Vox’s posts tagged elections

The Audacity of Cons

nobody@vox.com(JudgeBob) — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 06:57:51 +0000

When I was a kid, my dad was still a wild child. For a time he made a living on the pool table via bets. He had a way of convincing the opponent if he bet a little more money he would get all his losings back. What he would do is drink hard whiskey. The unique way this would affect my dad was that he would be so drunk he could barely stand up, but his concentration and velvet touch with the pool cue would actually improve the drunker he got. Dad was a risk taker. He knew if he was going to con somebody, he would be better off doing the more outrageous thing and acting as if he were just Joe Schmoe living a normal honest life. That way the charges sounded more ridiculous and made the guy sounding the alarm look like HE was the dishonest one.

What do we know about Barack Obama? Ok, we know he is for change. We know he can give a pretty good speech as long as there is a teleprompter to work from. But what do we know? We know that he can take instruction from his campaign advisers. In my article, 'Obama missed it by that much' I noted his variance with Christian understanding of faith and salvation but this past weekend when asked by Pastor Rick Warren, he had quite another understanding of faith and salvation.

Concrete Bob over at DC Protest Warrior has been working on this for a while with a few other folks. I've been monitoring their progress for a couple of months now. Then a couple of weeks ago, this email was sent to one of my colleagues who passed it on to me. Included are pictures of Obama's family in Kenya, he and his father in his father's one visit to Hawaii, he and his mother, he and his white grandparents, he and his adoptive father, and a couple of pictures from 2006 of him stumping in Kenya for his cousin Odinga. (A radical Muslim who after losing his bid for the presidency of Kenya, went on to commit heinous crimes in persecution of Kenyan Christians.) Here is a link to an earlier article I wrote about Obama and his affiliations with radical elements both here in the U.S. and in Kenya. I wrote about his attempt to subjugate American sovereignty to the corrupt and feckless U.N. I wrote about the corruption of the U.N.

Now, the question comes up about his birth certificate. It has been closely examined by professionals in forensics of documents and found to be fake. Its likely that he holds dual citizenship with Indonesia and may not be an American citizen at all. Two different hospitals in Hawaii claim he was born within their walls? Is one or are both sets of records faked? And Obama will not release his information. In fact, he has been working to hide much of his personal record.

Who is this guy and how did he manage to run for community organizer much less leader of the free world? The man has not been vetted. This just goes to show how irresponsible the Democrat Party really is and how irresponsible the nation has become. The press are not asking the questions the Dems should have expected. And now, not even their opposition is willing to ask these basic questions for a man who is running for the highest seat of power in the land. The audacity of hope? Its so audacious that professional politicians don't even know how to challenge this invisible man's missing record. My dad would have been very impressed with Barack's audacity.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

If Obama Was A Concrete Mix Design

nobody@vox.com(concretebob) — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:39:20 +0000

I wouldn't build a dog run with it.

My job, (the one I actually get paid to do) is to determine if pre-established standards are being met and complied with. I do that by looking at empirical data, and judging the current conditions based on that data. We establish baselines through research and trials, testing and evaluating, using pre-established methods to insure the continuity of research and validation of results. Empirical data are historical results, established by years of use, that appear to meet the current requirements.

Obama has no pre-existing data. There is no empirical data to suggest he is qualified to meet and comply with the pre-established standards of the Presidency.

His trial runs so far have been miserable failures. He has changed, altered, obscured, and inveigled every attempt to determine if he is compliant. He has failed to comply with the established research procedures necessary to even set up a trial batch.

He is not qualified to run the country, based on existing data. Whether he is eligible is an entirely different matter, which may or may not be settled before 4 November 2008.

On 5 November 2008, we will wake to a new leader. Before that happens, you'd better make damn sure the one you wake up with, will meet, or exceed, the established standards for leadership.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

$51 million and counting

nobody@vox.com(TruthTeller998) — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 19:33:16 +0000

Obama Crushes McCain in July Fundraising
August 16, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $51 million in July, the AP reports. His campaign began August with $65.8 million on hand and has had more than 2 million donors.

In contrast, Sen. John McCain raised $27 million in July and had just $21.4 million in cash on hand. He has had approximately 600,000 donors.

From Political Wire

Send to a friend

LtCol Allen West for 22nd District of Fla

nobody@vox.com(concretebob) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:14:56 +0000

Sign the petition to encourage the RNC to allow LtCol Allen West to speak at the RNC Convention.

LtCol West is an OEF Veteran and is the military version of Ken Blackwell or Michael Steele.

