
The Democratic Party is perceived as antimilitary. Senator Webb said he became a Republican after the Vietnam War because of the Democratic Party’s position during the war. Selecting Mr. Webb could repair the damage.
Senator Webb introduced a new GI Bill to provide military personnel with “comprehensive educational benefits.” An Obama-Webb ticket could make the new GI Bill a major issue in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, the Democrats should make the care of veterans a central issue in the campaign, to provide better healthcare, more services, and shelter to all veterans who proudly served in the military.
Politically, enhancing services to veterans will expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who claim to support the troops, but refuse to fund programs for veterans. Senator McCain is against the new GI Bill. Furthermore, Mr. McCain “voted to kill an amendment that would have increased veteran medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006… Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid by closing corporate tax loopholes.”[v]
Senator Obama is on the verge of making history by becoming our nation’s first African American president. It will be an accomplishment that will echo throughout the world. Our country will recover a measure of respect. Senator James Webb from Virginia is an excellent vice presidential candidate who will greatly contribute to Senator Obama’s historic achievement.
Please visit http://webb.senate.gov/ for more information about Senator Jim Webb. The website was an invaluable source for this article.
[i] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[ii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[v] Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets,” The Nation, June 2, 2008.
In 2004, Senator John Kerry selected North Carolina Senator John Edwards, but the ticket was doomed to fail because this particular Democratic ticket could not agree on the right slogan for their bumper sticker. Senator Kerry campaign slogan was “Help is on the Way.” Senator Edwards was partial to “Hope is on the Way.”
In 2000, Vice President Gore selected Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman. Selecting the first Jewish vice presidential candidate was a bold choice, however the move backfired because, in southern Florida, elderly voters were unable to master the infamous butterfly ballot. Numerous votes were lost because the ballots were insufficiently perforated. Also, Senator Lieberman turned out to be a neo-conservative who is actively campaigning for the Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain.
In 1972, Senator George McGovern selected Missouri Senator Thomas Eagleton as his running mate. However Mr. Eagleton removed himself from the ticket when newspapers reported Mr. Eagleton received electro-shock therapy.
Not all Democratic vice presidential nominees were losers. Governor Clinton’s selection of Senator Al Gore was an excellent choice. Breaking with tradition, Governor Clinton selected a fellow southerner who was a centrist like himself.
Senator Lloyd Bentsen overshadowed Democratic presidential nominee Governor Mike Dukakis. Vice President Walter Mondale courageously made history by selecting Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman who was nominated to be vice president. Governor Jimmy Carter chose an able running mate in Senator Walter Mondale.
But the best Democratic ticket of all time was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy and Texas Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the powerful Senate Majority leader.
Senator Barack Obama will become the presumptive Democratic Party nominee, despite the blowout loss in the West Virginia primary. The Democratic Party is fractured along racial, ethnic, gender, class and education fault lines.
Senator Clinton’s supporters changed their position regarding the Democratic ticket. Earlier, they argued Senator Obama should be the vice presidential nominee even though Senator Clinton lost the majority of the contests, was behind in pledged delegates and the popular vote. However, Senator Clinton’s operatives hinted she would be receptive to the idea of becoming the vice presidential nominee.
The Mainstream Media joined the chorus, reporting the benefits of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton running together, indicating such a ticket would unify the Democrats after a divisive campaign.
The temptation to select Senator Clinton as the Vice Presidential nominee is strong. Senator Obama should resist that temptation.
Senator Clinton should not be the vice presidential nominee because she is responsible for the division in the Democratic Party. Senator Hillary Clinton ran a tough, negative campaign against the Illinois senator.
It was President Clinton who attempted to diminish Senator Obama’s primary victory in South Carolina by declaring unprompted that another African American presidential candidate (Jesse Jackson) also won the South Carolina primaries in 1984 and 1988.
Also during the South Carolina primary campaign, Senator Clinton said the Reverend Martin Luther King (a black man) made great speeches, but it was President Lyndon Johnson (a white man) who passed the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, Clinton operatives argued a black man could not win the presidency.
Senator Clinton has mocked Senator Obama’s impressive oratory skills. She diminished Mr. Obama’s political resume to simply delivering a great speech. His supporters are portrayed as delusional. The Clinton campaign labeled Obama’s supporters as “Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.” Her operatives dismissed the states Senator Obama won during the primaries calling these states insignificant.
Senator Clinton argued the super delegates should overrule the will of the voters, and give her the nomination because she has a better chance of winning the general election than Senator Obama. The voters made a mistake in supporting Senator Obama.
Her campaign “leaked” the picture of Barack Obama wearing African garb to the media. The picture reinforced the mistaken perception that Senator Obama is a Muslim.
The Clinton campaign attempted to exploit the relationship between Senator Obama and his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
The controversy over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations at the Democratic convention was manufactured by the Clinton campaign mostly because she won two contests that were not sanctioned by the Democratic Party.
Senator Clinton argued the Republican presidential nominee, Senator John McCain, is more qualified to be commander in chief than Senator Obama.
Choosing Senator Clinton as a running mate would be a mistake because she voted for the authorization to go to war with Iraq. The ticket should reflect Senator Obama’s position on the war in Iraq. The Democratic ticket should be an antiwar ticket.
It was Senator Clinton who divided the party and significantly damaged the Democratic Party’s chances of capturing the presidency. She created the problem; therefore she cannot be the solution.
Furthermore, an Obama-Clinton ticket is flawed. A presidential ticket needs ideological balance; therefore the Democratic Party should not have two liberals with identical voting records on the ticket.
Senator Obama is a basketball fan. He should use the 1997 NBA draft as a guide to selecting his running mate. Wake Forest center Tim Duncan was the first player selected in the draft. The talent gap between the first and second pick (Keith Van Horn) was huge. In fact, the 1997 draft only produced three All Stars: Duncan, Chauncey Billups and Tracy McGrady.
The talent gap between the first person who should be considered for vice president and the other contenders is also vast. There is truly only one viable Democratic vice presidential candidate: Senator Jim Webb from Virginia. The credentials of any other nominee would pale in comparison.
Like Senator Obama, Mr. Webb is a published author. He wrote eight books, six are best selling novels. He has worked as a screenwriter and Hollywood producer. Mr. Webb won an Emmy award for the PBS coverage of the US Marines in Beirut.
Senator Webb adds military credentials to the ticket. Mr. Webb graduated from the Navel Academy in 1968. He received the Superintendent’s Commendation for outstanding leadership contributions.
Mr. Webb graduated first in his class at the Marine Corps Officers’ Basic School in Quantico. He served with the Fifth Marine Regiment in Vietnam. Senator Webb served in Vietnam with honor and distinction. He was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star Medal, two Bronze Star Medals, and two Purple Hearts.
Senator Webb’s service in Vietnam counteracts Senator McCain’s service in Vietnam. In fact, Mr. Webb is a sharp contrast from current Vice President Dick Cheney who did not serve because he had other priorities during the Vietnam War.
Senator Webb’s service in the Marine Corps demonstrated strong leadership skills. Mr. Webb served as a platoon commander. He was an instructor in tactics and weapons at Marine Corps Officer Candidates School. He served on the Secretary of the Navy’s immediate staff before he left the Marine Corps in 1972.
After the Vietnam War, Mr. Webb attended Georgetown University Law and graduated with a law degree in 1975. Mr. Webb was a staff member of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1977 to 1981. Mr. Webb established his credentials regarding veteran’s issues. During this period, he represented veteran’s pro-bono.
Mr. Webb served, during the Reagan Administration, as the first Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs from 1984 to 1987. He became the first Naval Academy graduate to serve as Secretary of the Navy In 1987.
Democrats are portrayed as weak regarding national security issues. Selecting a marine who served in Vietnam, and was the Secretary of the Navy under conservative icon Ronald Reagan would counter that argument.
Furthermore, Mr. Webb is qualified to assume the presidency in the event of an emergency.
