|
Post Stats:
Views: 368
|
Member Stats:
Posts: 10 |
Comments Made: 6 |
Comments Received: 24
|
Red States, Blue States, and Purple Mountain Majesty
Posted: Mar 16, 2008 09:29 AM
Updated:Nov 05, 2008 08:53 PM
I don’t know how anyone can be disinterested in politics at this point in time. Sure, conservatives can only be gleeful over the self-flagellation taking place in the Democrats’ civil war. But any sentient person must realize that there are vast opportunities for insight rising off that fertile battlefield.
I must confess to a certain ambivalence toward the Democrats’ options. On one hand, Hillary is appealing. (Who would have ever thought those three words would connect.) Her negatives are so high that the specter of her nomination not only increases the chances of the Republicans winning the White House due to elevated voter turnout, but it also has given several congressional Democrats reason to worry.
On the other hand, while Obama is generally considered to be a more appealing candidate, perhaps making him more formidable, I expect he would struggle having to defend his liberal views against conservative principles. Nevertheless, we could expect a reasoned discourse without any of the dirty tricks, demagoging or shenanigans for which the Clintons have long been famous.
When the Clinton campaign released that silly photo of Obama dressed in Muslim garb, I was proud the “Republican dirty-tricksters” had nothing to do with it. Since doing cocaine is not problematic for Democrat hopefuls, Team Clinton suggested Obama may have sold cocaine as well as used it. Hillary, to be fair, conceded that Obama was not a Muslim, then added, “as far as I know.” There was the Rezko affiliation (pot calling the kettle black), the Ferraro setup (a little honesty sometimes doesn’t hurt), and the ridiculous 3 a.m. red phone ad (say thank you, Senator McCain).
Even if Obama were to arrive in the general election not bloodied up, I would still not advise (or expect) McCain to exploit such trivialities. Similarly, I’d give Obama a pass on the Farrakhan endorsement. Farrakhan is not only an embarrassment to Obama, but to the whole human race, which includes Obama, as far as I know. Considering Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name, concerns flicker to indifference. Though Michelle Obama saying she had never been really proud of her "mean" country gave me pause, I gave her the benefit of the doubt. But the words of Jeremiah Wright stopped me dead in my tracks.
Jeremiah Wright is not merely an uncomfortable association for Barack Obama, he has been his chosen mentor for over 15 years. Obama asked the Rev. Wright to marry him and his wife. He baptized their kids. Obama was made considerable financial contribution to Wright’s church over the years. And, until recently, Wright was serving as an advisor to Obama’s campaign. Clearly, Wright’s influenced goes way beyond crazy uncle status.
The Founding Fathers believed that Americans had to be “moral and religious people” because it was religion (not Oprah Winfrey) that was to inform our conscience. When we hear the kind of hate-filled speech coming from Obama’s mentor, it is a fair to ask how his conscience has been informed.
Obama denies ever having heard such statements while attending services, or he would have left the congregation, hypothetically. Yet the seething hostility that comes from Wright is so apparent, not possibly contained to one or two sermons, it is impossible to believe that Obama was not long ago presented with the choice to accept or reject.
We are expected to understand, maybe even accept, Jeremiah’s Wright’s rage, given whatever injustice he may have suffered as a young man. Even if we choose to excuse his statements for that reason, his informing the conscious of the young by perpetuating such hostility is simply inexcusable. Despite whatever racial problems still exist, there are a significant number of blacks whose primary expectation of race relations comes not from their own experience, but from the kind of historical re-creation that animates Wright.
When “blackness” comes to be earned on the basis of experiencing injustice, causing many to seek it where it otherwise would not exist, young blacks have been handed a greater blight than Rev. Wright could possibly have ever known. Thus, if we reconsider Michelle Obama’s statement, perhaps it was not a semantical misstep, but the result of faulty programming.
Jeremiah Wright not only believes, but wants others to believe, that the attacks of 9/11 were deserved for the policy of the US around the world; yet me makes no mention of the massive military mobilization to help Muslim nations after the tsunami in 2004. The United States acted generously not only in the contributions of our government through the military, but also in donations of individuals.
Jeremiah Wright wants others to believe that we dropped nuclear bombs on Japan and “never batted an eye.” Yet he says nothing of the lives saved by the immediate end to the war that those bombs brought. He says nothing of the sacrifices Americans made to save Europe, nor of the efforts to rebuild Europe.
Jeremiah Wrights wants others to believe that our government devised the AIDS virus to kill black people. This is the most outrageous of his statements as it has absolutely no basis in fact. It is an over-the-top effort to inspire hatred. Everyone knows the government did not concoct the AIDS virus to kill black people; it concocted it to kill gay people. Hello?
But seriously, what is to be gained from promoting such irrational hatred? Bush just got back from an African trip that did more to fight AIDS than anyone thought President Bush or any world leader would be able to do. But that is not worthy of note. And never mind Oprah Winfrey’s efforts in Africa. She’s an American, as far as I know.
The lesson is that there are those who consider America to be a source of evil in the world while others consider America a force for good.
Consider “The Parable of the Two Wolves” (author unknown).
An old Cherokee was teaching his young grandson one of life’s most important lessons. He told the young boy the following parable:
“There is a fight going on inside each of us. It is a terrible fight between two wolves,” he said.
“One wolf is evil. He is anger, rage, envy, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, resentment, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
"The second wolf is good. He is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, empathy, truth, compassion, and faith.”
The grandson thought about this for a moment. Then he asked his grandfather, “Which wolf will win this fight?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “The one you feed.”
Has Barack Obama been feeding the good wolf? In the absence of evidence, there is always hope.
Thanks for your concern regarding my well-being. No need to worry, as there is, of course, no real condition called BDS. It’s simply a term coined by conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer and provides the user a two-fer…belittle the subject by using language implying insanity or mental defect while at the same time avoid dealing with criticism directed at the president. I don’t believe mentioning Bush once at the end of my comment really counts as a “tirade”. Do you? Really? Have you seen someone about that? Actually, a better application of the term BDS might be to contemporary conservatives who, in support of Bush, must try to resolve their eager defense of policies that are clearly antithetical to genuine conservatism.
Anyway, syndrome or not, a presidential election allows a reflection on whether or not the country is going in the right direction. So when one candidate (McCain) embraces the outgoing president (Bush) while his opponent (Obama) says the outgoing president has been disaster, Bush becomes part of the equation, and the voter’s view of his record (good wolf vs. bad wolf) certainly comes into play.
You’re right of course…candidates themselves factor into the decision too. But if you think Obama is an empty suit with empty words, you haven’t been listening. You may not agree with his take on things, but he, and Clinton too, lay out specifics on what they want to do for health care, immigration etc, for you to boo or cheer as you see fit.
And if you truly feel that Obama’s association with Rev Wright should be a deal breaker for voters, it’s perfectly reasonable to stress that point. But when I see that Mike Huckabee doesn’t seem to have a problem with Rev Wright and it doesn’t seem to matter that McCain wanted and actively pursued the endorsement of a man you call a fool, than I have to wonder how much is true concern and how much is mud.
Back to the wolves. I wasn’t focused on war. The vast majority of Democrats in power have no qualms about defending our country and our people. I just looked at the specific words used to describe the good and evil wolves and then thought about the last 8 years. Now, individual voters can certainly come to different conclusions, but here are some numbers from a recent CBS/NYT poll…
-81% of respondents think “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track” (vs. 67% a year ago and 35% 5 years ago)
-78% believe the country is worse off than 5 years ago (4% think it is doing better)
-28% approve of the job President Bush is doing.
What do these numbers tell us? One…they tell us which wolf the country believes the president has been feeding. Two…they tell us it is not the Democratic party that must be reformed, but the Republicans. McCain inherits and proposes more of the same for a Republican party that is currently defined by questionable protection of civil liberties, the lack of fiscal restraint, and the growth of government. Are you ok with that?
Thanks for taking comments. Looking forward to and hope to see your next post some time soon.
Thanks Reality Check. Do we know each other?
I have to admit, at first glance, I thought you were going to rely on an argument of moral relativity. McCain has Hagee; Obama was has Wright. So what? To your credit, you did not do that--not entirely. Acknowledging that Obama's affiliation with Wright is real concern for pause buys you a measure of honesty.
To draw a sharper distinction, Hagee is a fool. McCain's seeking his endorsement is an example of strange political bedfellows, but reveals nothing about McCain. McCain is, if nothing else, a known quantity. Obama's appeal is almost entirely that he is an unknown quantity, which is why Wright's being more than a strange bedfellow, but an strong, long-time influential mentor is so significant. It helps flesh out someone who has thus far been an empty suit into which his supporters can project anything.
As for Parsley and the extent to which he has influenced McCain, I cannot comment. I know nothing of that man. But whoever McCain's "spiritual advisor" may have been, I have to believe he has long outlined anyone who might have once had that kind of influence.
But back to Barack, it is not a matter of the GOP looking for mud that will stick. There is a real need to know the person who may be elected. As it stands now, we don't. His speeches are empty, and full of platitudes that do no tip the indicator of the socialistic policies and philosophies that define the current Democratic party.
As to your suggestion that all Republicans do is demonizing and belittle, that is nonsense. McCain has perhaps gone too far in not doing that. When he had a campaign manager declare he would not criticize Obama on matters of substance or anything, how can it be said demagoguery is the only battle tactic? It appeared the McCain was wiling to surrender all weapons just to prove that mad was not a weapon he'd use.
What I (and I believe most Republicans) would like to see is a debate that recognizes that socialism is an evil borne of the same father as communism. That war is necessary, and that America is worth fighting for. That America is a force for good in the world, not deserving of scorn and punishment at the hands of evil men. I believe in a capitalist system where the people (and yes even the people who work in corporate America--which Mrs. O seems to dislike) are what made this country great. Not the bureaucracies of government.
It used to be that all Americans believed these things. If McCain is willing and able to make this case in a way that all Americans could again embrace these views again, it would be the end of the Democrat Party or at least force it's much-needed reformation.
As for your anti-Bush tirade, it kind of smacks of the derangement syndrome. (Have you seen someone about this?) Who brought up Bush?
I have to admit, going back several years, I was astounded when I saw the Time magazine cover that had half of Bush's face peppered with kisses, the other half with punches. I had no idea Bush inspired that kind of hostility. Last I had looked, this was a man (if we can remember) who sustained an approval rate in the 90 percentile longer than any president in history. He did it by committing to a course and a plan to fight radical Islam that he has held to steadfastly.
Too many of us forget that three-quarters of Dems supported him when he was riding high. Maybe they were afraid of getting thumped in the 2002 elections. Maybe they actually had conviction. Who knows? With Bush we know. I simply cannot understand the rationale that says he is feeding the bad wolf. There is no evidence to support this--unless it comes from the point of a view point that all war is the bad wolf. If so, see the point about America being worth protecting. Do you believe that?
Did you know that Mike Huckabee, of all people, says he understands how Jeremiah Wright comes to make the statements he makes and deserves some slack? But still, if Obama’s association with Rev Wright should give us pause before we jump on the Obama bandwagon, what should we make of McCain actively pursuing the endorsement of controversial conservative pastor John Hagee?
Hagee has reportedly called the Catholic Church, “the great whore”; said there was a clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews; and said New Orleans deserved Katrina. What example does McCain set by actively pursuing an endorsement from this man? And what about McCain’s “spiritual guide”- televangelist Rod Parsley? Parsley apparently proclaims that “America, was founded, at least in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed.” As you ask, what is to be gained from such irrational statements? Wright’s controversial views don’t appear to be reflected in Obama’s public or private conduct. Is the same true of Hagee/Parsley -McCain?
I suspect the outrage over Wright is the latest lob in an ongoing attempt to get something to “stick” in the republicans traditional election year strategy of demonizing/belittling the opponent. It’s always good for a laugh to listen to the various manufactured outrages Rush and friends get all worked up about. And even funnier (and totally unexpected) to see Chris Wallace take his network morning show hosts to task for doing it (see phrase “typical white woman”).
I like your parable and follow-up question at the end of the post. But a more appropriate question is “which wolf has Bush been feeding?” After 8 years, the country knows the answer, and will act on it on Election Day. Republican political types and talk radio know what the country will intelligently and logically do…and so, with hope, they flail desperately to stop it.
Share This:
