Bring It On! Election 2008

An interesting and potentially problematic phenomenon is emerging in the process to select a Democratic candidate for the presidency…as well as our next president. A preview of the issue began with anecdotal televised images from a caucus room on the Las Vegas strip. My growing concerns were validated in an analysis of the actual votes.

Before the votes were tallied, I took note of an interesting dynamic. For the most part, African American Obama supporters and Hispanic Clinton backers were chanting slogans for their respective candidates from opposite sides of the room. At first blush, I was inspired by the enthusiasm…and rightly so. The mood was animated, but by no means did it appear to be hostile. Regardless, it forced me to begin thinking about the mechanics of opportunity.

These particular caucus locations were created to make it possible for Culinary Workers Union members to participate. By and large, the union is made up of lower income ethnic voters…groups that have often felt neglected and inclined to believe many politicians treat them as an afterthought.

I suspect the focus on providing targeted caucus locations coupled with the fact that a woman and an African American are the leading Democratic candidates created a growing sense of opportunity in these overlooked and underappreciated groups. That’s an encouraging development.

At the same time, opportunity is an odd creature. Strange as it may seem, its absence often brings passive acceptance, as the flames of hope aren’t strong enough to fuel the fires that light the way to a better place. On the other hand, the emergence of opportunity is often accompanied by chaos and conflict as the downtrodden sense the possibility to transcend the certainty of a lesser lot in life.

Once opportunity rears its head on the distant horizon, the dim light that allows us to see its outline is apt to ignite dreams of better days that have long been kept in check. Simply stated, when opportunity is nowhere to be found, the certainty of status brings complacency; and conversely, when opportunity is palpable, the promise of progress often promotes impassioned participation.

As I pondered the fact that African American voters broke overwhelmingly for Senator Obama and Hispanic voters chose Senator Clinton by wide margins, I couldn’t help but consider the heinous nature of ethnic immobility and its propensity to divide rather than unite those who fight each day for a tiny share of a shrinking pie.

I suspect poverty brings clarity…and little else. Let me attempt an explanation.

Those who live each day like the one before…struggling to make ends meet…are undoubtedly forced to be cognizant of their limited resources as well as the need to jump to seize the scarce supply of opportunities that rarely appear. They know too well the large numbers of those who watch each day for a glimmer of hope…a chance to break the chains that bind and grab the rope that can deliver them from their darkened destiny…one clenched hand over another…hanging perilously above the pull of gravity that seeks to return them to the depths of despair.

Hence the chance to cast a vote of consequence is bound to inspire…and incite. With history as the point of reference, the knowledge of limited resources is, of course, the logical source of strife.

As we nominate a Democratic candidate and prepare for the 2008 presidential election, we needn’t and mustn’t allow the powers that be to portray the passions of hope as a reminder of racism. Rather, this process must be a rejoinder of our refusal to ignore the plight of the poor.

For far too long we have asked the least of us to be patient…to endure…to remain silent and satisfied with what little they receive. To be shocked when we witness a groundswell of emotion and the inevitable enmity that has become inured in those who know they are not welcome at the table is to ignore our part in setting too few place settings at that table.

We can make this election cycle about what separates us, or we can make it about what we choose to do to put an end to the dynamics that have long been allowed to divide us.

These simmering conflicts need not be evidence of the Democratic Party’s or this country’s inability to coalesce around one candidate. Rather, it should be fair notice that the Democratic Party will no longer accept the premise that the least of us need not be relevant or respected. I believe the voices of dissention are simply the sounds of destiny calling us to a new awareness.

Instead of silencing the voices of those who have yearned for change…and may now have the courage to demand it…we must add our voices to their clamor and grasp this opportunity to signal that we will no longer turn our heads to the plight of the have nots.

This is a moment that can either transform us or further fragment us. Instead of giving lip service to America’s greatness, it is time we once again demonstrate it. If we love this country we will. If we continue the trend of simply loving ourselves at the expense of the underrepresented, I suspect we’ll continue down the path of carelessly severing what’s left of the threads that so carefully created the cloth we call these United States.

Isn’t it time we put down our cynical and self-serving scissors and begin the hard work of stitching together a tapestry big enough to bring shelter and solace to all?

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

I want to see Mitt Romney’s dictionary. Given his frequent reliance on third tier definitions to justify his many inaccurate remarks, it has to be awfully ragged. In the following video, reporter Glen Johnson confronts Romney on his assertion that he doesn’t have lobbyists running his campaign. Mitt attempts to nuance the definition of “running his campaign” with regards to Ron Kaufman, a Romney operative who is a well-known and well-connected lobbyist.

If this were the only incident of Romney mincing words, one might be inclined to disregard this latest episode. However, one would have to be blind to miss that the well-heeled and carefully coifed candidate has done so on numerous occasions; not to mention the fact that he recently unveiled his umpteenth stump strategy as a non-establishment, change agent, Washington outsider. While the former governor is adept at covering his tracks, I suspect these tactics are wearing thin and appear far too coy for a number of voters.

I’m reminded of the GOP’s frequent efforts to pejoratively peg Democratic candidates. They labeled John Kerry a “flip flopper” and they spent years attaching “Slick Willie” to President Clinton. With that in mind, I think its time to tag Romney with an appropriate alias.

A number of pundits have referred to Romney by his actual first name, Willard, and others have taken to calling the GOP candidate Mittens (think here kitty, kitty). Nonetheless, the existing choices just don’t seem to capture Romney’s political essence.

I think a concerted effort is warranted to help accurately identify and appropriately describe candidate Romney. In looking for a starting point, I couldn’t help but recall Jon Lovitz’ Saturday Night Live character, “Tommy Flanagan…The Pathological Liar”.

Feel free to offer your suggestions in the comments and maybe we can start a list and have readers pick a favorite.

Also, don’t hesitate to propose some new versions of existing words that define Romney’s willingness to finesse the truth. The one that immediately came to mind is a “mittrepresentation”…which could easily be substituted for misrepresentation. Obviously, this would also work for misinformation, resulting in the word “mittinformation”.

Romney Confrontation At Staples

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

Can anyone out there explain math to the media? I’m having a hard time understanding why when it’s a three point difference between McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee, it’s a tie, but when Clinton beats Obama by three points, it’s a stunning victory.

It’s three points, people.

Yes, I understand one was a result, and the other a poll with margin for error. Please don’t yammer in the comments on this point. What I’m trying to say, is that it’s still three eff-ing points. Not the stuff of legend, landslide or legion. There is no call for an adjective like stunning in the same sentence as the qualifier “three points”. By that benchmark, my breakfast this morning was stupendous and my drive to work this morning immortal.

Just for fun, google — new hampshire stunning upset – and look how many identical headlines you find. Even with the ledes, they’re lemmings.

Pundits are idiots. I’ve spent a lot of time on blogs, opining, then vigorously defending said opine, and never have I assumed that just because I said something, it must be so. I take my readers seriously. They are investing time in our argument, and even if they piss me off to the point I have to step away for a moment and regroup, the real reason we’re here, the exchange of ideas and information, is being served. Some bloggers aspire to be pundits. They aren’t there to argue, they are there to inform that their weighty opinion matters, and that of their reader does not. Really? Honey, it y’all were all that, you’d have jobs as analysts.

These days, our news media loves pundits. In the fast slide from fact based journalism to political columnist, we suffer through media dictatorship. Our information is filtered through somebody else’s parameters, blared like so much propaganda, and leaves the average intelligent adult nonplussed.

Take Iowa and New Hampshire, for example. At the conclusion of the Iowa caucus, Obama sported a 10 point lead. He’s off to a good start. His campaign strategy on the ground worked in Iowa. Clinton’s did not. Edwards did well, considering he is less well funded. These are the facts.

Instead we hear Clinton is one step from out. Obama is the new inevitable winner. The race is now between Edwards and Obama. Obama can’t lose in NH. Blah, blah, blah, BS-cakes.

Yesterday in NH, Clinton won by 3 points. People in that state responded better to Clinton’s campaign. They also responded well to Obama’s, but in slightly smaller numbers. Edwards came off with a third place, and needs to do well in Nevada and South Carolina to keep his campaign on track. Somebody in NH had heard of Kucinich. These are also the facts.

Instead we get that Clinton’s victory is a stunner. That her campaign is no longer dead. That Obama is on the hot seat and Edwards is dead. That, well, we don’t know a damn thing, but when has that stopped us from telling you what we think you should think?

The heart of the matter is drive and money. Facts are stubborn little buggers, they take time and patience to procure. They require ability; you have to want to dig them out. Espousing an educated guess, or worse, just what you think will sell a paper, requires little ability and even less character. Yet, are the papers selling? Uh, no. What they offer is readily available on blogs, with the added bonus of human interaction and argument, something Americans love.

This country was founded on an argument, and we’ve argued ever since. We believe that it’s the only way to rip off the fluff and find the prize: truth. We like truth. From childhood we’ve believed it should be self-evident. This is so ingrained in our national ideal of what it is to be American, that we are having a hard time collectively, watching our national psyche tarnish on the international stage. In our gut, we crave shining beacon status.

This is one reason why newspapers are failing. The time for filling space with speculation and expecting people to believe it is over. Thanks to blogs, we all have our places where we can go and read the ridiculous, the inspiring, and the original thoughts of our peers. We know this medium well; we tap it daily. We don’t need punditocracy disguised as journalism.

We need facts. More importantly, we need a media infrastructure that supports, protects and holds high expectation for factual journalistic endeavor. We need tough questions and good editing. They need to stop sucking the profit pipe to the point that the whole reason for the industry is bastardized.

There are 48 states to go; you’d never know it, based on what you read today. That, my friends, is a very sad fact.

Old in several respects. First, the newsletters excerpted by The New Republic date back to the 80s and 90s. Second, there’s nothing new about these excerpts as regards public knowledge of them. They were used by a political opponent when running against Paul long ago. The only thing remotely new about them is that they are becoming widely known.

What am I talking about? This TNR article by James Kirchick: Angry White Man: The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul.

The gist is this: in the 80’s and 90’s, a number of newsletters of various titles but all bearing Ron Paul’s name, appeared. Most of the articles are unsigned and, significantly, none of the articles signed by Paul appear to contain any objectionable content. The articles that do, are written in a style quite different than anything provably written by Ron Paul, which means that they were most likely written by someone other than Paul.

Paul and his campaign have repudiated the objectionable content and claim that the articles were written by others, that he had little or no knowledge of what the newsletters contained and so bears no direct responsibility (other than a moral responsibility to know what was written in newsletters to which he lent his name) for the objectionable content — a plausible argument but one that, even if true, leaves one wondering why he would allow his name to be attached to newsletters that he did not read or keep close enough tabs on to know what was being promulgated under his name. The irresponsibility of it makes one wonder if he was quite so naive as he claims. The sordid collection of white-supremecists, neo-Nazis, far-Right-wing, anti-government militia types and Trilateral Commission conspiracy types that tend to gravitate to Paul’s campaign along with other, more mainstream Libertarians and Paul’s refusal to return money donated by certain generally offensive carachters detracts from rather than adds to Paul’s credibility in this matter.

I’m happy to accept Paul’s explanation that he did not write the articles, did not know of their content and does not endorse them. That explanation, however, detracts from my opinion of his judgment. We’ve had enough presidents whose defenses against charges of bad behavior consist mainly of plausible deniability already without placing another one in office who displays this tendency. In any case, Paul was never going to be my choice in the race — I haven’t endorsed any of the candidates yet but there are several that I have decided not to support and Paul is one of them — so this dust-up plays no part in my ultimate choice for president in 2008.

Reason Magazine has a nice round-up of reactions from around the blogosphere.