Senator Webb is a Reagan Democrat. He could attract other Reagan Democrats back to the Democratic Party as Senator Obama’s running mate. Furthermore, Mr. Webb balances the ticket ideologically. Mr. Webb is a conservative Democrat, thus strengthening Mr. Obama’s argument about unifying the country.
The Iraq War will be a major issue in the presidential campaign. Choosing a running mate who supported the war at its inception, but later changed his mind would encourage the Republican Party to attack the vice presidential nominee, labeling him a flip-flopper. Senator Kerry became a target in 2004 when he was unable to clearly explain his position on the war in Iraq.
Mr. Webb displayed leadership prior to the Iraq War. He wrote an article published in the Washington Post arguing against an invasion of Iraq before the Bush Administration initiated the public relations campaign to launch the war. His analysis demonstrated discerning insight. “The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay… Their expectation is that the United States would not only change Iraq’s regime, but also remain as a long-term occupation force in an attempt to reconstruct Iraqi society itself.”[i]
Mr. Webb had a better understanding of the politics in the Middle East than the Bush Administration. “The Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. Indeed, this very bitterness provided Osama bin Laden the grist for his recruitment efforts in Saudi Arabia when the United States kept bases on Saudi soil after the Gulf War.”[ii]
Mr. Webb’s foreign policy goals would correspond with Senator Obama’s. “Unilateral wars designed to bring about regime change and a long-term occupation should be undertaken only when a nation’s existence is clearly at stake.”[iii]
Senator Obama wants to withdraw U.S. troops in Iraq over the period of 16 months. He will need someone with a strong military background to counter the arguments from the neo-conservatives who will have a platform to make their accusations on cable talk shows and talk radio.
Selecting Senator Webb would demonstrate Senator Obama is not insecure or intimidated about choosing a running mate with stature and prestige, unlike former President George H.W. Bush who was criticized for selecting Dan Quayle, a political lightweight, as his running mate.
Race will be an issue in the general election. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,” said Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell.[iv] He was correct.
However, Senator Webb should be able to inoculate Senator Obama from white voters who would not consider voting for a black man. Mr. Webb could nullify the racist elements from the presidential campaign. In effect, Mr. Webb will vouch for Senator Obama’s character.
The Democratic Party is perceived as antimilitary. Senator Webb said he became a Republican after the Vietnam War because of the Democratic Party’s position during the war. Selecting Mr. Webb could repair the damage.
Senator Webb introduced a new GI Bill to provide military personnel with “comprehensive educational benefits.” An Obama-Webb ticket could make the new GI Bill a major issue in the presidential campaign. Furthermore, the Democrats should make the care of veterans a central issue in the campaign, to provide better healthcare, more services, and shelter to all veterans who proudly served in the military.
Politically, enhancing services to veterans will expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Party who claim to support the troops, but refuse to fund programs for veterans. Senator McCain is against the new GI Bill. Furthermore, Mr. McCain “voted to kill an amendment that would have increased veteran medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006… Just a year later McCain voted against an amendment that would have increased Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid by closing corporate tax loopholes.”[v]
Senator Obama is on the verge of making history by becoming our nation’s first African American president. It will be an accomplishment that will echo throughout the world. Our country will recover a measure of respect. Senator James Webb from Virginia is an excellent vice presidential candidate who will greatly contribute to Senator Obama’s historic achievement.
Please visit http://webb.senate.gov/ for more information about Senator Jim Webb. The website was an invaluable source for this article.
[i] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[ii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iii] James Webb, “Heading For Trouble,” The Washington Post, September 4, 2002.
[iv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[v] Brian Beutler, “McCain Sells Out Vets,” The Nation, June 2, 2008.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Madam Strangelove
What do Iran, Lex Luthor, Dr. No, Darth Vader and Saddam Hussein have in common? They are fictional enemies.
But if you believe Senator Clinton, Iran is the latest threat to mankind. In the April 16 televised presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the Democratic candidates if the United States should adopt a new foreign policy to protect Israel’s security. “Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”asked Mr. Stephanopoulos.[i]
“Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”[ii]
Senator Clinton expanded her answer during an interview with Keith Olbermann. “I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”[iii]
Mrs. Clinton continued her militaristic rhetoric during an interview with ABC News. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,”said Senator Clinton.[iv]
This is a departure from her previous position regarding hypothetical questions. Senator Clinton often refused to answer hypothetical questions in Democratic presidential debates and during interviews.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama about a comment he made early in the campaign regarding potential military action in Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” said Mr. Obama, “we will.”[v]
The media portrayed Senator Obama’s comment as a gaffe. Senator Clinton used that comment to argue Mr. Obama was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be president. However, the argument lost its effectiveness when the Bush Administration launched an attack against an Al Qaeda target in Pakistan.
Now she wants to destroy Iran because the Iranians may obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus jeopardizing Israel’s security. What made her change her mind?
First, she is losing the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Second, Senator Clinton is trying to prove she is capable of being the Commander In Chief. Third, she is getting desperate and the Bush Administration has demonstrated fear works even if the threat is not real.
President Bush convinced Americans the evil Saddam Hussein possessed a lethal ray gun that could destroy the United States and the evil Iraqi dictator was about to launch an armada of nuclear powered robots to invade the United States. Implausible? Like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush exploited the fears of Americans to initiate a war against Iraq. The war was based on flawed intelligence. The President took advantage of our insecurity to abuse the Bill of Rights. Mr. Bush used the threat of terrorism to win a second term as president. In politics, fear works. Unfortunately, President Bush created a precedent. To win an election you can scare the electorate into voting for you.
However, there is another factor that is being ignored by the public. The Clintons are motivated by public opinion polls. It is an historical fact. Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, in particular, is marketed through focus groups. The Clinton campaign may have detected a weakness of Senator Obama’s with Jewish voters and are exploiting that weakness. If Mr. Obama’s support in the Jewish community is soft, then Senator Clinton will try to secure the pro Israel faction of the Democratic Party by implying she is more committed to the security of Israel than Barack Hussein Obama. It is part of the strategy to diminish Senator Obama to the electorate and especially the super delegates.
Senator Clinton is using scare tactics regardless of her true motivation. She learned this skill by observing the Bush Administration over the last seven years and watching movies.
In the movie “Wag the Dog,” a Washington DC poltical insider asks a Hollywood producer to stage a phony war with Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal with a minor. Why Albania? “Because we found out they have the bomb… And wait a second… The bomb’s not there because they’d have to have a rocket… It’s a suitcase bomb. You don’t need missiles. You can put a bomb in a suitcase… And it’s in Canada. Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada in an attempt to infiltrate it into the USA,”said Stanley Moss as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman.[vi]
The current presidential campaign has taught us Senator Clinton shares an adverse flaw with President Bush. They do not read. In August 2001, President Bush did not read the Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.”
In 2002, Senator Clinton did not read the flawed National Intelligence Estimate’s report about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, nor did she read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007. The report clearly stated, “Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses.”[vii]
The Mediacracy is participating in the charade because they are asking questions based on a false premise. Furthermore, the media neglects to correct the presidential candidates when they make false assumptions that are based on a false premise.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and is currently not a threat to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. It is extremely irresponsible for President Bush, Senator Clinton and the Mediacracy to declare Iran a nuclear threat.
Americans are uninformed. That is a problem. We do not take the time to research and investigate an issue. We ignore history. For example, in 1974 Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutt promised to develop nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to “eat grass” to achieve this goal. The urgency to develop nuclear weapons was in response to neighboring India successfully detonating a nuclear device. Pakistan and India are enemies. Pakistan was able to manufacture nuclear fuel using domestic uranium in 1980. Pakistan conducted the first of six nuclear weapons tests in 1998.[viii] It took Pakistan 24 years to develop nuclear weapons – without the consent of the international community.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. Using Pakistan as a template, it would take Iran at least a decade to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat against Israel would not be completed until 2019 – the last year in the second term of the Clinton presidency. But we are being led to believe Iran is currently capable of becoming a nuclear threat by a cynical presidential candidate and by a slothful media.
