Editor's Note: Yes, I know the opening ceremonies have already occurred in Beijing. However, they have yet to air on television in the United States. Hence, to most people, they have yet to transpire.
In a matter of hours, the Olympics will officially kick off here in America. As per usual, viewers will be deluged by the scenes of pageantry, camaraderie and egalitarianism that the Olympics are hypothetically said to represent. Amidst soothing oration from Bob Costas detailing the harmonious spirit that pervades the game, viewers will be treated to an evening of pomp and circumstance, replete with the artificial symbols the Chinese officials will undoubtedly utilize to emphasize the sanctimony and collectivity of the Olympic ideal.
As one watches this orgy of lofty symbolism and rhetoric of justice and equality, let's not forget how China has transformed itself into a city purportedly worthy of hosting the Olympics. This metamorphosis has come by systemic discrimination, environmental degradation, and a fundamental disregard for human dignity. Here are just a few examples of China's wanton rejection of the human rights that are supposedly endemic to the Olympic spirit:
1. China has been engaged in a systematic and brutal repression of Tibet since the former invaded in 1949. More than 6,000 Tibetan monasteries have been destroyed in the last 58 years, with only a few to be rebuilt. Numerous internal reports have also detailed the despicable abuse the PRC has perpetuated on the women and children of Tibet, a practice which included a 1994 death of a Tibetan nun reportedly due to beating at the hands of guards.
The Chinese government has implemented a policy that amounts to cultural genocide in Tibet. From importing thousands of ethnic Chinese into the Tibetan lands, to forbidding the Tibetans to practice their religion, the Beijing has made a concerted effort to stifle the symbols and practices that define Tibetan cultural.
2. The Chinese government is a frequent practitioner of arbitrary detention. Though it sounds somewhat benign, arbitrary detention actually entails labor camps and imprisonment for long periods of time. According to the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the People's Republic of China (PRC) utilizes these nefarious forms of detention "for political and cultural rehabilitation." PRC estimates, which are likely to be on the low end, say that there are than 100,000 people in the "re-education camps."
3. Dissidents in China are treated with an iron fist, and are often imprisoned, or even murdered, simply for exercising their fundamental right as a human being to liberty and dignity. The list of activists persecuted simply for pursuing reparations, or fair treatment for the downtrodden and poor are too many to list in this space. However, here a are merely a few of these courageous folks who have been subjected to heinous treatment, simply for campaigning for justice
Housing rights activist Ye Guozhu has been detained, and tortured via electric shock batons, simply for protesting the spate of forced evictions that the government instituted to free up space for Olympic construction.
Activist Hu Jia was recently sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison for "inciting subversion." What exactly did Hu do that was subversive? He participated in a European Union parliamentary hearing on how China has failed to live up to their human rights promises. He also was cited for "giving interviews to foreign media outlets", according to Amnesty International.
Doesn't it seem farcical that a government that imprisons citizens for speaking to foreign media outlets is allowed the right to host the most prestigious athletic competition in the world?
4. Censorship is rampant in the PRC of 2008. Sites from amnesty.org (the official website of Amnesty International) to the BBC are censored by the state. Information, no matter how factually correct it may be, is constantly taken away from the upwards of 250 million Internet users on the Mainland. Though this is hardly as egregious as some of the other abuses, censorship is nevertheless antithetical to the Olympic spirit.
5. And last, but surely not least, is the despicable manner that the PRC has dealt with the Falun Gong sect. The government continues to persecute and torture those Falun Gong members as the latter attempts to worship in peace and tranquility. Bu Dongwei, a Falun Gong practicing, was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison simply for having Falun Gong literature in his possession.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, freedom of religion, association, speech and information are thoroughly vitiated in China. The violations listed above are but a mere few of what is a veritable compendium that the Chinese government has compiled, even after they promised improvements after being awarded the Olympics in 2001. In fact, Amnesty International reports that on an aggregate level, the human rights situation in China has actually deteriorated since they were given the Olympics.
Given this, one must take tonight's ceremony for what it truly is: a despotic, autocratic regime putting on an elaborate ruse designed to convince the world that they have even a modicum of respect for human rights and social justice.
The IOC was fooled by the PRC's promises that they would modify their intransigent behavior. I hope that when you watch the gallantry and pomp of tonight's Opening Ceremony, you won't be utterly fooled like they were.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Lesson of the Oil Drilling Debate
Officially, Congress is on a five week recess.
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
And yet, inside the decorous chambers, insurgent House Republicans remain, pledging to stay ensconced within the chamber until they sufficiently embarrass House Democrats, or force them come to back into session.
Gleeful reports emanate daily from conservative publications imploring these "true Americans" to fight on, no matter the cost. For the first time during this political season, it even appears that the GOP has an issue that may catalyze the electorate in their favor. And boy have they attempted to capitalize on it, facts be damned!
In fact, the fervor with which these lawmakers have shown during the nascent debate leads one to believe they consider it almost their own Alamo.
But instead of protecting Americans from Santa Anna's army, these "patriots" fulsomely claim to be protecting all of America from the cripple of gas prices. According to this claque of Republicans, the continental oil drilling that they presently remain in Washington to support is both the panacea and the last bastion that we have against the rising tide of astronomical energy prices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what exactly has inspired these Republicans to eschew their beloved vacations, and stay instead to advocate for continental oil drilling?
Given their propensity for 2 day work weeks while in the majority, it certainly can't be a pure love of legislating.
As aforementioned, their commandant George W. Bush has deserted them in favor of a luxury box at the Opening Ceremonies in Beijing, so he obviously can't be the forerunner of this protest. Incessant campaigning on behalf of drilling also prevents days of valuable campaigning in battleground districts.
And nevertheless, the Republicans remain, despite the litany of risks because they are buoyed by a tide of public opinion in favor of drilling. Poll after poll has shown that anywhere from a majority to even as much as 70 percent of Americans support the idea of expanding drilling on the continental shelf.
It appears that the public sentiment, for once, is the sole ferment that led to the Republicans putting on this fanciful, although ultimately inconsequential protest.
The title of the post references a pivotal lesson to be gleaned from this debate, and this specifically arises from these public opinion polls:
The public still has not learned their lesson about the deceit of the Republicans, even after 8 years of Bush rule.
Amazingly, after all of the tomfoolery and deceit that has been evinced by the Bush Administration, and their Congressional lackeys, the public still manages to fall for their scams. Inexplicably, the public has yet to realize that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to Republican policies. That the party itself is bankrupt of ideas has mysteriously yet to dawn on the majority of Americans.
As most experts note, offshore drilling will not produce tangible economic results for 15 years, at the very earliest, and yet the GOP can mount a successful public relations campaign by focusing on that illusory solution. They can only do so because the public, who is normally blase, or even disdainful towards politics as a whole, is foolish and complicit enough to endorse their piecemeal, ineffectual solution. Even after 8 years of lost wages, decreasing public services and a drastic heightening of societal inequality, the electorate as a whole still cannot see through the duplicity of Republican policies.
The propensity of voters to fall the canard the Republicans are currently shamelessly selling has been a hallmark of the Bush years, and it has in large part, led to the troublesome situation in which we now face. As Thomas Frank so eloquently put it in What's the Matter with Kansas? voters responded to having their jobs outsourced to the third world by fervently promising to endorse a cut in corporate tax rate.
And, on and on it goes for these dimwitted souls, who torpedo any sort of reform that would require a mere modicum of sacrifice with their uninformed decisions which are all too susceptible to the soundbite political messages espoused by the Republicans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, politicians foremost goals are to keep their jobs, not to propagate necessary and beneficial policies upon our society. Because of this, public pressure is often perversely successful at dictating public policy, irrespective of the long term consequences that policy may cause.
Barack Obama has already started to crack under the increasing pressure, as evidenced by his recent shift towards a limited endorsement of off shore drilling. Expect Congressional Democrats, who have hitherto resisted the heat, to eventually cave as well, if the concerted pressure from the Republicans, who purport to speak for the public, continues.
If that were to occur, those of us who have the perspicacity to see that offshore drilling is a fool's errand at best, and an environmental disaster in waiting at worst, will end up yet again forced to deal with the consequences of the misinformed majority.
That being the case, it got me to wondering: Is there any way to make a political efficacy test a prerequisite for voting??
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Yet Again, David Brooks Willfully Ignores Reality to Criticize Barack Obama
In Tuesday's New York Times, columnist David Brooks decides to tackle the question of why Barack Obama is not, in an apparent shock to Brooks, winning in a landslide. In probing why Obama's lead over John McCain has slowly dwindled, but remained intact, Brooks comes up with the following theory:
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
"And the root of it is probably this: Obama has been a sojourner.... There is a sense that because of his unique background and temperament, Obama lives apart...As a result, voters have trouble placing him in his context, understanding the roots and values in which he is ineluctably embedded."Brooks continues along this path of argument for another dozen paragraphs until his summation, in which he indicates that Obama should be winning in a "landslide", but that voters are preventing the what he deems as "to be expected" from transpiring, because they are resolutely wary of him "as a sojourner."
Notwithstanding the fact that Brooks' preferred candidate John McCain lived apart from the public in the same way as Obama, and yet mysteriously does not have a similar predicament, Brooks argument is wholly flawed because he recklessly overlooks the main reason that Barack Obama is not winning in a landslide: he is black, and American still retains a racist component within the electorate.
To that end, earlier in the year, Rasumussen Reports issued the results of a poll that indicated only 73 percent of registered voters would vote for a black candidate. In the same poll, it was revealed that senior citizens (who flock en masse to the voting booth when compared to other demographics) believed that only 49 percent of their peers would vote for a black candidate. The reality is that a demonstrable sect of the likely voters have grave reservations about voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin. This factor will be far more critical to his success than any sort of nebulous, contrived notion of voters perceiving Obama as some how "a man apart", as Brooks theorizes.
Recently University of Virginia political scientist Vesla Weaver conducted a study which vividly illustrated how pervasive a candidates race remains in the decision making processes of the average voter, despite demonstrable progress having been made in the last 40 years.
Weaver created 4 fictional political candidates; 2 white candidates, a light skinned black candidate and a dark skinned black candidate. Through the ingenuity of computer software, Weaver managed to ingratiate common physical features into each candidate to the point where their physical resemblance rendered them tantamount to "being like brothers."
With all other factors controlled via the standardization tactics of the software, race became the sole difference between the quarter. From there, she tested voters responses to each candidate on qualities like trustworthiness and intelligence. Her results are emblematic of an electorate that still has implicit racist tendencies. The white candidates crushed the black candidate when scoring for the aforementioned factors. In a surprising wrinkle, the light skinned black candidate actually scored worse than the two darker skinned candidates. Guess who is the light skinned black man running in the 2008 Presidential election?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a columnist for the paper of record, Brooks ought to be cognizant of the reality that American, in some regions, still remains a patently racist nation as the UVA study, and a preponderance of other evidence indicates. And yet there is merely a singular, almost dismissive mention of the racial component in explaining Obama's inability to win in a landslide in Brooks' column.
How can Brooks, a man of impressive credentials and decades of experience within the American political milieu make such an egregious oversight in assessing Barack Obama's electoral prospects?
Once again, it cannot be overstated that it doesn't take a seasoned political operative to realize that some voters steadfastly refuse to vote for a person of African descent. And yet, judging by this column, Brooks appears to be profoundly oblivious to this notion. More over, one of the core premises of this particular piece, which states that Barack Obama should be winning in landslide because of the favorable political climate, also espouses a profound ignorance of American political history. Brooks knows better than this, but, as I'll deal with later, these truisms of American political history conflate with his central argument, which conveniently ignores race.
For Brooks to assert that a black candidate could even plausibly win in a landslide in an American presidential election, despite the fact that America has an atrocious history of racism (which persists today in some areas) and also that a black candidate had never made it past the primaries, is pure casuistry. In a feeble attempt to justify this argument, Brooks cites the "prevailing winds" that are leaning voters away from the GOP.
However, as Brooks ostensibly knows, voters deem their vote for President as their most personal and intimate choice, and therefore, are often swayed by considerations that are tangential at best to the issues of the day. History has shown time and time again that voters choose their candidate more on personality than issues, a fact which thereby neutralizes Brooks assertion that issues would be the casus belli for voters in 2008.
Brooks' concerted effort to eschew personality factors, race in this instance, is intellectually ignorant at best, and maliciously disingenuous at worst. And one must personify those traits to even make such an argument as Brooks does in this column.
Remember, we've already established that Brooks is essentially the antithesis of political ignorance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all that we detailed above, how can we explain Brooks' refusal to acknowledge the reality of racial politics in this column, something he undoubtedly is abreast of after decades of covering Washington?
It's simple really: To recognize the pernicious forces of racism within our electorate would prevent Brooks from leveling another one of his patented, amorphous, personality based critiques of Barack Obama.
And that sort of criticism is what Brooks, and the rest of the "mainstream" media has specialized in for years now. In 2004, the media managed to paint John Kerry as effete, and out of touch, despite the fact that he was a genuine war hero. They are adopting the same sort of tactics with Barack Obama in 2008, with Brooks leading the charge. From specious questions about his patriotism, due to a lack of flag pin, to this new critique which gives Obama the imprimatur of "apart from the norm", Brooks and his cadre have yet again tried to make this election on the contrived personality peccadillo's of the liberal candidate, instead of substantive issues.
As an avowed McCain supporter, Brooks realizes that this course of action is his only choice in getting his man elected. Like his Republican predecessor, John McCain gets trounced on many issues in generic polls, particularly when it comes to the economy. To combat this disadvantage, Brooks knows he must concoct a false narrative in order to deflect that reality away from his surrogate, John McCain.
Only with this mindset can the borderline farcical notion that Barack Obama could actually win in a landslide be offered. Brooks, like his preferred candidate, has decided that an election based on the issues is a lost cause, and he thus chooses to distract the public by distorting the truth. In doing so, he willfully ignores the litany of problems confronting this country at present, and the country is done another disservice.
Let's hope that the electorate is smart enough not to fall for this personality based canard yet again.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Some Random Thoughts....
Given that we are in the midst of a relatively slow news week, I don't have a full length piece just yet. However, I did want to chime in on some other developments on politics in the last few days:
1. So much for the Liberal Bias in the Media, eh? As the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday, the mainstream media has continued their love affair with John McCain throughout the 2008 campaign. As the report detailed, McCain has gotten away with a series of gaffes that have gone essentially ignored by the mainstream press. From his sordid marital past to his inability to understand foreign affairs (Iraq-Pakistan border???), McCain has run what can only be called an abysmal campaign. And yet, he continues to get away with those mistakes with the voters because most media outlets simply choose to ignore them.
