http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html
September 14, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Making America Stupid
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Imagine for a minute that attending the Republican convention in St. Paul, sitting in a skybox overlooking the convention floor, were observers from Russia, Iran and Venezuela. And imagine for a minute what these observers would have been doing when Rudy Giuliani led the delegates in a chant of “drill, baby, drill!”
I’ll tell you what they would have been doing: the Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan observers would have been up out of their seats, exchanging high-fives and joining in the chant louder than anyone in the hall — “Yes! Yes! Drill, America, drill!” — because an America that is focused first and foremost on drilling for oil is an America more focused on feeding its oil habit than kicking it.
Why would Republicans, the party of business, want to focus our country on breathing life into a 19th-century technology — fossil fuels — rather than giving birth to a 21st-century technology — renewable energy? As I have argued before, it reminds me of someone who, on the eve of the I.T. revolution — on the eve of PCs and the Internet — is pounding the table for America to make more I.B.M. typewriters and carbon paper. “Typewriters, baby, typewriters.”
Of course, we’re going to need oil for many years, but instead of exalting that — with “drill, baby, drill” — why not throw all our energy into innovating a whole new industry of clean power with the mantra “invent, baby, invent?” That is what a party committed to “change” would really be doing. As they say in Texas: “If all you ever do is all you’ve ever done, then all you’ll ever get is all you ever got.”
I dwell on this issue because it is symbolic of the campaign that John McCain has decided to run. It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.
I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.
In order to disguise the fact that the core of his campaign is to continue the same Bush policies that have led 80 percent of the country to conclude we’re on the wrong track, McCain has decided to play the culture-war card. Obama may be a bit professorial, but at least he is trying to unite the country to face the real issues rather than divide us over cultural differences.
A Washington Post editorial on Thursday put it well: “On a day when the Congressional Budget Office warned of looming deficits and a grim economic outlook, when the stock market faltered even in the wake of the government’s rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, when President Bush discussed the road ahead in Iraq and Afghanistan, on what did the campaign of Senator John McCain spend its energy? A conference call to denounce Senator Barack Obama for using the phrase ‘lipstick on a pig’ and a new television ad accusing the Democrat of wanting to teach kindergartners about sex before they learn to read.”
Some McCain supporters criticize Obama for not having the steel in his belly to use force in the dangerous world we live in today. Well I know this: In order to use force, you have to have force. In order to exercise leverage, you have to have leverage.
I don’t know how much steel is in Obama’s belly, but I do know that the issues he is focusing on in this campaign — improving education and health care, dealing with the deficit and forging a real energy policy based on building a whole new energy infrastructure — are the only way we can put steel back into America’s spine. McCain, alas, has abandoned those issues for the culture-war strategy.
Who cares how much steel John McCain has in his gut when the steel that today holds up our bridges, railroads, nuclear reactors and other infrastructure is rusting? McCain talks about how he would build dozens of nuclear power plants. Oh, really? They go for $10 billion a pop. Where is the money going to come from? From lowering taxes? From banning abortions? From borrowing more from China? From having Sarah Palin “reform” Washington — as if she has any more clue how to do that than the first 100 names in the D.C. phonebook?
Sorry, but there is no sustainable political/military power without economic power, and talking about one without the other is nonsense. Unless we make America the country most able to innovate, compete and win in the age of globalization, our leverage in the world will continue to slowly erode. Those are the issues this election needs to be about, because that is what the next four years need to be about.
There is no strong leader without a strong country. And posing as one, to use the current vernacular, is nothing more than putting lipstick on a pig.
Nicholas D. Kristof is off today.
Monday, September 15, 2008
From New York Times: Hold Your Heads Up
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/opinion/09herbert.html?ref=opinion
September 9, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Hold Your Heads Up
By BOB HERBERT
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.
Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.
So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.
Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.
“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”
Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.
There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.
Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.
The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.
“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”
Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.
When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”
Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”
Scary.
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).
Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.
It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.
Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.
Liberals need to get over it.
September 9, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Hold Your Heads Up
By BOB HERBERT
Ignorance must really be bliss. How else, over so many years, could the G.O.P. get away with ridiculing all things liberal?
Troglodytes on the right are no respecters of reality. They say the most absurd things and hardly anyone calls them on it. Evolution? Don’t you believe it. Global warming? A figment of the liberal imagination.
Liberals have been so cowed by the pummeling they’ve taken from the right that they’ve tried to shed their own identity, calling themselves everything but liberal and hoping to pass conservative muster by presenting themselves as hyper-religious and lifelong lovers of rifles, handguns, whatever.
So there was Hillary Clinton, of all people, sponsoring legislation to ban flag-burning; and Barack Obama, who once opposed the death penalty, morphing into someone who not only supports it, but supports it in cases that don’t even involve a homicide.
Anyway, the Republicans were back at it last week at their convention. Mitt Romney wasn’t content to insist that he personally knows that “liberals don’t have a clue.” He complained loudly that the federal government right now is too liberal.
“We need change, all right,” he said. “Change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington.”
Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today.
There would be absolutely no chance that a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin could make a credible run for the highest offices in the land. Conservatives would never have allowed it.
Civil rights? Women’s rights? Liberals went to the mat for them time and again against ugly, vicious and sometimes murderous opposition. They should be forever proud.
The liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Social Security and unemployment insurance, both of which were contained in the original Social Security Act. Most conservatives despised the very idea of this assistance to struggling Americans. Republicans hated Social Security, but most were afraid to give full throat to their opposition in public at the height of the Depression.
“In the procedural motions that preceded final passage,” wrote historian Jean Edward Smith in his biography, “FDR,” “House Republicans voted almost unanimously against Social Security. But when the final up-or-down vote came on April 19 [1935], fewer than half were prepared to go on record against.”
Liberals who didn’t have a clue gave us Medicare and Medicaid. Quick, how many of you (or your loved ones) are benefiting mightily from these programs, even as we speak. The idea that Republicans are proud of Ronald Reagan, who saw Medicare as “the advance wave of socialism,” while Democrats are ashamed of Lyndon Johnson, whose legislative genius made this wonderful, life-saving concept real, is insane.
When Johnson signed the Medicare bill into law in the presence of Harry Truman in 1965, he said: “No longer will older Americans be denied the healing miracle of modern medicine.”
Reagan, on the other hand, according to Johnson biographer Robert Dallek, “predicted that Medicare would compel Americans to spend their ‘sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was like in America when men were free.’ ”
Scary.
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Humiliation imposed by custom and enforced by government had been the order of the day for blacks and women before men and women of good will and liberal persuasion stepped up their long (and not yet ended) campaign to change things. Liberals gave this country Head Start and legal services and the food stamp program. They fought for cleaner air (there was a time when you could barely see Los Angeles) and cleaner water (there were rivers in America that actually caught fire).
Liberals. Your food is safer because of them, and so are your children’s clothing and toys. Your workplace is safer. Your ability (or that of your children or grandchildren) to go to college is manifestly easier.
It would take volumes to adequately cover the enhancements to the quality of American lives and the greatness of American society that have been wrought by people whose politics were unabashedly liberal. It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned.
Self-hatred is a terrible thing. Just ask that arch-conservative Clarence Thomas.
Liberals need to get over it.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
From Politico.com: Why Does the Press Cover Seemingly Trivial Matters?
So, after 19 months of following the 2008 presidential campaing (well, actually, it started immediately after last presidential election), and the successful Conventions for both parties, I decided to take an abrupt break from the news and politics. Somehow I have a feeling I did not miss much.
Why does the press cover seemingly trivial matters like the "lipstick on a pig uproar?" (Or name your own trivial uproar.) Is the press complicit--or even the principal engine--in making politics so conflict-driven and superficial? - Politico.com
First exciting news I was able to find upon my return comes from Politico.com
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Bringing Back The Culture Wars: Sarah Palin’s Pick Guarantees America Will Remain Divided For Years To Come
At his acceptance speech last week, the Democratic Party presidential nominee Barack Obama approached wedge issues that have divided the country in recent years by saying this:
"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."
Obama’s comment seemed to fit the narrative that was emerging in the 2008 presidential campaign. The narrative was that because Obama and Jon McCain are both loathe to bring up wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage and other so called “family values” issues, we can actually have a presidential debate based on real issues like the economy, healthcare, national security, energy independence, etc. Everything seemed to follow the narrative and just a few weeks ago, Rick Warren the moderate pastor of Saddleback Church in California hosted a forum with both candidates. No one expected Obama and McCain to agree on the tough issues such as where life begins or not, but we all agreed the tone had changed, we could agree to disagree in a civil manner.
Then something happened. After Obama made what wall acknowledged as a great speech last Thursday night, McCain made his VP choice which everyone admits was a surprise pick. Sarah Palin appeals to the base of the Republican party that McCain has until now had problems wooing. It is her beliefs on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and abstinence only programs that has endeared her to the Republican base. The Republican base has been resuscitated and along with that the return of wedge issues. It doesn’t matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain wins the presidency, America will remain divided for a long time to come.
John McCain may have solidified the Republican base with the Palin pick, he could even win the White House with this pick, but by choosing Sarah Palin and brining back all the social wedge issues that have divided America for the past decades, John McCain did not put America first, he put winning the White House first!
McCain and Obama Largely Avoid Abortion, Gay Marriage - US News & World Report, 8/24/08
Palin reignites culture wars - Politico.com, 9/2/08
McCain’s embrace of Palin reignites culture wars - Financial Times, 9/4/08
"We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The -- the reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America's promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort."
Obama’s comment seemed to fit the narrative that was emerging in the 2008 presidential campaign. The narrative was that because Obama and Jon McCain are both loathe to bring up wedge issues such as abortion, gay marriage and other so called “family values” issues, we can actually have a presidential debate based on real issues like the economy, healthcare, national security, energy independence, etc. Everything seemed to follow the narrative and just a few weeks ago, Rick Warren the moderate pastor of Saddleback Church in California hosted a forum with both candidates. No one expected Obama and McCain to agree on the tough issues such as where life begins or not, but we all agreed the tone had changed, we could agree to disagree in a civil manner.
Then something happened. After Obama made what wall acknowledged as a great speech last Thursday night, McCain made his VP choice which everyone admits was a surprise pick. Sarah Palin appeals to the base of the Republican party that McCain has until now had problems wooing. It is her beliefs on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and abstinence only programs that has endeared her to the Republican base. The Republican base has been resuscitated and along with that the return of wedge issues. It doesn’t matter whether Barack Obama or John McCain wins the presidency, America will remain divided for a long time to come.
John McCain may have solidified the Republican base with the Palin pick, he could even win the White House with this pick, but by choosing Sarah Palin and brining back all the social wedge issues that have divided America for the past decades, John McCain did not put America first, he put winning the White House first!
Related Articles
McCain and Obama Largely Avoid Abortion, Gay Marriage - US News & World Report, 8/24/08
Palin reignites culture wars - Politico.com, 9/2/08
McCain’s embrace of Palin reignites culture wars - Financial Times, 9/4/08
Republican Convention - Wednesday Night Recap
Tonight was the big night of expectations - will Sarah Palin survive her big debut as the Republican ticket Vice Presidential nominee.
Before that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee and Rudi Giuliani spoke to the delegates, although they strongly went after Barack Obama and vouched for McCain's candidacy, their speeches could all be condensed to this theme: During the last 8 years (and please do not think of Geroge W. Bush or a Republican Congress most of that time), the world has gotten much more dangerous and the only person who can save you is John McCain.
As for Sarah Palin, I am not sure if expectations had been set so low that by just showing up, she was going to exceed it. However, whatever your feelings about Palin, she gave a very well prepared and delivered speech. Does that mean she is qualified to be president on January 20, 2009? I don't know, the voters will decide on November 4th.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
What Comes Around, Goes Around - May be after the Palin controversy, we can go back to talking about real issues...
If it were left to Democrats alone, every election year would be spent debating the issues that are of importance to the voters. Polls after polls show the public sides with Democrats on the issues. However, talking about boring issues like healthcare or the economy doesn’t necessarily excite the electorate or win elections.
Instead, every four years when voting time approaches, suddenly we begin to hear how gay people getting married and allowing women the right to choose when it comes to abortion is ruining America. These and other “family values” wedge issues usually drive out any sensible coverage on the issues that matter most to American voters - the economy, healthcare, jobs, energy, education. etc. So any sensible American would ask, why would people keep bringing these social issues during election? The simple answer is that it works, it serves as a good smokescreen and has served Republicans well in the past elections. In politics, if a strategy works, why would you change it?
However, the argument on social issues has begun to unravel against the very people who introduced it into the public arena.
During the Clinton years, Republicans spent more than $40 million dollars of tax payer money to investigate what today, would be considered a “private family matter” if it were a Republican. In the 2006 election, God himself got tired of one political party trying to claim ownership to “morality,” and sought to expose the hypocrisy. That year a Republican congressman Mark Foley of Florida who had championed legislation against child molesters was found to have sent sexually explicit messages to pages and soon it was found out he was gay. Shortly before the election, another damning revelation - Ted Haggard then head of the National Association admitted the devil had made him seek a male prostitute’s company. Then there was Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho who was caught by undercover police soliciting sex in a male bathroom at the MN airport. The list goes on.
Conservatives have also been vicious in going after families of Democratic public officials. For years, Hillary Clinton, now the darling of the conservatives, was attacked and called every vitriolic word imaginable. Not too long ago, any Hillary Clinton-bashing book was sure to be a bestseller in conservative circles. Late last year, the same vitriolic campaign was revised to attack Barack Obama’s wife Michelle. Now it is not my place to keep these scores, but in life no story is more captivating than the ones that expose hypocrisy. For years now, Republicans have claimed to be the party of moral values, the only party with a direct phone line to God. In fact a recent book by conservative a pundit declared Democrats to be a “Godless Party”
Now on Sarah Palin, the greatest argument against her is and should be her lack of experience to be on anyone’s ticket for vice president. No less than Karl Rove lampooned Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia for having only been Governor for three years and before that Mayor of a small town called Richmond, VA.
With news of her daughter being pregnant, the Right has rushed to proclaim how nice it is that they have the same problems has everyone. But it is not the Democrats spreading the news, it is the media just doing their job to find out someone relatively new to the public stage with about two months to election. It is fair to question John McCain’s judgment in picking a candidate he only met once and it is fair to question if she is ready and can be ready to be President on day one. Her daughter’s pregnancy would not make much news if Palin had not been touted as a family rights candidate and one that preaches abstinence only.
Joe Biden’s son is heading to Iraq in a few days. Sen. McCain’s son has already served in Iraq but like Senator Jim Webb of Indiana, they have refused to talk about them in public. Not Palin, from the first time Palin was introduced to the public, she dragged her family willingly or unwillingly into the public sphere talking about her son about to deploy and giving more information to the public that would no doubt force his commanders in Iraq to make changes in for his safety. She also mentioned over and over again her latest son Trig born even after she knew he had Down syndrome. If Mrs. Palin had focused on her qualifications on VP and let her family take a backseat, her daughter probably would not be facing this scrutiny. But the conservative establishment has pushed her family stories to support their anti abortion and family values stances. Now, that news has not been so palatable, conservatives are glad Obama is telling the media to back off. Barack Obama who had to recently chided the Right for going after his wife just a few months has shown the type of grace Sen. McCain has lacked in recent months by saying that families should be off limits. Has McCain told people peddling false rumors about Obama’s religion to back off? Where was McCain when people were viciously attacking Michelle Obama? Where was John McCain when people the Swift Boat veterans attacked and distorted John Kerry's military record? Has McCain ever told people questioning Obama’s patriotism to back off? I don’t think so.
Personally, I am with Obama, but I wish conservatives would stop dragging family/private issues into the public sphere whether they be that of Democrats or Republicans.
But it goes beyond just family values and private affairs. Republicans have to learn that when you attack and belittle people’s achievement just for the short term benefits, in the long run, it may come back to bite you. Republicans in 1992 belittled Governor Clinton for being governor of a small state. In comparison to Alaska’s 700,000 people, Arkansas has 2.8 million people. In 1992, Clinton had been Governor for more than ten years. Just as late as two weeks ago, Karl Rove thinking Tim Kaine of Virginia might be picked by Obama to be his VP, had this to say:
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?"
At the time, it was ok to belittle Gov. Tim Kaine’s experience, but now that Palin has been picked, Rove has changed tunes calling her a ‘bold’ choice for McCain.
These new direction of making politics about the personal instead of the public issues is part of what has contributed in making us the very partisan nation we are today. Now name calling and demonizing your opponent seems acceptable. Earlier in the campaign at a town hall event, a McCain supporter called Hillary Clinton a bitch to his face without so much a rebuke from John McCain.
The media has its job to do in investigating Sarah Palin with nine weeks left to election, but voters deserve to know sooner than later, what exactly will a McCain-Palin administration mean for the economy, education, US foreign policies and restoring America’s image abroad?
I have always believed that we should treat people the way we would want to be treated. I want to believe that the Palin saga will cause Republicans to pause the next time they want to attack their opponent. They might even ask, if it were the other way around, would I want to be treated the same way. Sadly, I have a feeling this is just an isolated incident. It seems for Republicans it is ok to attack others and rev up smear campaigns about your opponents, but when the tables are turned, such behavior is deemed “unfair” and “mean spirited.”
At the time Barack Obama is urging reporters to back off negative coverage of the Palin family, the GOP website continues to list Obama’s work in Chicago as that of a “street organizer instead of a “community organizer.” It continues to feature Tony Rezko prominently although Rezko’s legal problems have no connection to Obama. Yet, on the other side, the DNC website has no mention of the Keating scandal that involved Senator McCain that I was able to find.
If I am not mistaken, the Bible which conservatives seem to hide behind so often says something about treating your neighbor the way you would want to be treated. Will this change the tone of politics for good? Does this mean no more vicious rumors about Obama’s faith? Does this mean a return to talking about real issues? I don’t know, but I have a gut feeling….
Instead, every four years when voting time approaches, suddenly we begin to hear how gay people getting married and allowing women the right to choose when it comes to abortion is ruining America. These and other “family values” wedge issues usually drive out any sensible coverage on the issues that matter most to American voters - the economy, healthcare, jobs, energy, education. etc. So any sensible American would ask, why would people keep bringing these social issues during election? The simple answer is that it works, it serves as a good smokescreen and has served Republicans well in the past elections. In politics, if a strategy works, why would you change it?
However, the argument on social issues has begun to unravel against the very people who introduced it into the public arena.
During the Clinton years, Republicans spent more than $40 million dollars of tax payer money to investigate what today, would be considered a “private family matter” if it were a Republican. In the 2006 election, God himself got tired of one political party trying to claim ownership to “morality,” and sought to expose the hypocrisy. That year a Republican congressman Mark Foley of Florida who had championed legislation against child molesters was found to have sent sexually explicit messages to pages and soon it was found out he was gay. Shortly before the election, another damning revelation - Ted Haggard then head of the National Association admitted the devil had made him seek a male prostitute’s company. Then there was Larry Craig, Senator from Idaho who was caught by undercover police soliciting sex in a male bathroom at the MN airport. The list goes on.
Conservatives have also been vicious in going after families of Democratic public officials. For years, Hillary Clinton, now the darling of the conservatives, was attacked and called every vitriolic word imaginable. Not too long ago, any Hillary Clinton-bashing book was sure to be a bestseller in conservative circles. Late last year, the same vitriolic campaign was revised to attack Barack Obama’s wife Michelle. Now it is not my place to keep these scores, but in life no story is more captivating than the ones that expose hypocrisy. For years now, Republicans have claimed to be the party of moral values, the only party with a direct phone line to God. In fact a recent book by conservative a pundit declared Democrats to be a “Godless Party”
Now on Sarah Palin, the greatest argument against her is and should be her lack of experience to be on anyone’s ticket for vice president. No less than Karl Rove lampooned Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia for having only been Governor for three years and before that Mayor of a small town called Richmond, VA.
With news of her daughter being pregnant, the Right has rushed to proclaim how nice it is that they have the same problems has everyone. But it is not the Democrats spreading the news, it is the media just doing their job to find out someone relatively new to the public stage with about two months to election. It is fair to question John McCain’s judgment in picking a candidate he only met once and it is fair to question if she is ready and can be ready to be President on day one. Her daughter’s pregnancy would not make much news if Palin had not been touted as a family rights candidate and one that preaches abstinence only.
Joe Biden’s son is heading to Iraq in a few days. Sen. McCain’s son has already served in Iraq but like Senator Jim Webb of Indiana, they have refused to talk about them in public. Not Palin, from the first time Palin was introduced to the public, she dragged her family willingly or unwillingly into the public sphere talking about her son about to deploy and giving more information to the public that would no doubt force his commanders in Iraq to make changes in for his safety. She also mentioned over and over again her latest son Trig born even after she knew he had Down syndrome. If Mrs. Palin had focused on her qualifications on VP and let her family take a backseat, her daughter probably would not be facing this scrutiny. But the conservative establishment has pushed her family stories to support their anti abortion and family values stances. Now, that news has not been so palatable, conservatives are glad Obama is telling the media to back off. Barack Obama who had to recently chided the Right for going after his wife just a few months has shown the type of grace Sen. McCain has lacked in recent months by saying that families should be off limits. Has McCain told people peddling false rumors about Obama’s religion to back off? Where was McCain when people were viciously attacking Michelle Obama? Where was John McCain when people the Swift Boat veterans attacked and distorted John Kerry's military record? Has McCain ever told people questioning Obama’s patriotism to back off? I don’t think so.
Personally, I am with Obama, but I wish conservatives would stop dragging family/private issues into the public sphere whether they be that of Democrats or Republicans.
But it goes beyond just family values and private affairs. Republicans have to learn that when you attack and belittle people’s achievement just for the short term benefits, in the long run, it may come back to bite you. Republicans in 1992 belittled Governor Clinton for being governor of a small state. In comparison to Alaska’s 700,000 people, Arkansas has 2.8 million people. In 1992, Clinton had been Governor for more than ten years. Just as late as two weeks ago, Karl Rove thinking Tim Kaine of Virginia might be picked by Obama to be his VP, had this to say:
"With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he's been a governor for three years, he's been able but undistinguished," Rove said. "I don't think people could really name a big, important thing that he's done. He was mayor of the 105th largest city in America."
Rove continued: "So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what? I'm really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person capable of being president of the United States? What I'm concerned about is, can he bring me the electoral votes of the state of Virginia, the 13 electoral votes in Virginia?"
At the time, it was ok to belittle Gov. Tim Kaine’s experience, but now that Palin has been picked, Rove has changed tunes calling her a ‘bold’ choice for McCain.
These new direction of making politics about the personal instead of the public issues is part of what has contributed in making us the very partisan nation we are today. Now name calling and demonizing your opponent seems acceptable. Earlier in the campaign at a town hall event, a McCain supporter called Hillary Clinton a bitch to his face without so much a rebuke from John McCain.
The media has its job to do in investigating Sarah Palin with nine weeks left to election, but voters deserve to know sooner than later, what exactly will a McCain-Palin administration mean for the economy, education, US foreign policies and restoring America’s image abroad?
I have always believed that we should treat people the way we would want to be treated. I want to believe that the Palin saga will cause Republicans to pause the next time they want to attack their opponent. They might even ask, if it were the other way around, would I want to be treated the same way. Sadly, I have a feeling this is just an isolated incident. It seems for Republicans it is ok to attack others and rev up smear campaigns about your opponents, but when the tables are turned, such behavior is deemed “unfair” and “mean spirited.”
At the time Barack Obama is urging reporters to back off negative coverage of the Palin family, the GOP website continues to list Obama’s work in Chicago as that of a “street organizer instead of a “community organizer.” It continues to feature Tony Rezko prominently although Rezko’s legal problems have no connection to Obama. Yet, on the other side, the DNC website has no mention of the Keating scandal that involved Senator McCain that I was able to find.