In January, President Clinton characterized Senator Obama’s position on the Iraq war as a fairy tale, but Senator Clinton’s apocalyptic assumptions about Iran launching a nuclear attack against Israel and her hypothetical decisive response is a true work of fiction. She can call it “Wag the Dog II – The Road to Armageddon.”
[i] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[ii] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 21, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[v] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times August 2, 2007.
[vi] “Wag the Dog,” New Line Cinemas, 1998.
[vii] Steven Lee Myers, “An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran,” New York Times, December 4, 2007.
[viii] “Timeline: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program,” CNN, 2004.
But if you believe Senator Clinton, Iran is the latest threat to mankind. In the April 16 televised presidential debate, George Stephanopoulos asked the Democratic candidates if the United States should adopt a new foreign policy to protect Israel’s security. “Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?”asked Mr. Stephanopoulos.[i]
“Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.”[ii]
Senator Clinton expanded her answer during an interview with Keith Olbermann. “I think deterrence has not been effectively used in recent times. We used it very well during the Cold War, when we had a bipolar world. And what I think the president should do and what our policy should be is to make it very clear to the Iranians that they would be risking massive retaliation were they to launch a nuclear attack on Israel,” said Senator Clinton. “In order to forestall that, creating some kind of a security agreement, where we said, no, you do not need to acquire nuclear weapons. If you were the subject of an unprovoked nuclear attack by Iran, the United States and hopefully our NATO allies would respond to that as well.”[iii]
Mrs. Clinton continued her militaristic rhetoric during an interview with ABC News. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran… In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them,”said Senator Clinton.[iv]
This is a departure from her previous position regarding hypothetical questions. Senator Clinton often refused to answer hypothetical questions in Democratic presidential debates and during interviews.
Furthermore, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama about a comment he made early in the campaign regarding potential military action in Pakistan. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” said Mr. Obama, “we will.”[v]
The media portrayed Senator Obama’s comment as a gaffe. Senator Clinton used that comment to argue Mr. Obama was too inexperienced in foreign affairs to be president. However, the argument lost its effectiveness when the Bush Administration launched an attack against an Al Qaeda target in Pakistan.
Now she wants to destroy Iran because the Iranians may obtain nuclear weapons in the future, thus jeopardizing Israel’s security. What made her change her mind?
First, she is losing the race to become the Democratic presidential nominee. Second, Senator Clinton is trying to prove she is capable of being the Commander In Chief. Third, she is getting desperate and the Bush Administration has demonstrated fear works even if the threat is not real.
President Bush convinced Americans the evil Saddam Hussein possessed a lethal ray gun that could destroy the United States and the evil Iraqi dictator was about to launch an armada of nuclear powered robots to invade the United States. Implausible? Like Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?
President Bush exploited the fears of Americans to initiate a war against Iraq. The war was based on flawed intelligence. The President took advantage of our insecurity to abuse the Bill of Rights. Mr. Bush used the threat of terrorism to win a second term as president. In politics, fear works. Unfortunately, President Bush created a precedent. To win an election you can scare the electorate into voting for you.
However, there is another factor that is being ignored by the public. The Clintons are motivated by public opinion polls. It is an historical fact. Senator Clinton’s presidential campaign, in particular, is marketed through focus groups. The Clinton campaign may have detected a weakness of Senator Obama’s with Jewish voters and are exploiting that weakness. If Mr. Obama’s support in the Jewish community is soft, then Senator Clinton will try to secure the pro Israel faction of the Democratic Party by implying she is more committed to the security of Israel than Barack Hussein Obama. It is part of the strategy to diminish Senator Obama to the electorate and especially the super delegates.
Senator Clinton is using scare tactics regardless of her true motivation. She learned this skill by observing the Bush Administration over the last seven years and watching movies.
In the movie “Wag the Dog,” a Washington DC poltical insider asks a Hollywood producer to stage a phony war with Albania to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal with a minor. Why Albania? “Because we found out they have the bomb… And wait a second… The bomb’s not there because they’d have to have a rocket… It’s a suitcase bomb. You don’t need missiles. You can put a bomb in a suitcase… And it’s in Canada. Albanian terrorists have placed a suitcase bomb in Canada in an attempt to infiltrate it into the USA,”said Stanley Moss as portrayed by Dustin Hoffman.[vi]
The current presidential campaign has taught us Senator Clinton shares an adverse flaw with President Bush. They do not read. In August 2001, President Bush did not read the Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.”
In 2002, Senator Clinton did not read the flawed National Intelligence Estimate’s report about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, nor did she read the National Intelligence Estimate in 2007. The report clearly stated, “Iran had halted a military program in 2003, though it continues to enrich uranium, ostensibly for peaceful uses.”[vii]
The Mediacracy is participating in the charade because they are asking questions based on a false premise. Furthermore, the media neglects to correct the presidential candidates when they make false assumptions that are based on a false premise.
Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, and is currently not a threat to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. It is extremely irresponsible for President Bush, Senator Clinton and the Mediacracy to declare Iran a nuclear threat.
Americans are uninformed. That is a problem. We do not take the time to research and investigate an issue. We ignore history. For example, in 1974 Pakistan Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutt promised to develop nuclear weapons even if it meant Pakistanis had to “eat grass” to achieve this goal. The urgency to develop nuclear weapons was in response to neighboring India successfully detonating a nuclear device. Pakistan and India are enemies. Pakistan was able to manufacture nuclear fuel using domestic uranium in 1980. Pakistan conducted the first of six nuclear weapons tests in 1998.[viii] It took Pakistan 24 years to develop nuclear weapons – without the consent of the international community.
The 2007 National Intelligence Estimate reported Iran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. Using Pakistan as a template, it would take Iran at least a decade to develop nuclear weapons. The nuclear threat against Israel would not be completed until 2019 – the last year in the second term of the Clinton presidency. But we are being led to believe Iran is currently capable of becoming a nuclear threat by a cynical presidential candidate and by a slothful media.
In January, President Clinton characterized Senator Obama’s position on the Iraq war as a fairy tale, but Senator Clinton’s apocalyptic assumptions about Iran launching a nuclear attack against Israel and her hypothetical decisive response is a true work of fiction. She can call it “Wag the Dog II – The Road to Armageddon.”
[i] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[ii] “Transcript Democratic presidential debate 4/16/08,” The New York Times.
[iii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 21, 2008.
[iv] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[v] Jeff Zeleny, “Obama Calls For Military Shift in U.S. Focus on Terrorism,” New York Times August 2, 2007.
[vi] “Wag the Dog,” New Line Cinemas, 1998.
[vii] Steven Lee Myers, “An Assessment Jars a Foreign Policy Debate About Iran,” New York Times, December 4, 2007.
[viii] “Timeline: Pakistan’s Nuclear Program,” CNN, 2004.
Friday, May 02, 2008
A Damaged Country
Senator Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary by roughly ten percentage points. In the April 23rd op-ed article, the New York Times wrote that the primary “produced yet another inconclusive result.”[i] The New York Times is wrong. The results of the Pennsylvania primary produced a conclusive result. Senator Barack Obama will not win the general election in November. He is a damaged candidate.
There are several reasons Senator Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary. First, it was a closed primary. Republicans and independents were not able to participate in the Pennsylvania primary. Only registered Democrats could vote. The “state Democratic Party has added a remarkable 300,000 voters since January. Nearly half of these Democrats, according to the state board of elections, are new or previously unregistered voters lured by the excitement of the Clinton-Obama race. The other half are former Republicans and independents who switched to vote in the Democratic primary.”[ii] The majority of the new Democrats voted for Senator Obama. However, the new voters were only able to reduce Senator Clinton’s margin of victory.
Second, Senator Obama performed poorly during a televised Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Granted, some of the questions were ridiculous. The former communications director of the Clinton Administration and current moderator of This Week with George Stephanopoulos asked the Illinois Senator if he thought his former pastor Jeremiah Wright “loves America as much as you do,” and is the Reverend “as patriotic as you are.” Mr. Stephanopoulos also asked Senator Obama if he believed “Senator Clinton was honest about her past.”[iii]
Mr. Stephanopoulos wanted to ask Senator Obama what type of tree he would choose to be and why, but he thought the question would not generate controversy.
The former Clinton Administration hack was not the only person who asked stupid questions. ABC News tracked down a voter who was offended by Senator Obama’s inability to accessorize. “I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag,” said Nash McCabe from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. “I want to know why you don’t?”[iv]
ABC News was able to locate a person who would have asked Senator Obama why does he hate America, but doctors would not guarantee Charles Manson would take his anti psychotic medication before the debate.
Prompted by disingenuous Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama a question regarding “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970’s… Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[v]
Mr. Stephanopoulos asked if Senator Obama agreed with the menacing rap group Public Enemy’s assertion that 911 is indeed a joke, but the question and answer were edited from the debate.
Parenthetically, this was the first presidential debate on free TV. The prior debates were on cable television. Free TV suggests more exposure. People who are bitter and cling to guns and religion are too poor to afford cable TV, therefore were denied the facility to witness prior debates.
The stupid questions point to a greater problem Senator Obama addressed during the debate in Philadelphia. The politics of distraction contaminated the Democratic presidential campaign.
The presidential campaign dragged interminably. The media ran out of stories to cover, therefore the Mediacracy started to focus and draw conclusions from juvenile issues, such as Senator Obama bad bowling performance. He can’t bowl, he is not a regular guy, therefore he is not qualified to be president.
On April 6, Senator Obama made a comment during a fundraiser in San Francisco. He tried to explain some of the challenges of his presidential campaign in “former coal and steel towns” and rural Pennsylvania. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and… the jobs have been gone now for twenty five years, and nothing has replaced them. It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”[vi] said Senator Obama. This comment reinforced the Mediacracy’s latest narrative of Senator Obama being an arrogant, condescending politician.
During the April 10th edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the loquacious host spoke with disgraced MSNBC correspondent David Shuster about Senator Obama’s inability to connect with average Americans. Senator Obama “ is not that good at that – handshaking in a diner… Barack doesn’t seem to know how to do that right,” said Mr. Matthews. “He (Obama) doesn’t do that well,” said Mr. Shuster. Predictably, Mr. Matthews interrupted Mr. Shuster. “What’s so hard about doing a diner? I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he go in there and say, ‘Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night? Just some regular connection,”[vii] said Mr. Matthews.
Furthermore, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Shuster talked about Senator Obama’s perilous adventure in a diner while he campaigned in Indiana. Mr. Shuster described the scene to the motormouth host. Senator Obama was offered coffee. He declined the offer. Instead he asked for orange juice. “No,” said Mr. Matthews. The political talk show host was aghast. Mr. Shuster assured Mr. Matthews it was a true story, not an urban legend. “And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, ‘Here, have some coffee,’ you say, ‘Yes, thank you,’ and, ‘Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?’ You don’t just say, ‘No, I'll take orange juice,’ and then turn away and start shaking hands,” said Mr. Shuster. “You don’t ask for a substitute on the menu,”[viii] said Mr. Matthews.
Had Mr. Obama attended the Finishing School in Le Institut Villa Pierrefeu or Le Institut Alpin Videmanette in Switzerland as a young black man and learned the proper way to shake hands, or the art of ordering a beverage at a public establishment, or mastered the ability to knock down phallic pins at commercial sporting venue, or learned how to accessorize his wardrobe, or learned how to engage in conversation with the idle, ordinary, pedestrian folk from the heartland of America, then the Mediacracy would have labeled Senator Obama effete. Sometimes a black man just can’t win in America.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) labeled Senator Obama an elitist, someone who inherently cannot understand the problems of average Americans. Senator Obama is arrogant. He is condescending like the former governor of the ultra liberal state of Massachusetts and failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. Coincidently, both have un-American sounding names.
Like a four-year-old child with a new toy, Mr. Matthews clutched the elitist accusation. Mr. Matthews was interviewing the presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain during the April 15th edition of Hardball. “We’ve had enough softball, Senator,” implying he was going to ask him a tough question. “It’s time for the show to start here… Let me ask you a tough one here… Is Barack Obama an elitist?,” asked Mr. Matthews. Senator McCain was grateful he was not asked to identify five differences between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. “No. But I do believe that his statements were elitist,” said Senator McCain.
Initially, Senator Clinton was a victim of the Mainstream Media. She was portrayed as someone who was unlikable. People hate the way she talks, laughs, and the pantsuits she wears. Public opinion polls were used as evidence against her. The Mediacracy ridiculed her after she lost the Iowa Caucus. The Mainstream Media looked forward to writing her political obituary after the New Hampshire primary, but the Senator from New York by way of Arkansas managed to survive despite the attacks from the media.
Senator Clinton attempted to exploit Senator Obama’s inexperience and association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the presidential campaign. It affected her poll numbers, reducing her approval ratings below 40%. However, the elitism issue allowed Senator Clinton to demonize Senator Obama as someone who is “elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.”[ix]
Senator Clinton is questioning Senator Obama’s toughness. “Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”[x]
Senator Obama is unable to get votes from Senator Clinton’s core constituency. Her convincing primary victory was due to “women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three quarters of the vote, polling showed.”[xi] Senator Obama is unable to get sufficient support from Catholic voters.
The Clinton campaign and her surrogates have portrayed Senator Obama’s supporters as “the Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.”[xii] Apparently, there are not enough of those people in Pennsylvania.
Senator Clinton recast herself as the granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker. As a child, her grandfather taught her how to use a weapon, and she enjoys hunting. While campaigning in a bar, Senator Clinton drank a shot glass full of whisky with a beer chaser in order to appear ordinary.
Senator Obama attempted to remind voters that Senator Clinton was also labeled an elitist, but she is trying to portray herself as an average person, “talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.”[xiii] The Democratic presidential campaign has degraded into which candidate is most like the average voter.
The issue of race was always lurking in the background, but none of the prior primary contests offered any evidence of racism. Pennsylvania changed that. A math geek who studies exit polls would have “found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all.”[xiv]
In February, Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton super delegate Ed Rendell spoke about the Pennsylvania primary during an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,”said Mr. Rendell.[xv]
Usually voters will not admit to pollsters they are racists. However, their answers may indicate a predisposition towards racism. A Pew Poll indicated “white Democrats who don’t favor him are much more likely… to believe interracial dating is wrong, that immigrants pose a threat to American values and that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far.”[xvi]
Furthermore, “one in four white Democrats with a negative opinon of [Senator Obama] believes he is a Muslim.”[xvii]
Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania for six weeks. He was behind by 19 points in the opinion polls prior to the primary. The charismatic Illinois Senator outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. But Senator Obama was able to reduce Senator Clinton’s lead to ten percent in six weeks. Given ample time and sufficient resources, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination was unable to convince Pennsylvanians he is a better candidate for president than Senator Clinton. “Clinton and Obama have virtually identical stances on the issues, but it still has the power to divide voters along the lines of race.”[xviii]
Race becoming an issue is not a surprise. After the New York primary, I talked with my father about the presidential campaign. He spoke of a community center he frequents and meets with other Hispanics and they were talking about the Senator Obama. The majority of the people at the community center said they would never vote for a black man for president. They were not the stereotypical white, southern bigots who get angry at mentioning civil rights. They were minorities, immigrants in the United States who resent Barack Obama’s candidacy. My father was disappointed and so was I.
Senator Obama’s enthusiastic support for president made me believe race was not an issue and the United States finally grasped Dr Martin Luther King’s dream of a better America, but the enthusiasm made me forget how deep the issue of racism penetrates the fabric of our country. Reminded that people from my own ethnic background are racists was demoralizing. It was like finding out there was no such thing as Santa Claus and hope is futile.
On second thought, Senator Obama is not a damaged candidate. The United States is a damaged country.
[i] “The Low Road to Victory,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[ii] Ari Berman, “Pennsylvania’s Obamicans,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[iv] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[v] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[vi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[vii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[viii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[ix] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[x] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xi] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 30, 2008.
[xiii] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[xiv] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xviii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
There are several reasons Senator Obama lost the Pennsylvania primary. First, it was a closed primary. Republicans and independents were not able to participate in the Pennsylvania primary. Only registered Democrats could vote. The “state Democratic Party has added a remarkable 300,000 voters since January. Nearly half of these Democrats, according to the state board of elections, are new or previously unregistered voters lured by the excitement of the Clinton-Obama race. The other half are former Republicans and independents who switched to vote in the Democratic primary.”[ii] The majority of the new Democrats voted for Senator Obama. However, the new voters were only able to reduce Senator Clinton’s margin of victory.
Second, Senator Obama performed poorly during a televised Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Granted, some of the questions were ridiculous. The former communications director of the Clinton Administration and current moderator of This Week with George Stephanopoulos asked the Illinois Senator if he thought his former pastor Jeremiah Wright “loves America as much as you do,” and is the Reverend “as patriotic as you are.” Mr. Stephanopoulos also asked Senator Obama if he believed “Senator Clinton was honest about her past.”[iii]
Mr. Stephanopoulos wanted to ask Senator Obama what type of tree he would choose to be and why, but he thought the question would not generate controversy.
The former Clinton Administration hack was not the only person who asked stupid questions. ABC News tracked down a voter who was offended by Senator Obama’s inability to accessorize. “I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag,” said Nash McCabe from Latrobe, Pennsylvania. “I want to know why you don’t?”[iv]
ABC News was able to locate a person who would have asked Senator Obama why does he hate America, but doctors would not guarantee Charles Manson would take his anti psychotic medication before the debate.
Prompted by disingenuous Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Senator Obama a question regarding “the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970’s… Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won’t be a problem?”[v]
Mr. Stephanopoulos asked if Senator Obama agreed with the menacing rap group Public Enemy’s assertion that 911 is indeed a joke, but the question and answer were edited from the debate.
Parenthetically, this was the first presidential debate on free TV. The prior debates were on cable television. Free TV suggests more exposure. People who are bitter and cling to guns and religion are too poor to afford cable TV, therefore were denied the facility to witness prior debates.
The stupid questions point to a greater problem Senator Obama addressed during the debate in Philadelphia. The politics of distraction contaminated the Democratic presidential campaign.
The presidential campaign dragged interminably. The media ran out of stories to cover, therefore the Mediacracy started to focus and draw conclusions from juvenile issues, such as Senator Obama bad bowling performance. He can’t bowl, he is not a regular guy, therefore he is not qualified to be president.
On April 6, Senator Obama made a comment during a fundraiser in San Francisco. He tried to explain some of the challenges of his presidential campaign in “former coal and steel towns” and rural Pennsylvania. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and… the jobs have been gone now for twenty five years, and nothing has replaced them. It’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,”[vi] said Senator Obama. This comment reinforced the Mediacracy’s latest narrative of Senator Obama being an arrogant, condescending politician.
During the April 10th edition of Hardball with Chris Matthews, the loquacious host spoke with disgraced MSNBC correspondent David Shuster about Senator Obama’s inability to connect with average Americans. Senator Obama “ is not that good at that – handshaking in a diner… Barack doesn’t seem to know how to do that right,” said Mr. Matthews. “He (Obama) doesn’t do that well,” said Mr. Shuster. Predictably, Mr. Matthews interrupted Mr. Shuster. “What’s so hard about doing a diner? I don’t get it. Why doesn’t he go in there and say, ‘Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night? Just some regular connection,”[vii] said Mr. Matthews.
Furthermore, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Shuster talked about Senator Obama’s perilous adventure in a diner while he campaigned in Indiana. Mr. Shuster described the scene to the motormouth host. Senator Obama was offered coffee. He declined the offer. Instead he asked for orange juice. “No,” said Mr. Matthews. The political talk show host was aghast. Mr. Shuster assured Mr. Matthews it was a true story, not an urban legend. “And it’s just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, ‘Here, have some coffee,’ you say, ‘Yes, thank you,’ and, ‘Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?’ You don’t just say, ‘No, I'll take orange juice,’ and then turn away and start shaking hands,” said Mr. Shuster. “You don’t ask for a substitute on the menu,”[viii] said Mr. Matthews.
Had Mr. Obama attended the Finishing School in Le Institut Villa Pierrefeu or Le Institut Alpin Videmanette in Switzerland as a young black man and learned the proper way to shake hands, or the art of ordering a beverage at a public establishment, or mastered the ability to knock down phallic pins at commercial sporting venue, or learned how to accessorize his wardrobe, or learned how to engage in conversation with the idle, ordinary, pedestrian folk from the heartland of America, then the Mediacracy would have labeled Senator Obama effete. Sometimes a black man just can’t win in America.
The Mainstream Media (MSM) labeled Senator Obama an elitist, someone who inherently cannot understand the problems of average Americans. Senator Obama is arrogant. He is condescending like the former governor of the ultra liberal state of Massachusetts and failed presidential candidate Michael Dukakis. Coincidently, both have un-American sounding names.
Like a four-year-old child with a new toy, Mr. Matthews clutched the elitist accusation. Mr. Matthews was interviewing the presumptive Republican nominee Senator McCain during the April 15th edition of Hardball. “We’ve had enough softball, Senator,” implying he was going to ask him a tough question. “It’s time for the show to start here… Let me ask you a tough one here… Is Barack Obama an elitist?,” asked Mr. Matthews. Senator McCain was grateful he was not asked to identify five differences between Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. “No. But I do believe that his statements were elitist,” said Senator McCain.
Initially, Senator Clinton was a victim of the Mainstream Media. She was portrayed as someone who was unlikable. People hate the way she talks, laughs, and the pantsuits she wears. Public opinion polls were used as evidence against her. The Mediacracy ridiculed her after she lost the Iowa Caucus. The Mainstream Media looked forward to writing her political obituary after the New Hampshire primary, but the Senator from New York by way of Arkansas managed to survive despite the attacks from the media.
Senator Clinton attempted to exploit Senator Obama’s inexperience and association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright during the presidential campaign. It affected her poll numbers, reducing her approval ratings below 40%. However, the elitism issue allowed Senator Clinton to demonize Senator Obama as someone who is “elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.”[ix]
Senator Clinton is questioning Senator Obama’s toughness. “Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”[x]
Senator Obama is unable to get votes from Senator Clinton’s core constituency. Her convincing primary victory was due to “women, older voters and less affluent and less educated voters; among white union members with no college education, she won almost three quarters of the vote, polling showed.”[xi] Senator Obama is unable to get sufficient support from Catholic voters.
The Clinton campaign and her surrogates have portrayed Senator Obama’s supporters as “the Gucci-wearing latte-drinking self-centered egotistical people.”[xii] Apparently, there are not enough of those people in Pennsylvania.
Senator Clinton recast herself as the granddaughter of a Pennsylvania factory worker. As a child, her grandfather taught her how to use a weapon, and she enjoys hunting. While campaigning in a bar, Senator Clinton drank a shot glass full of whisky with a beer chaser in order to appear ordinary.
Senator Obama attempted to remind voters that Senator Clinton was also labeled an elitist, but she is trying to portray herself as an average person, “talking like she’s Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday. She’s packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.”[xiii] The Democratic presidential campaign has degraded into which candidate is most like the average voter.