Go here to sign the petition

To: John McCain, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, McCain '08 Campaign Team and Republican Delegates

We, the undersigned supporters of Allen West for Congress, from all across America, request that Lieutenant Colonel Allen B. West (US Army, Ret) speak at the Republican National Convention, September 1-4, 2008 in St. Paul Minnesota.

We believe he represents our voices, our core values, and our hopes for the future of the Republican Party. LTC West is challenging the one-term Democrat Rep. Ron Klein in the 22nd Congressional District in Florida. This is a good opportunity for Republicans to regain a Congressional seat lost to the Democrats in 2006. We are impressed by LTC West’s distinguished 22-year service to our country in the United States Army, his proven leadership and communication skills, and his towering intellect with a B.S. and M.S. in political science and his vision for America.

Now it’s time for Republicans and the voters throughout America to hear LTC Allen West, a great American war hero saluting John McCain, our future commander-in-chief at the RNC!

GO WEST!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Web-Spectacle : backstage

nobody@vox.com(anatolant) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:03:19 +0000

Vote

No time for beta.vtheatre.net ...

biz.vtheatre.net -- social business of web; especially, now (Elections) and in the time when the candidates must be tested [War in Georgia].

Opened "New American" group to keep the web-spectacle issues over there -- myspace,com/anatolant

"Virtual Theatre"? Life as Theatre

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Local Government Elections Comess - Manning in Control!

nobody@vox.com(Trini2Marrow) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 04:15:22 +0000

August 10, 2K8

Just imagine a local government councilor is elected to serve in office for three years then vacate his or her office and new elections held to bring in new blood or reelect some because they did a good job or simply because of party favoritism. Having said that, it should be noted that the present slate of councilors would be in office for six years and this would give them two terms in office without having to face the polls for a second time. Why? That's because the present government, led by Pastor Patrick Manning, has decreed that changes need to be put in place before the present cast or incoming actors get the opportunity to face the electorate!

Now taking into consideration, the current state of the society and the general discontent of the populace in a time of plenty, in this 'land of milk and honey' (akin to sweetness of crude oil prices), everyone needs to pause and question the wisdom or foolishness of the ruling party with their pussyfooting in Parliament and the subversion of the democratic process. Certainly this feels like the government is once again playing 'politricks' with the management of the political process. Why overhaul the system if you have confidence in the electorate to hand you the keys to local government administration? I say, face the polls and win the election, after which you can overhaul the system, recreate the boundaries to satisfy a partisan demographic and rule for life - ENT yuh know that is the Trini way!

Ok, ok so that is wishful thinking because it would be better to stack the cards in your favor before facing the polls -Minister (as in doing the Lords work) Manning, aka PM of Trinidad and Tobago, has a system in place where he always comes over as a preacher in Church whenever he addresses the populace - he ministers to the citizenry because only he knows best and we must remember the Kaiso, Patrick we stepping up with you ... indeed Patrick is the 'Man".

So now that "yuh put dem dey" do you believe that "your" government is doing a good job and more importantly do you believe that they are afraid to face the polls at this time? It is a given that everyone is dissatisfied with the management of the country's resources, bedlam prevails with crime out of control and food prices are soaring beyond the value of earnings that sound great but can't do much at the supermarket...

The stench or this man's arrogance is nauseating but most Trinbagonians will stick to what they know and would repeat their mantra of "who we go put" but would not resolve to remove the wool that is covering their eyes - do that and surely one would see a bright light at the end of the tunnel. Tunnel vision is great if you choose to focus on the goal of doing that which is correct but then again Trinis are all about having a good time and politricking with Rum and Roti politics.

So do I think that the present administration is afraid to face the electorate now? I think so, hell yes; I believe that to be the case... now what do you think?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Is Obama Taking Foreign Money?

nobody@vox.com(concretebob) — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:06:08 +0000

There was an email circulating that purported to show a link to online political campaign contributions to Obama from foreign sources. Tha email has obstensibly been discredited as fraudulent, and was a conglomeration of columns from the red-headed beast Maureen Dowd, no friend of conservative causes.

But it brings up an interesting theory. How has this newcomer, this no-name third rate Senator from Illinois managed to amass such a large war-chest from online donations?

Pam Geller, at Atlas Shrugs, the genuis who had Obama's birth certificate verified as a complete forgery, has done some more good work towards exposing the threat of foreign money in US elections.

She has some good information here, here, and here.

This link will take you to a full page of other links with enough information about questionable activities by the Obama campaign to make you wonder how he got so far so fast. The answer of course, is a complicit media whose agenda is decidely socialist in nature.

This is serious business, folks. Not since envelopes full of cash and cashier's checks were passed out in the White House during the klintoon comedy festival, has the threat to this country's most sacred institution and the right of Americans to decide our own fate, been more serious. The internet has provided us a way to share information and disseminate news on an unprecedented scale. However, it has also provided the means to accumulate large chunks of cash virtually untraceable.

NO ONE who is NOT an American citizen has the right to contribute to an election campiagn, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or other. All contrbutions must and should be accounted for and documented.

Unlimited donations with full and immediate disclosure.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Another reason not to shop WalM*art

nobody@vox.com(Sooz) — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 14:33:48 +0000

Last Friday, the Wall Street Journal reported that retailing giant WalM*art, concerned about a potential Democratic sweep this fall, has been not-so-subtly indoctrinating managers and department heads about the perils of an Obama presidency. The operating assumption in Bentonville seems to be that a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress would pass laws such the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for unions to organize at WalM*art, thus hurting the company, its workers, and its shareholders. And while the executives running the meetings were careful not to instruct workers which lever to pull, the upshot was clear. "I am not a stupid person," a WalM*art customer-service supervisor told the Journal. "They were telling me how to vote."

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

of God

nobody@vox.com(JudgeBob) — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 00:29:17 +0000

As a Christian, I use the term "of God" to communicate the concept of "ordained" by or "part of His original design" for human society. In the Jewish tradition, Jews use the term "kosher" extended from their dietary laws. In Islam it is referred to as "Halal" or approved, also extended from dietary laws. The Muslims also have a word for the opposite "Haram" where as the Christian and Jewish traditions use simple negatives to express the same concept of not being "of God" and not being "kosher."

Many liberal Democrats actually believe THEY are doing God's work by advocating for homosexual legitimacy, by protecting illegal immigrants, by favoring Islam, by forcing national philanthropy on Americans, by eliminating our right to be armed for self defense, (the shooters at Columbine and Virginia Tech violated 18 gun laws going onto the campus' with guns, do you think 2 more laws would have made any difference to them?) by forcing America's wealth into the hands of enemies and barely friendly states, by opposing war, by cutting the military budget, by advocating cultural diversity, by eliminating public Christian displays, by shutting down evangelism in public, by supporting radical feminism and the obfuscation of gender roles, debasing the level of civility, and defending pornography.

Examples follow:

Here is the way the original description of Prop 8 read:

• To provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Jerry Brown is advocating for same sex marriage using his position as Attorney General to describe a bill that has already passed in liberal California to sound more like a violation of human rights. Here is Brown’s new description:

• Changes California constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry.

of God

This video illustrates the difference between a peaceful religion and a militant religion perfectly. Both have the right to free speech, both have criticism of the other, but one responds with truth while the other responds with violence, yet in our current mindset of multi-culturalism they are equally associated with hatred and intolerance.

John LeoBowling With Our OwnRobert Putnam’s sobering new diversity research scares its author.

25 June 2007

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. He fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties.

Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,” Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.”

Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,” he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.” And the “hunkering down” occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.

Who cares?

Now I will grant that the Conservative lobby has its ills and I will grant that some of the actions taken by conservative led government has had some detrimental effect on our society and foreign policy but, it is hard to accept liberals are interested in culture when they are deconstructionist. Liberals don't embrace culture as being something handed down to them. They strive to create a culture (that is ideal and not based in historical precedent) at the expense of the one that was dominant from Jamestown until the 60's revolution. The effects of this deconstructionism in an effort to create 'a better world' has made the world worse in almost every instance in history. Justified by intent, anyone can feel sanctimonious in committing the most heinous crimes against humanity. It was under this very banner that Mao ordered the murder of millions in China and Stalin in Russia. It is under this banner that Islamists commit terrorist acts around the world by the thousands each month. (to establish the house of peace and to purify their culture) Most liberals do not go so far as even breaking a single law toward this end but most, (especially those in the most responsible positions in our society) do compromise their own values of right and wrong to forward their agenda. Nancy Pelosi for example was quoted by the Washington Post in explanation for not heeding American suffering from gas prices because, "I'm trying to save the world here." From the threat of DDT to the threat of heterosexual AIDS in America to that mass killer secondhand smoke, the left believes and spreads threats that, unlike the threat of Islamic terror, really are "scare tactics." Never underestimate the harm that cheap heroism can do to our society.

all wrong

What the liberal mind misinterprets about Christianity and conservatism is what they criticize in Christianity and conservatism far more often than actual philosophies of Christianity and conservatism. Naturally, the liberal will immediately argue the same is true of conservatives and Christians about other cultures and liberalism. This video demonstrates the obvious ignorance in American history leaving a false negative impression of conservatism and a false positive impression of liberalism. I'm not talking here of the commoner but of the the liberal experts and historians highlighting the worst of Christian and American human rights violations and self determination or the conspicuous absence of reference to the foundation of our cultural principals and in some cases outright denial of faith in founding principals.

On March 28, 1811, Thomas Jefferson wrote to William Duane from Monticello:

“The last hope of human liberty in this world rests on us. We ought, for so dear a stake, to sacrifice every attachment & every enmity.”

Our purpose as a nation in a world that does not value liberty so clearly as do we, is to encourage liberty everywhere and in every possible way we can. In that endeavor we cannot fail to send along with it, both our compassion to those suffering in lack of essentials and a call to individually self govern their behavior to benefit the whole of society. The more morality we subject ourselves to the less a government has to do it for/to us. But our first priority has to be instilling these values in our own people. With liberty as its highest goal, our society is most vulnerable to abuses of that very all important value by members of its own population. Since our leaders are reliant on public opinion in order to attain and hold the positions of policy makers, on the relatively minute volition of speech alone our nation can be reduced from the lone superpower and the desired destination of the vast majority of immigrants to literal non-existence and even worse, into despotism.

"Society is best described as a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. We are a society of freedom, a society of life, and a society which includes family, friends, and even faith. By faith, I mean that we were founded on the principles of a natural God, a Creator, and it was believed that a free society could exist only with the moral code of natural law (God's Law)." Hat tip to The New Conservative. I am therefor begging Americans to use your judgment to determine what is right, good, beneficial or of God.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Mudslinging

nobody@vox.com(Riley Page) — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:37:28 +0000

'Celeb', Mc Cain ad tells it like it is

Whaddaya think?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Klinghoffer on U.S./Indian Nuclear Deal

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:52:14 +0000

US-India Agreement (hindustantimes)

Judith Klinghoffer has a perspective on the U.S./India nuclear deal from the angle of Asian history and the future speculation of what follows Asian history. My interpretation of Klinghoffer’s essay (really a kind of book review) is that geopolitically Asia may become the center of global civilization in the future; ergo the importance to American National Interests of the completion of U.S./India nuclear deal.

JRH 7/29/08 (Hat tip Jewish World Review)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Democracy Now!: The Tsangarai and Mugabe Report

nobody@vox.com(COA) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 02:16:40 +0000

This gives me some positive hope. I'm glad to see that progress is being made in Zimbabwe on this front but I wonder what pushed the two sides to come together in this way? Historical lessons tell me that, most likely, some outside force exerted said force in the proper way on Mugabe. Whatever the reasons, hopefully the people of Zimbabwe benefit from it the most and get a good, just government dedicated to work towards bettering this struggling nation.

P.S.
Yesterday, I happened to be hanging out with a friend of mine who is from Zimbabwe. We barely talked about the politics or economy of her country at the moment. Strange coincidence.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

It's time for some campaigning!

nobody@vox.com(W. Mitty) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 13:16:50 +0000

Gather 'round for a ritual we practice every four years.

A JibJab political video for Election 2008. Hilarious stuff. Gotta love them unicorns.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Those Jib Jab Folks Do It Again

nobody@vox.com(Adam) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:43:38 +0000

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

ESTÚPIDO SAVANNAH - Tuesday, July 08, 2008 9:32:52 AM

nobody@vox.com(ESTÚPIDO SAVANNAH) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 13:32:58 +0000

I'm being very lazy this week.

I'm just not getting into the whole election thing and, hey... SUMMER!

I do, however, encourage voting and along those lines I encourage you to read Savannah Red's latest missive.

It is all about two candidates who want to lead the Mutants and R-tards that run the county and it is impeccably researched and sourced.

If you have an extra hour you can read the novel the two candidates put in the comments section.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Obama the Puppet

nobody@vox.com(concretebob) — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:42:48 +0000

If America sits back and allows this man to be elected President, I don't want to hear any whining and bitching when the extremists start instituting all the marxist programs they want. I've been getting emails from folks who are talking third party candidates and staying away from the polls. Do that and you'll hand this puppet and his Puppet Masters a resounding victory and if you think 8 years of the klintoons was bad, you ain't seen nothing.

From the desk of the always to the point Paul Hollrah:

Barack Obama is not only naïve and inexperienced… he is also a coward.

July 20, 2007 – The Obama campaign launched a campaign to capture the conservative Christian vote. The campaign is called the “Joshua Generation Project,” named after Moses’ successor who led the Israelites into Canaan after they had wandered in the Sinai for forty years.

CBN’s David Brody has resurrected the substance of a 2004 You Tube speech by Obama in which he said, “Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”

Obama criticized the “Christian Right” for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation. He said, “Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it is because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”

In spite of what Obama might think, America IS a Christian nation. It was founded by Christians, it was populated by Christians, and it has been governed from the beginning by Christian values. The Founding Fathers were concerned that the United States not become a theocracy so they added language to our Constitution prohibiting Congress from establishing an official state religion, but that was in no way a denial of our Christian roots.

If we are a “Muslim nation,” as Obama suggests, then how should Christians react to the notion that, in matters of marriage, the Prophet Muhammad is the model that Muslims follow. Muslims claim that Muhammad took a girl named 'Aisha to be his wife when she was 6, but he didn’t start having sex with her until she was 9. Obama might want to explain to us exactly how we can square that idea with Christian values.

He might also want to reread some of the sermons he heard during the nearly twenty years he sat in the pews of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, and then explain to us how his and Rev Wright’s brand of “G_ _ damn America” Christianity brings us together.

June 13, 2008 – Obama rejected John McCain’s proposal for 10 joint town hall meetings, offering instead to have just one on July 4.

The Obama campaign said that their candidate offered to meet McCain in five joint appearances between now and November 4, but only one of those would be a town hall meeting, three would be traditional debates with questions selected and posed by Obama-friendly mainstream media figures, and one would be an in-depth debate on foreign policy.

It’s not surprising that Obama, who recently said he would meet John McCain “anywhere, anytime,” would reject the idea of appearing side-by-side with McCain in ten town hall meetings. In recent weeks we’ve been witness to incidents where Obama was called upon to speak extemporaneously. In several instances he simply dissolved into a sputtering mass of “ahs” and “uhs,” incapable of uttering a simple declaratory sentence.

In one such episode, he came to a complete standstill in the middle of a stage, surrounded on all sides by his fawning supporters, pressed a finger against his earpiece… which had suddenly stopped transmitting the words he was supposed to repeat… and said, “Wait a minute, wait a minute, uh, wait a minute, uh, I can’t hear myself.”

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines a “puppet” as a “small image in the human form… often with hinged limbs, moved by the hand or by strings… as in a mock drama. One acting as another wills; a fool.” It makes one wonder if we might one day find a picture of Obama next to that definition.

June 25, 2008 – The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, struck down a Louisiana law allowing capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under the age of 12, saying it violates the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling spares two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.

In a two-sentence, seven-waffle reaction, Obama said, “I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes… I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”

But where does Obama really stand? In 1999, while serving in the Illinois Senate, Obama was faced with a decision to support a bill that would have allowed juveniles who had gang-raped girls under the age of twelve, or who had murdered 8 and 10-year-olds in random drive-by shootings, to be tried as adults.

In that instance, Obama was running for reelection in an African American district in South Chicago, so he sidestepped the issue and voted “present.”

Clearly, Obama’s position on any issue depends on whether or not votes are at stake in the next election. He has yet to show where, in his fourteen years in public life, he has ever taken a stand on an issue that might have a negative impact on his own personal ambitions. Barack Obama is not only naïve and inexperienced… he is also a coward.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

For Conservative Readers

nobody@vox.com(Truths In History) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:52:30 +0000

Cross posted from Rethink

Written by Ashok Karra

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

For My Republican Readers: Why Do We Need a Party? And How Are We Going To Win Elections In the Future?

All of us are familiar with the story that the Founders were opposed to political parties, and those of you who have gone through the previous posts on faction and equality can see deep arguments for why parties are a problem. The two I'm thinking of right now are:

Parties increase the chance that a majority faction imposes its will.
Parties make it hard for us to relate to each other as citizens; we think of each other as means to an end (pro-choicers ally with leftist evangelicals to get what they want), or we attack each other for similarly artificial reasons.

Right now, though, we're seeing a classic case of why parties are absolutely necessary. Poor Senator McCain, in this age of candidate centered elections, doesn't have a media fawning over him or anywhere near the slick marketing Senator Obama has. What Senator McCain could use is a Republican party that was halfway decent.

1. Problem: the Republican party is in shambles. Congress is most certainly lost for several cycles now. Most observers are placing blame at President Bush, but truth be told, everyone blames President Bush for everything. I actually think he was the last great hope for saving this party, and it was the structure of the political landscape that was too big an obstacle.

Consider - in 2000, when Vice President Gore was whining, Republicans were furious. Those "Sore Loserman" buttons were hilarious; there wasn't DailyKos with the sort of leverage it had but there were plenty of right-wing media outlets online with almost similar power. It didn't look like this party had anywhere near a dour mood. In 2002 and 2004 again elections were delivered and it looked like the Republican party was a force to be reckoned with for some time.

People underestimate just how good a campaigner President Bush is - we might never have seen anyone as good at campaign strategy as he is. Consistently the base was energized and new voters were being pitched to, for a time. Furthermore, he and Rove had a strategy to bring in Latino voters: he had (has) real concern for the future of the party, knowing that a party that's growing old and with an active but small Evangelical component can't win elections forever.

The deepest problem with this story - the reason why the Republican party has fallen apart now - is that President Bush was too good, and up against too much. Could any one person really build the Republican party for the future?

We, who were Republicans, took too much for granted.

I'll prove it to you - go onto right-wing websites and ask how many people on those sites are younger than 40. It's hilarious talking to other conservatives: numbers of them I've talked to dismiss younger people, the ones sometimes paying their Social Security now, as "dumb" and "ignorant" (I'm not going to humiliate the person who said this. I don't talk to her anymore anyway). It's really clear most people on the Right are older, much much older. And they're doing their best to keep younger people away from the party, by setting a tone that makes it sound like young people have no concerns besides drugs and getting laid.

Case in point: I should vote Democrat. I know very few on the Republican side right now who could care less for what I teach. Why don't I just vote for the party that will give federal dollars via a blank check to universities and give me more opportunites for a cush tenured job? Where does the Republican party cater to my self-interest, given the fact I do have qualifications and make something of them every single day?

Not once in these last 8 years of Republican rule was a serious attempt made by the party to build the party.

People want to blame Republican candidates for this. But that's utter nonsense: the issue is larger than any given candidate. The young/old divide has occurred because the party has no common ground other than a vague appeal to values.

The same thing holds for the Democrats, btw: Senator Obama has so little experience that he might turn out to be one of our most conservative presidents. Who knows how the reality of holding power and being in charge of the military will shape him? And it's not like he keeps his promises. What motivates Democrats right now is a vague sense that he's Progressive. But there's a big difference between catering to the Samantha Power crowd and actually endorsing their views because you believe them.

When we lost sight of the particular interests that should make us partisan, we became susceptible to how a campaign makes us feel. That inability to be specific, I submit, occurred with candidate-centered elections. Stripping the parties of their power actually alienated us from the electoral process more. Now we can choose what candidate we like, sure, but we have no clue what he stands for.

Whereas if the parties meant something, you would have to be able to articulate reasons for why you liked the party, as opposed to saying "I'm afraid of the other guy." And if you have areas where you and the party disagree, you have to be vocal and make it clear that your voice matters. (Notice that I'm dodging any idea that there was a golden age of American democracy: I submit the process before this was probably too corrupt and insider. This process, though, might border on meaningless.)

So what you're seeing in the Republican young/old problem is an appeal to values so vague that it is the mere tone which causes friction. The older elements just can't stand hearing the younger ones, and that's the divorce in a nutshell. Notice that the older elements drive the mindlessness of conservative media: How many times do Malkin and LGF and Rush and the rest have to repeat the same story? Isn't there something a bit different to talk about? No? We're gonna talk about the same thing for 8 years? Alright...

2. Solution: The Left has it halfway correct online. They've got people talking and creating, they're active. They moved to increase participation here, and that alone won them midterms and will probably win them the Presidency. Even though the Obama campaign uses the Internet more than it uses him, there's no doubt in my mind we would even be talking about Obama if it weren't for the Internet.

Where they have it wrong is that none of this is building a party. Kos can preach "winnerism" and talk in terms of taking the party back, but I don't think the wins are the same thing as having a party.

What a party does is plan for the future: forget Obama. Forget these Congressional elections. What do you want America to look like 10, 20 years from now? And what sorts of citizens will it have and how will it involve you?

The party takes the present concerns and makes them a platform. It gives a vision for America. Statesmen then determine what's feasible and proper and work from there. But that looking ahead is critical: without it, all people do is attack each other over the pettiest of issues. Politics loses any sense of nobility.

I realize some of you probably remember C.S. Lewis saying the problem with Communism is that it believes in the future. That sort of applies to what I'm talking about: in a sense, this is an instantiation of the general will I'm working with here. But on a very real level, making pronouncements like "no one is allowed to think of the future" is simply idiotic. Of course you're thinking of the future. You have hopes. And you should have a place to invest those hopes and deliberate with others, and you should be allowed to look ahead and ask for the country you want. It's a free country.

You don't have that option nowadays. All you're allowed to do is ask for very specific things, like gasoline. To ask for those specific things, you need to embrace "change" and "hope," or conversely the "maverick" who stood up to "special interests." You must make a moral choice based on the tone of the candidate in order to get gas to drop a few pennies. The specific policy doesn't originate from a genuine partisanship, or a real concern on the part of citizens. It only exists because the abstract appeals are so vacuous there's nothing else to say in our media-obsessed world.

You already know the solution. I want to turn as much of the Internet as possible into a real teaching tool. And I want parties to take the lead.

I want the Democrats to help their members learn about John Dewey and the history of American labor and Margaret Sanger and Marx and Rousseau. I want them to be able to talk about Keynes and not have to go to Paul Krugman for quick and dirty talking points. I want to see Democrats that have an awareness of their party and country historically, and where progressivism fits into a larger scheme of ideas. I also want them to know what the other party's ideas are and where they come from. Maybe Ayn Rand and Hayek should be on Democrat reading lists, at the least.

Maybe there should be a Democratic reading list.

I want Republicans to sponsor classes for anyone willing to learn, and yes, I volunteer to teach them. I will gladly teach Lincoln, Jefferson, the Federalist and go back to Locke and Blackstone and all that stuff if need be. I'll even throw in a Bible reading seminar of an interfaith sort - we'll read the Bible as literature.

This sounds ridiculous - the parties as educative - but think about what I'm asking. All I'm saying is that people should know why they believe what they believe. In the absence of formal education caring to do this, and instead only teaching specialized skills for making money, the party that embraced this would do a civic duty of the highest magnitude. It wouldn't just inform its members politically: it would banish the utter chaos and vapidness of what we call politics today and bring back politics simply. We'd be better as people for being citizens, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The Attack-Dog Pol who taught a lesson

nobody@vox.com(Michael Caputo) — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:07:16 +0000

You most likely won't know the name, unless you hail from New York (upstate NY in particular).

Minarik

But you will recognize the makeup of the man. He's the CEO who tries to corner the market, the weekend softball player who slides into second with his spikes up, the political operative who views a victory as everything - whatever the cost.

Let me tell you a little more about this man - Steve Minarik, who has just been ousted from his long time position as the Republican political leader in Rochester, New York.

He grew up a Rochester, New York guy, in the old Polishtown side of the city. His dad dabbled in a number of businesses and was described by the son as stubborn... driven. Steve was an unathletic, overweight kid who compensated by being loud and brash.

He got into politics and, straight out of college, worked for the Monroe County N.Y. Republican Party (Rochester's county). He rose fast because the party was scuffling. By age 32 he was effectively in charge of the party. That was 1992.

Monroe County Ad under Minarik

He built a fundraising maching at the county GOP headquarters. And he used a hammer to get contributions.

He used the money to demand loyality from Republican candidates, and eventually GOP officeholders. He built winning Republican candidates on the county level -- often by spending plenty on ads. And those ads could be hard-hitting.

On the local level, last-minute mailing would arrive that would often aim at Democratic candidates and the party, like the one on immigration late in Minarik's career.

He cultivated an attack dog image, he seemed to revel in it.

I was a poltiical reporter for Rochester's newspaper during many of the Minarik years. The paper assigned me to write a profile of him about seven years ago. (I can't find a link, sorry). The article was steeped in Minarik's brashness -- he idolized Dale Earnhart (the intimidator)... he had posted in his office a quote from basketball coach Pat Riley - "There's winning and then there's misery."

The article started like this:

D&C article

Stephen J. Minarik III reclines on a coach in his living room and talks about winning. "It's not about how you play the game. It's whether you win or lost that counts," the chariman of the Monroe County Republican Party said matter-of-factly.

As his wife, Renee, plays on the floor with their 2-year-old daughter, Minarik shifts from political elections to board games.

"I don't lose in Monopoly. I beat the kids," he say referring to Stephen IV, his 9-year-old son from a previous marriage.