If I am not mistaken, the Bible which conservatives seem to hide behind so often says something about treating your neighbor the way you would want to be treated. Will this change the tone of politics for good? Does this mean no more vicious rumors about Obama’s faith? Does this mean a return to talking about real issues? I don’t know, but I have a gut feeling….
Monday, September 1, 2008
Reaction to Sarah Palin's Pick
Here are some of the news, opinions and commentary following John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential nominee:
Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process - New York Times
McCain’s Mrs. Right - Newsweek
The Palin Pick: Bold or Disastrous? - Time Magazine
Why McCain Picked Palin - Time Magazine
Mr. McCain's Choice - Washington Post Editorial
Senator McCain’s Choice - New York Times Editorial
Is Palin ready to lead? - USA Today Editorial
The Palin Pick - National Review Editors
McCain’s ‘Hail Sarah’ Pass - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
Republicans Rush In - Richard Cohen, Washington Post
The Lesson of Bristol Palin - Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Palin's Pregnancy Problem - Sally Quinn, Washington Post
Northern Underexposure - E. J Dionne, Washington Post
Experience? Never Mind - Michael Kinsley, Washington Post
A Star Is Born? - William Kristol, New York Times
What the Palin Pick Says - David Brooks, New York Times
Vice in Go-Go Boots? - Maureen Dowd, New York Times
McCain’s Baked Alaska - Gail Collins, New York Times
Don’t Call Her ‘Harriet’ - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review
Go Ahead and Laugh - John J. Pitney Jr., National Review
History Changer - Alvin S. Felzenberg, National Review
We’re Not Sisters with Her - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review
Palin’s Instincts - Tom Gross, National Review
Palen Pick - Shannen Coffin, National Review
Palin?! - Jonah Goldberg, National Review
How Palin Got Picked - Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard
Let Palin Be Palin - William Kristol, Weekly Standard
Providential Palin - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard
MCCAIN/PALIN '08 - Washington Monthly
Pageants and Politics - Newsweek
What the Heck is McCain Up To? - Jay Cost, RealClearPolitics
McCain Offers Voters Contradictions, Conundrums - Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg
Disclosures on Palin Raise Questions on Vetting Process - New York Times
McCain’s Mrs. Right - Newsweek
The Palin Pick: Bold or Disastrous? - Time Magazine
Why McCain Picked Palin - Time Magazine
Mr. McCain's Choice - Washington Post Editorial
Senator McCain’s Choice - New York Times Editorial
Is Palin ready to lead? - USA Today Editorial
The Palin Pick - National Review Editors
McCain’s ‘Hail Sarah’ Pass - Jonathan Alter, Newsweek
Republicans Rush In - Richard Cohen, Washington Post
The Lesson of Bristol Palin - Ruth Marcus, Washington Post
Palin's Pregnancy Problem - Sally Quinn, Washington Post
Northern Underexposure - E. J Dionne, Washington Post
Experience? Never Mind - Michael Kinsley, Washington Post
A Star Is Born? - William Kristol, New York Times
What the Palin Pick Says - David Brooks, New York Times
Vice in Go-Go Boots? - Maureen Dowd, New York Times
McCain’s Baked Alaska - Gail Collins, New York Times
Don’t Call Her ‘Harriet’ - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review
Go Ahead and Laugh - John J. Pitney Jr., National Review
History Changer - Alvin S. Felzenberg, National Review
We’re Not Sisters with Her - Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review
Palin’s Instincts - Tom Gross, National Review
Palen Pick - Shannen Coffin, National Review
Palin?! - Jonah Goldberg, National Review
How Palin Got Picked - Stephen F. Hayes, Weekly Standard
Let Palin Be Palin - William Kristol, Weekly Standard
Providential Palin - Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard
MCCAIN/PALIN '08 - Washington Monthly
Pageants and Politics - Newsweek
What the Heck is McCain Up To? - Jay Cost, RealClearPolitics
McCain Offers Voters Contradictions, Conundrums - Albert R. Hunt, Bloomberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)