jump to navigation

Give her a break- Presidential candidates do make mistakes May 24, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Democrats, Domestic Issues, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Policy and Law, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Republican, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics.
Tags: , , , , , ,
3 comments

As is obvious from the articles on this blog I am an ardent supporter of Barack Obama not only through my posts in the blogosphere but with my wallet as well. Senator Clinton’s ill phrased remarks about historical reasons to stay in the Presidential primary through June were just that- ill phrased. I can attribute many negative machinations to the Clinton machine, but to make the leap that she is dark enough and sinister enough to be waiting around for Senator Obama to be taken down by an assassin’s bullet is just absurd.

It is true that her words could have been chosen better. There are two words that are third rails in political discourse- assassination and Hitler. It is quite unfortunate that both have been used within the course of a couple of weeks in this campaign but President Bush’s evocation of Hitler in front of a Israel’s Knesset was deliberate and sinister and beyond the pale- but it is perfectly in keeping with the tawdry, disgusting politics of fear and low maneuvering that is part and parcel of the President’s politics and now the presumptive Republican nominee John McBush.

The Clintons are pushy politicans who want to win and will do just about anything to win, but to attribute anything as heinous as wishing for an assassin’s bullet is just not part of the Clinton make up.

Pundits and bloggers jumped all over Senator Obama’s “bitter” remarks and what was an intelligent and nuanced statement by the Senator was parsed down into something it wasn’t. Obama was referring to how Republicans manipulate people to vote against their economic interest by inserting wedge issues like gay marriage and gun control laws into the rhetoric of the campaign to change the focus on issues that truly impact someone’s life. If gay marriage was such a threat- we would have seen social collapse in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, and the Netherlands; but alas the family remains in tact and these societies have not fallen into disarray. Mr. Obama used language that was not intended to offend but the pundits crucified him for weeks.

It is clear that, unless Mrs. Clinton has lost her faculties that she wasn’t suggesting that she is some ghoulish figure waiting in the wings for something horrible to happen to Mr. Obama.

It is true that the word assassination has a heightened level of emotion than usual in this historic campaign. Mr. Obama was required to have secret service protection earlier in the campaign than is the norm because as an African American presidential candidate he had received credible death threats. Everyone is aware of this specter but no one talks about it for fear that even mentioning it would bring the nuts out of the wood work.

Mrs. Clinton chose her words clumsily. What folks should be concentrating on is the misrepresentation about President Clinton’s 1992 campaign. She always talks about how Bill’s nomination wasn’t tied up until June with the California primary. Technically Mr. Clinton did not have the delegates to put him over the top until that primary, but for all intents and purposes the race was over in March when all serious contenders had left the race. Mrs. Clinton’s remarks about the 1992 election are disingenuous at best. There are better examples to give than 1992 and the ill fated California campaign of Robert Kennedy in 1968. There was the 1980 Kennedy / Carter campaign and the 1976 Ford / Reagan campaigns- both bitter and both resulting in fights up to the convention.

Mrs. Clinton’s apology was odd- it was an apology to the Kennedy family and there was no mention of the impact such a statement may have on Mr. Obama- his sense of security or that of his wife and children. That was indeed odd- but it was clear Mrs. Clinton was both shaken and tired.

There are heightened feelings in the Democratic party- there is the first African American and the first woman who have been battling each other for the nomination. The election is already historic and it is fraught with tension exacerbated by race and gender politics.

I have written here before that Mrs. Clinton should gracefully exit for the good of her party. I’ll amend that statement. We can all hang in there for another couple of weeks after Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico have a chance to vote and the Rules Committee makes a determination on Florida. If it makes Mrs. Clinton feel better to go out after that process is complete- that’s fine. She will be able to leave knowing she saw the race all the way through and be the model of tenacity she wants to be for women.

However if she makes more gaffes like this one as she winds down she risks loosing the very thing that she is looking for- leaving with her dignity and honor in tact. When she was “apologizing” for her remarks in a South Dakota grocery store she looked beaten down and just sad. Sad and pathetic is not the legacy Mrs. Clinton wants nor is it one that she deserves. The next few weeks will be a test to he own and her husband’s legacy. The Clintons don’t have much experience loosing. They lost a few early on and they vowed they never would lose again and they haven’t until now. Seeing how the Clintons – successful for decades- handle a loss will be as important to their legacy as what they accomplished in their years of power and in the years to come.

And Let the Games Begin! Bush, Nazis and Appeasement May 23, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Civil Liberties, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Issues, Foreign Policy, General, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Republican, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics, blogging, blogs.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

I guess the months between now and November will be rich with fodder for the blogosphere- the first slavo of the general election campaign has been lobbed by of all people the lame duck president- George W. Bush. (I’m sure Senator McCain is thankful for the President’s support!)

I am a little late to the party writing about the President’s inappropriate remarks at the Knesset because in many ways the remarks speak for themselves- they are wildly inappropriate – like most of the actions of his administration. I won’t even dignify the President’s discussion of domestic politics at the podium of a foreign parliament or the evocation of Hitler to the Israeli Knesset. But Senator McCain has grabbed onto the word Appeasement- a word they have so blatantly misused and he is like a dog with a bone. So I guess this is with us for a while.