The issue of race was always lurking in the background, but none of the prior primary contests offered any evidence of racism. Pennsylvania changed that. A math geek who studies exit polls would have “found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 54 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 16 percent said they would not vote at all.”[xiv]
In February, Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton super delegate Ed Rendell spoke about the Pennsylvania primary during an interview with the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. “You’ve got some conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African American candidate,”said Mr. Rendell.[xv]
Usually voters will not admit to pollsters they are racists. However, their answers may indicate a predisposition towards racism. A Pew Poll indicated “white Democrats who don’t favor him are much more likely… to believe interracial dating is wrong, that immigrants pose a threat to American values and that equal rights for minorities have been pushed too far.”[xvi]
Furthermore, “one in four white Democrats with a negative opinon of [Senator Obama] believes he is a Muslim.”[xvii]
Senator Obama campaigned in Pennsylvania for six weeks. He was behind by 19 points in the opinion polls prior to the primary. The charismatic Illinois Senator outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. But Senator Obama was able to reduce Senator Clinton’s lead to ten percent in six weeks. Given ample time and sufficient resources, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination was unable to convince Pennsylvanians he is a better candidate for president than Senator Clinton. “Clinton and Obama have virtually identical stances on the issues, but it still has the power to divide voters along the lines of race.”[xviii]
Race becoming an issue is not a surprise. After the New York primary, I talked with my father about the presidential campaign. He spoke of a community center he frequents and meets with other Hispanics and they were talking about the Senator Obama. The majority of the people at the community center said they would never vote for a black man for president. They were not the stereotypical white, southern bigots who get angry at mentioning civil rights. They were minorities, immigrants in the United States who resent Barack Obama’s candidacy. My father was disappointed and so was I.
Senator Obama’s enthusiastic support for president made me believe race was not an issue and the United States finally grasped Dr Martin Luther King’s dream of a better America, but the enthusiasm made me forget how deep the issue of racism penetrates the fabric of our country. Reminded that people from my own ethnic background are racists was demoralizing. It was like finding out there was no such thing as Santa Claus and hope is futile.
On second thought, Senator Obama is not a damaged candidate. The United States is a damaged country.
[i] “The Low Road to Victory,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[ii] Ari Berman, “Pennsylvania’s Obamicans,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[iii] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[iv] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[v] Transcript Democratic Presidential Debate in Philadelphia, The New York Times, April 16, 2008.
[vi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[vii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[viii] “On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster Critiqued Obama’s Weird Beverage Selection at Indiana Diner,” Media Matters for America, April, 11, 2008.
[ix] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[x] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xi] Patrick Healy, “Clinton Clearly Outduels Obama in Pennsylvania,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 30, 2008.
[xiii] John M Broder, “Democrats Wrangle Over Words and Beliefs,” The New York Times, April 14, 2008.
[xiv] Adam Nagourney, “The Bruising Will Go On for the Party, Too,” The New York Times, April 23, 2008.
[xv] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvi] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xvii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
[xviii] Gaiutra Bahadur, “The Keys to the Keystone State,” The Nation, May 5, 2008.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
False Premise
It is a false statement made by informed people often enough to be presumed to be true; Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States withdraws its military presence from the beleaguered Middle Eastern country.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
In an interview with the ignorant Fox News personality Sean Hannity, Vice President Dick Cheney said, “If Al Qaeda were to take over big parts of Iraq, among other things, they would acquire control of an assistant oil resource. Iraq has almost 100 billion barrels of reserves, producing 2.5 to three million barrels a day. You take a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda and give it that kind of revenue, there‘s no telling the amount of trouble they could get into.”[i]
Later on in the interview, the vice president said, “and if a great white shark had balls, it would be a man.” Both assumptions are unlikely.
Arizona Senator and Republican presidential nominee John McCain asked U.S Commander in Iraq General David Petraeus during a Senate hearing if Al Qaeda was a major threat in Iraq. General Petraeus testified, “It is a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was, say 15 months ago.”[ii] Fifteen months ago, Al Qaeda was a major threat, but now Al Qaeda is a major threat. The first casualty of war is the truth. The second casualty of war is grammar. The war in Iraq has greatly improved our ability to manhandle the English language.
The Mainstream Media participates in this deception. The issue of Al Qaeda’s ability to take over Iraq strained its way into a Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008. During the debate, Tim Russert, the distinguished but overrated moderator of the political talk show Meet the Press, asked Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama a hypothetical question regarding Iraq after American troops have successfully withdrawn from the besieged Middle Eastern country. “If this scenario plays out and the Americans get out in totality, and Al Qaeda resurges, and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right in your mind as American president to reinvade, to go back into Iraq to stabilize it?”[iii]
Senator Clinton attempted to answer the question by saying, “You know, Tim, you ask a lot of hypotheticals. And I believe…”[iv]
Mr. Russert rudely interrupted the Senator. He had the Senator from New York in his crosshairs. “But this is reality,” he said. Senator Clinton answered, “No, well, it isn’t reality. You are making lots of different hypothetical assessments.”[v]
Senator Clinton is a sophisticated woman who would not use harsh language in a public setting. However, the lovely Mona Lisa Vito, as portrayed by the beautiful and talented Academy Award winning actress Marisa Tomei in the movie “My Cousin Vinnie,” would have said in her charming Brooklyn accent that she could not answer the hypothetical question posed by Mr. Russert. Mr. Russert would have grinned and said, “Aha! You can’t answer the question because you don’t know the answer.” Ms Vito would have said, “The reason I can’t answer your question is because it’s a bullshit question!” Thus wiping the smug look off Tim Russert’s face.
Indeed, Tim Russert. It is not reality. You are making up a lot of hypothetical assumptions.
Mr. Russert’s hypothetical question is based on a false premise, that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling Iraq, a falsity perpetuated by the Bush Administration with the assistance from the Mainstream Media (MSM). The Bush Administration and the Mainstream Media feign ignorance of Iraqi history and current demographic data in order to continually perpetrate the rationale for maintaining a military presence in Iraq.
President Bush’s ignorance is understandable because he does not read. If the incompetent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice walked into the Oval Office to inform the clueless president that Cardassians (Star Trek reference) were threatening to invade Antarctica, our intrepid leader would immediately dispatch troops to Alaska to repel the attack.
But Mr. Russert is a journalist, or at least he portrays one on television. He should know better than to spread a falsehood during a presidential debate.
The correct answer to the question is to challenge Mr. Russert’s assumption by asking him if he honestly believes Al Qaeda is capable of defeating the collective will of 28 million people. The best way to answer Mr. Russert’s question is volley the facts right back to him.
The total population of Iraq is 28.5 million. Ethnically, Iraq consists of Arabs (64.7%), Kurds (23%), Azerbaijani (5.6 %), Turks (1.2%), Persian (1.1%), and other ethnic groups (4.4%). Iraqi religious affiliations are as follows: 62% Shia Muslim, 34% Sunni Muslim, and others.[vi]
Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, not local Iraqi’s. Estimates of the number of Al Qaeda in Iraq range from 850 to more than a thousand, according to the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Demographically, less than 1% (.0000357% to be exact) of the Iraqi population consists of Al Qaeda fighters. There are probably more Jehovah Witnesses in Iraq than Al Qaeda fighters.
Al Qaeda is a Wahhabi Muslim sect that follows a stricter form of Islam. Wahhabists and Shia are enemies. Wahhabists believe Shia Muslims deviated from the true path of Islam, therefore Shia are heretics who should be put to death unless they return to the true path of Islam.
The Kurds reject Al Qaeda’s perspective of Islam. “Most Kurds are Sunni Muslim, but generally have little religious zeal. They drink hard and dance harder and rarely pray five times a day.”[vii] I’m guessing Wahhabists would not approve of Muslims acting like college frat boys on spring break.
The Sunni Muslims in the Anbar province rejected Al Qaeda oppressive tactics, and formed alliances with the United States military to expel Al Qaeda. It was not the promise of freedom that convinced the Iraqis in Anbar to assist the Americans. Instead, it was the lure of cash. The Bush Administration is paying Iraqis in Anbar not to engage our soldiers.
