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.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
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.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Let's not Deify Barack Obama....
Don't get me wrong, barring another mistake tantamount to last week's FISA reversal then capitulation, I will be voting, and more importantly, campaigning and writing on behalf of the election of Barack Obama in the Fall. Frankly, I'd rather massage Hillary Clinton's thighs with baby oil while a scantily clad Janet Reno videotapes than vote for great grandpa McCain. McCain's candidacy is entirely bereft of ideas to solve the foremost American problems, and more critically, McCain himself is a figure incapable of reconciling the deep divisions plaguing this country presently.
As a result, Barack Obama thus serves as the only plausible for those repelled by the alternative; John McCain's attempt to continue the reign of George W. Bush.
However, that does not mean that Obama should be given unconditional support from his base, irrespective of whatever policy positions he may take.
In the last few weeks, Obama has made a surprising reversal on issues once deemed endemic to the success of his campaign as a straight talking, "post partisan" figure. And yet, Obama has largely received little to no scrutiny or criticism, neither from the press, nor his supporters. The latter is particularly disturbing, as unlike media, they have at least a semblance of credibility remaining. Unfortunately, said supporters could be falling prey to the phenomenon prevalent during the Bush years, in which a political figure is canonized by a particular political group, regardless of whether or not his positions countermand the interests of the group. The tendency to subvert the given candidates positions in favor of a "character based" analysis is what allowed George W. Bush to receive carte-blanche to eviscerate the Constitution's 4th amendment rights, siphon jobs and revenue from the middle to the aristocracy, and start a devastating war in Iraq that carries nefarious ramifications far past January 20th, 2009 when he thankfully departs office.
I've always viewed the liberal constituency as largely immune from the aforementioned deification of political leaders, and that's why the benign reaction to Obama's decisions of the last few weeks have been strikingly troubling. To review, simply look back at his positions on the pivotal political developments this week. In doing so, one will glean the notion that they seem to be antithetical to what his constituency actually wants.
1. Worst of all has to be his brazen reversal of positions on the immunity provisions within the FISA bill that will be voted on in the Senate next week. After firmly pledging to rebut the insertion of these illegal provisions into the bill in January and February, he suddenly reversed course and stated his support for the legislation. His lame excuse for voting the bill, in which he took a page from the Bush playbook and argued that the country is now safer was pitiful, and dangerous.
When the bill ultimately comes to the floor for a vote, and is passed, illegal wiretapping by numerous telecommunications companies will be absolved. The Bush doctrine, which espouses a profound disrespect for the 4th Amendment privacy protections, will be cemented as a legitimate law of the land. I highly doubt that Barack Obama's core supporters want those two things to come to fruition, and it seems odd that they would not question their candidates support for it.
2. His muted response to the striking down of the Washington D.C. hand gun ban should also have been jarring to his base. Whatever your thoughts on gun control may be per se, do the core supporters of Obama generally synchronize their views with the "Originialist" cabal of Scalia and Thomas? I highly, highly doubt they find agreement on any substantive issue, much less gun laws. So why do they excuse their candidate from the same indemnity? By doing so, they are doing the country a disservice by perpetuating the notion that the Democratic candidate can proffer views that coincide with the far right ideologues that inhabit the court, and get away with it.
3. Lately, Obama has taken to bashing MoveOn.org, the "radicals" of the 60's in his stump speeches. MoveOn.org is one of the foremost entities within the net roots movement that perpetuates positive stereotypes of Barack Obama. The "radicals" he indemnifies in speeches are often the theoretical forefathers of what the modern Democratic party. Given this, why is he bashing them? More damningly, how does he think he can get away with it?
Sadly, the complicity of the very voters I refer to constantly in this blog certainly helped enable his attack. More over, their silence on his slightly hypocritical, disingenuous repudiation of sites like MoveOn.org is emblematic of a different problem plaguing Obama's candidacy: he, incorrectly, believes that he must subvert core elements of his constituency in a feeble attempt to "look tough" to swing voters and Republican attackers.
As Keith Olbermann sagaciously pointed out last night on his news program, the Republicans are going to spew venom towards Obama regardless of how "tough" he projects himself to be. Thus, it is purely counterproductive to espouse rhetoric that, at the cost of bashing his constituents, conveys an image of strength. Allowing him to get away with it, as many of his surrogates have to this point, is dangerous both because it ignores the reality of the Republican attack machine, but it also may hurt him down the road, that is, if the GOP can successfully portray him as lacking conviction and principle, as they did to John Kerry in 2004.
4. One of the themes of this blog is the illumination of the mainstream media as often times complicit in perpetuating falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies that the Bush Administration, presidential candidates, and nearly all politicians proffer to disguise their true motives. While this propensity is a staple of John McCain's campaign thus far, Barack Obama has largely stayed above that pernicious fray.
Until this week. General Wesley Clark, in appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday essentially said that while he admires John McCain's patriotism, "crashing fighter planes does not qualify you to be President." Which is entirely a valid opinion. And yet, you know what comes next; cue the Republican faux uproar machine. In consorting with the media, McCain's campaign managed to distort the statements to the point where it sounded like Clark denied the veracity of McCain's patriotism, which he unequivocally did not. Predictably, the media demanded some sort of statement from Barack Obama.
And, they got one. Obama essentially complied with the blatant alteration of Clark's remarks in a speech which heavily criticized the general. As aforementioned, Sen. Obama has largely not fallen into this trap for most of his campaign. However, on this occasion, he played right into the hands of the disingenuous cohabitation between the media and the Republicans which subverts facts, and actual quotes, in the name of rhetorical gerrymandering and outright lies.
Despite this complicity, not a peep emanated from the disparate factions that endorse Sen. Obama's bid for the Oval Office. By allowing him to play along with the Republicans on the issue and escape unscathed, the supporters are allowing Sen. Obama to further his questionable strategy of "moving to the center without recriminations. Inevitably, "moving to the center" as this incident, and as his stark reversal on FISA, really means that a candidate must play to the worst elements of the Republican spin machine, which wholeheartedly propagates fear, lies and distortions as their preferred form of political discourse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I explicitly indicated in the introduction, voting for John McCain for me is as likely as James Inhofe becoming a Greenpeace activist. However, the potential of not voting remains a possibility. As the nascent, but growing outrage at Obama over his maneuvering on FISA, Wes Clark and the DC gun ban indicates, many others Obama supporters may abstain from the ballot box as well in November.
Ultimately, what we all want is a Barack Obama who is both cognizant of the positions he might need to take in swing states and also fiercely committed to the principles that he espoused throughout his entire political career, up until these last few weeks.
By allowing him to ride roughshod over the fundamental goals of the liberal electorate without any sort of tangible consequences, the opposite will be achieved. In order to prevent the party from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, accountability for Barack Obama, even if its to the detriment of his chances with"Reagan Democrats" or other sections of the electorate he may be attempting to woo with these recent vacillations on warrant less wiretapping and gun control, is the sine qua non of his election in November.
As a result, Barack Obama thus serves as the only plausible for those repelled by the alternative; John McCain's attempt to continue the reign of George W. Bush.
However, that does not mean that Obama should be given unconditional support from his base, irrespective of whatever policy positions he may take.
In the last few weeks, Obama has made a surprising reversal on issues once deemed endemic to the success of his campaign as a straight talking, "post partisan" figure. And yet, Obama has largely received little to no scrutiny or criticism, neither from the press, nor his supporters. The latter is particularly disturbing, as unlike media, they have at least a semblance of credibility remaining. Unfortunately, said supporters could be falling prey to the phenomenon prevalent during the Bush years, in which a political figure is canonized by a particular political group, regardless of whether or not his positions countermand the interests of the group. The tendency to subvert the given candidates positions in favor of a "character based" analysis is what allowed George W. Bush to receive carte-blanche to eviscerate the Constitution's 4th amendment rights, siphon jobs and revenue from the middle to the aristocracy, and start a devastating war in Iraq that carries nefarious ramifications far past January 20th, 2009 when he thankfully departs office.
I've always viewed the liberal constituency as largely immune from the aforementioned deification of political leaders, and that's why the benign reaction to Obama's decisions of the last few weeks have been strikingly troubling. To review, simply look back at his positions on the pivotal political developments this week. In doing so, one will glean the notion that they seem to be antithetical to what his constituency actually wants.
1. Worst of all has to be his brazen reversal of positions on the immunity provisions within the FISA bill that will be voted on in the Senate next week. After firmly pledging to rebut the insertion of these illegal provisions into the bill in January and February, he suddenly reversed course and stated his support for the legislation. His lame excuse for voting the bill, in which he took a page from the Bush playbook and argued that the country is now safer was pitiful, and dangerous.
When the bill ultimately comes to the floor for a vote, and is passed, illegal wiretapping by numerous telecommunications companies will be absolved. The Bush doctrine, which espouses a profound disrespect for the 4th Amendment privacy protections, will be cemented as a legitimate law of the land. I highly doubt that Barack Obama's core supporters want those two things to come to fruition, and it seems odd that they would not question their candidates support for it.
2. His muted response to the striking down of the Washington D.C. hand gun ban should also have been jarring to his base. Whatever your thoughts on gun control may be per se, do the core supporters of Obama generally synchronize their views with the "Originialist" cabal of Scalia and Thomas? I highly, highly doubt they find agreement on any substantive issue, much less gun laws. So why do they excuse their candidate from the same indemnity? By doing so, they are doing the country a disservice by perpetuating the notion that the Democratic candidate can proffer views that coincide with the far right ideologues that inhabit the court, and get away with it.
3. Lately, Obama has taken to bashing MoveOn.org, the "radicals" of the 60's in his stump speeches. MoveOn.org is one of the foremost entities within the net roots movement that perpetuates positive stereotypes of Barack Obama. The "radicals" he indemnifies in speeches are often the theoretical forefathers of what the modern Democratic party. Given this, why is he bashing them? More damningly, how does he think he can get away with it?
Sadly, the complicity of the very voters I refer to constantly in this blog certainly helped enable his attack. More over, their silence on his slightly hypocritical, disingenuous repudiation of sites like MoveOn.org is emblematic of a different problem plaguing Obama's candidacy: he, incorrectly, believes that he must subvert core elements of his constituency in a feeble attempt to "look tough" to swing voters and Republican attackers.
As Keith Olbermann sagaciously pointed out last night on his news program, the Republicans are going to spew venom towards Obama regardless of how "tough" he projects himself to be. Thus, it is purely counterproductive to espouse rhetoric that, at the cost of bashing his constituents, conveys an image of strength. Allowing him to get away with it, as many of his surrogates have to this point, is dangerous both because it ignores the reality of the Republican attack machine, but it also may hurt him down the road, that is, if the GOP can successfully portray him as lacking conviction and principle, as they did to John Kerry in 2004.
4. One of the themes of this blog is the illumination of the mainstream media as often times complicit in perpetuating falsehoods, half-truths and outright lies that the Bush Administration, presidential candidates, and nearly all politicians proffer to disguise their true motives. While this propensity is a staple of John McCain's campaign thus far, Barack Obama has largely stayed above that pernicious fray.
Until this week. General Wesley Clark, in appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday essentially said that while he admires John McCain's patriotism, "crashing fighter planes does not qualify you to be President." Which is entirely a valid opinion. And yet, you know what comes next; cue the Republican faux uproar machine. In consorting with the media, McCain's campaign managed to distort the statements to the point where it sounded like Clark denied the veracity of McCain's patriotism, which he unequivocally did not. Predictably, the media demanded some sort of statement from Barack Obama.
And, they got one. Obama essentially complied with the blatant alteration of Clark's remarks in a speech which heavily criticized the general. As aforementioned, Sen. Obama has largely not fallen into this trap for most of his campaign. However, on this occasion, he played right into the hands of the disingenuous cohabitation between the media and the Republicans which subverts facts, and actual quotes, in the name of rhetorical gerrymandering and outright lies.
Despite this complicity, not a peep emanated from the disparate factions that endorse Sen. Obama's bid for the Oval Office. By allowing him to play along with the Republicans on the issue and escape unscathed, the supporters are allowing Sen. Obama to further his questionable strategy of "moving to the center without recriminations. Inevitably, "moving to the center" as this incident, and as his stark reversal on FISA, really means that a candidate must play to the worst elements of the Republican spin machine, which wholeheartedly propagates fear, lies and distortions as their preferred form of political discourse.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I explicitly indicated in the introduction, voting for John McCain for me is as likely as James Inhofe becoming a Greenpeace activist. However, the potential of not voting remains a possibility. As the nascent, but growing outrage at Obama over his maneuvering on FISA, Wes Clark and the DC gun ban indicates, many others Obama supporters may abstain from the ballot box as well in November.
Ultimately, what we all want is a Barack Obama who is both cognizant of the positions he might need to take in swing states and also fiercely committed to the principles that he espoused throughout his entire political career, up until these last few weeks.
By allowing him to ride roughshod over the fundamental goals of the liberal electorate without any sort of tangible consequences, the opposite will be achieved. In order to prevent the party from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, accountability for Barack Obama, even if its to the detriment of his chances with"Reagan Democrats" or other sections of the electorate he may be attempting to woo with these recent vacillations on warrant less wiretapping and gun control, is the sine qua non of his election in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)