After watching Chris Matthews eviscerate conservative radio host Kevin James trying to get James to define what appeasement really is and what the act of appeasement was in 1938 by Neville Chamberlain, I would have thought that the conservative right would think twice before using this word so recklessly.

The actual definition of appeasement, literally: calming, reconciling, acquiring peace by way of concessions or gifts (the verb ‘to pay’ also goes back to the Latin ‘pax’ = peace). Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Usually it means giving in to demands of an aggressor in order to avoid war. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation in the British government, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

President Bush, who brandished about the ill-remembered prime minister’s name in the Israeli parliament, last week. Bush implicitly likened Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s statements about diplomacy to Chamberlain, and the idea that aggressive dictators should have their demands appeased. Dispelling any doubts about the target of Bush’s remarks, Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain has made the same accusation, while naming Obama. Both men have simultaneously, however, unfairly maligned one of the best tools that American leaders have at their disposal: presidential diplomacy.

Obama sparked controversy when he declared last summer that he would be willing, without preconditions, to meet with unfriendly foreign leaders, such as the presidents of Iran or Venezuela. Obama bases his stance on the history of U.S. diplomacy, citing presidents such as John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. Anti- communist to his core, Reagan still thought that the risks of nuclear war made dialogue with Moscow a moral and political necessity. Nor did Reagan regard dialogue with Soviet leaders as any kind of appeasement. Reagan’s commitment to dialogue paved the way for a peaceful conclusion to the Cold War.

Another vigorous practitioner of presidential diplomacy was a Democrat whom Reagan particularly admired: Kennedy. Like Reagan, Kennedy came to office believing that the United States stood at a critical point in the Cold War, and that it desperately needed to regain its good standing in the world. During his first year in office, Kennedy met with the feisty Soviet premier, Nikita Khrushchev, and numerous other foreign leaders. Many of these men were widely disliked in the United States - Kennedy did his political standing no favors by meeting with them. Nonetheless Kennedy, a decorated World War II veteran, and the author of a bestselling study of Chamberlain’s policies, never thought meeting with these leaders was akin to appeasing them. Indeed, Kennedy always argued his case vigorously, giving his counterparts reason to respect and take him seriously - as either a friend or a foe. The Kennedy years witnessed real improvement in the image of the United States throughout the world, as shown by a remarkable global outpouring of grief that followed his assassination.

This is the tradition of diplomacy to which Obama refers. It is a strange turn of events when our leaders cast off the bipartisan U.S. commitment to diplomacy in the belief that we give something away just by meeting with foreign leaders.

Speaking this week, McCain deemed this policy reckless; but it would have been far more reckless for either Kennedy or Reagan to shun the Soviet Union or make dialogue with it contingent on extensive preconditions. It would be ideal if, as McCain has said, such meetings could only occur when they promise to advance American prestige, but neither Reagan nor Kennedy thought the issues that they faced could wait for the diplomatic stars to move into perfect alignment - nor should we.

Confronting the problems of a fractured world, we can reassure ourselves by invoking Chamberlain’s errors one more time. Or, perhaps, we can remember his successor, Winston Churchill, who stood up bravely to Hitler, but who also remarked about dialogue: “To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”

But Barack Obama is not the only one who should be taking offense at President Bush’s insistence that anyone having truck with terrorists is no better than Neville Chamberlain and, furthermore, ignores the lessons of the Holocaust.

According to an opinion poll last February, 64% of Israelis — many of them Holocaust survivors or their relatives and descendants — wanted their government to talk directly to Hamas.

Many Israeli analysts and senior military officers have long felt the same way. For example:

Hamas is not going to disappear,” says Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of strategic planning. “They’re not Al Qaeda; they’re a national political movement.” Brom, who favors indirect negotiations with Hamas, says he believes a dialogue could help moderate the Islamists.

Appeasers all, in President Bush’s world view (and John McCain’s, apparently — although it differs with what McCain said about Hamas a couple of years ago)

As for Iran, also the focus of Bush’s and McCain’s appeasement wrath, here is Bush’s own Defense Secretary:

In a speech given to a group of former American diplomats, Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense, stated that his country needs to seek dialogue with Iran. He advocated engaging Tehran diplomatically, rather than simply attempting to intimidate it.

Let’s be clear what Chamberlain’s appeasement really was:

The policy of appeasement, embraced in vain by Great Britain and France in the 1930s, was ultimately a bid to reach a peaceful understanding with Germany. The major powers were anxious to abort any German influence over Eastern Europe. While the countries of this region were equally anxious, their interests rested elsewhere–unrestricted barter of agricultural products for that of German manufactured goods. As it was, Czechoslovakia remained the sole nation who relied upon support from Great Britain and France.

On May 5, 1936, the Italians invaded the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa, using both merciless air power and indiscriminate poisonous gassings. By the time Emperor Haile Selassie had been deposed, the west African nation suffered more than three times the number of battle casualties than its aggressors. On June 30, 1936, Haile Selassie appealed to the League of Nations Assembly for league assistance against the Italian antagonists: “It is us today. It will be you tomorrow. In response to the Italian descent from the northern colony of Eritrea, the League imposed feeble economic restraints on the aggressors. After proving ineffective and even producing uninvited results, the measures were dropped, leading Mussolini towards an alliance with Hitler and the idea that subsequent actions would result in similar leniency.