If you accept the Bush Administration’s argument that Al Qaeda will take over Iraq if the United States military prematurely withdraws from Iraq, or Vice President Cheney’s contention that Al Qaeda is capable of controlling the oil fields in Iraq, or Mr. Russert’s premise of Al Qaeda resurging in Iraq if US troops withdraw, then you are arguing 850 to a thousand foreigners armed with machine guns and suicide bombers are capable of taking over a country.
Incidentally, a report from the office of the vice president indicated a motorcycle gang from southern California is also capable of capturing Iraq.
Not everyone shares the Bush Administration’s pessimism. In a message to the European Union in Belgium, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said, “We are today more confident than any time before, that we are close to the point where we can declare victory against al Qaeda and its allies.”[viii]
If you accept the premise that 1,000 men can take over a country of 28 million people, then you are arguing the United States military (140,000 troops) and the independent contractors (estimate 150,000) are abject failures. One thousand mercenaries can succeed in controlling Iraq, but the “Coalition of the Willing” is incapable of securing the country.
Al Qaeda cannot control the oil fields because 1,000 foreign fighters are incapable of controlling large segments of Iraq. Capturing the oil fields would involve repelling the Iraqi military from the oil fields, extracting the oil from the ground, loading the oil in tankers, selling the oil on the open market, and finding a buyer. It could happen in the movies, except that James Bond would prevail in the end.
Not to say that 1,000 mercenaries are incapable of causing mayhem in Iraq. On September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers created havoc in New York City and Washington DC.
But for the media to hype the threat of 1,000 fighters in order to justify the Bush Administration’s military occupation of Iraq is unpardonable.
It is understandable for the average voter to ask such a question because the public is factually unaware of the status of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The average American probably does not know the difference between a Sunni Muslim and a can of Sunkist orange soda pop. It’s not like voters are asking a question they know the answer to like what is the capital of Vermont – which is…?
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are exploiting our collective ignorance regarding Iraq. An attendee of the Christians United for Israel Tour who was actually arguing for more military intervention in the Middle East said, “If we move out of Iraq, the Muslims are going to take over and they are going to follow us here.”[ix] First, Muslims are the majority in Iraq. It is their country. Second, they cannot follow us here. They do not have the means of transporting thousands of soldiers to the United States, unless they decide to launch a massive invasion by swimming from Iraq to the United States.
Al Qaeda will fail to control Iraq, if the threat to take over Iraq ever existed, for the same reason the “Coalition of the Willing” is unable to secure Iraq. It is because Al Qaeda and the soldiers stationed in Iraq are foreigners. Iraqis will not submit to the will of foreigners, as would any other people who are being subjected to a military occupation from a foreign country.
The Bush Administration and the Mediacracy are acting in concert to assert the falsehood that Al Qaeda is capable of taking over the country of Iraq. It happened before. The Bush Administration perpetrated a fraud on the American people when it argued Saddam Hussein was a threat to national security. The Mainstream Media were willing accomplices because the false evidence presented by the Bush Administration was not questioned.
There was sufficient evidence available before the war to contradict the claims made by the Bush Administration. In an interview with Bill Moyers’, 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon said, “We only knew that the connection the Administration was making between Saddam and Al Qaeda was very tenuous at best and that the argument it was making over the aluminum tubes seemed highly dubious. We knew these things.”[x]
But the Bush Administration also duped the Mainstream Media. In his infamous appearance on Meet the Press on September 8, 2002, Vice President Cheney said, “There’s a story in the New York Times this morning, this is – and I want to attribute this to the Times. I don’t want to talk about obviously specific intelligence sources, but… it’s now public that, in fact, [Saddam Hussein] has been seeking to acquire and we have been able to intercept to prevent him from acquiring through this particular channel the kinds of tubes that are necessary to build a centrifuge and the centrifuge is required to take low-grade uranium and enhance it into highly-enriched uranium which is what you have to have in order to build a bomb.”[xi] Vice President Cheney argued the story about Saddam Hussein attempting to acquire aluminum tubes must be true because the story appeared in the New York Times. If the Times printed it, then it must be true. Unbeknownst to the public, the Bush Administration leaked that story to the New York Times.
Displaying brilliant journalistic instinct, Tim Russert sat by his phone, like a high school geek, waiting for someone to call him to counter the Bush Administration’s argument for war. In an interview with Bill Moyers, Tim Russert said, “To this day, I wish my phone had rung, or I had access to them.”[xii] Mr. Russert lacked the initiative to expose the Bush Administration’s false rationale for invading Iraq.
The Mainstream Media is as guilty of war crimes as is the Bush Administration because it neglected the evidence Saddam Hussein was not the mortal threat before the war. Furthermore, the Mediacracy perpetuates the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq deception, thereby continuing the justification for war in Iraq.
[i] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 11, 2008.
[ii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 8, 2008.
[iii] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[iv] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[v] MSNBC, “Transcript of Democratic Presidential Debate,” February 26, 2008.
[vi] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Iraq Fact Sheet.”
[vii] Edward Wong, “In a Twist of History, Kurds Patrol Baghdad,” New York Times, April 24, 2007.
[viii] Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 17, 2008.
[ix] Max Blumenthal, “Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour.”
[x] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xi] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
[xii] Bill Moyers, “Buying the War,” April 25, 2007.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
A Process Compromised
When asked during the HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher” about Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s success in recent Democratic primaries, Fox News pollster, conservative political consultant, and Republican loyalist Frank Luntz indicated there were fives reasons accounting for Senator Obama’s accomplishment. Mr. Luntz cleverly called the reasons “The 5 M’s.”[i]
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
First is money because Senator Obama raised the most money. Second is message because the Illinois Senator’s message of hope captured the imagination of the electorate.
It was the third “M” that caught my attention – Malice. The conservative pollster explained registered republican voters were voting in open primaries for Senator Obama in order to cause mischief in the Democratic nomination process.
The third “M” was a reminder of a conversation between Robert Redford and Hal Holbrook in the great movie “All the President’s Men” regarding the “infiltration of the Democrats.”
Mr. Holbrook, portraying the mysterious White House insider Deep Throat, described the methods used by the Nixon Administration to sabotage the Democratic Party. In a dark, secluded parking garage, Deep Throat said to Bob Woodward, “They were frightened of Muskie and look who got destroyed. They wanted to run against McGovern. Look who they’re running against. They bugged. They followed people. Fake press leaks. Fake letters. They cancelled Democratic campaign rallies. They investigated Democratic private lives. They planted spies, stole documents and on and on.”[ii]
Disgraced former President Richard M Nixon was traumatized by his narrow defeat in the 1960 presidential election to the handsome and charismatic Massachusetts Senator John F Kennedy. In Nixon's psychologically scarred mind, the best way to insure victory and prevent further trauma was to rig the nomination process of the opposing party.
Nixon left two lasting legacies in electoral politics in the United States. First is the use of the “Southern Strategy,” a blatant attempt to exploit racial anxieties of southern, white Democrats, thus siphoning votes from the Democratic Party. Second, willfully sabotaging the nominating process in the Democratic Party. Both strategies are still used by the Republican Party.
An assessment of recent Democratic presidential nomination campaigns offers proof of the Republican Party’s nefarious activities. In 2004, former Vermont governor Howard Dean was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination before a single ballot was cast. He was considered the front-runner because the former Governor from Vermont raised the most campaign funds. The central issue of his candidacy was his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Conservatives quickly labeled Governor Dean an extreme liberal whose political views are in sharp contrast with the values of Americans. But Dean was running against the war in Iraq – an unnecessary war initiated over fictitious reasons by a fallacious President. It was not in the Republican Party’s best interest to run against an antiwar candidate.
After a disappointing third place finish in the Iowa Caucus, Governor Dean attempted to rally his disillusioned supporters with a rousing speech. Except that Governor Dean was a little too enthusiastic. He concluded his concession speech with an exuberant “BYAW!!!” The media replayed what became known as the “Dean Scream” over and over again. Democrats became disenchanted with the crazy, red-faced liberal from Vermont.
Americans find such exuberance distasteful in a presidential candidate; however not knowing the names of foreign leaders is acceptable. Foreign leaders are foreigners and in America nobody cares about foreigners.
However, the Republican Party still needed a beatable opponent. The next best thing to a liberal from Vermont was a liberal from Massachusetts. As a state, Massachusetts is America’s patsy, forever obliviously wearing a “Kick Me” sign carefully pasted on its back.
Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam War credentials were a significant problem considering he was running against the two virtual draft dodgers, President George Bush and Vice President Dick (I had other priorities) Cheney, but the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth eventually torpedoed Senator Kerry’s chances of becoming president.
In 1992, the Republican Party was probably salivating at the chance to run against a draft dodging, womanizing liberal from a small, indistinguishable southern state. However, Texas billionaire Ross Perot siphoned votes from President Bush and the Republicans lost the presidency to serial womanizer Governor Bill Clinton.
In 1988, the Democratic Party nominated former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis. However, the front-runner for the nomination was former Colorado Senator Gary Hart – who lost the Democratic nomination to former Vice President Walter Mondale in 1984.
Senator Hart’s candidacy dropped dead after the Miami Herald published a picture of the amorous Senator with a lovely woman, who was not his wife, on his lap.
Delaware Senator Joseph Biden was another strong candidate whose candidacy did not survive an alleged scandal. It was disclosed that Senator Biden was lifting passages from a speech made by British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock in his own speeches. Senator Biden was forced to drop out of the presidential race.
Governor Dukakis was an attractive candidate to run against. He was the former governor of Massachusetts, also known to conservatives as the most liberal state in America. To conservatives, liberalism is just another word for evil. Massachusetts has such a negative connotation in conservative politics that former Governor Mitt Romney often refused to name the state he served in. Instead, he used euphemisms to describe the state; such as I was the governor of a difficult state.
Governor Dukakis was attacked during the presidential campaign because he was against laws mandating the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), as governor he supported prison furloughs, and he failed to clean up the environmental disaster in Boston Harbor.
Governor Dukakis’ was not only an easy candidate to run against, but he also provided an excuse to use the “Southern Strategy” against the Democrats. It was the prison furlough issue that was especially damaging once a commercial of a menacing black man named Willie Horton began circulating on television. What better way to scare white people to death than to introduce the possibility of a Democratic president releasing angry black men from prison who will rape and kill white women upon tasting freedom.
Governor Dukakis was such a weak candidate; the Republicans did not even have use the Governor’s Greek ancestry against him, but it does not mean the Republicans would not be incapable of using such tactics in the future.
Three out of the last four Democratic nominees fit a profile the Republicans are comfortable running against, beatable liberals with heavy baggage.
Senator Barack Obama developed a sizable lead in the Democratic nomination process by vaulting over the inevitable Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton. Senator Obama accomplished this feat by mobilizing young voters who are participating in the nominating process for the first time. In addition, Obama has attracted independents and Republicans. In open primaries, 57% of registered republicans crossed party lines and voted for Senator Obama.
If Frank Luntz’s assertion that Republicans are voting for Senator Obama simply to cause mischief in the Democratic Party is true, then the Republican Party is involved in a blatant attempt to sabotage the Democratic Party. Republican mischief is a threat to the integrity of the nomination process. The method of nominating a candidate has been compromised.
If a Republican operative wanted to create a profile of the perfect presidential candidate to run against in general election, then the profile would include the candidate’s race, ethnicity, name, record of public service, gaffes, religion and vulnerability to trivial issues.
If a Republican operative wanted to follow Nixon’s textbook strategy of how to defeat the Democrats in the general election, then Senator Obama could be considered the easiest candidate to defeat in November. Senator Obama is a textbook Republican opponent.
Mr. Obama is a black man, with an exotic name. His middle name Hussein corresponds with the last name of our mortal enemy and threat to national security Saddam Hussein. He can be labeled a Muslim because of his exotic name. Even though Senator Obama does attend a Christian church in Chicago, the church can be mildly labeled as Afro-centric, or menacingly considered as Black Separatist. Senator Obama is politically inexperienced having served in the United States Senate for only two years. Early in the presidential campaign, he was prone to gaffes and mistakes. As for trivial, nonsensical issues, Senator Obama does not wear a flag pin on his lapel, and he keeps his arms at his side during the National Anthem.
The propaganda wing of the Republican Party is an active participant in the practice to undermine the Democratic nomination process. The Weekly Standard editor, Fox News political analyst, former GOP strategist and evil embodied William Kristol was extremely grateful that Senator Obama defeated the Republican Party’s old nemesis Senator Hillary Clinton in Iowa. In a column, Kristol heaped praise on the Senator from Illinois, stating the young senator was charismatic, charming, “a gifted politician and an anti-politician.”[iii]
However, Kristol turned on Obama when it became apparent Senator Obama was going to become the Democratic nominee. In a February 25, 2008 Op-Ed article in the New York Times, Kristol implied Senator Obama was an elitist because he refused to wear a flag pin on his lapel. By not wearing a flag pin, Senator Obama is indicating he is better than the Troglodytes and Neanderthals who still choose to wear flag pins.
Early in the presidential campaign, deceitful Fox News personality Sean Hannity was complementary towards Senator Obama, saying, “I think he’s a likeable person. She’s (Senator Clinton) not.” Hannity defended Obama whenever the Clintons “attacked” the Illinois Senator, but once Senator Obama built a comfortable lead among pledged delegates, Hannity proclaimed on his nationally syndicated radio show that “having Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee was the best way for a Republican to win in November.”[iv]
However, Republicans suddenly are voting for Senator Clinton. Maybe the enthusiastic crowds at the Obama campaign rallies are intimidating the Republicans. Or maybe the Republicans are imaging a debate between the youthful Obama and the charismatically challenged Arizona Senator John McCain.
Egomaniacal radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh prompted his listeners to vote Clinton in order to prolong the Democratic nomination process hoping the eventual nominee becomes irreparably damaged during the process.
In Texas, 119,000 Republicans voted for Senator Clinton providing her with the margin of victory. According to an article in the Boston Globe, John Taylor, the Republican chairman of Madison County in Texas said, “Some people there that I recognized voting said they were going to do some damage if they could… These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall.”[v]
The Republicans want the nominating process to continue hoping Senator Clinton at best will walk away with the Democratic nomination against the wishes of the voters, thus damaging the party beyond repair, or at worst deliver a crucial setback against Senator Obama that will linger until the general election. The Republicans want to run against a damaged opponent.
It is ironic that Republicans are hoping their mortal enemies (the Clintons) will be an important factor in Senator McCain capturing the presidency. It is also ironic that Senator Clinton is willingly enabling the vast Right Wing Conspiracy in achieving its dastardly goals.
The method of nominating a Democratic candidate for president is compromised. Republicans cannot be trusted to fairly participate in the process. Republicans have demonstrated in the past a tendency to sabotage. For the sake of future elections, the Democratic Party should consider locking out Republicans and independents from the nomination process.
Anyone who believes such groupthink is impossible should watch videotape of the people who were trying to disrupt the 2000 ballot recount in Florida. Sprinkled throughout the angry white faces were active congressional Republican staffers trying to stop the recount.
The only way to truly know if the method of choosing the Democratic nominee was compromised by unethical, deceitful, untrustworthy, double-crossing Republicans would be the actual general election results in November. If Senator Obama candidacy implodes, if he loses in a landslide to Senator McCain, then it can be argued the process is indeed compromised.
[i] Real Time with Bill Maher, February 15, 2008.
[ii] “All the President’s Men,” Warner Brothers, 1976.
[iii] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[iv] Wayne Barrett, “Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy,” The Village Voice, March 11, 2008.
[v] Hardball with Chris Matthews, March 18, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