Starting with the 2000 GOP primary, McCain made a concerted effort to buddy up to the press and they have reciprocated with soft coverage ever since. The prevalent narrative that depicts McCain as a charismatic, independent, reform minded politician is rooted in that campaign, and no matter what facts emerge to the contrary, the media does not want to stray from their original thesis.
In a year where Republican prospects are fair at best, and dismal at worst, the main stream media is doing John McCain an enormous favor by blithely glossing over the litany of critical mistakes the presumptive Republican nominee has hitherto made. What makes this oversight even more pernicious is that while they look at McCain through rose colored glasses, Obama is scrutinized for every single thing he does.
Obama, as befitting a newcomer, has undergone a thorough analysis of his life by the media, from his relationship to his pastor, to his supposed affiliation with Jim Ayers. The biographical aspect of the spotlight makes sense for a man a few years removed from the Illinois State Senate. What truly does not, however, is the media's stubborn insistence on holding Obama's feet to the fire on every single issue while at the same time completely ignoring many of the litany of faux pas made by his opponent, Sen. McCain.
2. Republicans Care More About Having a Potent Political "Issue" than Alleviating the Energy Crisis: Despite repeated offers of compromise by Harry Reid, the Senate Republicans refuse to take any tangible action to solve the exorbitant gas prices. Though they supposedly have overwhelming support for curbing speculation in the oil market, the GOP will not allow any sort of legislation to gain cloture. These stalling tactics have both stalemated activity in the Senate and allowed the energy prices crises to percolate.
In addition, they also refused to allow a bill to come to the floor that would require oil companies to utilize the leased land that is currently uncorrupted.
Now, why would the GOP vitiate legislation that comports with their goals?
The Republicans realize that the oil drilling issue is their only chance to sway the electorate towards their caucus, and they won't dare give it up, even if that means prolonging the problem.
For the last few months, all one hears out of the GOP camp are solutions that have no prospect for immediate results e.g. a gas tax holiday, and offshore drilling. The Republicans know this, but as the party has proven time and time again historically, they will exploit any issue for political gain, irrespective of the detriment that causes the electorate as a whole. From the pointless Terri Schiavo fiasco under the Frist led majority, to the grandstanding on ineffectual oil drilling, the GOP has proven yet again that they care little for helping the average person's suffering. Instead, at the taxpayers expense, they will push red herrings as a means to mobilize what little public opinion remains behind their party platforms.
3. Apparently, giving a speech abroad makes you "arrogant": The GOP media cabal was out in full force to criticize Barack Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe.
Unsurprisingly, they hardly dealt with any substantive issues that were raised by Obama's sojourn, but instead turned to their favorite method of attack; petty, unquantifiable, and fictitious "personality based" attacks.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC informs us that Obama "has a little bit of an arrogant streak in him, he does." Media Research Center fulminates that he "is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned." The sagacious David Brooks criticizes Obama's speeches as naive and slightly ignorant by informing us that Obama's vision is "just Disney."
Wow, what could the presumptive Democratic nominee do to draw so much ire? Did he forget the timeline of the surge? Did he confuse the difference between Sunni and Shia while claiming to be a foreign policy expert? Did he flip flop on tax cuts, the housing bill and Social Security reform?
In actuality, all of the above refer to the imprimatur John McCain has thus far left on his fledgling campaign. Barack Obama offended the right wing hordes in the media simply by travelling out of the United States and giving speeches. David Brooks specifically calls out Obama because he "fed the illusion that we could solve our problems only if we united."
Ignoring the fact that all of the calamities he referred to in the column happened under the catastrophic watch of George W. Bush, Brooks totally misunderstands the purpose of that speech. I'm not sure why, but Brooks incorrectly assumes that Obama should offer a wonkish speech, laden with policy proposals. In front of 200,000 non-citizens, why would Obama talk about things that the audience cares little about, like health care or reforming the American legal system? It wouldn't make any sense.
On the other hand, speaking broadly about goals that are likely of interest and to be shared by the world community would likely be more relevant to that audience. Multilatera ism didn't start the Iraq War, worsen global warming or instigate the calamitous developments in Darfur. Rather, behind the pernicious mantle of acting unilaterally, the Bush Administration exacerbated all of the aforementioned problems. Given that, what's wrong with a little cooperation?
John McCain has traveled out of the country recently, to Canada, Mexico and Columbia. And yet nowhere do I hear the caterwauls from the media about McCain being arrogant like I do when Obama does the exact same thing? Well, as point 1 illustrated, the media does not exactly look upon McCain as negatively as they do Obama. Given that, it's unsurprising that another double standard between the two candidates coverage would arise.
Ultimately, the personality based, subjective attacks have become a hallmark of the conservative media. After all, they cannot really criticize Barack Obama on anything else policy wise. With their policy proposals do deeply unpopular, Republicans, as per the norm, must resort in spewing invective that has little to do with the fundamental issues that confront politicians in 2008. Time and time again, the media serves as a convenient mouthpiece for this salacious, counterproductive dreck.
1. So much for the Liberal Bias in the Media, eh? As the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday, the mainstream media has continued their love affair with John McCain throughout the 2008 campaign. As the report detailed, McCain has gotten away with a series of gaffes that have gone essentially ignored by the mainstream press. From his sordid marital past to his inability to understand foreign affairs (Iraq-Pakistan border???), McCain has run what can only be called an abysmal campaign. And yet, he continues to get away with those mistakes with the voters because most media outlets simply choose to ignore them.
Starting with the 2000 GOP primary, McCain made a concerted effort to buddy up to the press and they have reciprocated with soft coverage ever since. The prevalent narrative that depicts McCain as a charismatic, independent, reform minded politician is rooted in that campaign, and no matter what facts emerge to the contrary, the media does not want to stray from their original thesis.
In a year where Republican prospects are fair at best, and dismal at worst, the main stream media is doing John McCain an enormous favor by blithely glossing over the litany of critical mistakes the presumptive Republican nominee has hitherto made. What makes this oversight even more pernicious is that while they look at McCain through rose colored glasses, Obama is scrutinized for every single thing he does.
Obama, as befitting a newcomer, has undergone a thorough analysis of his life by the media, from his relationship to his pastor, to his supposed affiliation with Jim Ayers. The biographical aspect of the spotlight makes sense for a man a few years removed from the Illinois State Senate. What truly does not, however, is the media's stubborn insistence on holding Obama's feet to the fire on every single issue while at the same time completely ignoring many of the litany of faux pas made by his opponent, Sen. McCain.
2. Republicans Care More About Having a Potent Political "Issue" than Alleviating the Energy Crisis: Despite repeated offers of compromise by Harry Reid, the Senate Republicans refuse to take any tangible action to solve the exorbitant gas prices. Though they supposedly have overwhelming support for curbing speculation in the oil market, the GOP will not allow any sort of legislation to gain cloture. These stalling tactics have both stalemated activity in the Senate and allowed the energy prices crises to percolate.
In addition, they also refused to allow a bill to come to the floor that would require oil companies to utilize the leased land that is currently uncorrupted.
Now, why would the GOP vitiate legislation that comports with their goals?
The Republicans realize that the oil drilling issue is their only chance to sway the electorate towards their caucus, and they won't dare give it up, even if that means prolonging the problem.
For the last few months, all one hears out of the GOP camp are solutions that have no prospect for immediate results e.g. a gas tax holiday, and offshore drilling. The Republicans know this, but as the party has proven time and time again historically, they will exploit any issue for political gain, irrespective of the detriment that causes the electorate as a whole. From the pointless Terri Schiavo fiasco under the Frist led majority, to the grandstanding on ineffectual oil drilling, the GOP has proven yet again that they care little for helping the average person's suffering. Instead, at the taxpayers expense, they will push red herrings as a means to mobilize what little public opinion remains behind their party platforms.
3. Apparently, giving a speech abroad makes you "arrogant": The GOP media cabal was out in full force to criticize Barack Obama's recent trip to the Middle East and Europe.
Unsurprisingly, they hardly dealt with any substantive issues that were raised by Obama's sojourn, but instead turned to their favorite method of attack; petty, unquantifiable, and fictitious "personality based" attacks.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC informs us that Obama "has a little bit of an arrogant streak in him, he does." Media Research Center fulminates that he "is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned." The sagacious David Brooks criticizes Obama's speeches as naive and slightly ignorant by informing us that Obama's vision is "just Disney."
Wow, what could the presumptive Democratic nominee do to draw so much ire? Did he forget the timeline of the surge? Did he confuse the difference between Sunni and Shia while claiming to be a foreign policy expert? Did he flip flop on tax cuts, the housing bill and Social Security reform?
In actuality, all of the above refer to the imprimatur John McCain has thus far left on his fledgling campaign. Barack Obama offended the right wing hordes in the media simply by travelling out of the United States and giving speeches. David Brooks specifically calls out Obama because he "fed the illusion that we could solve our problems only if we united."
Ignoring the fact that all of the calamities he referred to in the column happened under the catastrophic watch of George W. Bush, Brooks totally misunderstands the purpose of that speech. I'm not sure why, but Brooks incorrectly assumes that Obama should offer a wonkish speech, laden with policy proposals. In front of 200,000 non-citizens, why would Obama talk about things that the audience cares little about, like health care or reforming the American legal system? It wouldn't make any sense.
On the other hand, speaking broadly about goals that are likely of interest and to be shared by the world community would likely be more relevant to that audience. Multilatera ism didn't start the Iraq War, worsen global warming or instigate the calamitous developments in Darfur. Rather, behind the pernicious mantle of acting unilaterally, the Bush Administration exacerbated all of the aforementioned problems. Given that, what's wrong with a little cooperation?
John McCain has traveled out of the country recently, to Canada, Mexico and Columbia. And yet nowhere do I hear the caterwauls from the media about McCain being arrogant like I do when Obama does the exact same thing? Well, as point 1 illustrated, the media does not exactly look upon McCain as negatively as they do Obama. Given that, it's unsurprising that another double standard between the two candidates coverage would arise.
Ultimately, the personality based, subjective attacks have become a hallmark of the conservative media. After all, they cannot really criticize Barack Obama on anything else policy wise. With their policy proposals do deeply unpopular, Republicans, as per the norm, must resort in spewing invective that has little to do with the fundamental issues that confront politicians in 2008. Time and time again, the media serves as a convenient mouthpiece for this salacious, counterproductive dreck.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Much Ado Nothing: Why the Hype over the VP is Pointless
Since Barack Obama and John McCain became their respective parties nominees a month or so ago, the media has been abuzz about who each man will select as their running mate. Pundits have been figuratively leaping over one another in the quest to figure out who the #2 person will be on the ticket. Chuck Todd of NBC News drafted a running list of contenders, and he has also devoted a full column to solving a question that has confounded, and invigorated scholars for years: should a nominee go with comfort or convention in their VP search? (/sarcasm)
I guess one can't really blame the media for being all a flutter about the search. After all, Obama's campaign keeps their prospective list, and the overall vetting process as a whole as secretive as possible.
Given this, seemingly every story the media has hither to produced regarding the search always reminds us of how pivotal a decision this will be. Walter Shapiro offered the coup de gras of hype when he asserted on Salon.com that:
"Aside from being a horse trainer inflamed with dreams of winning the Triple Crown, there may be no job in America with greater potential rewards and greater risk of abject failure than heading a vice-presidential search team. "
The furor over who will become Vice President has metastasized to a point where, for the first time I can remember, a candidate has used the prospect of selecting a VP as a way of stealing the spotlight. Earlier in the week, Bob Novak reported that McCain may be close to selecting his VP, with the ultimate decision even possibly coming within a few days.
As it turned out, Novak had been but a mere pawn in a scheme concocted by the McCain campaign in an ultimately futile attempt to deflect attention away from Obama as he traversed the Middle East. That the McCain campaign views the selection of the VP as their proverbial trump, the ultimate way to garner the spotlight if you will, shows you a lot about how vociferous and unrelenting the story has become.
Given all the hullabaloo, whomever Obama and McCain selects must ostensibly have a tangible impact on their counterparts electoral prospects, right?. The media couldn't have spent these last few weeks shunning other stories in favor of feverish reporting on John McCain's decision to invite Romney, Crist and Jindal to his Sedona abode for no discernible reason. All of the caterwauling about whether or not Hillary Clinton will be named to the #2 post on the ticket couldn't be utterly inconsequential, could it?
In actuality, all of the frenetic reporting and discussion has belied the the profound lack of importance the Vice President possesses in terms of getting his running mate elected. Amidst all of the furor, no one decided to consult the historical record of recent Presidential elections. If they had, they would summarily have eschewed the conversation about who would become the eventual VP, because they would realize that it almost never matters. Recent Presidential history has time and time again illustrated how impotent the VP is with respect to assisting the viability of their running mate.
From the 1956 re-election victory of Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson to the George W. Bush garnering a 2nd term in 2004, the Vice President has only affected the outcome of the race positively for the President 1 time. That lone instance was the 1960 election when John F. Kennedy selected LBJ, a favorite son of the Hill Country, to push him over the top in Texas and garner that 24 electoral votes of that state. As mentioned, LBJ's presence helped Kennedy in Texas, however, that victory was far from the decisive winner, as Kennedy defeated Nixon by 83 electoral votes.
But even as pedestrian as the help LBJ provided for JFK ultimately turned out to be, it's stentorian compared to the impact VP's have levied in the 10 elections since 1960. In the landslides of 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1996, the margin of victory was so pronounced that the VP selection was almost irrelevant. Ronald Reagan could probably have selected a monkey as his VP in 1984 and still won.
The other 6 elections were closer, but the outcome in each was hardly influenced by the presence of a certain individual on a ticket, despite the express purpose of the VP being to tangibly impact the race. Hubert Humphrey lost 1968 by more than 100 electoral votes to Nixon, a fact which made the 4 electoral votes that Ed Muskie siphoned off from Maine a mere pittance. Ford selection of Bob Dole did absolutely nothing for the ticket, and as Ford unfortunately found out way too late, Dole does a better job selling Viagra than selling Gerald Ford. In 1992, Dan Quayle was an liability, not an asset as the VP candidate. Either way, Bush lost because of Ross Perot, not because of the wrong pick for his second in command. The 2000 election has been proven to be fixed, so it's hard to rationally analyze anything about it, much less about whether or not Joseph Lieberman had a tactile impact on how Al Gore fared.
Last, but not least is the 2004 contest between John Kerry and George W. Bush. This contest is most emblematic of the axiom that the VP, even if he is expressly selected to deliver a certain state, is largely irrelevant in voters' minds when it comes to down to decision making. John Edwards was selected almost entirely because of his Southern roots, and in the end, he delivered a whopping 0 states from that region to the Kerry ledger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, modern Presidential history has been decided by a litany of different factors; an incumbents perceived indifference and incompetence on the economy (GHW Bush), a lesser known candidate being demonized as a war monger by his opponent (Barry Goldwater), or a popular vice president having his fate decided by a partisan Supreme Court (Al Gore). The selection of the VP has never been one of the aforementioned.
Ultimately, all of the hype surrounding what history shows to be an extraneous decision is yet another reflection of how unbearably long the Presidential election season has become. Before it's all said and done, the Presidential race will have gone on for an astounding 2 years. During the 730 some odd days from the commencement of the race to election day, there will inevitably by periods of down time. Said intervals must be filled with something in a 24/7 news cycle.
In that sense, the question of the VP is the same as "flag pin" gate or Obama's purported relationship with William Ayers. Like the latter, the VP search is mere filler which has no corporeal impact on who moves into the Oval Office in January.
I guess one can't really blame the media for being all a flutter about the search. After all, Obama's campaign keeps their prospective list, and the overall vetting process as a whole as secretive as possible.
Given this, seemingly every story the media has hither to produced regarding the search always reminds us of how pivotal a decision this will be. Walter Shapiro offered the coup de gras of hype when he asserted on Salon.com that:
"Aside from being a horse trainer inflamed with dreams of winning the Triple Crown, there may be no job in America with greater potential rewards and greater risk of abject failure than heading a vice-presidential search team. "
The furor over who will become Vice President has metastasized to a point where, for the first time I can remember, a candidate has used the prospect of selecting a VP as a way of stealing the spotlight. Earlier in the week, Bob Novak reported that McCain may be close to selecting his VP, with the ultimate decision even possibly coming within a few days.
As it turned out, Novak had been but a mere pawn in a scheme concocted by the McCain campaign in an ultimately futile attempt to deflect attention away from Obama as he traversed the Middle East. That the McCain campaign views the selection of the VP as their proverbial trump, the ultimate way to garner the spotlight if you will, shows you a lot about how vociferous and unrelenting the story has become.
Given all the hullabaloo, whomever Obama and McCain selects must ostensibly have a tangible impact on their counterparts electoral prospects, right?. The media couldn't have spent these last few weeks shunning other stories in favor of feverish reporting on John McCain's decision to invite Romney, Crist and Jindal to his Sedona abode for no discernible reason. All of the caterwauling about whether or not Hillary Clinton will be named to the #2 post on the ticket couldn't be utterly inconsequential, could it?
In actuality, all of the frenetic reporting and discussion has belied the the profound lack of importance the Vice President possesses in terms of getting his running mate elected. Amidst all of the furor, no one decided to consult the historical record of recent Presidential elections. If they had, they would summarily have eschewed the conversation about who would become the eventual VP, because they would realize that it almost never matters. Recent Presidential history has time and time again illustrated how impotent the VP is with respect to assisting the viability of their running mate.
From the 1956 re-election victory of Dwight Eisenhower over Adlai Stevenson to the George W. Bush garnering a 2nd term in 2004, the Vice President has only affected the outcome of the race positively for the President 1 time. That lone instance was the 1960 election when John F. Kennedy selected LBJ, a favorite son of the Hill Country, to push him over the top in Texas and garner that 24 electoral votes of that state. As mentioned, LBJ's presence helped Kennedy in Texas, however, that victory was far from the decisive winner, as Kennedy defeated Nixon by 83 electoral votes.
But even as pedestrian as the help LBJ provided for JFK ultimately turned out to be, it's stentorian compared to the impact VP's have levied in the 10 elections since 1960. In the landslides of 1964, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1996, the margin of victory was so pronounced that the VP selection was almost irrelevant. Ronald Reagan could probably have selected a monkey as his VP in 1984 and still won.
The other 6 elections were closer, but the outcome in each was hardly influenced by the presence of a certain individual on a ticket, despite the express purpose of the VP being to tangibly impact the race. Hubert Humphrey lost 1968 by more than 100 electoral votes to Nixon, a fact which made the 4 electoral votes that Ed Muskie siphoned off from Maine a mere pittance. Ford selection of Bob Dole did absolutely nothing for the ticket, and as Ford unfortunately found out way too late, Dole does a better job selling Viagra than selling Gerald Ford. In 1992, Dan Quayle was an liability, not an asset as the VP candidate. Either way, Bush lost because of Ross Perot, not because of the wrong pick for his second in command. The 2000 election has been proven to be fixed, so it's hard to rationally analyze anything about it, much less about whether or not Joseph Lieberman had a tactile impact on how Al Gore fared.
Last, but not least is the 2004 contest between John Kerry and George W. Bush. This contest is most emblematic of the axiom that the VP, even if he is expressly selected to deliver a certain state, is largely irrelevant in voters' minds when it comes to down to decision making. John Edwards was selected almost entirely because of his Southern roots, and in the end, he delivered a whopping 0 states from that region to the Kerry ledger.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All in all, modern Presidential history has been decided by a litany of different factors; an incumbents perceived indifference and incompetence on the economy (GHW Bush), a lesser known candidate being demonized as a war monger by his opponent (Barry Goldwater), or a popular vice president having his fate decided by a partisan Supreme Court (Al Gore). The selection of the VP has never been one of the aforementioned.
Ultimately, all of the hype surrounding what history shows to be an extraneous decision is yet another reflection of how unbearably long the Presidential election season has become. Before it's all said and done, the Presidential race will have gone on for an astounding 2 years. During the 730 some odd days from the commencement of the race to election day, there will inevitably by periods of down time. Said intervals must be filled with something in a 24/7 news cycle.
In that sense, the question of the VP is the same as "flag pin" gate or Obama's purported relationship with William Ayers. Like the latter, the VP search is mere filler which has no corporeal impact on who moves into the Oval Office in January.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I'm Mocked because of Brokeback Mountain?
The other night, during a commercial break of the magnum opus known as Titanic, the conversation between myself and 2 friends switched to the cinematic tour de force of the moment; The Dark Knight. Having yet to see the film, I inquired about the performance of Heath Ledger, who is reputed to be the favorite for an Oscar win posthumously.
As to be expected, both friends I asked agreed that Ledger offered a dynamic, nuanced performance. One said it best when she opined "he is creepy, no wonder he couldn't sleep."
Ever the skeptic, I responded that I doubted Ledger could have topped his performance Brokeback Mountain. I viewed Ledger's stilted, tormented, yet indisputably evocative performance as Ennis del Mar is one of the foremost achievements in acting in this decade.
I preceded to enunciate the aforementioned to the two in the room. Almost immediately, I received a bemused, slightly mocking look from the female on my right. I asked why she cast that glance towards me. Keep in mind, this person is not some ignorant rube plucked from the backwoods of Kentucky, she is educated, and an avowed Obama supporter.
She scoffed again, and then proceeded to question, implicitly, my masculinity by asking, in a ridiculing tone, "why would you like that movie?" (I am straight.)
My response was simply "Why shouldn't I?, and that largely quelled her present incredulity, but I could tell she believed that her viewpoint was nevertheless in the right.
Afterwards I got to thinking about the incident. Two possibilities materialized in my mind: Either this is merely an anomalous situation, or her "soft bigotry" (it paints me to borrow Bush administration rhetoric) which manifested itself in her propensity to chide me for, as a straight man, having an affinity for a movie that is centered on a gay relationship.
Hopefully her conduct was merely a product of the former, an inclination that is becoming less frequently. Then again, the liberal, progressive party has a nominee that does not even support gay marriage. That the head of the Democrats can't even deign to support equal rights for homosexuals says a lot about how far to the right the framework for this debate has shifted.
Of course, despite that, progress has indisputably been made towards making our society more understanding and tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Realistic portrayals of homosexual relationships in mainstream media, namely television, is purported to offset the demonization they are victims off from right wing demagoguery. While gays are by no means ubiquitous, highly popular and acclaimed shows have dealt featured gay characters, from Six Feet Under to the Sopranos to Will and Grace.
How much progress has been made? Has media's portrayal of realistic gay relationships triggered a backlash epitomized by my friend's scorn at my love of Brokeback Mountain? Or, is this, as I am hoping, merely characteristic of a dying minority of people who have judgments rooted in a fading bigotry?
As to be expected, both friends I asked agreed that Ledger offered a dynamic, nuanced performance. One said it best when she opined "he is creepy, no wonder he couldn't sleep."
Ever the skeptic, I responded that I doubted Ledger could have topped his performance Brokeback Mountain. I viewed Ledger's stilted, tormented, yet indisputably evocative performance as Ennis del Mar is one of the foremost achievements in acting in this decade.
I preceded to enunciate the aforementioned to the two in the room. Almost immediately, I received a bemused, slightly mocking look from the female on my right. I asked why she cast that glance towards me. Keep in mind, this person is not some ignorant rube plucked from the backwoods of Kentucky, she is educated, and an avowed Obama supporter.
She scoffed again, and then proceeded to question, implicitly, my masculinity by asking, in a ridiculing tone, "why would you like that movie?" (I am straight.)
My response was simply "Why shouldn't I?, and that largely quelled her present incredulity, but I could tell she believed that her viewpoint was nevertheless in the right.
Afterwards I got to thinking about the incident. Two possibilities materialized in my mind: Either this is merely an anomalous situation, or her "soft bigotry" (it paints me to borrow Bush administration rhetoric) which manifested itself in her propensity to chide me for, as a straight man, having an affinity for a movie that is centered on a gay relationship.
Hopefully her conduct was merely a product of the former, an inclination that is becoming less frequently. Then again, the liberal, progressive party has a nominee that does not even support gay marriage. That the head of the Democrats can't even deign to support equal rights for homosexuals says a lot about how far to the right the framework for this debate has shifted.
Of course, despite that, progress has indisputably been made towards making our society more understanding and tolerant of alternative lifestyles. Realistic portrayals of homosexual relationships in mainstream media, namely television, is purported to offset the demonization they are victims off from right wing demagoguery. While gays are by no means ubiquitous, highly popular and acclaimed shows have dealt featured gay characters, from Six Feet Under to the Sopranos to Will and Grace.
How much progress has been made? Has media's portrayal of realistic gay relationships triggered a backlash epitomized by my friend's scorn at my love of Brokeback Mountain? Or, is this, as I am hoping, merely characteristic of a dying minority of people who have judgments rooted in a fading bigotry?
Monday, July 21, 2008
The Hollowness of John McCain's "Experience"
The prevailing political winds are far from blowing John McCain's way in 2008. To begin with, his party goes over with the majority of people about as well as when Andy Dick tried to grope a hostess at a Chili's. After 8 years of Bush incompetence, the electorate seemingly is resigned to mobilize against the GOP brand. Obviously this is highly detrimental to McCain's candidacy for President. In addition, he has hardly helped himself for the balance of the campaign to date. From his painfully awkward speech behind the lime green banner to admitting his lack of knowledge on the economy to just today making reference to the nonexistent border between Pakistan and Iraq.
To rebut both the negative ambiance towards Republicans and his demonstrable foibles as a candidate, John McCain has proffered an image as a politician whose "experience" is second to none, and that this trait is indispensable to one's success in the Oval Office. Absent any discernible positives in the areas of economic acumen, or a cogent energy policy, McCain has spent the better part of his campaign emphasizing both the existence of his "experience" and thereafter, the said relevance of this trait to being President.
On McCain's official website, the first sentence of his biography emphasizes that " John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service. " One of his flagship slogans is "Experience to Lead." In the incipient weeks of his campaign, McCain was already promising that he had "experience to solve the big problems." As that quote shows, McCain was couching his run in the rhetoric of experience, even before the sub prime mortgage meltdown, and his phlegmatic response to it sullied his reputation on the economy even further. One editorial writer gushed that "vast experience, service of country define McCain." In fact, the notion of experience has been integral to the legitimacy of McCain's bid since he announced.
When in attack mode the notion of the pertinence of "experience" has been espoused ad nauseum by the senior Senator from Arizona. McCain just today disparaged Obama's credentials because he is someone "without any military experience whatsoever." Bereft of any other means of legitimate attack, McCain has ridden the "Experience" Express hard on his Presidential opponent.
At the center of McCain's narrative is his harrowing tenure as a POW imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and his subsequent decision to serve two decades plus in Congress. According to the McCain camp, these are the locations in which one can procure relevant amounts of "experience", as opposed to the areas in which Obama spent his formative years; the streets of the South Side of Chicago.
By in large, the pliant main stream media has heretofore bought both the assertion that McCain has "experience" and that it is relevant to the qualifications for Commander in Chief uncritically. In fact, it's almost as if they have been bending over backwards not to abnegate the rhetoric from McCain and his surrogates. Theresa Heinz Kerry was criticized for not releasing her tax returns in 2004; Cindy McCain releases a pathetic shell of her own, and not a peep from David Broder, Thomas L. Friedman or any of their ilk. Even overtly liberal rags like The New Republic fawn over McCain's "decades of experience" like a mother over an injured child.
More over, not only do McCain's claims go completely unchallenged in the media, but anyone offering an alternative interpretation of his credentials is wholly and summarily castigated. Case in point would be of course Gen. Wesley Clark (he who knows a few things about being in the battlefield after his stint as NATO Supreme Allied Commander) who, after having the gall to question the link between serving as a pilot, and then a POW in the Vietnam theatre and the utmost resume for President, was treated as a pariah by the majority of the major news outlets. Clark was inveighed against with such fury that it almost seemed like he had the gall to assert that the United States should not support Israel unequivocally, without respect to our own interests. It was that bad! (/sarcasm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part about the media conveniently deciding to let McCain present his narrative without vetting is that they are forgetting to see how void of meaning McCain's assertion of "experience" actually is. Implicit in McCain's self-appraisal as a man of the utmost "experience" is the idea that this experience has taught him the principles of sound judgment and reasoning. Without having gleaned a superior ability to think out difficult ideas, and then apply the pertinent remedy, "experience" is simply a sobriquet that conjures no significance whatsoever.
There can be no doubt that John McCain has spent many years on this planet (the guy has a scare the length of my middle finger that frames the right side of his face), has visited many countries (his favorite recent sojourn was reportedly the one to Czechoslovakia), and has served on many committees in the Senate. It would thus seem that McCain really has a breadth of knowledge and a cerebral, nuanced view on the world, given his expansive history.
However, in analyzing McCain's record, particularly his ruinous conduct vis a vis the Iraq war, blatantly illustrates how very little sound judgment McCain has absorbed from his many "valuable" years in public life that supposedly "define him." From his highly dubious actions in the Keating 5 scandal to the decision to totally reverse himself, and therefore abdicate his principles, on both Bush's tax cuts and the immigration legislation that he co-sponsored, McCain has exhibited a consistent propensity towards foul judgment.
His reprehensible conduct on Iraq however, is probably the most enlightening, and also, damning instance of McCain's utter dearth of judgment. McCain's lack of judgment on the correct course in Iraq is such because he had the most relevant experience in his background, Vietnam, that should have compelled him to take the exact opposite course that he ultimately took. As the New York Times Magazine reported recently, John McCain did a comprehensive retrospective of the war, and he nevertheless continues to conclude that the war in Vietnam could have won had the media caused the morale and will of the public to dissipate. McCain had the foremost opportunity to be introspective and critical; he instead chose to perpetuate a nearly implausible conclusion about the pivotal conflict in his life.
If this stupefying and inane conclusion didn't offer an ominous harbinger of McCain's inability to deduce the obvious lessons of the Vietnam war, then his conduct per Iraq hopefully cements into every voter's consciousness that John McCain's claim to "experience" is wholly barren and meaningless. From his pronouncements at the outset that "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security" to his laughable public relations trip (with bulletproof vest in tow) to illuminate the "gains" of the surge, John McCain has consistently been on the wrong side of facts and reason when it came to the situation in Iraq.
McCain's claque will claim disingenuously that "we are winning" (whatever the hell that means) and try to rationalize McCain's past failures on Iraq as a way of obfuscating how threatening the entire Iraq war has been to McCain's archetype of a man whose experience is somehow an indicator of sound judgment. No matter how hard they try, McCain's statements on Iraq will never die, and will instead remain a damning indictment en perpetuity against his utter absence of judgment .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposing the fallacious argument that McCain has the requisite judgment and critical thinking skills endemic to a successful Presidency is the next line of attack that Barack Obama must take. Though the media will collude and rabble rouse, as they did with General Clark's statements, in a concerted effort to vitiate any serious discussion about McCain's qualifications, Barack Obama must appeal to the facts, particularly the connection between McCain's arcane, unsupported views on Vietnam and his subsequent audacious failures on Iraq. If Obama can successfully elucidate the connection between those two wars, and they way they expose how little McCain has learned from his "experience", the facade will hopefully fall soon thereafter.
Exorbitant gas prices has left a lot of us with little left in our tanks. Figuratively speaking, John McCain, as a Republican coming off the heels of the Bush debacle, as a man whose knowledge of the economy rivals that of Freddie Muniz (no harm intended, Freddie), has perilously little left in his tank with which to build a campaign around. His last bastion is his concocted claim of superior "experience" and the positive attributes therein associated with it.
It's time for Americans to have a minor Rip Van Winkle moment, and wake up to realize that McCain's guise of experience is as empty as the market that the latter "toured" when he found out "how much progress" had been achieved in Iraq.
To rebut both the negative ambiance towards Republicans and his demonstrable foibles as a candidate, John McCain has proffered an image as a politician whose "experience" is second to none, and that this trait is indispensable to one's success in the Oval Office. Absent any discernible positives in the areas of economic acumen, or a cogent energy policy, McCain has spent the better part of his campaign emphasizing both the existence of his "experience" and thereafter, the said relevance of this trait to being President.
On McCain's official website, the first sentence of his biography emphasizes that " John McCain has a remarkable record of leadership and experience that embodies his unwavering lifetime commitment to service. " One of his flagship slogans is "Experience to Lead." In the incipient weeks of his campaign, McCain was already promising that he had "experience to solve the big problems." As that quote shows, McCain was couching his run in the rhetoric of experience, even before the sub prime mortgage meltdown, and his phlegmatic response to it sullied his reputation on the economy even further. One editorial writer gushed that "vast experience, service of country define McCain." In fact, the notion of experience has been integral to the legitimacy of McCain's bid since he announced.
When in attack mode the notion of the pertinence of "experience" has been espoused ad nauseum by the senior Senator from Arizona. McCain just today disparaged Obama's credentials because he is someone "without any military experience whatsoever." Bereft of any other means of legitimate attack, McCain has ridden the "Experience" Express hard on his Presidential opponent.
At the center of McCain's narrative is his harrowing tenure as a POW imprisoned in the Hanoi Hilton for five years, and his subsequent decision to serve two decades plus in Congress. According to the McCain camp, these are the locations in which one can procure relevant amounts of "experience", as opposed to the areas in which Obama spent his formative years; the streets of the South Side of Chicago.
By in large, the pliant main stream media has heretofore bought both the assertion that McCain has "experience" and that it is relevant to the qualifications for Commander in Chief uncritically. In fact, it's almost as if they have been bending over backwards not to abnegate the rhetoric from McCain and his surrogates. Theresa Heinz Kerry was criticized for not releasing her tax returns in 2004; Cindy McCain releases a pathetic shell of her own, and not a peep from David Broder, Thomas L. Friedman or any of their ilk. Even overtly liberal rags like The New Republic fawn over McCain's "decades of experience" like a mother over an injured child.
More over, not only do McCain's claims go completely unchallenged in the media, but anyone offering an alternative interpretation of his credentials is wholly and summarily castigated. Case in point would be of course Gen. Wesley Clark (he who knows a few things about being in the battlefield after his stint as NATO Supreme Allied Commander) who, after having the gall to question the link between serving as a pilot, and then a POW in the Vietnam theatre and the utmost resume for President, was treated as a pariah by the majority of the major news outlets. Clark was inveighed against with such fury that it almost seemed like he had the gall to assert that the United States should not support Israel unequivocally, without respect to our own interests. It was that bad! (/sarcasm)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad part about the media conveniently deciding to let McCain present his narrative without vetting is that they are forgetting to see how void of meaning McCain's assertion of "experience" actually is. Implicit in McCain's self-appraisal as a man of the utmost "experience" is the idea that this experience has taught him the principles of sound judgment and reasoning. Without having gleaned a superior ability to think out difficult ideas, and then apply the pertinent remedy, "experience" is simply a sobriquet that conjures no significance whatsoever.
There can be no doubt that John McCain has spent many years on this planet (the guy has a scare the length of my middle finger that frames the right side of his face), has visited many countries (his favorite recent sojourn was reportedly the one to Czechoslovakia), and has served on many committees in the Senate. It would thus seem that McCain really has a breadth of knowledge and a cerebral, nuanced view on the world, given his expansive history.
However, in analyzing McCain's record, particularly his ruinous conduct vis a vis the Iraq war, blatantly illustrates how very little sound judgment McCain has absorbed from his many "valuable" years in public life that supposedly "define him." From his highly dubious actions in the Keating 5 scandal to the decision to totally reverse himself, and therefore abdicate his principles, on both Bush's tax cuts and the immigration legislation that he co-sponsored, McCain has exhibited a consistent propensity towards foul judgment.
His reprehensible conduct on Iraq however, is probably the most enlightening, and also, damning instance of McCain's utter dearth of judgment. McCain's lack of judgment on the correct course in Iraq is such because he had the most relevant experience in his background, Vietnam, that should have compelled him to take the exact opposite course that he ultimately took. As the New York Times Magazine reported recently, John McCain did a comprehensive retrospective of the war, and he nevertheless continues to conclude that the war in Vietnam could have won had the media caused the morale and will of the public to dissipate. McCain had the foremost opportunity to be introspective and critical; he instead chose to perpetuate a nearly implausible conclusion about the pivotal conflict in his life.
If this stupefying and inane conclusion didn't offer an ominous harbinger of McCain's inability to deduce the obvious lessons of the Vietnam war, then his conduct per Iraq hopefully cements into every voter's consciousness that John McCain's claim to "experience" is wholly barren and meaningless. From his pronouncements at the outset that "As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, I am convinced that he will pose a threat to our security" to his laughable public relations trip (with bulletproof vest in tow) to illuminate the "gains" of the surge, John McCain has consistently been on the wrong side of facts and reason when it came to the situation in Iraq.
McCain's claque will claim disingenuously that "we are winning" (whatever the hell that means) and try to rationalize McCain's past failures on Iraq as a way of obfuscating how threatening the entire Iraq war has been to McCain's archetype of a man whose experience is somehow an indicator of sound judgment. No matter how hard they try, McCain's statements on Iraq will never die, and will instead remain a damning indictment en perpetuity against his utter absence of judgment .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exposing the fallacious argument that McCain has the requisite judgment and critical thinking skills endemic to a successful Presidency is the next line of attack that Barack Obama must take. Though the media will collude and rabble rouse, as they did with General Clark's statements, in a concerted effort to vitiate any serious discussion about McCain's qualifications, Barack Obama must appeal to the facts, particularly the connection between McCain's arcane, unsupported views on Vietnam and his subsequent audacious failures on Iraq. If Obama can successfully elucidate the connection between those two wars, and they way they expose how little McCain has learned from his "experience", the facade will hopefully fall soon thereafter.
Exorbitant gas prices has left a lot of us with little left in our tanks. Figuratively speaking, John McCain, as a Republican coming off the heels of the Bush debacle, as a man whose knowledge of the economy rivals that of Freddie Muniz (no harm intended, Freddie), has perilously little left in his tank with which to build a campaign around. His last bastion is his concocted claim of superior "experience" and the positive attributes therein associated with it.
It's time for Americans to have a minor Rip Van Winkle moment, and wake up to realize that McCain's guise of experience is as empty as the market that the latter "toured" when he found out "how much progress" had been achieved in Iraq.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
National Review's Absurd "Real men Vote for McCain" Column
Friday's online edition of The National Review featured a column by Lou Aguilar with the bold title: "Real Men Vote for McCain: Top 10 Reasons Why. Ripping this laughable magazine is almost as easy as convincing Britney Spears to consume the entire hotel mini bar, so I don't do it often. However, I felt that letting this unvarnished braggadocio unchallenged would be sparing readers insight into exactly how the conservative mind works when it goes about justifying their chosen candidate. Below are each of the 10 reasons, and my mostly pithy rebuttal to each:
1. Barack Obama spent 20 years sitting in church while his preacher and others bad-mouthed the United States of America. Navy pilot John McCain spent five years being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, and refused a chance to walk out ahead of fellow POWs with more seniority.
Actually, Barack Obama spent parts of his last 20 years working in tough neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. He wasnt fortunate enough to be able to use nepotism, as John McCain did, to get promoted at the end of his active tenure in the Navy. Obama, on the other hand, had to pay his dues before Harvard. McCain's background is impressive no doubt, but Aguilar's description of Obama's is disingenuous at best
2. Obama wants to cut and run from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or future consequences. McCain took on the president and secretary of defense in demanding more troops for Iraq, a policy that is inarguably winning the war. He also has two sons who fought in Iraq.
Right, Lou, the surge is "inarguably winning the war". Apparently he didn't read the progress report issued by the GAO a few weeks back. Even a year and a half after the surge, the only thing Iraqi politicians can agree on is that they don't want to sign a forces agreement with George W. Bush. So much for holding the leaders accountable for their ability to reconcile.
Just because internecine violence has mostly subsided, and MNC's now have free reign to procure lucrative oil contracts doesn't mean we are even close to winning the war. In fact, the war has already been lost, and a "real man" would get American troops out of harm's way instead of pursuing the arrogant, and futile goal of "winning".
Aguilar is on solid ground here, given that not talking to Saddam Hussein in a diplomatic context prior to the invasion of Iraq really worked out so well. If anything, the bungled invasion of Iraq epitomizes the contrary of what Aguilar asserts in that aggressive diplomacy should be a sine qua non before every operation.
More over, George W. Bush's arguably only success dealing with hostile nations occurred after a concerted effort to engage the North Korean government through aggressive diplomacy. The struggle was hard, and the North Koreans undoubtedly reneged on certain parts of the agreement, but remaining steadfast through the rough times, and not reflexively abandoning ship after one setback, eventually provided a milieu in which the United States could achieve strategic objectives.
It's mind boggling how Aguilar can cast indiscriminate aspersions about Barack's spouse as if there is some empirical basis for it. Given Michelle Obama's slim public record, how can he accuse of her in being "angry and bitter"?
It's also amusing how Aguilar completely glosses over the scandalous background Cindy McCain has. Ever heard of painkillers, Lou?
Unfortunately for most of us, the only people worthy of McCain's trust are the wealthiest of our society. Economic inequality has skyrocketed in the last 8 years, and McCain's plan to enshrine the tax cuts of the Bush Administration would only perpetuate it. A combination of soaring food and energy prices has sapped the disposable income of many working Americans, greatly reducing their spending power.
If, as Aguilar puts it, Obama does indeed want a "government-run nanny state", I doubt that the 47 million Americans who are bereft of health insurance, or the litany of families devastated by no relief from soaring gas prices would complain. The simple difference between the candidates is that McCain wants to enrich the already affluent while Obama wants to buttress the middle class. Offering a windfall for Wall Street barons or providing health coverage to children. You know which one a "real man" would opt for.
This reasoning is so ridiculous and unfounded that I laughed out loud when I read it. However, for the sake of rebuttal, let's for a second operate in the farcical framework that someones name has any link to their success as President.
In actuality, the name John connotes some of history's most deranged criminals. John Wilkes Boothe assassinated Lincoln. John Hinckley tried to take out Ronald Reagan. Hinckley also made the mistake of stalking and obsessing in a woman who prefers her own kind, Jodie Foster.
The name Barack, on the other hand, conjures little ignominy when compared to the deviants listed above. Take that Lou!
Another truly stupid reason to vote for a political candidate. Nonetheless, I will engage.
Recent months have proven Clint Eastwood to be an arrogant patrician. Every moment of Sylvester Stallone's life has shown him to be deficient in brain power (who else would get caught with HGH during a trip abroad?)
On the other hand, Leonardo DiCaprio has worked hard to help raise awareness about global warming. Oprah Winfrey built a school for indigent girls in Africa.
1. Barack Obama spent 20 years sitting in church while his preacher and others bad-mouthed the United States of America. Navy pilot John McCain spent five years being tortured in the Hanoi Hilton, and refused a chance to walk out ahead of fellow POWs with more seniority.
Actually, Barack Obama spent parts of his last 20 years working in tough neighborhoods on the South Side of Chicago. He wasnt fortunate enough to be able to use nepotism, as John McCain did, to get promoted at the end of his active tenure in the Navy. Obama, on the other hand, had to pay his dues before Harvard. McCain's background is impressive no doubt, but Aguilar's description of Obama's is disingenuous at best
2. Obama wants to cut and run from Iraq regardless of conditions on the ground or future consequences. McCain took on the president and secretary of defense in demanding more troops for Iraq, a policy that is inarguably winning the war. He also has two sons who fought in Iraq.
Right, Lou, the surge is "inarguably winning the war". Apparently he didn't read the progress report issued by the GAO a few weeks back. Even a year and a half after the surge, the only thing Iraqi politicians can agree on is that they don't want to sign a forces agreement with George W. Bush. So much for holding the leaders accountable for their ability to reconcile.
Just because internecine violence has mostly subsided, and MNC's now have free reign to procure lucrative oil contracts doesn't mean we are even close to winning the war. In fact, the war has already been lost, and a "real man" would get American troops out of harm's way instead of pursuing the arrogant, and futile goal of "winning".
3. McCain supports nuclear power.Obama backs wind energy.
This is precious. Aguilar manages to conveniently ignore the fact that extractinguranium pollutes greatly, nuclear power plants emit incredible amount of greenhouse gases, and disposing of nuclear waste is largely untenable. Apparently a "real man" has a wanton disregard for the environment.
4. Obama wants restrictive gun control because only economically depressed middle-Americans “cling to God and guns.” McCain unwaveringly supports the Second Amendment.
Right, Lou. The same "restrictive gun control" that you decry really hindered Seung-Hui Cho from obtaining a firearm. How can a "real man" justify selling weapons to the mentally ill?
5. McCain has deviated from his party’s conservative base on several occasions (McCain-Feingold Bill, Gang of 14, McCain-Kennedy Bill, opposition to torture). Obama has voted the left-wing line every single time, and been designated the most liberal Senator in Congress.
The notion that McCain has consistently deviated from his base is patently illusory. As the FISA bill proved last week, Democrats are more than happy to cave to the pressure from the Administration and abdicate on their principles to endorse the radical GOP agenda.
I hardly call the "gang of 14" bi-partisanship when all the Democrats got out of it was a promise by the Republicans to not disabuse one of the longest serving procedural matters in the Senate. If the Democrats think that allowing the gang of 14 to vote for "cloture" and therefore allow the Samuel Alito nomination to come the floor serves the interests of their constituents, they are more delusional than I thought.
As for Obama "voting the left wing line" every time, Aguilar must have missed his recent votes on FISA, or his proposal for an increase of funding for faith based groups. How convenient.
6. Obama is willing to meet with hostile state leaders like Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez without preconditions. McCain will set conditions first, talk later — maybe.
Aguilar is on solid ground here, given that not talking to Saddam Hussein in a diplomatic context prior to the invasion of Iraq really worked out so well. If anything, the bungled invasion of Iraq epitomizes the contrary of what Aguilar asserts in that aggressive diplomacy should be a sine qua non before every operation.
More over, George W. Bush's arguably only success dealing with hostile nations occurred after a concerted effort to engage the North Korean government through aggressive diplomacy. The struggle was hard, and the North Koreans undoubtedly reneged on certain parts of the agreement, but remaining steadfast through the rough times, and not reflexively abandoning ship after one setback, eventually provided a milieu in which the United States could achieve strategic objectives.
7. Obama is married to a bitter, angry lawyer who became “proud” of her country for the first time this year. McCain’s wife is a beer heiress who founded an organization to provide MASH-style units to disaster-torn world regions. Did I mention that she’s a beer heiress?
It's mind boggling how Aguilar can cast indiscriminate aspersions about Barack's spouse as if there is some empirical basis for it. Given Michelle Obama's slim public record, how can he accuse of her in being "angry and bitter"?
It's also amusing how Aguilar completely glosses over the scandalous background Cindy McCain has. Ever heard of painkillers, Lou?
8. Obama supports higher taxes for a government-run nanny state that will coddle all Americans like babies. McCain trusts people to spend their less-taxed money however they wish.
Unfortunately for most of us, the only people worthy of McCain's trust are the wealthiest of our society. Economic inequality has skyrocketed in the last 8 years, and McCain's plan to enshrine the tax cuts of the Bush Administration would only perpetuate it. A combination of soaring food and energy prices has sapped the disposable income of many working Americans, greatly reducing their spending power.
If, as Aguilar puts it, Obama does indeed want a "government-run nanny state", I doubt that the 47 million Americans who are bereft of health insurance, or the litany of families devastated by no relief from soaring gas prices would complain. The simple difference between the candidates is that McCain wants to enrich the already affluent while Obama wants to buttress the middle class. Offering a windfall for Wall Street barons or providing health coverage to children. You know which one a "real man" would opt for.
9. The name John McCain sounds like “John McClain,” the action hero played by Bruce Willis in the manly Die Hard series. “Barack Obama” sounds like the kind of elitist villain John McClain has to outwit and defeat.
This reasoning is so ridiculous and unfounded that I laughed out loud when I read it. However, for the sake of rebuttal, let's for a second operate in the farcical framework that someones name has any link to their success as President.
In actuality, the name John connotes some of history's most deranged criminals. John Wilkes Boothe assassinated Lincoln. John Hinckley tried to take out Ronald Reagan. Hinckley also made the mistake of stalking and obsessing in a woman who prefers her own kind, Jodie Foster.
The name Barack, on the other hand, conjures little ignominy when compared to the deviants listed above. Take that Lou!
10. McCain is endorsed by Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obama gets support from Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Hanks, and every weenie in Hollywood. Plus, Susan Sarandon has vowed to leave the country if McCain gets elected. Case closed.
Another truly stupid reason to vote for a political candidate. Nonetheless, I will engage.
Recent months have proven Clint Eastwood to be an arrogant patrician. Every moment of Sylvester Stallone's life has shown him to be deficient in brain power (who else would get caught with HGH during a trip abroad?)
On the other hand, Leonardo DiCaprio has worked hard to help raise awareness about global warming. Oprah Winfrey built a school for indigent girls in Africa.
Friday, July 18, 2008
You should be Thankful for Expensive Gas...
Day in, and day out, one can't but hear the rampant caterwauling about the astronomical price of gas. Rising energy prices may be the one issue whose purview extends to nearly all of our society, so I guess it shouldn't be surprising that one hears so much about the problem.
From pro boxer Kelly Pavlik stating that his fan contingent was small at his last fight because they couldn't afford the drive from Youngstown to Atlantic City, to Larry King "breaking the story" about US Airways pressuring their pilots to conserve their prohibitively expensive gas, even at the expense of safety, the negative aspects of pricey energy are omnipresent. Given the disparate nature of the problem, it's unsurprising that these stories thus receive such play in our mainstream media.
This is important, because the utmost lesson to be learned from the present gas prices is ultimately a positive one. Prohibitively high energy prices, as we currently are experiencing, are the only way to finally wean the United States off of oil. The combination of an innate American ethos that embraced "the open road" and the anti-conservation policies (couched in the rhetoric of "individual rights") by Republican politicians and oil company executives (some individuals indubitably served in both capacities, see Cheney, Richard) ensured that any sort of alternative energy source would be squelched in it's infancy.
For the better part of a century, the fact that gas cost a pittance allowed Americans to blithely ignore the environmental degradation that rampant driving causes. In addition, the impetus for energy policy reform, one that would undoubtedly include considerable sacrifices, was nonexistent during the era of cheap oil.
Luckily, 5 dollar gas solves both of those problems. The notion that gas will always be cheap, and therefore, free for excessive use, is proven wholly illusory. On the other hand, the GOP and Exxon Mobil's board of directors decision to put forth the absurd notion that offshore drilling will magically serve as the panacea to high gas prices will be exposed for the sophistry it is in due time. Just like the public rejected the McCain/Clinton plan to both suspend the gas tax or institute a federal gas tax holiday, so too will they ultimately see through the specious reasoning that more drilling leads to lower gas prices.
Some might decry the notion that 5 dollar gas is beneficial as purely elitist and therefore ignorant of the concerns of the "common man", given that millions of lower income families are receiving the brunt of the financial blow.
That reasoning is invalid for two reasons. First of all, 5 dollar gas is not going away anytime soon, and implementing piecemeal solutions, as Republicans who advocate for drilling are ostensibly doing, will have negligible impact on the prices in the short term, and therefore provide hardly any relief for imperiled consumers. Secondly, it will not be the elites of society, but rather the average person whose life will be irreparably changed by the transition from oil to a new energy source, and delaying it in the name of ineffective reforms will only prolong the pain and sacrifice of the overall switch.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way to alleviate the angst and trouble associated with the societal upheaval and transformation that will occur as we transition away from oil would be to educate and inform the citizens about the importance of long term thinking. If done properly, the need for arduous policy battles in Washington would be accelerated, and the now anachronistic notion that oil is a part of our future would be vitiated.
It is incumbent on the progressive community to demand that the media confront the general public with the uncomfortable realities of 2008 vis a vis future energy policy. Al Gore took a wonderful first step in doing so with his speech yesterday outlining specific policy goals for becoming fossil fuel free in the next 10 years. It's time to take that a step forward: Making our economy, and by extension, way of life, bereft of fossil fuels in the next 10 year is no longer merely a boutique option reserved for bleeding heart environmentalists. Rather, the ideas enunciated by Gore are imperative if America wants to remain a relevant, vital and prosperous country.
Instilling that sobering reality into the consciousness of the average American is difficult, but the existence of 5 dollar gas has helped greatly to crystallize that notion. We must now take it a step further, find a way to show the benefits to the country, through the media, of instigating the legislation and cooperation needed to make it a reality. The perspicacity that 5 dollar gas "affords" us towards achieving that goal, is why the current high price of gas will ultimately be a saving grace for this country.
From pro boxer Kelly Pavlik stating that his fan contingent was small at his last fight because they couldn't afford the drive from Youngstown to Atlantic City, to Larry King "breaking the story" about US Airways pressuring their pilots to conserve their prohibitively expensive gas, even at the expense of safety, the negative aspects of pricey energy are omnipresent. Given the disparate nature of the problem, it's unsurprising that these stories thus receive such play in our mainstream media.
This is important, because the utmost lesson to be learned from the present gas prices is ultimately a positive one. Prohibitively high energy prices, as we currently are experiencing, are the only way to finally wean the United States off of oil. The combination of an innate American ethos that embraced "the open road" and the anti-conservation policies (couched in the rhetoric of "individual rights") by Republican politicians and oil company executives (some individuals indubitably served in both capacities, see Cheney, Richard) ensured that any sort of alternative energy source would be squelched in it's infancy.
For the better part of a century, the fact that gas cost a pittance allowed Americans to blithely ignore the environmental degradation that rampant driving causes. In addition, the impetus for energy policy reform, one that would undoubtedly include considerable sacrifices, was nonexistent during the era of cheap oil.
Luckily, 5 dollar gas solves both of those problems. The notion that gas will always be cheap, and therefore, free for excessive use, is proven wholly illusory. On the other hand, the GOP and Exxon Mobil's board of directors decision to put forth the absurd notion that offshore drilling will magically serve as the panacea to high gas prices will be exposed for the sophistry it is in due time. Just like the public rejected the McCain/Clinton plan to both suspend the gas tax or institute a federal gas tax holiday, so too will they ultimately see through the specious reasoning that more drilling leads to lower gas prices.
Some might decry the notion that 5 dollar gas is beneficial as purely elitist and therefore ignorant of the concerns of the "common man", given that millions of lower income families are receiving the brunt of the financial blow.
That reasoning is invalid for two reasons. First of all, 5 dollar gas is not going away anytime soon, and implementing piecemeal solutions, as Republicans who advocate for drilling are ostensibly doing, will have negligible impact on the prices in the short term, and therefore provide hardly any relief for imperiled consumers. Secondly, it will not be the elites of society, but rather the average person whose life will be irreparably changed by the transition from oil to a new energy source, and delaying it in the name of ineffective reforms will only prolong the pain and sacrifice of the overall switch.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One way to alleviate the angst and trouble associated with the societal upheaval and transformation that will occur as we transition away from oil would be to educate and inform the citizens about the importance of long term thinking. If done properly, the need for arduous policy battles in Washington would be accelerated, and the now anachronistic notion that oil is a part of our future would be vitiated.
It is incumbent on the progressive community to demand that the media confront the general public with the uncomfortable realities of 2008 vis a vis future energy policy. Al Gore took a wonderful first step in doing so with his speech yesterday outlining specific policy goals for becoming fossil fuel free in the next 10 years. It's time to take that a step forward: Making our economy, and by extension, way of life, bereft of fossil fuels in the next 10 year is no longer merely a boutique option reserved for bleeding heart environmentalists. Rather, the ideas enunciated by Gore are imperative if America wants to remain a relevant, vital and prosperous country.
Instilling that sobering reality into the consciousness of the average American is difficult, but the existence of 5 dollar gas has helped greatly to crystallize that notion. We must now take it a step further, find a way to show the benefits to the country, through the media, of instigating the legislation and cooperation needed to make it a reality. The perspicacity that 5 dollar gas "affords" us towards achieving that goal, is why the current high price of gas will ultimately be a saving grace for this country.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Is this Election Proving Definitively that we are a Center-Right Nation?
The result of the 2004 Presidential Election, in which George W. Bush inexplicably, garnered another term in the Oval Office, really buttressed the argument that the United States is undoubtedly a center-right country. How else could Lil Bush have prevailed? His stewardship on the Iraq War was criminally reprehensible, Osama Bin Laden still roamed free in the tribal areas of Afghanistan, and the economy was stagnant, at best. Because of the aforementioned, Bush's approval ratings around the election time were under 50. So, if we went based upon public opinion, Bush should have lost the 2004 election.
How then did he prevail? Part of it, as many progressive writers like Glenn Greenwald have theorized, was the Republicans successfully steering the election away from substantive issues into petty, valence based issues like John Kerry's "elitism", as manifested in his inability to throw a football and his erstwhile propensity for wind surfing. The second reason, one that was a favorite of the right, was that America is inherently a center-right country, and when the candidate for the Democrats is either considered too liberal, or is not a dynamic personality, the tides swing towards the Republican candidate. According to this theory, turning to Bush in this scenario is simply in our blood.
Frankly, at the time, I did not buy the idea that America is intrinsically a "center-right" country. Perhaps it was living in, to a degree, a liberal echo chamber with my friends and family. Maybe I believed in the liberal ideals with such depth that recognition that the contrary position occupied a majority of the general public was impossible. Either way, I was unable to acknowledge that America, through and through, is of a political hue that can only be characterized as "center-right." Well, I finally do believe it, and the present contest unfolding between John McCain and Barack Obama has served as the Zapruder film, if you will.
John McCain is, at best, an unexceptional Presidential candidate. Save his harrowing experience as a POW in Vietnam, and his willingness to battle with entrenched interests over campaign finance reform, McCain's resume is hardly as decorated as his predecessors for President was. The same could easily be said for Barack Obama, but he does not have to use his resume to overcome a distinct polling deficit on issues, as John McCain is forced to do, given how unpopular the Republican brand is at present. Given how the GOP is now regarded nationally with disgust, McCain his resume to serve as a counterweight.
McCain has also run, to this point, what is at best characterized as a haphazard campaign, at worst disastrous. Listing off the faux pas he has made in the last few months exceeds the amount of space present, and also the readers attention span. But, to make the point more clearly, here are a few:
1. McCain has debunked his purported knowledge on foreign affairs with constant verbal gaffes including the absurd allegation that Iran is consorting with Al-Qaeda, to repeatedly referring to the non-existent nation of Czechoslovakia. What should have been his biggest advantage against the inexperienced Obama has been steadily eroded by McCain's continually showing his ineptitude on foreign affairs.
2. To say that his campaign has employed lobbyists, and other unsavory Beltway characters would be a colossal understatement. McCain, in a moment of pure opprobrium, was forced to institute an ethics policy for his staffers. Even with the new found ethics policy, McCain's surrogates still remained a hindrance to his campaign. For example, Charlie Black, one of McCain's chief strategists, and a former lobbyist, was crucified (justifiably so) for suggesting that an al-Qaeda attack would help his candidate. All in all, this claque has done serious damage, most of all to McCain's precious image as a "Maverick" candidate.
3. The past few months have exposed McCain as an individual whose lack of charisma makes Bob Dole look like Martin Luther King Jr. From his shatteringly bad speech behind the horrifying lime green background on the night Obama clinched, to the preponderance of untimely pauses, awkward laughs and non-inflected sentences, John McCain has cemented himself as the antithesis of a candidate for the media age. After 8 years of similar verbal maladroitness at the hands of George W. Bush, voters are not enthused about a candidate who makes Wilford Brimley look like William Shakespeare.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And despite the aforementioned, McCain runs within a few points of Obama in most major polls. If anything, as McCain's mistakes have piled up, his poll numbers have shot up. Despite nearly all-Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong track, McCain is competitive running on a platform that wishes to continue the very policies that have so depressed and enraged the very same electorate who holds such a bleak view of the country. George W. Bush is the most unpopular President in modern history, and John McCain, has said he will continue the policies of Bush 43, while paradoxically still being able to remain competitive in this race.
While part of this can be attributed to discernible flaws in Barack Obama, from his startling lack of legislative accomplishments, to his craven refusal to fight the FISA bill, McCain's utterly puzzling poll numbers can, I believe, largely be attributed to the inherently center-right disposition of the American people.
It is a thoroughly sobering reality for us progressives. When we oppose wanton drilling on the Continental Shelf as both economically irrelevant, and a malfeasance upon the besieged environment, many Americans instead think of it as a salient solution to solve high gas prices. While we support gay marriage because we value equality and justice for all Americans, they think of it as impugning the sanctity of "traditional marriage." When we decry brazen and counterproductive acts of torture upon detainees, they think of it as the sine qua non towards solving the war on terror.
Time and time again, when we think progress has been made towards our goals, we are rebutted by the majority. A majority that is unfortunately been duped by the right to believe that religion, patriotism and duty can only be epitomized by supporting the Republican party. From the outset of this country, that notion has been instilled into to our political consciousness. Sadly, only the liberals has thus far been able to break out of this false orthodoxy....and we are distinctly smaller compared to the other class of voters in this country. Only as a result of this phenomenon do we see John McCain having any sort of chance in this election. He's run a terrible campaign, and his views on the issues are hardly the panacea to escaping the ills of this national. Only the innate center-right tendencies of American voters has saved him from an inexorable fall into defeat.
Undoubtedly, progress has been made towards obviating the strains of inequality that seep through the policies of this country. However, not enough will be made in the precious few months until the November elections. Barack Obama, however transformative a figure he may be, will not be able to neutralize the genetic tendencies towards center-right policies of our electorate.
So how does Obama overcome this disposition, and win the election? I'll tell you what won't work: Repudiating his past positions, as he did on FISA, to appease the Republican attack machine. George W. Bush exalted himself as a man who you "always knew where he stood", and Barack Obama must copy Bush in this respect. Luckily, Obama has a diametrically opposite set of policies. Policies that, given the turgid climate for the Republicans, are strong enough to overwhelm the center-right proclivity of the hoi polloi. As many pundits have already stated, this is Obama's election to lose. One of the ways he can avoid doing so is by standing, even amidst vitriolic and unrelenting criticism from the GOP, steadfast in support of positions that are exactly what the electorate tells the pollsters they want. Let the electorate vote on the issues, and not on ancillary disputes like the flag pin, or a purported flip flop. Otherwise, that center-right disposition may supersede all rationality, and allow John McCain to steal the Presidency.
How then did he prevail? Part of it, as many progressive writers like Glenn Greenwald have theorized, was the Republicans successfully steering the election away from substantive issues into petty, valence based issues like John Kerry's "elitism", as manifested in his inability to throw a football and his erstwhile propensity for wind surfing. The second reason, one that was a favorite of the right, was that America is inherently a center-right country, and when the candidate for the Democrats is either considered too liberal, or is not a dynamic personality, the tides swing towards the Republican candidate. According to this theory, turning to Bush in this scenario is simply in our blood.
Frankly, at the time, I did not buy the idea that America is intrinsically a "center-right" country. Perhaps it was living in, to a degree, a liberal echo chamber with my friends and family. Maybe I believed in the liberal ideals with such depth that recognition that the contrary position occupied a majority of the general public was impossible. Either way, I was unable to acknowledge that America, through and through, is of a political hue that can only be characterized as "center-right." Well, I finally do believe it, and the present contest unfolding between John McCain and Barack Obama has served as the Zapruder film, if you will.
John McCain is, at best, an unexceptional Presidential candidate. Save his harrowing experience as a POW in Vietnam, and his willingness to battle with entrenched interests over campaign finance reform, McCain's resume is hardly as decorated as his predecessors for President was. The same could easily be said for Barack Obama, but he does not have to use his resume to overcome a distinct polling deficit on issues, as John McCain is forced to do, given how unpopular the Republican brand is at present. Given how the GOP is now regarded nationally with disgust, McCain his resume to serve as a counterweight.
McCain has also run, to this point, what is at best characterized as a haphazard campaign, at worst disastrous. Listing off the faux pas he has made in the last few months exceeds the amount of space present, and also the readers attention span. But, to make the point more clearly, here are a few:
1. McCain has debunked his purported knowledge on foreign affairs with constant verbal gaffes including the absurd allegation that Iran is consorting with Al-Qaeda, to repeatedly referring to the non-existent nation of Czechoslovakia. What should have been his biggest advantage against the inexperienced Obama has been steadily eroded by McCain's continually showing his ineptitude on foreign affairs.
2. To say that his campaign has employed lobbyists, and other unsavory Beltway characters would be a colossal understatement. McCain, in a moment of pure opprobrium, was forced to institute an ethics policy for his staffers. Even with the new found ethics policy, McCain's surrogates still remained a hindrance to his campaign. For example, Charlie Black, one of McCain's chief strategists, and a former lobbyist, was crucified (justifiably so) for suggesting that an al-Qaeda attack would help his candidate. All in all, this claque has done serious damage, most of all to McCain's precious image as a "Maverick" candidate.
3. The past few months have exposed McCain as an individual whose lack of charisma makes Bob Dole look like Martin Luther King Jr. From his shatteringly bad speech behind the horrifying lime green background on the night Obama clinched, to the preponderance of untimely pauses, awkward laughs and non-inflected sentences, John McCain has cemented himself as the antithesis of a candidate for the media age. After 8 years of similar verbal maladroitness at the hands of George W. Bush, voters are not enthused about a candidate who makes Wilford Brimley look like William Shakespeare.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And despite the aforementioned, McCain runs within a few points of Obama in most major polls. If anything, as McCain's mistakes have piled up, his poll numbers have shot up. Despite nearly all-Americans believing the country is headed in the wrong track, McCain is competitive running on a platform that wishes to continue the very policies that have so depressed and enraged the very same electorate who holds such a bleak view of the country. George W. Bush is the most unpopular President in modern history, and John McCain, has said he will continue the policies of Bush 43, while paradoxically still being able to remain competitive in this race.
While part of this can be attributed to discernible flaws in Barack Obama, from his startling lack of legislative accomplishments, to his craven refusal to fight the FISA bill, McCain's utterly puzzling poll numbers can, I believe, largely be attributed to the inherently center-right disposition of the American people.
It is a thoroughly sobering reality for us progressives. When we oppose wanton drilling on the Continental Shelf as both economically irrelevant, and a malfeasance upon the besieged environment, many Americans instead think of it as a salient solution to solve high gas prices. While we support gay marriage because we value equality and justice for all Americans, they think of it as impugning the sanctity of "traditional marriage." When we decry brazen and counterproductive acts of torture upon detainees, they think of it as the sine qua non towards solving the war on terror.
Time and time again, when we think progress has been made towards our goals, we are rebutted by the majority. A majority that is unfortunately been duped by the right to believe that religion, patriotism and duty can only be epitomized by supporting the Republican party. From the outset of this country, that notion has been instilled into to our political consciousness. Sadly, only the liberals has thus far been able to break out of this false orthodoxy....and we are distinctly smaller compared to the other class of voters in this country. Only as a result of this phenomenon do we see John McCain having any sort of chance in this election. He's run a terrible campaign, and his views on the issues are hardly the panacea to escaping the ills of this national. Only the innate center-right tendencies of American voters has saved him from an inexorable fall into defeat.
Undoubtedly, progress has been made towards obviating the strains of inequality that seep through the policies of this country. However, not enough will be made in the precious few months until the November elections. Barack Obama, however transformative a figure he may be, will not be able to neutralize the genetic tendencies towards center-right policies of our electorate.
So how does Obama overcome this disposition, and win the election? I'll tell you what won't work: Repudiating his past positions, as he did on FISA, to appease the Republican attack machine. George W. Bush exalted himself as a man who you "always knew where he stood", and Barack Obama must copy Bush in this respect. Luckily, Obama has a diametrically opposite set of policies. Policies that, given the turgid climate for the Republicans, are strong enough to overwhelm the center-right proclivity of the hoi polloi. As many pundits have already stated, this is Obama's election to lose. One of the ways he can avoid doing so is by standing, even amidst vitriolic and unrelenting criticism from the GOP, steadfast in support of positions that are exactly what the electorate tells the pollsters they want. Let the electorate vote on the issues, and not on ancillary disputes like the flag pin, or a purported flip flop. Otherwise, that center-right disposition may supersede all rationality, and allow John McCain to steal the Presidency.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Debunking McCain's Myth that Tax Cuts "Create Jobs"
John McCain, while pretending to perpetuate the image of a "maverick", steadfastly hews to the economic orthodoxy of the Republican Party. In fact, he often skews further to the right (at least when it is politically expedient, as it has been during this primary season) on issues of tax cuts, namely the permanent codification into law of George W. Bush's 2003 tax cuts. According to his website, McCain believes tax cuts to be essential because:
"Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. They create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. "
Essentially, McCain attempts to make the connection that cutting taxes thereby frees up revenue for employers to therefore provide more jobs. The logical opposite is thus that raising taxes saps the resources and impetus for entrepreneurs to provide new jobs. He said as much in a speech in Denver last week:
"He (Obama) will raise estate taxes to 45 percent. I propose to cut them to 15 percent. His plan will hurt the American worker and family. It will hurt the economy and cost us jobs. "
Notwithstanding the specious argument that the average family will be buttressed by a reduction of the estate tax (a tax on the estates of only the very wealthy), McCain, in these two quotes, clearly lays out his economic philosophy: tax cuts create jobs. And McCain, in this context, does not mean merely a McJob, but rather a job with a living wage that provides ample benefits. McCain is correct in literally asserting that tax cuts create jobs. However, his interpretation of the importance of tax cuts in creating sustainable jobs is the one in which we will operate for this analysis, otherwise we can get trapped in the semantics. More over, McCain's definition of tax cuts largely refers to a tariff reduction for the wealthiest Americans, not for the "small businesses, or American families" as his rhetoric might lead you to believe. It is within this framework that we will assess the assertions of John McCain about tax policy.
So do tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens, as John McCain often promises, create jobs for the normal member of the electorate, when compared to the economic plans that are not as reliant on tax cuts, as Barack Obama has espoused?
Almost unequivocally, the answer is no.
1. For one, as Paul Krugman mentioned last week in a column in the NY Times, George W. Bush's tax cuts have created a mere 5 million jobs, not even enough to meet the pace of population growth. On the other hand, President Clinton's administration created 22 million jobs, despite an economic policy that did not rely on the mythical tax cuts often espoused by John McCain. In June 2003, according to United for a Fair Economy, George W. Bush's 2003 tax cuts, which the Administration firmly alleged would create at least 5 million jobs, in fact created a mere 2.6 million jobs, 1.6 million less than would have been created naturally in the absence of President Bush's "economic stimulus." McCain's notion that tax cuts are the best way to create jobs, is already debunked given the statistics presented by Paul Krugman.
2. In addition, Clinton achieved the robust job growth without gutting the federal treasury, as Ronald Reagan did during his rash of tax cuts in his first term. Reagan apologists love to claim that "Reagan tax cuts reinvigorated the economy", as Milton Friedman once asserted, but these tax cuts did nothing but aggrandize both the federal budget deficit and enrich those already wealthy at the expense of the working class. McCain's tax policies would only exacerbate the inherent inequality in the Reagan and Bush 43 policies. These facts prove that tax cuts, in contrary to what neo-liberal acolyte McCain likes to tell you, that the negative aspects of indiscriminate tax cuts, far outweigh any of the purported gains.
3. McCain's theory of tax policy also rests on the flimsy logic that once the rich find their pockets bolstered by tax cuts, they thus spend it on creating jobs for their workers. Evidence hardly bears out this theory. In fact, the rich are more likely to place their increased wealth in bonds, stocks or savings accounts, none of which provide direct employment to workers. In fact, the windfall received by the wealthiest hardly lead to a discernible increase in consumption, something that would have a marked impact on job creation. Instead, grants or payouts to beleaguered city organizations would have saved many more jobs than giving Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer a greater tax return.
As Robert H. Frank, a Cornell economist, laid out in a Times editorial back in 2005, the tax cuts did not impel entrepreneurs to make new hires, for simple reasons of math. The business owners, even with the newly instituted tax cuts, did not have ample extemporaneous revenue to justify the costs of paying a new worker. The incoming revenue from said tax cuts did not provide sufficient relief for the implicit costs of bringing on a new workers. Obviously, having more money theoretically would permit owners to hire more employees. But, as Frank points out, the tax cuts do not make doing so profitable. Bush and his cadre don't care to specify the difference, and therefore attempt to play it off as having the requisite money for hiring someone is the same as the ability to make a sustained profit. This is yet another example of how fallacious the argument that tax cuts directly lead to jobs really is.
4. Finally, historical analysis has laid out that tax cuts have led both to job creation, and job loss, thereby vitiating the notion of the McCain campaign that tax cuts have a cogent relationship to job creation. 60 years worth of empirical data analysis vividly illustrates that widespread tax cuts both take and add jobs, but that tax cuts have always been responsible for an increase in societal inequality. That's exactly been the hallmark of the Bush Administration; strafing inequality while enriching those already the most well off. They have attempted to hide their avaricious policies in the misleading connection between tax cuts and increased job creation. John McCain has attempted to navigate the same course, and will do so, no matter the facts laid out above.
Given that the conceit that tax cuts for the rich create jobs has been now thoroughly repudiated, it's time to look at why McCain still pursues this line of rhetoric. In essence, his position is one that advocates inequality, unfairness, and discrimination, and as a result, he must cloud it with rhetoric that renders these patently unfair polices palatable to the American public. In order to protect his friends in the corporate world, McCain must offer deceitful rhetoric that does not, in practice, have any effect on the creation of jobs.
I guess you can't blame him; the facts give him no other choice.
"Entrepreneurs are at the heart of American innovation, growth and prosperity. They create the ultimate job security – a new, better opportunity if your current job goes away. Entrepreneurs should not be taxed into submission. "
Essentially, McCain attempts to make the connection that cutting taxes thereby frees up revenue for employers to therefore provide more jobs. The logical opposite is thus that raising taxes saps the resources and impetus for entrepreneurs to provide new jobs. He said as much in a speech in Denver last week:
"He (Obama) will raise estate taxes to 45 percent. I propose to cut them to 15 percent. His plan will hurt the American worker and family. It will hurt the economy and cost us jobs. "
Notwithstanding the specious argument that the average family will be buttressed by a reduction of the estate tax (a tax on the estates of only the very wealthy), McCain, in these two quotes, clearly lays out his economic philosophy: tax cuts create jobs. And McCain, in this context, does not mean merely a McJob, but rather a job with a living wage that provides ample benefits. McCain is correct in literally asserting that tax cuts create jobs. However, his interpretation of the importance of tax cuts in creating sustainable jobs is the one in which we will operate for this analysis, otherwise we can get trapped in the semantics. More over, McCain's definition of tax cuts largely refers to a tariff reduction for the wealthiest Americans, not for the "small businesses, or American families" as his rhetoric might lead you to believe. It is within this framework that we will assess the assertions of John McCain about tax policy.
So do tax cuts for the wealthiest of our citizens, as John McCain often promises, create jobs for the normal member of the electorate, when compared to the economic plans that are not as reliant on tax cuts, as Barack Obama has espoused?
Almost unequivocally, the answer is no.
1. For one, as Paul Krugman mentioned last week in a column in the NY Times, George W. Bush's tax cuts have created a mere 5 million jobs, not even enough to meet the pace of population growth. On the other hand, President Clinton's administration created 22 million jobs, despite an economic policy that did not rely on the mythical tax cuts often espoused by John McCain. In June 2003, according to United for a Fair Economy, George W. Bush's 2003 tax cuts, which the Administration firmly alleged would create at least 5 million jobs, in fact created a mere 2.6 million jobs, 1.6 million less than would have been created naturally in the absence of President Bush's "economic stimulus." McCain's notion that tax cuts are the best way to create jobs, is already debunked given the statistics presented by Paul Krugman.
2. In addition, Clinton achieved the robust job growth without gutting the federal treasury, as Ronald Reagan did during his rash of tax cuts in his first term. Reagan apologists love to claim that "Reagan tax cuts reinvigorated the economy", as Milton Friedman once asserted, but these tax cuts did nothing but aggrandize both the federal budget deficit and enrich those already wealthy at the expense of the working class. McCain's tax policies would only exacerbate the inherent inequality in the Reagan and Bush 43 policies. These facts prove that tax cuts, in contrary to what neo-liberal acolyte McCain likes to tell you, that the negative aspects of indiscriminate tax cuts, far outweigh any of the purported gains.
3. McCain's theory of tax policy also rests on the flimsy logic that once the rich find their pockets bolstered by tax cuts, they thus spend it on creating jobs for their workers. Evidence hardly bears out this theory. In fact, the rich are more likely to place their increased wealth in bonds, stocks or savings accounts, none of which provide direct employment to workers. In fact, the windfall received by the wealthiest hardly lead to a discernible increase in consumption, something that would have a marked impact on job creation. Instead, grants or payouts to beleaguered city organizations would have saved many more jobs than giving Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer a greater tax return.
As Robert H. Frank, a Cornell economist, laid out in a Times editorial back in 2005, the tax cuts did not impel entrepreneurs to make new hires, for simple reasons of math. The business owners, even with the newly instituted tax cuts, did not have ample extemporaneous revenue to justify the costs of paying a new worker. The incoming revenue from said tax cuts did not provide sufficient relief for the implicit costs of bringing on a new workers. Obviously, having more money theoretically would permit owners to hire more employees. But, as Frank points out, the tax cuts do not make doing so profitable. Bush and his cadre don't care to specify the difference, and therefore attempt to play it off as having the requisite money for hiring someone is the same as the ability to make a sustained profit. This is yet another example of how fallacious the argument that tax cuts directly lead to jobs really is.
4. Finally, historical analysis has laid out that tax cuts have led both to job creation, and job loss, thereby vitiating the notion of the McCain campaign that tax cuts have a cogent relationship to job creation. 60 years worth of empirical data analysis vividly illustrates that widespread tax cuts both take and add jobs, but that tax cuts have always been responsible for an increase in societal inequality. That's exactly been the hallmark of the Bush Administration; strafing inequality while enriching those already the most well off. They have attempted to hide their avaricious policies in the misleading connection between tax cuts and increased job creation. John McCain has attempted to navigate the same course, and will do so, no matter the facts laid out above.
Given that the conceit that tax cuts for the rich create jobs has been now thoroughly repudiated, it's time to look at why McCain still pursues this line of rhetoric. In essence, his position is one that advocates inequality, unfairness, and discrimination, and as a result, he must cloud it with rhetoric that renders these patently unfair polices palatable to the American public. In order to protect his friends in the corporate world, McCain must offer deceitful rhetoric that does not, in practice, have any effect on the creation of jobs.
I guess you can't blame him; the facts give him no other choice.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Rudolph Guiliani: The Village Idiot
"I thought I was out.....but then they pulled me back innnnnn....."
I was going to take it easy on American's favorite diminutive ex-mayor. After all, I had previously criticized his conduct on 9/11. Plus, after his pathetic Presidential campaign that saw him go from front runner to feeble also-ran, he seemed too pitiful to draw any more scorn. Lastly, I didn't think I could top Joe Biden's painfully accurate zinger that "Every sentence for Rudy is noun, verb 9/11."
But then, good ole' Rudy had to open his mouth and spew out something so inane and reprehensible that I was literally shocked into silence while watching it. Yesterday, while pontificating on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" about Barack Obama, he offered this sanguine remark:
"This is why he's a popular candidate in Europe, because there is such an anti-
American feeling, and he's sort of capturing that."
What the hell is Giuliani talking about? Factually speaking, there are many reasons that we are unpopular across the pond, and Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with perpetuating it. If Rudy was attuned to reality, he would see that the war in Iraq, our support for the death penalty, our arrogant refusal to acquiesce to any global climate change treaties, among numerous other reasons, are why Europe is so disgusted with the United States at present. Barack Obama has nothing to do with feeding, or aggrandizing any sort of anti-American sentiments in Europe, and for Rudy Guiliani to sententiously assert that he does is both deceitful and cowardly.
But, really, what can you expect from Rudy Guiliani, and by extension, the Republican brand that he represents? After 8 putrid years of George W. Bush, the GOP imprimatur has been damaged to the point where, according to a new poll, John McCain won't even be able to carry his home state in November. As a result, since they are ideologically barren, bereft of any real solutions besides tired nostrums like drilling for oil off the Gulf Coast to "solve" our calamitous energy policy, or by instituting more tax cuts for the fabulously wealthy, because otherwise "we can't create jobs" (I'll deal with that hoax at length later this week), Giuliani and his ilk must resort to petty personality based attacks.
Impugning Barack Obama's patriotism is, and will continue to be for the duration of the campaign, one of these paltry attacks. It will be incumbent upon the electorate to see through this duplicitous, counterproductive allegations from Giuliani and his cadre. America is too damaged, both socially, economically and politically, to fall into that canard that they will attempt to propagate. In the end, why do you think gas is $4.50? Why do you think that we consented to a blatantly illegal war? It's because we have been far too preoccupied by valence issues, just like the Republicans would want. Now, it's time to stop that....before it's too late.
I was going to take it easy on American's favorite diminutive ex-mayor. After all, I had previously criticized his conduct on 9/11. Plus, after his pathetic Presidential campaign that saw him go from front runner to feeble also-ran, he seemed too pitiful to draw any more scorn. Lastly, I didn't think I could top Joe Biden's painfully accurate zinger that "Every sentence for Rudy is noun, verb 9/11."
But then, good ole' Rudy had to open his mouth and spew out something so inane and reprehensible that I was literally shocked into silence while watching it. Yesterday, while pontificating on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" about Barack Obama, he offered this sanguine remark:
"This is why he's a popular candidate in Europe, because there is such an anti-
American feeling, and he's sort of capturing that."
What the hell is Giuliani talking about? Factually speaking, there are many reasons that we are unpopular across the pond, and Barack Obama has absolutely nothing to do with perpetuating it. If Rudy was attuned to reality, he would see that the war in Iraq, our support for the death penalty, our arrogant refusal to acquiesce to any global climate change treaties, among numerous other reasons, are why Europe is so disgusted with the United States at present. Barack Obama has nothing to do with feeding, or aggrandizing any sort of anti-American sentiments in Europe, and for Rudy Guiliani to sententiously assert that he does is both deceitful and cowardly.
But, really, what can you expect from Rudy Guiliani, and by extension, the Republican brand that he represents? After 8 putrid years of George W. Bush, the GOP imprimatur has been damaged to the point where, according to a new poll, John McCain won't even be able to carry his home state in November. As a result, since they are ideologically barren, bereft of any real solutions besides tired nostrums like drilling for oil off the Gulf Coast to "solve" our calamitous energy policy, or by instituting more tax cuts for the fabulously wealthy, because otherwise "we can't create jobs" (I'll deal with that hoax at length later this week), Giuliani and his ilk must resort to petty personality based attacks.
Impugning Barack Obama's patriotism is, and will continue to be for the duration of the campaign, one of these paltry attacks. It will be incumbent upon the electorate to see through this duplicitous, counterproductive allegations from Giuliani and his cadre. America is too damaged, both socially, economically and politically, to fall into that canard that they will attempt to propagate. In the end, why do you think gas is $4.50? Why do you think that we consented to a blatantly illegal war? It's because we have been far too preoccupied by valence issues, just like the Republicans would want. Now, it's time to stop that....before it's too late.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
What we Learned from the FISA Debate...
Now that the Senate vote is complete, and the immunization of lawbreakers has been solidified into our laws pending a Supreme Court review, time is opportune to analyze what exactly we learned from this debacle:
Barack Obama is hardly the "Candidate of Change": As I documented at length yesterday, Obama punctuated his reputed "move to the center" (embrace GOP positions on gun control, pander to media narratives about "patriotism", plunder 4th Amendment) by totally reversing his course on the FISA bill in a stark display of sheer political calculation. Obama had initially promised to vote against the bill, and also to filibuster if need be; he did neither, and he utilized patently misleading arguments to justify that.
Hopefully progressive realize that the reputed "change" candidate has apparently metamorphosed into the quintessential Beltway politician, one who will eschew both his previous statements and his legion of supporters. Barring another whole scale change, Mr. Obama's conduct of late illustrates his "Change We Can Believe in Mantra" as utter poppycock.
Current Politicians Don't view the 4th Amendment as Important: A hallmark of our Constitution, since it was originally drafted by our Framers, is that citizens could not be spied upon without a warrant from the authorities naming the cause of the intrusion. That is now irrevocably been changed. When Americans communicate with individuals out of the country, they could be spied on by government officials without probable cause. More over, the government will not suffer any recriminations, no matter how brazen, or wanton the spying might be.
This provision is in direct conflict with all case law precedent as well as the 4th Amendment. Strikingly, this argument did not resonate with the large majority of Congress. Instead of respecting our Constitution, they instead chose to kowtow to a President run amok, and institutionalize a program that disenfranchises millions of citizens from attaining their privacy protections that were once viewed as sacrosanct.
Republicans, as a whole, Do not Respect the 4th Amendment: As aforementioned, Congress defected en masse to the dark side, and sanctioned the President's lawless conduct with yesterday's FISA vote. Of particular note: In the Senate, all Republicans voted for the bill, while all but one did so in the House. If this doesn't cement into the voters minds that Republicans disregard the Constitution much like Britney Spears disregards a treadmill, I don't know what will.
When millions of voters go to the ballot box in November, here's to hoping they don't forget what little esteem the Republican party holds our Constitution, namely it's 4th Amendment protections.
A Congress led by the Democrats is Worse than one led by the GOP: As delved into at length at Salon.com by the inimitable, sagacious and courageous Glenn Greenwald, this FISA bill was past at the behest of the Democratic led Congress, after it was shut down just a few years ago when the legislative body was run by Republicans. No wonder Kit Bond and Roy Blunt are practically giddy about the prospect of this bill: never in their wildest dreams could they thought it would have been passed. And yet, inexplicably, the most concerted effort to erode out privacy protections in years has been ratified, and the blood is on the hands of the complicit Democrats.
This is the ultimate insult to Progressive voters who lent their money, and support so vociferously to electing these very same representatives in 2006. Instead of listening to their demands, or at least remaining neutral, the craven leadership of Nancy Pelosi, and specifically Steny Hoyer, instead decided to deliver to the President legislative lagniappe's he never thought would materialize.
That the Democrats would endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush agenda is both baffling and incredibly enraging. It is perhaps the most puzzling development of the entire FISA story. Can these complicit Administration apologists really buy the patently false Beltway myth that, if they don't gut the Constitution, they will portrayed as weak on national security? Are Hoyer and Pelosi that disingenuous to claim that this bill serves as any sort of upgrade on our "protection from terrorists?" Apparently so. Hoyer, Pelosi and their ilk have proven both their cravenness, and their inability to attend to their constituents. Voters take heed.
Their complicity hopefully will be one of the last lessons for the legions of voters who supported these candidates in the hopes that they would reverse Bush's abuses, not reify and endorse them. Perhaps that memory will stay in their consciousness long to provide a silver lining: next time these enables stand in front of the voters, they will be summarily rejected as spineless, partisan hacks, as they have proven themselves dutifully to be during the past few weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This fight is far from over. The sobering reality that Democrats are just as complicit in propagating the lawless, Imperial presidency as their Republican counterparts has been burned into the consciousness of the legion of Progressive voters. No matter how much the mainstream media tries to rationalize, justify or excuse the behavior of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and most distressingly Barack Obama, the American people are lucid enough to see through their rhetoric. The American people can see their diaphanous rhetorical veil crumbles in the fact of the facts of this bill. Hopefully, it has enacted a new realization about the two leveled system of justice that pervades our political institutions.
We will fight anew, burnished with the credentials of both our Constitution and the brave few legislators who did not succumb to the fear mongering and distortion at the hands of Imperial Presidency. Yesterday was not the final word on this debate.
Barack Obama is hardly the "Candidate of Change": As I documented at length yesterday, Obama punctuated his reputed "move to the center" (embrace GOP positions on gun control, pander to media narratives about "patriotism", plunder 4th Amendment) by totally reversing his course on the FISA bill in a stark display of sheer political calculation. Obama had initially promised to vote against the bill, and also to filibuster if need be; he did neither, and he utilized patently misleading arguments to justify that.
Hopefully progressive realize that the reputed "change" candidate has apparently metamorphosed into the quintessential Beltway politician, one who will eschew both his previous statements and his legion of supporters. Barring another whole scale change, Mr. Obama's conduct of late illustrates his "Change We Can Believe in Mantra" as utter poppycock.
Current Politicians Don't view the 4th Amendment as Important: A hallmark of our Constitution, since it was originally drafted by our Framers, is that citizens could not be spied upon without a warrant from the authorities naming the cause of the intrusion. That is now irrevocably been changed. When Americans communicate with individuals out of the country, they could be spied on by government officials without probable cause. More over, the government will not suffer any recriminations, no matter how brazen, or wanton the spying might be.
This provision is in direct conflict with all case law precedent as well as the 4th Amendment. Strikingly, this argument did not resonate with the large majority of Congress. Instead of respecting our Constitution, they instead chose to kowtow to a President run amok, and institutionalize a program that disenfranchises millions of citizens from attaining their privacy protections that were once viewed as sacrosanct.
Republicans, as a whole, Do not Respect the 4th Amendment: As aforementioned, Congress defected en masse to the dark side, and sanctioned the President's lawless conduct with yesterday's FISA vote. Of particular note: In the Senate, all Republicans voted for the bill, while all but one did so in the House. If this doesn't cement into the voters minds that Republicans disregard the Constitution much like Britney Spears disregards a treadmill, I don't know what will.
When millions of voters go to the ballot box in November, here's to hoping they don't forget what little esteem the Republican party holds our Constitution, namely it's 4th Amendment protections.
A Congress led by the Democrats is Worse than one led by the GOP: As delved into at length at Salon.com by the inimitable, sagacious and courageous Glenn Greenwald, this FISA bill was past at the behest of the Democratic led Congress, after it was shut down just a few years ago when the legislative body was run by Republicans. No wonder Kit Bond and Roy Blunt are practically giddy about the prospect of this bill: never in their wildest dreams could they thought it would have been passed. And yet, inexplicably, the most concerted effort to erode out privacy protections in years has been ratified, and the blood is on the hands of the complicit Democrats.
This is the ultimate insult to Progressive voters who lent their money, and support so vociferously to electing these very same representatives in 2006. Instead of listening to their demands, or at least remaining neutral, the craven leadership of Nancy Pelosi, and specifically Steny Hoyer, instead decided to deliver to the President legislative lagniappe's he never thought would materialize.
That the Democrats would endorse the most radical aspects of the Bush agenda is both baffling and incredibly enraging. It is perhaps the most puzzling development of the entire FISA story. Can these complicit Administration apologists really buy the patently false Beltway myth that, if they don't gut the Constitution, they will portrayed as weak on national security? Are Hoyer and Pelosi that disingenuous to claim that this bill serves as any sort of upgrade on our "protection from terrorists?" Apparently so. Hoyer, Pelosi and their ilk have proven both their cravenness, and their inability to attend to their constituents. Voters take heed.
Their complicity hopefully will be one of the last lessons for the legions of voters who supported these candidates in the hopes that they would reverse Bush's abuses, not reify and endorse them. Perhaps that memory will stay in their consciousness long to provide a silver lining: next time these enables stand in front of the voters, they will be summarily rejected as spineless, partisan hacks, as they have proven themselves dutifully to be during the past few weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This fight is far from over. The sobering reality that Democrats are just as complicit in propagating the lawless, Imperial presidency as their Republican counterparts has been burned into the consciousness of the legion of Progressive voters. No matter how much the mainstream media tries to rationalize, justify or excuse the behavior of Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and most distressingly Barack Obama, the American people are lucid enough to see through their rhetoric. The American people can see their diaphanous rhetorical veil crumbles in the fact of the facts of this bill. Hopefully, it has enacted a new realization about the two leveled system of justice that pervades our political institutions.
We will fight anew, burnished with the credentials of both our Constitution and the brave few legislators who did not succumb to the fear mongering and distortion at the hands of Imperial Presidency. Yesterday was not the final word on this debate.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Barack Obama helps George Bush Destroy the Fourth Amendment
In one of the most ignominious moments in recent Congressional history, the Senate voted to support the FISA "compromise" legislation which both immunizes law-breaking telecommunications companies from prosecution, but also authorizes retroactively the warrantless spying the Bush Administration has engaged in since at least 2003. For the first time in history, the government, and it's complicit partners in business, will be able to legally spy on communications from outside the country, without any sort of oversight. The FISA court had been conducting said oversight since the inception of the act in 1979, to no reported problems. It's not as if this court had been obstructionist, as some on the right and in the media might lead one to believe. In fact, the court turned down one warrant submission in the last 29 years.
More importantly, as I have mentioned repeatedly in this space, this bill is the antithesis of a "compromise", and in actuality, the Republicans achieved more than even their most delusional members thought possible with this bill.
How did this miraculous bill materialize? At the behest of Tom DeLay in the house and Bill "Terri Schiavo could be cognizant" Frist? With some arcane Senate procedural matter?
No. It was the Democratic led Congress hat permitted this brazenly illegal legislation to codify into our laws. At the forefront of lobbying for this blemish to our nation's Constitution, was Barack Obama. Obama, even after plainly stating he would oppose a bill that granted immunity, and would filibuster the bill if it came to the floor of the Senate, served as a shepherd to passage for this legislation. In fact, Obama both voted for the bill, and in a shocking display of callous political calculation, went against his word, and did not support a filibuster.
After weeks of a crescendo of building towards "centrism", Obama has now thoroughly solidified that notion when he ignored both Constitutional provisions, and rejected statements he made mere months ago, and voted for this turgid, patently illegal piece of legislation.
Does this sound like the sort of centrism that Obama voters envisioned when they voted for him during the primary season that he won by a razor thin margin? (Note: Obama's narrowly vanquished foe, Hillary Clinton, supported our ingrained Constitutional protections and voted against the bill.) Is this the sort of leadership that the Democratic caucus believed that Barack Obama would bring to the Oval Office? A leadership, which at least today, aligns him identically with the Bush Administration.
Yes, I know that Democrats want to win after 8 years of absence in the White House. However, Barack Obama proved today that he, in the interest of political calculation, will blatantly ignore his own constituents wishes. Given that, what would the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on this issue?
You guessed it, there's isn't one.
Given that, there is no virtue in "winning" if Barack Obama conforms to the nefarious notion that he should "move to the center", and thereby participate in eviscerating our Constitution.
More importantly, as I have mentioned repeatedly in this space, this bill is the antithesis of a "compromise", and in actuality, the Republicans achieved more than even their most delusional members thought possible with this bill.
How did this miraculous bill materialize? At the behest of Tom DeLay in the house and Bill "Terri Schiavo could be cognizant" Frist? With some arcane Senate procedural matter?
No. It was the Democratic led Congress hat permitted this brazenly illegal legislation to codify into our laws. At the forefront of lobbying for this blemish to our nation's Constitution, was Barack Obama. Obama, even after plainly stating he would oppose a bill that granted immunity, and would filibuster the bill if it came to the floor of the Senate, served as a shepherd to passage for this legislation. In fact, Obama both voted for the bill, and in a shocking display of callous political calculation, went against his word, and did not support a filibuster.
After weeks of a crescendo of building towards "centrism", Obama has now thoroughly solidified that notion when he ignored both Constitutional provisions, and rejected statements he made mere months ago, and voted for this turgid, patently illegal piece of legislation.
Does this sound like the sort of centrism that Obama voters envisioned when they voted for him during the primary season that he won by a razor thin margin? (Note: Obama's narrowly vanquished foe, Hillary Clinton, supported our ingrained Constitutional protections and voted against the bill.) Is this the sort of leadership that the Democratic caucus believed that Barack Obama would bring to the Oval Office? A leadership, which at least today, aligns him identically with the Bush Administration.
Yes, I know that Democrats want to win after 8 years of absence in the White House. However, Barack Obama proved today that he, in the interest of political calculation, will blatantly ignore his own constituents wishes. Given that, what would the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on this issue?
You guessed it, there's isn't one.
Given that, there is no virtue in "winning" if Barack Obama conforms to the nefarious notion that he should "move to the center", and thereby participate in eviscerating our Constitution.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Time Magazine Validates Placing Expediency over Principle
Predictably, the media reacted with the utmost angst and outrage over the comments of former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Gen. Wesley Clark when he sententiously suggested that John McCain's experience in Vietnam did not necessarily serve as a qualification for the Presidency. Yet again, when confronted with a legitimate statement from a political figure, the media rushed to place it in the most salacious, distorted context as possible, irrespective of the legitimacy or salience of the argument put forth.
For example, numerous sources took Clark's remarks entirely out of context, and insinuated that Clark had the temerity to question the patriotism of Sen. McCain (he didn't), while others absurdly caterwauled that Barack Obama must not only disavow Clark's remarks (which he indirectly did) but totally distance himself from the General. Discarding the absurdity of Obama breaking with Clark over the latter's making a legitimate argument, instead of a personal attack, the media also oddly propagated the notion that a candidate is responsible for what his surrogates say. If that was the case, where is the clamor for the removal of Charlie Black after he told Forbes magazine that a terrorist attack would be "good for my candidate." Unsurprisingly, the fervor extends only to the Democrat in this instance.
However, the most dispiriting, yet revealing argument that the media espoused in reaction to Clark's comments, as epitomized in a column by Time Magazine's Jay Newton-Small, was that McCain's record should remain unquestioned not because doing so raises nonsensical or illegitimate questions, but because it is not politically expedient.
In his piece, Newton-Small goes as far to acknowledge that pressing inquiries regarding the connection between McCain's POW experience and the relevant experience he thus gained from that excursion are entirely fair questions:
" The idea Clark was trying to communicate is that John McCain's honorable military service should be divorced and analyzed separately from his foreign policy record. Why? Because the first is unassailable, while the other is eminently flawed."
That said, he then argues that the aforementioned should be subverted solely in the interest of political expediency:
"But in minimizing the import of McCain's military service, Clark instead opened the door to the sort of criticism that Obama, who painstakingly praises McCain's military record at virtually every event, cannot afford. Cable-television talking heads feasted on the comments, with at least one partisan going so far as to accuse the Obama campaign of "swift-boating" McCain."
"But in minimizing the import of McCain's military service, Clark instead opened the door to the sort of criticism that Obama, who painstakingly praises McCain's military record at virtually every event, cannot afford. Cable-television talking heads feasted on the comments, with at least one partisan going so far as to accuse the Obama campaign of "swift-boating" McCain."
A compelling theory can be made that John McCain's experience as a fighter pilot, and then later as a POW does not automatically render him qualified to be the Commander in Chief. After all, the fact that, as a result of his imprisonment in the Hanoi Hilton, McCain largely missed the critical decisions made on the ground during Vietnam, has been discussed ad hominem by prominent politicians like John Warner and Chuck Hagel.
Yet despite all of those mitigating factors, the essence of xxx's argument, that Barack Obama, and by extension, his campaign advisers should avoid any sort of issue which does not comport with what our political establishment views as "politically damaging" super cedes all other considerations.
It's difficult to understate how much of a disservice adopting that course of action regularly would do to the functioning of our political system. To date, Barack Obama has already adopted this mantra in the case of the FISA/warrantless wiretapping debate. In refusing to contest this patently illegal bill, Obama utilized the favorite rhetoric of the right in stating that he "wants our intelligence community to have all the resources at hand in this time of peril." It's widely believed that Obama utilized this line of rhetoric solely to inoculate himself from attack by the Republicans on questions of national security later on in this election cycle.
However, by adopting this nefarious media narrative which purportedly provided "political cover", a narrative which portends apocalyptic consequences if we don't allow the Bush Administration to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, and thereby trample on the Constitution, Barack Obama epitomized this media maxim, of expediency over principle, thoroughly.
Consequences to both the country, and his campaign quickly ensued. For the country, the pending bill in the Senate will eviscerate protections embedded in the Constitution, as well as codify a special tier of justice for large corporations, in which they are immune from prosecution for offenses that normal citizens are not. For the campaign, Obama has seen his political base incite a near revolt, and thereby casting him in an unfavorable light amongst the myriad of liberal grassroots supporters he had steadfastly cultivated, to great end, throughout the primary season. Only time will tell if Obama will learn the lessons of his faux pas, and thereby avoid the pitfalls of elevating whatever is opportune over what must be discussed, for the sake of the country.
Forgoing substantive questions in the name of avoiding "politically difficult" predicaments has been a hallmark of our media establishment throughout the election season. For some inexplicable reason, most media outlets deem the transient, largely trivial stories as superior to a thoughtful, lengthy discussion about the litany of issues plaguing our country. As a result, it is not surprising that TIME's Newton-Small would assert that Obama should neglect a serious question about McCain's qualifications for President. After all, their dominant creedo raises the minutiae of political discourse to the top of their newscasts, websites and panel discussions, to the utmost detriment of our country.
Thankfully, Barack Obama has showed incipient signs of refusing to conform to this deleterious media narrative. He refused to disown Clark, despite heavy pressure from the media, and of course, the righteously indignant McCain campaign. In doing so, Obama, for the first time since the primary season ended, decided to eschew the prevailing media notion that he must conform to media mandates. This is especially notable because of his recent decisions, including putting a flag pin on his lapel to abdicating his membership at Trinity Church of Christ, entirely aligned with whatever fervor the media may be preoccupied with.
Ultimately though, Obama owes all Americans, not just those who plan on supporting him, a candid dialectic about issues, from Iraq to the surging cost of health care, in this general election campaign. As evidenced by the McCain campaign's comic overreaction to Clark's comments, his campaign shall not be relied upon to participate in this discussion. As a result, Barack Obama must continue to obviate the media's pressure on him to succumb to preoccupation with valence issues e.g. Clark's remarks, or how he adorns his lapels on his suits.
This shouldn't be too hard. After all, in being the first African American presidential candidate for a major party in history, he has overcome greater obstacles than our media. Here's hoping he is up to the task.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)