Accordingly, in 1935, Hitler announced that Germany was undergoing preparations to rearm itself, a fervent violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1936, Hitler continued to disobey the restrictions that followed the Great War by announcing the mobilization of troops in the French-occupied Rhineland. Though the German army was under strict order to retreat in case of resistance, it was a simple victory. With France and Great Britain at odds with one another and a lack of support for France from Great Britain, Hitler was allowed to believe that his defiance of the Treaty of Versailles was tolerable.

Following the German conquest of the Rhineland and Italian success in Ethiopia, there was a great expansion of both the distinction and appeal of the authoritarian orders. The various dictatorial regimes of Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia were quick to emulate the forms and methods of their Fascist and National-Socialist mentors. Those tyrannical rulers insisted their governments were the embodiments of a new political essence. Just when it seemed the situation could not reach a more volatile state, a cooperation was forged between Hitler and Mussolini, giving the Rome-Berlin axis a concrete foundation.

As the Allies reeled at the thought of a Fascist-dominated Europe, the western democracies were also faced with two alternatives-opposition by force or negotiations which would ultimately end in concessions to Nazi Germany. In August 1938, negotiations began after local German officials asserted that the Sudeten people had been discriminated against by the Czech government. On September 29, 1938, the Munich Pact, which allowed for the cession of four specific districts of the Sudetenland to Germany, was signed.

The transitions of power in the Sudetenland and ensuing actions were overseen by an international commission comprised of delegates from France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and representatives of adjoining German territories. Additionally, Germany, as well as Great Britain and France, agreed to guarantee the new borders of Czechoslovakia. The commission also addressed the issues of the plebiscites. By 1939, it was abundantly clear that the policy of appeasement had rendered ineffective by any standard.

In March 1939, Hitler continued his rampage by invading the remains of Czechoslovakia without resistance from the French or the British. That action, which led to the revocation of the Munich Pact, had two engaging, quite opposing effects. It was Hitler’s invasion that finally convinced France and Great Britain that the Fuhrer would not terminate his actions voluntarily. It was also that action which in August 1939 persuaded Stalin of the cowardice of the western allies. That was cited by Soviet statesmen as leading to the non-aggression pact that chiseled Poland into German and Soviet territories.

On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, with the firm belief that Britain and France would condone his action. Ironically, in March, 1939, a British-French alliance pledged to aide Poland with all available power “…in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces,” (Neville Chamberlain, Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 3e45, March 31, 1939). On September 3, 1939, Great Britain and France declared war against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

Ultimately, appeasement failed. The commencement of World War II forced the western allies to realize the flaws of the policy of appeasement. Though appeasement appeared to be the solution to all problems, it ensured a peace that would have been very costly to maintain. To a great extent, appeasement was a course that tended to ignore some hard political ideas. The question of the Rhineland occupation presented differences in diplomatic procedures, testing the durability of the French-British alliance. The western Allies emerged from the war having defeated Hitler and his army in 1945, yet somehow, the word “winner” seems inappropriate.

So, Mr. President and Senator McCain – I realize that neither of you were very good students- but please get your facts straight. Senator Obama is talking about talking not about appeasing.

The President and the Senator from Arizona are not just poor students of history, they obviously forgot that diplomacy not saber rattling should be how the greatest and most powerful nation on the planet should conduct itself in the community of nations.

Negative Dividends- The price of a continued Clinton Campaign May 7, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Issues, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Republican, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), one of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) most prominent Senate supporters made a prescient statement today that Senator and President Clinton should think about long and hard.

Senator Feinstein said:

“I, as you know, have great fondness and great respect for Sen. Clinton and I’m very loyal to her. Having said that, I’d like to talk with her and [get] her view on the rest of the race and what the strategy is. I think the race is reaching the point now where there are negative dividends from it, in terms of strife within the party. I think we need to prevent that as much as we can.”

In addition to Senator Feinstein there’s a lot of other tough love out there for Mrs. Clinton. Several other Senate Democrats said Wednesday that they are detecting a shift in the race between their colleagues. Senator Jack Reed (RI), who remains uncommitted, said Tuesday night’s primary results “shifted momentum” in the contests. Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ), who also has not endorsed a candidate, stated that “the hill has gotten steeper” for the former first lady.

Obama supporters echoed the sentiment while being careful not to push Clinton out of the race. “It was an extraordinary win and a magnificent campaign,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy (MA). “I pay tribute to Sen. Clinton. She’s been making her case and doing it effectively, but the outcome is very clear for the Democratic nomination. It’s effectively Barack Obama’s nomination.”

Sen. Byron Dorgan (ND) said Clinton would have to “make her own decision.”
“Both are colleagues — they have run aggressive campaigns … but ultimately, there is going to be a winner,” Dorgan stated. “I think last night perhaps moved Sen. Obama closer to that position.”

Veteran Democratic Party figure George McGovern dropped his support for Hillary Clinton on Wednesday and endorsed Barack Obama, saying the Illinois senator seemed certain to win the party’s nomination for the November presidential election. McGovern, 85, said he told Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, of his surprise decision in a telephone call, and that Clinton made no attempt to change his mind. “He just wanted me to know that he thinks that Hillary has made a great race and it’s up to her to decide when she leaves. And I don’t argue with that,” McGovern said.

What’s most striking about the McGovern statement is not that McGovern switched allegiances- while a figure in the Democratic party, he hasn’t been very influential since he lost his own bid for the White House to Richard Nixon in a landslide 38 years ago- but rather the comments he reported from President Clinton. If Mr. McGovern’s report of the conversation with the former President is accurate- it could be taken on its face to mean that he knows its over.

Clearly President William Jefferson Clinton is one of the most astute politicians that has graced the national stage in my lifetime. He knows how to count, he knows the metrics, he knows about momentum – so he knows its over. But Clintons don’t give up easily and they must be provided a graceful way to exit. She is a woman of testicular fortitude (a rather vivid description by her supporter Paul Gipson) and she has given her all- including more than $10 million of hers and President Clinton’s own fortune.

Some of my fellow supporters of Senator Obama believe that Senator Clinton is embarking on a scorched earth policy in order to make Mr. Obama unelectable so McCain wins and she has a shot at a Presidential election in 2012. I think that is overly cynical.

While I think that the Clintons will do almost anything to win, I do not think that they are willing to destroy their legacy by tearing the Democratic Party apart. Mrs. Clinton has to tread carefully. She needs to ensure she is seen as strong and as a fighter- yet also fair and loyal to the party – the house that Bill built in 1992. While Bill may have shown a degree of a personal self destructive streak when he embarrassed himself, his family, and the office of President by his trysts with Monica Lewinsky, I truly don’t believe that the former President has a whiff of a political self destructive streak and I think Mrs. Clinton is too smart and strategic to turn the Democratic Party the incendiary Valhalla in Wagner’s “Götterdämmerung”.

Mrs. Clinton certainly wants a political future to secure her own legacy- even if it doesn’t include the Presidency. In 2012 her seat in the Senate will be up for election. If Senator Obama doesn’t self-immolate, Mrs. Clinton will need to think hard about her future. She would certainly be a candidate for Senate Majority Leader and she is an oft talked about candidate for New York Governor in 2010. She may feel miffed by being in the Senate with colleagues where many have supported Mr. Obama. But Mrs. Clinton would get over that- she clearly got over being ticked off with the vast right wing conspiracy when she was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly and Richard Mellon Scaife- two of the paragons of that group.

Mrs. Clinton needs to have a soft landing. Mr. Obama offered that to her last night and it seems that he is not only willing to negotiate about Florida and Michigan (after all- it doesn’t matter whether or not they are counted- he will still be ahead) and there are rumblings that their a much lower level discussions being had about the Obama campaign paying the Clinton campaign’s debt.

But if she doesn’t leave soon, Senator Feinstein will be correct; there will be negative dividends. The spectre of a John McCain presidency should shake the Clintons and their supporters to their core and give everyone pause to think about how to come together. The country cannot afford a third Bush presidency.

My message to Mrs. Clinton is take a couple of weeks so you can find a greatful exit but after that you must go. As Maureen Dowd wrote so humorously on April 23rd, “Before they devour themselves once more, perhaps the Democrats will take a cue from Dr. Seuss’s ‘Marvin K. Mooney Will You Please Go Now!’ (The writer once mischievously redid it for his friend Art Buchwald as ‘Richard M. Nixon Will You Please Go Now!’)”

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. … I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. … You can go in an old blue shoe.
Just go, go, GO!”

The Trailer Trash Gal- the reinvention of Hillary Clinton May 6, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Culture, Democrats, General, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Let me tell ya a story ‘bout a gal that’s been the talk of the trailer park recently. She’s been seen slingin’ back beers and shots, runnin’ around in pick up trucks and has been huntin’ all her life ever since she was knee high to a grasshopper. Yup this gal even has a southern white accent tinged with a little Midwestern twang. Damn- you’d think that this good ‘ol girl came from the hills of West Virginia and daddy was a coal miner. I’m waitin’ for her to talk about bein’ raised in Butcher Holler and spending her childhood hoein’ the corn fields. Now, now- she’s a good gal- I bet she’s spent her whole life since droppin’ out of school at the local steel mill. She’s rough and tumble- scrappy!. She’s a no nonsense gal who won’t take any guff from her man. She comes home each night to the double wide, pops open a can of Bud, puts a Swanson’s TV dinner in the microwave for her and her man Bubba. She sits back on the recliner and tunes in to re-runs of “Married With Children” while Bubba cleans his rifles and nods off with a cheap cigar in his mouth dreamin’ about that gal he met at the gun show.

Damn? You know what? I think that this ‘ol gal- this regular blue collar gal is my idea of the ideal President. She knows about people! She’s not one of them Ivy League educated effete elite liberals. She gets us. Heck she’s one of us- she has machine grease running through her veins.

Well not machine grease- but some sort of grease. How has Hillary Rodham Clinton reinvented herself as the Queen of the Blue Collar Crowd? During the campaign in Pennsylvania she was a rootin’ tootin’ shootin’ Annie Oakley from Scranton. Now she seems to have accentuated her Midwest twang and her drawl seems much more pronounced each day- you’d swear she came up from the nearby trailer park. While Bill is on his Bubba tour (and he does have Bubba roots he can pull from), Hillary is running as the gal from the factory- not as much of a pansy as Rocky Balboa with testicular fortitude to spare. Meanwhile her husband, the former President, is having the time of his life on his Bubba tour of the back country of North Carolina.

Hillary’s father was a successful business owner and she grew up in the upper middle class suburb of Park Ridge Illinois. She went to Wellesley College- one of the elite “Seven Sisters” colleges and later to Yale Law School. Later she was a proferssor of law at the University of Arkansas, first lady of Arkansas, and a partner in the prestigious Rose Law firm. She served on three corporate boards – TCBY, Lafarge and Wal-Mart. Oh yeah – she had a stint as First Lady of the United States and then became a US Senator.

Yup- this gal feels my pain- she’s not part of that elite establishment! No she’s not she OWNS that elite establishment It is remarkable that this newly minted “good ‘ol gal” has reinvented herself so completely, The grating pundit- Chris Mathews- who thinks he is a one make spokesman for blue collar voters (while calling them that arrogant media term- “Lunch bucket Republicans” while living an inside the beltway life- said that Clinton is amazing- you’d think she grew up in Scranton and got her GED. Hardly! Her pedigree is elite- more elite than most and what’s wrong with being the smartest person in the room?

How soon we forget! The gal fightin’ for the regular guy is the same person who made culturally dismissive remarks about Tammy Wynette (“I’m not sitting here, some little woman standing by her man”) and her outlook on marriage and about women staying home and baking cookies and having teas.

I hope we aren’t that dumb. This reinvention is political cynicsm and is a lie. Add the pandering about the gas tax and I just want to send her home singin’ the blues. Senator Clinton- I have a request. Don’t treat the American people like a bunch of dumb hicks and don’t pretend you are something you aren’t.

What’s wrong with being smart? Those BAD “Elitists” May 3, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Issues, General, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Republican, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Recently the news media have concentrated their coverage on the needs, opinions and voting patterns of “lunch bucket” Democrats - a term the media use to condescendingly describe lower middle class older voters without college degrees. This voting block has also been the focus of endless pandering by Senators McCain and Clinton. Being able to bowl and slug back a shot and a beer seem to get more coverage than the number of American troops who died in April (the number is 52 in case you are interested).

Chris Matthews of “Hardball” on MSNBC lauded Senator Clinton at her prowess in re-inventing herself as a girl from Scranton with a GED as if that gave her higher credibility as a presidential candidate than her true pedigree- middle class Park Ridge Illinois, Wellsley and Yale Law. By the way-Matthews likes to view himself as a blue collar “regular guy” even though he attended a private high school, the elite Holy Cross College in Boston and, after a stint in the Peace Corps did graduate work at UNC Chapel Hill.

I obviously would be thrown into the elite pile by the media (by the way- most of the media, like Matthews, are elite too). I come from a privileged background, I have a private school and Ivy League education, I read books and publications like “The New Yorker”, “The Nation”, The New Republic” and “The New York Times”, I watch news shows like “Meet the Press” and I have worked for years in public policy- focused on health care access and public health planning. What all of that translates into is that I am informed. And I don’t turn off the Republican debates or Bush speeches- I listen to the other side as well. I like to think that I can think!

But during this election cycle I feel more annoyed than usual about the elite label. Elite is never used with Conservative, although it is ironic that most of the wealthy and social elite in this country are Republicans who have a stake in policies and laws that protect their wealth and protects the growth of that wealth. Elite is always used with Liberals- people who feel that government has a roll to play in helping lift up the least of us; believe that there is a social contract at play where we all are responsible for the welfare of our fellow citizens; and support labor unions and the needs of average working people. I find that the height of irony. But there is a greater myth that I want to address.

Elite is often interchanged with alliterative labels like “Latte Liberals” and “Limousine Liberals”. These monikers conjure an image promoted by those on the right- that there are a bunch of out of touch wealthy people who condescendingly “know what’s best”.

They are really trying to say that the elite are people who are wealthier than you and have an educated smugness that is arrogant and are people to whom the “average” American cannot relate. Suddenly education and intelligence are bad things. I thought the average American aspired to have their children go to college and do better and I thought we wanted to give the message that education is a good thing.

Let’s assume that the “elite” are informed and educated – an assumption on which most of those who deride the “elite” agree. What on earth is wrong with educated and informed people? What is wrong with an electorate engaged in the issues rather than campaign imagery? What is wrong with people who don’t swallow sound bites and talking points whole cloth from either the White House or the Speaker of the House? Quite frankly – I want a president who is the smartest person in the room, someone much smarter than me, someone who has encyclopedic knowledge and who is capable of strong nuanced thinking. Do I want a president who is educated and smart, ergo “elite”? Damn straight!

But there is a something else attached to this “elite” myth. It makes it sound like those of us with good educations and hold liberal views are living in ivory towers or at least in gated communities. Not true.

Again- I use myself as an example. Cornell and Harvard educated- I spent the last part of my career in the non-profit sector working on issues I care about. My partner also works for a non-profit doing direct service with adults living with developmental disabilities. Folks working for non-profits are not known for making buckets of money. We both share “liberal” ideologies, we both read newspapers, listen to debates, and we both have good minds and good hearts. But we aren’t wealthy – we are in the middle class and our combined income is NOT in the 6 figure range. I am on a fixed income having been disabled with AIDS and Hepatitis C for nine years. We live on a budget and we are affected by higher prices on groceries and I am always worried about the vagaries of health care – its cost and quality. Presently I have good coverage- but given the precariousness of health coverage- that could change. If I lost coverage I would not be able to pay the nearly $12,000 per month that my medications cost on average. We occasionally indulge ourselves- but we travel less and we dine out less. Our lives are quiet, domestic and we struggle to decrease debt and stay a step ahead. Is that elite? I don’t consider myself elite; our lives sound like the majority of people in this country. I consider myself middle class with a good education.

So I ask the question, what’s wrong with smart people? Why are we derided as out of touch and our thoughts dismissed? If being educated means being dismissed by the nation then why do we view education as important? On the other hand if the people of this country believed strongly in education, we would invest more in education. But that would cost us more money and therefore taxes would be higher. Now I get it! Educated people are elite because educating us raises your taxes.

Mission Accomplished? More Like Mission Impossible May 2, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Issues, Foreign Policy, General, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Policy and Law, Political, Political Analysis, Republican.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

It seems that there have been too many milestones recently related to the war in Iraq. There was the fifth anniversary of the war on 19 March; the 4,000 death on Easter Sunday just 4 days later; and yesterday was the fifth anniversary of the most shameless spectacle ever seen in the history of the United States- President Bush declaring that the war in Iraq was essentially won and reconstruction was beginning on the deck of an aircraft carrier and under a banner that declared “Mission Accomplished”. He did this after he had his boyhood dream of being a fighter pilot fulfilled by flying onto the carrier in a fighter jet dressed in full fighter-pilot regalia. The president had his “Top Gun” moment. I have written extensively about this war and my piece written on the fifth anniversary summarizes those articles- Five Years in Iraq- A somber reflection

But as was true in the run up to the war, the President had an extremely effective accomplice- the press.

On May 1, 2003, Richard Perle advised, in a USA Today Op-Ed, “Relax, Celebrate Victory.” The same day, exactly five years ago, President Bush, dressed in a flight suit, landed on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared an end to major military operations in Iraq — with the now-infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner arrayed behind him in the war’s greatest photo op.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC called Bush a “hero” and boomed, “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics.” He added: “Women like a guy who’s president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It’s simple.” Mr. Matthews was shameless on his program yesterday where he was outraged by this “anniversary”.

PBS’ Gwen Ifill said Bush was “part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan.” On NBC, Brian Williams gushed, “The pictures were beautiful. It was quite something to see the first-ever American president on a — on a carrier landing.”

When Bush’s jet landed on an aircraft carrier, American casualties stood at 139 killed and 542 wounded.

Five years after President George W. Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier off San Diego, Iraq is in chaos, U.S. troops are mired in a sectarian war, and the entrenched conflict is dragging the nation into a recession.

Indeed, the only people for whom “the mission” has been accomplished are the many companies with lucrative military contracts. They have raked in over $100 billion so far from the Iraq War, enabling them to earn record profits. With Bush intent on staying the course until he leaves the White House, Sen. John McCain voicing his approval for the United States to stay in Iraq for another 100 years, the Democratic candidates unwilling to call for a complete withdrawal of all troops and contractors, and Congress ready to approve another $100-200 billion for the war, it is up to the American people to demand an end to the war.

• Mission Accomplished? 4,056 U.S. Soldiers, Over a Million Iraqis Dead: The Iraq War has cost the lives of over 4,000 U.S. soldiers, over a million Iraqi civilians, and over a thousand contractors. Nearly 30,000 U.S. soldiers have been injured. A recent report estimates that over 320,000 soldiers have suffered traumatic brain injuries and estimated 300,000 soldiers will sustain post-traumatic stress disorder. These afflictions will haunt these men and women for the rest of their lives.

• Mission Accomplished? $520 Billion Squandered Over the past five years, Congress has provided over $520 billion dollars for the Iraq War. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University’s Linda Bilmes estimate the long-term cost of the war will top $3 trillion, once you include the interest and debt service payments from this borrowed money, and the costs of rebuilding the military after the war and providing for veterans’ long-term health care.

• Mission Accomplished? $100 Billion Spent on Contractors: The mission has indeed been accomplished for corporations with military contracts. Since the war began, they have reaped large profits, while producing substandard work, putting our nation’s soldiers at risk on the battlefield time and time again. Military contractors have opened fire on Iraqi civilians and reconstruction contractors’ work has been fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse. While Congress has tried to mandate better oversight of companies such as Halliburton, CACI, Titan, and Bechtel, Bush has exempted contractors from any real accountability.

• Mission Accomplished? Fueling a Sectarian War: As the war has dragged on, the United States has tried many different approaches to bolstering security on the ground. Over the past five years, the United States has spent over $20 billion training the largely Shi’a Iraqi army and police, and also arming and training the Kurdish Peshmerga troops in Northern Iraq. But since the “surge” began, the U.S. has also been arming, training, and financing the largely Sunni “Awakening” councils. Further complicating the situation, the U.S. has backed the sectarian Iraqi government in their attacks on the forces loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, fueling the Shi’a-Shi’a conflict in Iraq’s South.

• Mission Accomplished? Majorities of Iraqis Want the U.S. to Withdraw: Since the war began, Iraqis have supported a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This still holds true five years later, latest polling indicates nearly 40% of Iraqis want the U.S. to leave immediately and less than 30% believe the United States is making Iraq safer.

• Mission Accomplished? No End in Sight: Over a year ago, Congress demanded that Bush produce a plan for withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, Bush decided to send more troops into the battlefield. In recent hearings, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker indicated that no plans were being made for withdrawing additional U.S. troops. More importantly, they didn’t offer any new plans for how they could stabilize Iraq, promote reconciliation, reduce costs, and protect Iraqi and U.S. lives on the ground in Iraq. Over the past five years it has become crystal clear, continuing the war and occupation of Iraq only leads to greater death and destruction.
Standing on the deck of a ship and declaring “Mission Accomplished” doesn’t make it so. Since Bush’s ill-timed and now easily lampooned speech, Iraqis are no better off, U.S. soldiers continue to be put in harm’s way for an ill-defined and poorly executed mission, and our presence is only fueling the violence on all sides.

As we mark this fifth anniversary and Congress begins to deliberate spending an additional $100-200 billion to continue the war, we need to ask our nation what mission can be accomplished? By “staying the course” we only prolong the inevitable, doing more harm to both Iraqis and ourselves as we plunge deeper into economic crisis.

With 70% of Americans opposed to the war, and large majorities supporting a timeline for withdrawal, it’s time to demand the same from Bush and Congress. The most important mission to accomplish now is political — it’s time for our leaders to stop the funding, bring the troops home, and pledge our long-term support to Iraq.

It’s true that the nation’s focus has moved from the war to the economy because Americans are more concerned with their wallets than a war; a war where they were told to go shopping as a way to support the troops. But it is clear that this entire fiasco was the biggest disaster in American foreign policy and one of the presidential candidates fully supports the war- John McCain. It is also clear that Hillary Clinton was one of the Senators that gave Mr. Bush the green light for this farce. Only Barack Obama, of the three candidates, decried the war from the beginning.

While Indiana and North Carolina squabble over a bogus gas tax holiday, let’s also remember what Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton hath wrought in Iraq.

Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton have an ally in the press as Bush did in the run up to the war and on May 1, 2003. For the past week we have heard everything about Reverend Wright and nothing about the 52 troops who died in April.

This hasn’t been Mission Accomplished- it has become mission impossible and it will take someone who will change the landscape of our foreign policy and who has the willingness to engage in real diplomacy to extricate us from this quagmire.

Is America Ready for A Black President? May 1, 2008

Posted by Randy Allgaier in Blogroll, Christianity, Civil Liberties, Culture, Democrats, Domestic Issues, Liberal blogs, News, News and politics, Policy and Law, Political, Political Analysis, Politics, Republican, Social and Political Commentary, Social and Politics, blogs.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Back in January when I decided to endorse Barack Obama on this site and, more importantly, vote for him in the California primary- I was thrilled about Obama’s message but I also had some pride and some of my natural cynicism was lessened by the thought that this country had matured enough that it might have been able to bridge the racial divide and actually elect an African American for President. Beyond the policy issues and Obama’s positions with which I agree and the innate desire that Obama has to bring people together which I find compelling; there was the possibility that the United States had made great progress towards healing our great national birth defect- racism. Now I wonder if that is possible.

Between “Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate”, Obama’s campaign is reeling. In my pieces: Pandering v. Nuance aka Clinton v. Obama and  Obama Elitist? Not! McCain and Clinton are the essence of the Power Elite  I have made it clear that my belief about the genesis of both of these campaign issues.

Obama clearly does not come from an elite background and while his words might have been better chosen I think it is true that the Republicans get lower middle class folks with no college education to vote against their economic interest by focusing on wedge issues such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage and immigration. I’ll state it starkly- the Republican party favors the über-wealthy and multinational corporations taking jobs out of the US and doesn’t give a damn about the average American. In order to get elected the Republicans trot out the golden oldies- God, guns and fear. Obama wasn’t being an elitist- he was being honest about a truth most folks don’t want to admit because they would have to admit that they had been duped. Why else would there still be a high percentage of Americans believing that Sadaam Hussein had something to do with 9/11?  Simple- Americans get duped but don’t like to admit it. 

It also seems obvious to me that many folks are judging the relationship between Reverend Wright and Senator Obama. I wouldn’t dare to judge the complications between a man and his pastor- the man who brought him to Jesus Christ. Like family- these relationships are complex. In today’s New York Times there was an article that outlined the difficulty that Obama had in severing his ties with Reverend Wright. I won’t reiterate what I wrote in my piece yesterday on this subject. Suffice it to say here that I fervently believe that when Reverend Wright is pointed to as an example of bad judgment that would portend how Obama would make decisions in the White House it is the wrong analogy and it doesn’t consider the complicated and personal nature of faith, pastor, congregant and church.

But why are these two stories sticking to Mr. Obama like glue? I think my cynical nature about the American people has returned- the reason these stories are sticking is race.

Obama’s background is not elite- but he has had the temerity to be an uppity Negro and hasn’t waited his turn.

And the racism inherent in the criticism about Obama and Wright is so obvious it would be humorous if it weren’t so profoundly sad.

First- there are Falwell and Robertson:

In an interview that took place on September 13, 2001 Jerry Falwell said God may have allowed what the nation deserved because of moral decay and said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and asking for God’s protection. He specifically listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People for the American way as sharing in the blame. Pat Robertson responded with agreement.

Here is the exact transcript of that interview:

Falwell said, “What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.”

Robertson replied,”Well, Jerry, that’s my feeling. I think we’ve just seen the antechamber to terror, we haven’t begun to see what they can do to the major population.”

Falwell said, “The ACLU has got to take a lot of blame for this. And I know I’ll hear from them for this, but throwing God…successfully with the help of the federal court system…throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad…I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America…I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen.”

Robertson said, “I totally concur, and the problem is we’ve adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government, and so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do, and the top people, of course, is the court system.”

So I guess that it is okay to say that the United States brought 9/11 on because of perceived immorality (as defined by Falwell and Robertson) but it is not okay to blame it on our foreign policies? Falwell and Robertson have been given a pass recently on the 9/11 remarks.

Second- there is Billy Graham

Rev. Billy Graham openly voiced a belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a “stranglehold” during a 1972 conversation with President Richard Nixon, according to a tape of the Oval Office meeting released in 2002 by the National Archives.

“This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country’s going down the drain,” the nation’s best-known preacher declared as he agreed with a stream of bigoted Nixon comments about Jews and their perceived influence in American life. “You believe that?” Nixon says after the “stranglehold” comment. “Yes, sir,” Graham says.

“Oh, boy,” replies Nixon. “So do I. I can’t ever say that but I believe it.”

“No, but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something,” Graham replies.

Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they “swarm around me and are friendly to me.” But, he confides to Nixon, “They don’t know how I really feel about what they’re doing to this country.”

Where is the outrage about the “Pastor to the Presidents” blatant anti-Semitism?

And finally- there is Pastor John Hagee

Reverend Hagee -a man whose support John McCain sought and received- has called the Roman Catholic Church the “Great Whore” and who said New Orleans brought Katrina upon itself because it was going to have a gay pride event.

All of these men of the cloth have made horrendous and offensive remarks, but the only one getting play is Reverend Wright. Where is the outrage about the remarks of Falwell, Robertson, Graham and Hagee?

I’ve scratched my head and the only answer I can come up with is race. Those men are white. Reverend Wright preaches a brand of religion that is a black liberation theology. This is a tradition that has long existed. True- Wright’s comments were out of line and bombastic, but so were Hagee’s Robertson’s and Falwell’s. Graham’s anti-Semitic sentiments were are all the more odious because they were not public comments or meant ever to be heard by the public.  Wright was speaking in a style that was already alien and therefore easier to ellicit outrage.

So Elitist-gate can be translated into the stark terms of a black man getting to big for his britches. And Wright-gate can capitalize on the most segregated hour in the country 11 AM on Sunday.

Race is a constant in our society. I certainly am not naïve enough to believe that an Obama presidency would magically erase the profound impact of race in American life, but I have believed that an Obama presidency would go a long way towards healing the rift.

I have consciously questioned how race affects my thinking and emotions. Do I get a little more cautious if I see a young black man walking in my direction on a sidewalk at night? - sadly I admit I do. When I meet someone what is the first thing I see- it is the color of their skin. My automatic response as an American is to view the world and society through the lens of race. I have to consciously hold back that automatic response because I know that this view is inherently unfair and wrong- but ingrained into the American psyche.

I have a dear group of friends- mostly women who are conservative Reaganites and I love these women dearly- but I fear that many of them have been swayed by wedge issues- such as immigration and most of them have been convinced to vote these issues as opposed to their economic interest.

Among this group of friends the anti-immigrant sentiment is palpable and I hate to admit it; but the prejudice inherent in the sentiment is obvious. Often times the email strings among my dear friends, which start off about some information (often misinformation) about immigration, devolve into ugly comments about phone trees that offer Spanish, about “English only” and only believing anti-immigrant propoganda even when faced with evidence to the contrary.  I’m sure that if you put a Latino who is a citizen and a white person who is here on an expired visa next to one another and ask my friends to identify the person in the US “illegally”, these well meaning friends would identify the Latino as the “illegal” every time.

What is most concerning about my friends’ views is that they are prejudiced without the consciousness of being prejudiced. It’s about illegal immigration, not about race or ethnicity and there is no admission that the underlying sentiment is prejudiced. Actually my friends would be offended if I told them that their comments are, in my estimation, prejudiced. Americans see life through a racial lens- the key towards racial and ethinic equality is for all Americans to admit this world view is part of our history and we need to acknowledge it before we are able to change it.

“Bitter-gate” and “Wright-gate” have given the American people exactly what they need- a reason not to vote for the black candidate without the guilt of acknowledging that race entered into their choice. Both of the scenarios that have evolved around Obama’s candidacy have racism at their core and they allow folks to feel comfortable in their racism.  It’s all neat and tidy.

Years ago the term “The Bradley Effect” was coined by researchers who study polling data after a black candidate, the former Mayor of Los Angeles Tom Bradley, lost his bid to be California’s governor but the polling showed him ahead. In essence the Bradley effect is the skewing of polling data because people do not want to admit their vote against an African American. While racism prevails throughout our society, the worst name you can call someone is a racist (I guess there are a few that still proudly display their racism unapologetically).

The recent news coverage of the Wright episode and Senator Obama’s “elitist” remarks has given Americans cover and we can blithely go on our racist way without admitting our racist tendencies without having to look carefully at the issues or ourselves.  I still have hope that we have become a more enlightened electorate, but I am increasingly wondering if I that hope is naïve.