"I told him 'Couldn't you let your son win once?' We're talking about Candyland here," Renee says, referring to the preschool board game.

"And what happened with him?" he asks. "Is he competitive or what?"

"He has the same attitude," she says.

"The same drive," he replies.

Frankly, at the time, I could relate. I had a rough-around-the-edges dad who loved me ... but wanted to make sure he prepped me for getting ahead. He played sports like a man possessed -- out to win. I picked up on that. It built my drive.

But as time moved on, I began to question the win-at-all-costs mentality in myself. But you saw it all the time in the politics of the day. Minarik wore it like a shiny suit of armor. And the party won in Rochester and Monroe County beating a Democratic Party there that had no coherent message regularly.

What to what end? The hard principles were obscured by the hard politics. Why strive when it only amounts to a chalk mark for the winning team. What else was there. Minarik called himself a conservative, but it was hard to see governance that put this into play.

What about waging a principled battle - and going down to defeat.

MInarik at a NYS GOP meeting

That would mean failure. Oh sure, we're all told that failure is nothing to shy away from - it gives us valuable lessons. And we're told that it's the journey, not the finish line. But American culture has shunned the loser, the failure. So what are we left with? Just win baby (right Al Davis).

Minarik did fail, however. He took over the New York State Republican Party just as their standard-bearer, Gov. George Pataki, was getting out. Minarik applied his style to the state level. It did nothing to stop the slide. He was shoved aside just two years on the job (holding down both the county and state rolls).

His ouster this past week as chairman of the Rochester region Republicans was predicated on the need for a softer, more collaborative Republican Party.

And, of course, my first thought was softer and collaborative is not Steve Minarik.

Then I thought about how Minarik suffered a stroke in 2001 (soon after that profile of him ran actually). I recalled the lesson of his life I had begun to learn -- winning at all costs is no life at all.

But here's the thing about this man. He also freely talked about how his kids meant everything to him back then. He did soften up -- at least for a moment. And then I looked at that profile again and there was this line. He said political foes took him too seriously and that they knew nothing about him. "I'm not the hard-edged, son-of-a-bitch they make me out to be."

I could believe that. He probably wasn't. He just played an SOB on TV (and the papers, and the radio and anywhere else that would get an audience of more than two).

He played the role because it solidified power, even if he was more than that attack dog.

But maybe now Steve can take off that suit of armor, stop playing the heavy and get something more out of life than just winning.

Let's hang onto to that lesson a bit.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Barack Obama’s Record of Poor Judgment

nobody@vox.com(concretebob) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:54:08 +0000

Once again, the folks at Family Security Matters have nailed it.

As an extreme liberal, Mr. Obama's priority is to weaken national security, not strengthen it. He wants face-to-face meetings with America's enemies but won't meet with Chris Wallace on the Fox News Network. He has pledged to withdraw troops fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq and would allow homosexuals in the military. That's his idea of enhancing national security.

Gregory D. Lee

Barack Obama and his supporters are fond of citing his opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an example of his superior judgment over his rival John McCain. To me, it's just the opposite, and illustrates how poorly Mr. Obama, as commander-in-chief, would handle national security matters.

Saddam Hussein ignored 16 United Nations resolutions demanding UN inspectors' unfettered access of his facilities to locate and dismantle weapons of mass destruction. After a protracted cat-and-mouse game, Saddam finally kicked inspectors out and thumbed his nose at the world. How many more resolutions would Mr. Obama like to have seen before forcing Saddam's compliance? If you don't comply with our next resolution and let our inspectors back in the country, we're going to be really, really mad. We mean it this time, Mr. Saddam. At what point does the UN finally protect its credibility and enforce the provisions of its resolutions? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that finally enforcing the resolutions is an example of poor judgment.

And don't tell me President Bush manipulated intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people to justify military action because that is simply ludicrous. Such a lie would have required the complicity and cover up of the entire intelligence communities of the U.S., Great Britain, White House staffers and the U.S. military. Doesn't it stand to reason that at least one person from those organizations would have the integrity and moral fiber to blow the whistle on such a conspiracy?

U.S. and European intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and that he was most likely conducting covert operations to acquire nuclear weapons. That's pretty scary, especially in a post-9/11 world, since Saddam had a history of attacking his neighbors and using chemical weapons against his own people in northern Iraq. There was every reason to believe he had WMDs at his disposal and would use them against his enemies, namely the United States. President Bush's decisive action was required to not only protect the nation, but also maintain the U.N.'s flimsy credibility.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend