This week Barack Obama will go on the offensive to exploit the news regarding the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc over the weekend, and news of other Wall Street instability such as Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch and AIG's public search for financing. Yesterday, Obama quickly seized on the issue, saying it represented "more evidence ... that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store."
Predictably, Obama also tried to link the market trouble to Republican policies: "For eight years, we've had policies that have shredded consumer protections, that have loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans."
This is what Obama didn't tell you: According to the Center for Responsive Politics reports, a non-partisan research organization, employees of security and investment firms have donated nearly $10 million to Barack Obama this year. More specifically, Lehman employees contributed $370,000 to Obama's campaign coffers this year. Maybe this is what the Illinois senator had in mind when he said that Lehman's failing represented "more evidence ... that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store!" Perhaps, instead of taking $10 million from Wall Street bankers, Mr. Obama should have cautioned his fat cat donors to mind the store, rather than just taking their money. Apparently, Mr. Obama was too busy lining his campaign coffers, triumphantly announcing he had raised $66 million (including $10 million from Wall Street) on the eve of the announcement that Lehman would be filing for bankruptcy protection (after its employees contributed more than a quarter million to the Obama campaign).
The take-away, which Obama shamelessly does not talk about, is this: while the Obama campaign rolls in the dough, partially finaned by Wall Street donors, thousands of Merrill Lynch and Lehman workaday employees face gloomy prospects. To add insult to injury, Obama has the nerve to lecture us about "evidence that folks on Wall Street weren't minding the store," as he walks away with $10M of their money!
But, wait, there's more. Exactly as these corporate giants are on the ropes, with their thousands of employees and millions of others who depend on the finance sector, Barack Obama is proposing to raise corporate taxes! As Obama goes "on the offensive" trying to up his rhetoric around the country, repeating his mantra that John McCain is "out of touch," and that Republican policies have created this crisis, is anyone going to ask how raising corporate taxes will help these companies pay their bills, meet their bottom lines, and make payroll, and thus avoid further agony to the cash-strapped American worker? Will Obama's taking millions in campaign contributions and billions in higher corporate taxes offer any solution for American working in the finance sector, or for the rest of us whose jobs depend on the finance sector, in getting loans, having solvent mortgage companies and banks and employers?
Obama will say McCain is out of touch. But, McCain has two proposals on the table that do not involve bleeding employers and corporations at a time when we need financial institutions to remain strong. McCain's proposal to institute a 9/11 style commission to look at the problem will be dismissed as insubstantial. However, it is a serious proposal to study the situation thoroughly, with experts, not just campaign consultants and donors; with bipartisan cooperation, not cheap ideological rhetoric; and with the seriousness that demands workable solutions and critical analysis deserving of a serious national problem that threatens our economic security. This is a complicated problem that will require in depth analysis of the mortgage crisis, the health of the capital markets, and the runaway fuel prices. We know there are no easy answers -- only hard questions, and McCain's proposed method of seeking answers is much better than the hypocritical one-liners from Obama. Finally, McCain-Palin have already indicated ways they will address the energy component, saying they will seek an "all of the above" solution to our oil dependence, something Obama has stubbornly resisted.
Obama may try to turn up the heat on the economy. But, Americans must insist that he go beyond hypocritical criticisms, shallow nitpicking, and facile but hollow promises of "change." In matters of economic concerns, which are the most important issue in this election, we must insist that Obama show us the money.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
¡VIVA McCAIN!
This week marks the national holidays in Mexico and across the nations of Central America. As a Hispanic American, I feel honor-bound to write about Sen. McCain's "maverick" record on immigration issues, despite the fact that I know a lot of fellow conservatives have very strong, and contrary, feelings about the issue. We Latinos think about illegal immigration in the same way that most Americans think about gay rights. Many Americans have a relative, a friend, a neighbor, a co-worker, someone in their child's school, who is gay. So they see gay rights as a social issue, not strictly as a law enforcement issue. The same way, many Latinos know someone who is illegal, so we tend to see the question more softly than others. John McCain has been able to find a soft spot in his heart for people facing hardships who come to this country seeking a better life and has attempted to overhaul the nation's immigration laws in a ways that seek to secure the borders AND to provide a path to citizenship to the most deserving immigrants who would otherwise not have such an avenue.
John McCain is one of the few national leaders who has recognized the military service and sacrifice of Latino veterans. In fact, Latino immigrants were among the earliest casualties of the Iraq war when it was launched in 2003. An uncomfortable but important fact is that the first service member killed in Iraq was an illegal immigrant. Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who immigrated illegally from Guatemala at age 14 was only granted U.S. citizenship post-humously, after he had died for his adopted country. "The next time you're in Washington, D.C.,and go to the Vietnam War Memorial" McCain says in an ad directed at the Hispanic community, "look at the names engraved on black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names," McCain says. "When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you're going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You're even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they're willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful blessed nation."
According to G.O.P. Texas delegate Luis de la Garza, "No politician or candidate understands the needs of the Latino community better than McCain. That's why he's committed himself not just to naturalizing 12 million undocumented immigrants but also to providing the tools Latinos need to get ahead in all aspects of life in this country." The Latino community more than almost any other demographic in American politics, emboddies Republican values. I wonder who would be most flabbergasted to hear me say that -- Latinos or Republicans! Latinos are conservative by culture. Because of the deep influence of Catholicism, the prevalent opinion is pro-life. They tend to define marriage as the monogamous, life-long union between a man and a woman. My in-laws, who call themselves Democrats, meet all of this description, and even are pro death-penalty! Most important of all, Latinos are hard workers. Despite painful sterotypes of people coming across the border for social benefits, most of the Latinos I know work staggering hours and do the most thankful jobs. My mother, for example, raised me and my brother while she worked three jobs: two of them full time. One of them was as a housekeeper ("Cleaning toilets," as she would say, without shame. There is no shame in being a hard worker.) She also is a life-long Democrat, but she never went on welfare -- even when she could not pay the rent, and the three of us were homeless for a few months.
Like her, most Latinos are Democrats just out of habit. Everyone expects us to. I remember when I was applying to go to school at Columbia University, a college scout came to interview me at home. At the time, my family and I lived in a very run-down public housing project in New York's inner city. It was a crime-ridden neighborhood, in the 1980s. The scout, a product of the East Coast liberal elite, could not believe I liked Ronald Reagan! I said something to him along the lines of what Mike Huckabee would say at this year's G.O.P. convention: "I'm not a Republican because I'm rich, I'm a Republican because I don't want to be poor waiting for the Government to rescue me." His words could very well be the motto for the nation's Hispanics. In my view, the Hispanic community would be foolish to neglect the Republican Party, and the Republican Party would be foolish to neglect the Hispanic Community.
John McCain is one of the few national leaders who has recognized the military service and sacrifice of Latino veterans. In fact, Latino immigrants were among the earliest casualties of the Iraq war when it was launched in 2003. An uncomfortable but important fact is that the first service member killed in Iraq was an illegal immigrant. Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, who immigrated illegally from Guatemala at age 14 was only granted U.S. citizenship post-humously, after he had died for his adopted country. "The next time you're in Washington, D.C.,and go to the Vietnam War Memorial" McCain says in an ad directed at the Hispanic community, "look at the names engraved on black granite. You'll find a whole lot of Hispanic names," McCain says. "When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you're going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You're even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they're willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful blessed nation."
According to G.O.P. Texas delegate Luis de la Garza, "No politician or candidate understands the needs of the Latino community better than McCain. That's why he's committed himself not just to naturalizing 12 million undocumented immigrants but also to providing the tools Latinos need to get ahead in all aspects of life in this country." The Latino community more than almost any other demographic in American politics, emboddies Republican values. I wonder who would be most flabbergasted to hear me say that -- Latinos or Republicans! Latinos are conservative by culture. Because of the deep influence of Catholicism, the prevalent opinion is pro-life. They tend to define marriage as the monogamous, life-long union between a man and a woman. My in-laws, who call themselves Democrats, meet all of this description, and even are pro death-penalty! Most important of all, Latinos are hard workers. Despite painful sterotypes of people coming across the border for social benefits, most of the Latinos I know work staggering hours and do the most thankful jobs. My mother, for example, raised me and my brother while she worked three jobs: two of them full time. One of them was as a housekeeper ("Cleaning toilets," as she would say, without shame. There is no shame in being a hard worker.) She also is a life-long Democrat, but she never went on welfare -- even when she could not pay the rent, and the three of us were homeless for a few months.
Like her, most Latinos are Democrats just out of habit. Everyone expects us to. I remember when I was applying to go to school at Columbia University, a college scout came to interview me at home. At the time, my family and I lived in a very run-down public housing project in New York's inner city. It was a crime-ridden neighborhood, in the 1980s. The scout, a product of the East Coast liberal elite, could not believe I liked Ronald Reagan! I said something to him along the lines of what Mike Huckabee would say at this year's G.O.P. convention: "I'm not a Republican because I'm rich, I'm a Republican because I don't want to be poor waiting for the Government to rescue me." His words could very well be the motto for the nation's Hispanics. In my view, the Hispanic community would be foolish to neglect the Republican Party, and the Republican Party would be foolish to neglect the Hispanic Community.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
HURRICANE SARAH
Huge hurricane grabs the headlines, leaving little room for any political news for anyone but the G.O.P.'s V.P. pick that the left is obsessing about, and that leaves Democrat Barack Obama out in the cold. Sound familiar? The same thing happened during the Republican convention, after Sarah Palin was named, and Hurricane Gustav forced McCain to cancel a day of the convention, which turned out to be a blessing in disguise, because (1) taking charge made McCain look presidential and (2) it made the convention turn out to more lean and mean (more Palin, less Dick Cheney). Well, it's déjà vu all over again, after the media's attempt to knock out Palin only lead to more time in the spotlight, and more opportunity for the American public to get to know her.
In the days after she was named, the media went into overdrive trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin -- under the pretext that, because she was such an unknown figure, she had to be investigated quickly. Never mind the fact that she's the governor of the largest state in the nation, and with an 80% approval rating, probably the most popular politician in the country. But, the East Coast establishment held up its nose and scoffed that she'd never even been on "Meet the Press." Horror of horrors! To their chagrin, after the frenzied spin cycle, Palin emerged more popular and compelling than any other political figure -- even the media's darling, the Democrat. The McCain campaign played its hand very deftly, as well. I remember in the days immediately after Palin's announcement, a liberal friend chided me (as his stand-in for the entire GOP) that McCain's choice of Palin "wasn't very presidential." Well, no one is saying that now, as McCain single-handedly changed the whole tenor of the campaign with his first act on the national stage in a presidential race. That's what presidential power is supposed to be like -- shrewd, swift, and awe-inspiring.
This week must have made Obama wonder if it was Groundhog's Day. His pals at ABC News decided wouldn't it be grand to mount an all-out ambush interview of Palin (while the ladies of The View went after Mccain) to try to knock down the GOP ticket once and for all. The strategy could not have backfired more spectacularly. To see Charles Gibson, peering down his professorial dem[[[[iframe]]]]d glasses, reading obscure factoids from his cheat-sheet and scowling at Sarah Palin while mis-identifying the "Bush Doctrine" was a pathetic sight. I think they meant for Palin to look pathetic, but it was Gibson who looked desperate. It was a game of gotcha, and he never gotcha-ed her. (There is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine, Charlie. First of all, it's your guy who is "The One" and may decree dogmas and doctrines, but Republican presidents simply make policy. Second of all, scholars have not yet published an encyclopedic definition of "the" Bush Doctrine. Bush critic Jacob Weisberg, for example, has identified six Bush doctrines.) Then Ike hit, and Obama had to cancel his SNL appearance (which would have been his only interesting media coverage this week.) Again, McCain was smart. By sending Palin to do a single interview, he set a trap for the liberals to work themselves up to a frothy frenzy over Sarah Palin, while Obama struggled to find something to say that anyone would care about. His best effort was to criticize McCain for not being more familiar with computers and email, another veiled attack at McCain's age. They just don't get it: Americans now LIKE Sarah Palin, and they would not be scared that McCain is old and Palin would get to be president.
On September 11, both candidates took a day off from politics. Well, John McCain took a day from politics. Obama had a political lunch with Bill Clinton and immediately released his attack ad as soon as the first ray of sun appeared on Sept. 12. But his attempts were drowned out by Hurricane Sarah. Next week, they will try again, friends. It's like watching a kitten continue to pump against a wall, isn't it? Or, is it a pig in lipstick? :-)
In the days after she was named, the media went into overdrive trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin -- under the pretext that, because she was such an unknown figure, she had to be investigated quickly. Never mind the fact that she's the governor of the largest state in the nation, and with an 80% approval rating, probably the most popular politician in the country. But, the East Coast establishment held up its nose and scoffed that she'd never even been on "Meet the Press." Horror of horrors! To their chagrin, after the frenzied spin cycle, Palin emerged more popular and compelling than any other political figure -- even the media's darling, the Democrat. The McCain campaign played its hand very deftly, as well. I remember in the days immediately after Palin's announcement, a liberal friend chided me (as his stand-in for the entire GOP) that McCain's choice of Palin "wasn't very presidential." Well, no one is saying that now, as McCain single-handedly changed the whole tenor of the campaign with his first act on the national stage in a presidential race. That's what presidential power is supposed to be like -- shrewd, swift, and awe-inspiring.
This week must have made Obama wonder if it was Groundhog's Day. His pals at ABC News decided wouldn't it be grand to mount an all-out ambush interview of Palin (while the ladies of The View went after Mccain) to try to knock down the GOP ticket once and for all. The strategy could not have backfired more spectacularly. To see Charles Gibson, peering down his professorial dem[[[[iframe]]]]d glasses, reading obscure factoids from his cheat-sheet and scowling at Sarah Palin while mis-identifying the "Bush Doctrine" was a pathetic sight. I think they meant for Palin to look pathetic, but it was Gibson who looked desperate. It was a game of gotcha, and he never gotcha-ed her. (There is no such thing as the Bush Doctrine, Charlie. First of all, it's your guy who is "The One" and may decree dogmas and doctrines, but Republican presidents simply make policy. Second of all, scholars have not yet published an encyclopedic definition of "the" Bush Doctrine. Bush critic Jacob Weisberg, for example, has identified six Bush doctrines.) Then Ike hit, and Obama had to cancel his SNL appearance (which would have been his only interesting media coverage this week.) Again, McCain was smart. By sending Palin to do a single interview, he set a trap for the liberals to work themselves up to a frothy frenzy over Sarah Palin, while Obama struggled to find something to say that anyone would care about. His best effort was to criticize McCain for not being more familiar with computers and email, another veiled attack at McCain's age. They just don't get it: Americans now LIKE Sarah Palin, and they would not be scared that McCain is old and Palin would get to be president.
On September 11, both candidates took a day off from politics. Well, John McCain took a day from politics. Obama had a political lunch with Bill Clinton and immediately released his attack ad as soon as the first ray of sun appeared on Sept. 12. But his attempts were drowned out by Hurricane Sarah. Next week, they will try again, friends. It's like watching a kitten continue to pump against a wall, isn't it? Or, is it a pig in lipstick? :-)
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES (Part II)
With John McCain enjoying a nice post-election "bounce," in order to lock-in those gains in the public opinion, we must close the sale. The Gallup daily tracking poll has McCain leading Obama 49-44; McCain has made a 10 point come-back in the CBS News poll to now lead 46-44; McCain also has made an 5-point bounce in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll; and he leads Obama 47-45 in CNN's National Poll of Polls. Perhaps the best news in the last couple of days' polls is the fact that independent voters and women have moved decisively into the McCain camp. According to Gallup, McCain's recent rise in the polls "is largely explained by political independents shifting to him in fairly big numbers, from 40% pre-convention to 52% post-convention." And according to the Washington Post/ABC News survey, "most of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention was due to a big shift in support among white women voters." These two groups of voters are independent segments of the demographic, and therefore good indicators that there is the objective case to be made for McCain is already working.
The case for McCain is selling because voters can see for themselves the relative merits and demerits of the two candidates. It is not necessary to go back to decades old legislative records or to speculate and try to predict what these candidates would do two years from now if they were in the Oval Office: instead, we can examine their behavior TODAY and make our judgments based on those first-hand observations. Not media filters, not spin from the pundits, not recitations of the campaign talking points: in the course of this election, we can see and judge for ourselves which candidate is better. This is what women and independents have done, and it is working in the favor of John McCain. This is what we must urge all our friends to do, and it will only result in the recent gains in the polls to be taken into the ballot boxes come November. Let's review what we are seeing.
Barack Obama told us his campaign would bring about "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN." Without having to wait until Inauguration Day, we can examine Obama's conduct during the campaign and determine whether or not he stands for change, and whether or not we can believe in the change (if any) that he would bring about if elected. The most important decision a candidate for presidency makes is the selection of his vice-president. Barack Obama chose Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, who was sworn in as a U.S. senator when Obama barely 11 years-old. Biden has been in the senate through seven administrations, including three 2-term presidents: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (two terms), Bush I, Clinton (two terms) and Bush II (another 2 terms). Does Joe Biden, with his 35 years in the senate, represent change anyone can believe in?
By contrast, John McCain selected as his running mate, the most exciting vice presidential choice of the modern era. First, not someone from the Washington establishment and, for godssakes, not another senator! Second, not another man. In the year in which Hillary Clinton excited voters about the possibility of knocking down the biggest glass ceiling, John McCain chose a woman to be the person who would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency." Third, McCain did not choose someone whose job for 35 years has been to be part of the establishment. Instead, McCain chose a woman whose claim to fame has been, in large part, to rattle the establishment. In so many ways, McCain's choice was so much more inspired and more presidential than Obama's. Can you wait until President McCain appoints his Secretary of State or his first Supreme Court Justice! This is a choice that was made in real time, before our eyes, and all the voters can assess whether or not Obama lives up to his lofty promise.
The second part of Obama's slogan asks to "BELIEVE IN" the change that he has promised. Here, the voters can also assess for themselves, based on real time conduct, whether Obama's promises are worthy to be believed. Obama promised that he would run "a new kind of campaign," and his followers went as far as to suggest that Obama would nobly hover above the fray of the politics of us mere mortals, and be "post-partisan" or even "post-racial" (whatever that means). So far, we have seen Obama get traction by distorting the truth, like saying John McCain wanted the Iraq war to last 100 years when, in fact, he said, it would be OK if we maintained a presence in Iraq for 100 years under peaceful conditions). And while Obama has spent most of the campaign raising untold millions from wealthy patrons and European elites whom he seduces by bad-mouthing the working class, saying that they cling to their guns and religion, John McCain spent part of the campaign doing town hall meetings with regular Americans, including his tour of "forgotten America" that included a visit to Appalachia and the sites of the Civil Rights struggle. All these things happened this year, so we have seen them play out before our eyes: it is not speculation or dusting off ancient archives.
But, let's get specific. Obama took a pledge that he would accept public funding for his campaign. Then, lured by his adoring crowds, mega donors, and the promise of a historic influx of dollars, he broke his promise, even before the election was had. John McCain took the same pledge, but he actually kept it and so it is that this week is the last week that John McCain can dedicate himself to fund-raising. Barack Obama agreed to engage with McCain in several joint town hall meetings. This was part of the whole "new kind of campaign" song-and-dance, back when Obama needed votes and wanted to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton. But, lured perhaps by "Obama Girl" he decided to shun the cheap seats and go for the gusto with online fundraising and sexy new methods of communication.
Over and over, we have seen the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama. When the crisis in Georgia came to a head, John McCain was timely and forceful in his response. Obama stayed in his private beach in Hawaii. When Hurricane Gustav threatened Louisiana, McCain cancelled part of the GOP convention and went into the affected areas. Obama stayed out and continued to plan political strategy. Again and again, we see it for ourselves. We see it live. We see the choices before us, not in mere words and in empty promises, but in their deeds and actions.
The case for McCain is selling because voters can see for themselves the relative merits and demerits of the two candidates. It is not necessary to go back to decades old legislative records or to speculate and try to predict what these candidates would do two years from now if they were in the Oval Office: instead, we can examine their behavior TODAY and make our judgments based on those first-hand observations. Not media filters, not spin from the pundits, not recitations of the campaign talking points: in the course of this election, we can see and judge for ourselves which candidate is better. This is what women and independents have done, and it is working in the favor of John McCain. This is what we must urge all our friends to do, and it will only result in the recent gains in the polls to be taken into the ballot boxes come November. Let's review what we are seeing.
Barack Obama told us his campaign would bring about "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN." Without having to wait until Inauguration Day, we can examine Obama's conduct during the campaign and determine whether or not he stands for change, and whether or not we can believe in the change (if any) that he would bring about if elected. The most important decision a candidate for presidency makes is the selection of his vice-president. Barack Obama chose Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, who was sworn in as a U.S. senator when Obama barely 11 years-old. Biden has been in the senate through seven administrations, including three 2-term presidents: Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan (two terms), Bush I, Clinton (two terms) and Bush II (another 2 terms). Does Joe Biden, with his 35 years in the senate, represent change anyone can believe in?
By contrast, John McCain selected as his running mate, the most exciting vice presidential choice of the modern era. First, not someone from the Washington establishment and, for godssakes, not another senator! Second, not another man. In the year in which Hillary Clinton excited voters about the possibility of knocking down the biggest glass ceiling, John McCain chose a woman to be the person who would be "a heartbeat away from the presidency." Third, McCain did not choose someone whose job for 35 years has been to be part of the establishment. Instead, McCain chose a woman whose claim to fame has been, in large part, to rattle the establishment. In so many ways, McCain's choice was so much more inspired and more presidential than Obama's. Can you wait until President McCain appoints his Secretary of State or his first Supreme Court Justice! This is a choice that was made in real time, before our eyes, and all the voters can assess whether or not Obama lives up to his lofty promise.
The second part of Obama's slogan asks to "BELIEVE IN" the change that he has promised. Here, the voters can also assess for themselves, based on real time conduct, whether Obama's promises are worthy to be believed. Obama promised that he would run "a new kind of campaign," and his followers went as far as to suggest that Obama would nobly hover above the fray of the politics of us mere mortals, and be "post-partisan" or even "post-racial" (whatever that means). So far, we have seen Obama get traction by distorting the truth, like saying John McCain wanted the Iraq war to last 100 years when, in fact, he said, it would be OK if we maintained a presence in Iraq for 100 years under peaceful conditions). And while Obama has spent most of the campaign raising untold millions from wealthy patrons and European elites whom he seduces by bad-mouthing the working class, saying that they cling to their guns and religion, John McCain spent part of the campaign doing town hall meetings with regular Americans, including his tour of "forgotten America" that included a visit to Appalachia and the sites of the Civil Rights struggle. All these things happened this year, so we have seen them play out before our eyes: it is not speculation or dusting off ancient archives.
But, let's get specific. Obama took a pledge that he would accept public funding for his campaign. Then, lured by his adoring crowds, mega donors, and the promise of a historic influx of dollars, he broke his promise, even before the election was had. John McCain took the same pledge, but he actually kept it and so it is that this week is the last week that John McCain can dedicate himself to fund-raising. Barack Obama agreed to engage with McCain in several joint town hall meetings. This was part of the whole "new kind of campaign" song-and-dance, back when Obama needed votes and wanted to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton. But, lured perhaps by "Obama Girl" he decided to shun the cheap seats and go for the gusto with online fundraising and sexy new methods of communication.
Over and over, we have seen the contrast between John McCain and Barack Obama. When the crisis in Georgia came to a head, John McCain was timely and forceful in his response. Obama stayed in his private beach in Hawaii. When Hurricane Gustav threatened Louisiana, McCain cancelled part of the GOP convention and went into the affected areas. Obama stayed out and continued to plan political strategy. Again and again, we see it for ourselves. We see it live. We see the choices before us, not in mere words and in empty promises, but in their deeds and actions.
Monday, September 8, 2008
JOHN McCAIN IS AN HONORABLE MAN
According to The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy (Third Edition, 2002), "Brutus is an honorable man" is a phrase employed by the character Mark Antony in Shakespeare's play, JULIUS CAESAR, to portray Brutus as ungrateful and treacherous, and to turn the Roman people against Brutus. In the hands of a crafty orator, a seemingly benign compliment can be a cunning trick, a deceptive artifice designed to attribute nefarious qualities to the subject by misleading the spectator into believing it is graceful flattery.
There is no more cunning orator in the political scene today than Barack Obama, and he has attempted to use a sugar coated dagger against John McCain, turning John McCain's greatest attribute -- his hero status -- into a codeword for something despicable and vile. As demonstrated by Shakespeare, the technique is rather crude -- simply repeat a compliment (like "Brutus is an honorable man") coupled with facts that contradict the compliment and voilà!: instant insult.
Thus, when Obama said "John McCain is an American hero" on February 12, 2008, he immediately followed this faux flattery with the statement, "But his priorities don't address the real problems of the American people." On June 9, Obama said, "John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor." He then went on to bash McCain as a George Bush toad. Time and again, Obama has coupled his false praise of John McCain's service with real vitriol intended to taint John McCain's honor. The key is that in many of these quotes, Obama is contrasting the praise mirage with an allegation of dishonorable conduct: essentially, being a traitor to the honor of his own service.
I think most Americans would find such an artifice to be offensive. To use a man's service to his country against him, by means of a rhetorical trick is profoundly un-American. Of course, it's also an insult to the public's intelligence to think no one would be able to figure out the obvious device being used when in so many Obama speeches, the false praise is floated, immediately followed by a transparent attempt at character assassination. This Orwellian DOUBLE-TALK is also such a marked contrast to John McCain's STRAIGHT TALK, which ultimately may be John McCain's best defense mechanism against this stealth line of attack. In our case, John McCain IS an honorable man!
There is no more cunning orator in the political scene today than Barack Obama, and he has attempted to use a sugar coated dagger against John McCain, turning John McCain's greatest attribute -- his hero status -- into a codeword for something despicable and vile. As demonstrated by Shakespeare, the technique is rather crude -- simply repeat a compliment (like "Brutus is an honorable man") coupled with facts that contradict the compliment and voilà!: instant insult.
Thus, when Obama said "John McCain is an American hero" on February 12, 2008, he immediately followed this faux flattery with the statement, "But his priorities don't address the real problems of the American people." On June 9, Obama said, "John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor." He then went on to bash McCain as a George Bush toad. Time and again, Obama has coupled his false praise of John McCain's service with real vitriol intended to taint John McCain's honor. The key is that in many of these quotes, Obama is contrasting the praise mirage with an allegation of dishonorable conduct: essentially, being a traitor to the honor of his own service.
- "Now, I respect John McCain. He'll be a worthy opponent. But he's been a staunch supporter of Washington's failed policies." April 10, 2008.
- "While I honor John McCain's service to his country, his ideas for America are out of touch with these values." May 6, 2008.
- "I have great respect for John McCain's service to this country ... But he is one of the few Senators of either party who oppose [the G.I.] bill." May 12, 2008.
- "John McCain [is] a man who has served this country heroically ... [but] independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign." June 03, 2008.
- "Now, I respect John McCain, and I honor his service to this country ... [But his] policies that are no different than the ones that have failed us for the last eight years." June 5, 2008.
- "John McCain is an American hero whose military service we honor ... [But] for all his talk of independence, the centerpiece of his economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies." June 9, 2008.
- "Senator McCain came before you. He is a man who has servedthis nation honorably ... But instead of just offering policy answers, he turned to a typical laundry list ofpolitical attacks." August 19, 2008
- "The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect ... But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." August 28, 2008.
I think most Americans would find such an artifice to be offensive. To use a man's service to his country against him, by means of a rhetorical trick is profoundly un-American. Of course, it's also an insult to the public's intelligence to think no one would be able to figure out the obvious device being used when in so many Obama speeches, the false praise is floated, immediately followed by a transparent attempt at character assassination. This Orwellian DOUBLE-TALK is also such a marked contrast to John McCain's STRAIGHT TALK, which ultimately may be John McCain's best defense mechanism against this stealth line of attack. In our case, John McCain IS an honorable man!
Sunday, September 7, 2008
BELIEVE YOUR OWN EYES (Part I)
CNN's Campbell Brown conducted an interview of McCain's campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds that will live in infamy. Although Ms. Brown has self-servingly proclaimed that "I don't think the interview was over the line. Neither does CNN. And neither do most [fans] who e-mailed me," the Brown-Bounds interview is a flagrant departure from the recognized norms of fair television journalism during a campaign season.
As a simple test of the heavy-handedness of the Brown-Bounds interview, the reader and CNN would be hard pressed to identify: (1) an example where Brown used the same level of abrasiveness in an on-air interview with a spokesman for the Obama campaign ("just one!"); (2) an example where the venerable Jim Lehrer of the Newshour on PBS (no bastion of conservatism, they!) advocated a point of view as aggressively as Brown did versus Bounds; or (3) the evidence for CNN president John Klein's claim that Brown "asked fair and important questions in a respectful way" (emphasis added) in the text of the interview, found here. (That transcript was prepared by CNN and ommits the most eggregious conduct, but if you play the video file included in the same part of the web site, you will see for yourself.)
Despite Brown's and CNN's self-congratulating conclusions that they have done nothing wrong, any analysis of the interview by readers will readily evidence several atrocious transgressions by CNN's Campbell Brown. The abusive conduct included:
- Brown was argumentative: not simply stating the adversary's side in the hypothetical, or to play the devil's advocate, but pretending to refute facts stated with opposite 'facts' (Cambell asserted, in contradiction of Bounds, "No governor makes decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the Pentagon.")
- Brown continuously interrupted Bounds, not allowing him time to build up his arguments, cutting him off. During the short interview, she interrupted him nine times. (The text posted on the CNN web site transcribes the questions and answers as if they were full sentences, not indicating that the speakers were often times talking at the same time because Brown would not let Bounds answer in full.)
- While not allowing Bounds to finish, Brown also repeatedly accused Bounds, "You're not answering my question" (!), which tended to make Bounds look as though he was being evasive or skirting the issues raised by Brown. The L.A. Times called the resulting ambush "great TV."
- Rather than remain neutral and impartial, Brown played up her skepticism and apparent disbelief of Bounds' words. As Kate Linthicum of the L.A. Times noted, Brown "ended the segment with a broad, sarcastic smile" before appearing to dismiss Bounds' arguments as frivolous ("All right, Tucker, I'm just going to give it to ya, baby.")
In short, CNN fell significantly short of the Radio-Television News Directors Association Code of Ethics' calls to "inform the public without bias;" to "Present analytical reporting based on professional perspective, not personal bias;" to resist efforts to "politically influence news content;" to "present the news fairly and impartially;" to "Treat all subjects of news coverage with respect and dignity;" and to "Clearly label opinion and commentary." (The full text of the Code, to which CNN is bound, is found here.)
Now, the Campbell Brown media that has set out on an unabashed attempt to discredit Gov. Palin's qualifications, will argue that as long as Gov. Palin does not appear on their Washington shows or address the Washington press corps, that she has somehow not passed some qualifying trial to certify her to be a candidate for national office. Given the short time before the election, and the demonstrable hostility of the news media to treat Gov. Palin with respect, it is the national media which has not passed the test. And so, the American public will have to exercise a lot of independent judgment and, in the case of the liberal media vs. Gov. Palin, the American people will have to trust their own eyes and see for themselves.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
DRILL, BABY, DRILL!
With eight weeks to go until Election Day, McCain-Palin supporters need to get out the message and drill it home to the American voter: Barack Obama is an empty promise of change while John McCain brings experience in service of reform, backed up by a record of service that courageously puts country first, and principle above partisan politics. For all his lofty rhetoric promising "change you can believe in," Barack Obama has written two memoirs, but not a single piece of major legistlation, while McCain's senate record -- which includes campaign finance reform, fighting against pork barrel spending, taking on the tobacco industry, never accepting earmarks, HMO reform, climate change, immigration reform -- provides an outstanding contrast against the Obama record, which consists exclusively of pretty speeches and false claims.
Barack Obama gets the most traction out of presenting a fase dichotomy against John McCain. Obama cannot run against the real McCain record, because McCain is the real McCoy and Barack is just bereft of ideas. So, Obama presents a straw man argument: he says McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years, and pretends that his distortion really is McCain's position. He has done this again and again, and the media refuses to call him on it. We saw this when John McCain joked that he would define rich as making over five million dollars, immediately predicting that the joke would be distorted. Despite the fact that John McCain made it clear that it was a joke, Obama went on to campaign on the basis that it was McCain's actual position, saying that it proved McCain was "out of touch" with the economic reality. Most recently, Obama has distorted a statement by McCain's campaign manager on the dynamics of the campaign, falsely paraphrasing Rick Davis as saying that the campaign would be about personalities and not the issues, then running against the false interpretation of his actual words. That's Obama: a sham, a mirage, a distortion.
This blog will drill home that point, calling out the falsehoods being put out by the Obama campaign and pointing to the 900 pound gorilla in this election: McCain's long-standing "maverick" rep, Gov. Palin's undeniable role as a change agent the likes of which has not been seen in Washington in many years, and the restoration of the Republican brand to its Grand Old roots laid down by Honest Abe, T.R., and the Gipper. We will drill that message home day in and day out, week in and week out, and expose the smoke and mirrors offered by the other side. We're going to drill till we drop: drill, baby, drill!
Barack Obama gets the most traction out of presenting a fase dichotomy against John McCain. Obama cannot run against the real McCain record, because McCain is the real McCoy and Barack is just bereft of ideas. So, Obama presents a straw man argument: he says McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years, and pretends that his distortion really is McCain's position. He has done this again and again, and the media refuses to call him on it. We saw this when John McCain joked that he would define rich as making over five million dollars, immediately predicting that the joke would be distorted. Despite the fact that John McCain made it clear that it was a joke, Obama went on to campaign on the basis that it was McCain's actual position, saying that it proved McCain was "out of touch" with the economic reality. Most recently, Obama has distorted a statement by McCain's campaign manager on the dynamics of the campaign, falsely paraphrasing Rick Davis as saying that the campaign would be about personalities and not the issues, then running against the false interpretation of his actual words. That's Obama: a sham, a mirage, a distortion.
This blog will drill home that point, calling out the falsehoods being put out by the Obama campaign and pointing to the 900 pound gorilla in this election: McCain's long-standing "maverick" rep, Gov. Palin's undeniable role as a change agent the likes of which has not been seen in Washington in many years, and the restoration of the Republican brand to its Grand Old roots laid down by Honest Abe, T.R., and the Gipper. We will drill that message home day in and day out, week in and week out, and expose the smoke and mirrors offered by the other side. We're going to drill till we drop: drill, baby, drill!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
