Undecided

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Charles Manson should have had Barbara Bush for a mother.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeI understand a lot of people associate George W. Bush with the Nazi's. Prescott Bush's Nazi profiteering doesn't help to disassociate that notion. Bush has committed unspeakable war crimes, utterly destroyed the foundations for freedom in this country and he is responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in his War On Terror. The constant barrage of propaganda that streams out of the White House is all written using the Nazi playbook - lie, lie, lie until they believe you. That said, there may be another analogy that fits Bush to a tee and that is Charles Manson. Manson had mind-numbed followers whose beliefs and devotion to Manson was steel-strong. The same can be said for the Bush diehards. They excuse everything. Actually, they never acknowledge any wrong doing in the first place. They embrace Bush, the war, the piles of dead bodies while at the same time putting another flag pin on their lapel. They ignore the torture memos, the death squads, the concentration camps and staged crowds cheering "Bush, Bush, Bush" while the rest of the world looks on in horror. Bush is not held accountable by the GOP or the Democrats. The absolute worst President in American history and undeniable war criminal has had the yoke of impeachment taken "off the table" by Nancy Pelosi. That makes her an appeaser in my eyes. So what is the main difference between Manson and Bush? Manson never had a powerful father and grandfather there to bail him out of trouble. He never had the GOP backing him up and rallying to his defense whenever when broke another international law. He was never a Skull & Bones man. He never had Barbara Bush as a mother.

Making the case for World War III.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge If an alliance of first world nations like France, Germany and the UK joined in battle to stop America's reckless foreign policy, it might be good for America in the long run. It might be a good wake-up call to dead-end citizen demographic who simply don't give a shit about anything other than themselves. They don't care about kids. They don't care about economics. They don't care about law. They sure as Hell don't care about the environment. But they do want to control you and monitor you in every way imaginable. If America is conquered, we might get our taxation realigned with reality, we might get universal healthcare - we might even get our economy rolling again. In all seriousness, if the Esercito Italiano (Italian Army) came knocking on my door, I think I might just say "Ciao! Sangiovese?"

The Goracle of Memphis and his stealth campaign.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeOn May 20th, 2007 in the New York Times, Gore remarked... Having spent 30 years as part of the political dialogue, I don’t know why a 600-day campaign is taken as a given, and why people who aren’t in it 600 days out for the convenience of whatever brokers want to close the door and narrow the field and say, ‘This is it, now let’s place your bets’ — If they want to do that, fine. I don’t have to play that game. With recent Current TV video uploads, I must wonder what kind of campaign is he running? In marketing/advertising terms, this is a stealth product release. The candidate is running, but the paperwork hasn't been filed. The Current clips are strong. In the link above, some of thecommenters suggest Gore may be trying to frame the debate. I doubt this. First of all, with the exception of Edwards and Kucinich , none of the other Dem candidates really have an environmental platform that does anything about global climate change. If they aren't listening to Gore now, they never will. Gore has been successful in moving the issue to the front of the news, and the melting icecaps, crop failures and record drought have all backed him up with common sense observation - just ask the average family farmer. I have no idea what the game plan is for Gore but he has been successful in keeping himself and more importantly the issues he cares about, at the forefront of the news since he stepped in front of theMoveOn.org microphone and blasted the Bush administration over Iraq. Everything he claimed in his "In The Balance" book, his 2000 campaign and everything else since has proven to be right. Whereas everythingBushCo has said since then has turned out to be a lie. Bush may be the guy Middle America wanted to have a beer with, but once in office, Middle America learned Bush just stiffed them for the bar tab. As I speak with people across the country, they tell me they can't help but look at Gore and wonder "what if?" Since the Clinton/Gore administration was all over AlQaeda and the Taleban before Middle America knew they existed, would 9-11 have happened at all? Would all of America have their phones bugged and emails read? Would China have eaten our lunch? Would Summer at the North Pole feel like a spring day in Myrtle Beach? Would we be bogged down in a Vietnam style war in Iraq while ogling the oil underneath Iran? If Bush invades Iran, the US will control everything in the Middle East from Saudi Arabia to the former Soviet Union - from Europe to China. There hasn't been a land grab like that since (yes, I am going to say it so get over it already) the Nazi's controlled everything from Paris to with 15 miles of the Kremlin. Where Gore takes us from here is anyone's guess, except maybe Karl Rove. I think he might be sweating.

Who Is The White Man in Ahmadinejad’s Court?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeI have been reading a lot of translations of Ahmadinejad's speeches and they parallel Bush's speeches. I find it amazing the two can both be so disconnected from reality or skilled in propaganda. Maybe they have the same strategist? Maybe Karl Rove is lending Mahmoud a helping hand? Seriously, Bush has made America more like Iran than any Iranian ever could.

Nuking Tehran - How do you say Ground Zero in Persian?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge When I was in high school, I was well educated in Soviet geography. Vladivostok, Novosibirsk and of course Moscow were all familiar places on the world map. Sadly, Americans seem to get the bulk of the geographic education when we go to war (fake or otherwise). Mosul? That is in Northern Iraq and Highway 2 goes right through it. Basra? Oh that is the seaport on the Gulf. Minnesota? What the Hell are you talking about? Despite our highest hopes of electing a Democratic Congress, they seem to have no intent of removing a war criminal from power. Nor does it appear they will make any serious moves to prevent nuclear war with Iran... yet ANOTHER nation that has done nothing us. (OK, the hostages were an issue 3 decades ago, but we did open diplomatic channels with them again - oh, my bad, that was back when we practiced DIPLOMACY. Back to our nightmare at hand.) BushCo has reneged on every nuclear arms control treaty this nation has ever signed plus he has not lifted a finger to negotiate new ones. On top of that he started building NEW nukes. The idiot never met a law he didn't want to break. Now we have this recent history of invading countries that hasn't attacked us (and avoiding those who have - ahem... Saudi Arabia) is it any wonder the United States is seen as the biggest threat to peace and stability on the planet? If we drop ANY kind of nuclear device on Iran, it will open up a Pandora's Box of sorrow that we have managed to keep shut for more than 60 years. Even if it is a bunker buster, America will then become the world's NUMBER ONE rogue nation without a doubt. When the only global friend you have is Communist China, it speaks volumes of how far we will have fallen.

Where's my Civil Defense Guide to Fallout?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge From Satan's Temple of Deceit: And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust. One thing I will say about Reagan (and Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson and JFK), if that quote above was uttered by one of them, I would have thought the threat was real because back in the good old days of the Cold War (can't believe I wrote that) it would have been an accurate portrayal. Leave it to Bush Junior to create the threat of nuclear annihilation where there isn't one. I am MORE worried about what Bush will do with nuclear weapons than I am Iran. Bush has broken every nuclear treaty we have ever signed, avoided new nuclear arms control agreements at every turn and has even ramped up American production of NEW nuclear weapons. I guess the weapons we had on hand weren't enough, you know, the ones where we could destroy the planet hundreds of times over. Has anyone in the Bush Administration EVER set down at a table for peace talks? Has he ever just chatted about peace at the White House water cooler? Has BushCo ever taken a break from thinking about TOTAL UTTER DESTRUCTION for one single minute since they took control? Let me go back to my tired-assed Africa analogy, before we invaded Iraq over WMD I stated you could have thrown a dart at Africa and chances were you would find someone worse than Saddam Hussein. Well, Iran is even farther from WMD development than Iraq was and the rogue nations that have REAL nuclear programs far out number Iran. So why Iran? I hope everyone ASKS that question NOW before Bush goes off and nukes Iran. And will someone please tell Pelosi to stop this madman? Please?

Gonzales gone, watch where you step.

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlarge From CNN: Embattled U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has resigned, senior administration officials told CNN Monday. President Bush will likely nominate Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to the position, senior administration officials said. Clay Johnson, deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, would replace Chertoff, the officials said. Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have long called for his ouster after the firing of several U.S. attorneys in 2006. Bush had long stood by Gonzales. Gonzales will announce his resignation at a news conference at the Justice Department at 10:30 a.m. ET. Now maybe, just maybe, we can go back to impeaching the President?

McPolitics

AfricanAmerican.org: Lovin' it: McBranding hooks preschoolers, study finds Preschoolers preferred the taste of burgers and fries when they came in McDonald's wrappers over the same food in plain wrapping, U.S. researchers said, suggesting fast-food marketing reaches the very young. "Overwhelmingly, kids chose the one that they perceived was from McDonald's," said obesity prevention expert Dr. Thomas Robinson of the Stanford University School of Medicine, whose work appears in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. While prior studies have looked at the impact of individual ads on kids, Robinson and colleagues set out to study the overall influence of a company's brand -- based on everything from advertising to toy premiums and word of mouth. It comes as many food and restaurant companies face pressure to cut back on marketing to children as rates of obesity among that age group continue to climb. Robinson and colleagues conducted a taste test with a total of 63 kids aged 3 to 5 who were enrolled in a Head Start preschool for low-income families. They were offered five pairs of foods and asked if they tasted the same or to point to the one that tasted better. The food -- taken from the same order -- was wrapped in either McDonald's packaging or unbranded packages in the same color and style. In about 60 percent of the tastings, the kids preferred food in the McDonald's wrapper. "They actually thought the food tasted better," Robinson said in a telephone interview. No surprises here, huh? There's a reason why corporations toss millions of dollars at the NFL so they can broadcast a 30-second ad during the Super Bowl. If you're skeptical, just take a look at Dubya's improbable career. As writer Terry Pratchett observed in another context, Not-So-Curious George is an empty man "who applied for the position of Village Idiot but failed because he was overqualified". However, thanks to money, a diabolical Karl Rove and a big wardrobe department, this cretin stole the Presidency by hustling gullible voters who should have known better. Yes, Bush was a lousy student/businessman/Governor, but he's a great male model. Look, give him a megaphone and a fireman to use as props and he's a compassionate humanitarian who cares about his community. Look, give him a cowboy hat and boots and he's a hard-working, blue-collar guy you want to have a beer with. Look, give him Tom Cruise's used costume from Top Gun and he's a brave fighter pilot fighting to keep America free. People loved this bullshit so much they ordered seconds. And who's to say this gold-plated propanganda won't work again? Look at how well Ghouliani is doing with an oxygen mask, a steely gaze, and the ruins of Ground Zero. He's getting more dicks to stand at attention than a Jenna Jameson marathon.

With Rove gone, how far will Cheney go?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane, Bilerico Project & My Left Wing click to enlargeA great many of us have looked forward to the day when Rove left the White House for good, but have we really thought about a post-Rovian BushCo White House? I haven't. I have sometimes thought Cheney chaffed a bit at Rove's apparent closeness to Bush Junior - there were some places where the VP couldn't tread due to Rove's position. Cause God knows, anything that would disrupt Cheney's Fourth Branch Of Government is a bad thing. We have all seen how far Cheney is willing to push his power WITH Rove firmly planted in the Oval Office, but will Cheney now see ANY limits? How much of a impediment was Rove to Cheney? Don't get me wrong, I am glad Rove is gone, but I don't think the Democrats have a strategy in place to handle "All Cheney, All The Time." SPECIAL FAVOR SECTION Never let it be said liberals don't support the troops. During the first Gulf War, I began collecting books to send to my college friends serving in Saudi Arabia. I must have sent hundreds of books. When US troops got deployed to Iraq, I started doing it again but I knew the job was too big for one person to do it, so I set up Books For Soldiers, a 501 (c)(3) charity to send free books, dvds and video games to deployed US soldiers. But I wasn't that smart since I only thought the war would last 6 weeks tops in Iraq. What was I thinking? Now, FOUR years later, we are still shipping books. But today I need your help. There is a contest sponsored by VAJoe.com, they will contribute $2,000 to charitable military organizations next month in its Charity for Charities event. You can vote on your favorite charitable military organizations. The top four charitable organizations and a randomly selected organization will share $2,000 in donations from VAJoe. Books for Soldiers has been included in the event. The Alexa Traffic Rank for BooksForSoldiers.com is 242,975 and you would not believe our bandwidth bills! So these next few days, I am asking (begging actually) for your vote for Books For Soldiers. It won't take you 30 seconds to help a liberal out! CLICK HERE TO VOTE! A short, fast and easy site registration is required. P.S. Thank-you Michael Moore for supporting BFS. P.P.S. if you just want to donate, click here.

Coming Atractions

The Foot Stomper in Chief Speaks

From Press Esc: I run the war, Congress only funds it - Bush US President George W. Bush today reiterated his stand that he has the sole authority to run the war and the only job for the Congress is to fund it, after it emerged that the Iraqi government had failed half of the 18 benchmarks contained in the Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. "I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," Bush said at a press briefing. "I think they ought to be funding our troops." "Congress has all the right in the world to fund. That's their main involvement in this war, which is to provide funds for our troops," he re-emphasised. ... "I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources to them, but with -- by respecting the command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees," he said. Bush used the term "Commander-in-Chief" seven times to refer to himself during the briefing. He said he will disregard US citizens view on Iraq on the grounds that the troops do not want "their Commander-in-Chief making decisions based upon popularity." That man is going to have to learn some humililty. Or have it thrust upon him.

Bush gives Libby "Get Out of Jail Free" card

Howard Dean's statement: Bush Gives Scooter Libby A Get Out of Jail Free Card “Once again President Bush and the GOP have undermined a core American value: equal justice under the law for every American. By commuting this sentence, President Bush is sending a clear message that the rules don’t apply to the Bush White House or loyal Republican cronies. After promising that anyone who violated the law would be 'taken care of,' President Bush instead handed Scooter Libby a get out of jail free card. Though Libby was convicted by a jury of lying about a matter of national security, President Bush is sparing him the consequences ordinary Americans would face. This conviction was the first moment of justice in a Bush Administration void of accountability. It’s a sad day for America when the President once again puts protecting his friends ahead of equal justice under the law.”

Will American Rise Up?

Crossposted from Left Toon Lane & My Left Wing click to enlarge The Soviets tried to bring down America over and over but there was one simple method they didn't use that would have overwhelmed the American population and opened the door for a silent Soviet Invasion - sleeping pills in the Big Macs. Why? Because I think that is what is happening now. There really needs to be a Bush Scandal Wiki somewhere - just to keep track of all the scandals and crimes against the Constitution, democracy & humanity, war crimes and out right vandalism and theft. I just can't keep up. With that much scandal and democratic disgrace the ONLY explanation I can think of as to why Americans are not rioting in the street is because the Big Macs are chocked full of sleeping pills. The MSM and the Republicans and their "fake rage" followers almost had a coronary over Bill Clinton's brief bout of oral sex, but BushCo gets a pass? Benedict Arnold got a LOT worse for a LOT less. He planned to give up a fort and failed, Bush gave up the Constitution of the United States of America and is still in office. How is that even possible? Maybe it isn't Big Mac doping. Maybe if this were a basketball game and not our freedom, things would be different. And so concludes Howl Qaeda. I hope you enjoyed the series.

All that and "bad fashion decisions" too

Just found this via Plunderbund. The funny thing is that just last night I was writing a post touching on, among other things, whether bloggers should be considered "press". "We didn't seed the presidential marketplace," says spokeswoman Tia Mattson. "We do have such a broad demographic that even though he's not a 'normal' consumer, he fits right into it: sporty, outdoorsy." The president isn't a "normal" consumer--you don't say! This story was filed under "Top News" by the Washington Post. Bush's decision to wear black socks with his Crocs was ill-considered. The combination makes one think of an old man on his way to the beach. Besides, the shoes were conceived for use on boats. The holes allow air to circulate and water to drain. And the non-slip bottoms offer stability. Pairing them with socks is a contradiction. I just thought this was funny and decided to share. Would that we had a president who ONLY made bad decisions when it came to fashion... Oh, and thank you, Washington Post, for getting us this scoop so that one of us bloggers didn't have to get out of our jammies to break that story!

The Unholy Triangle: George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and al Qaeda

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as crossposted at The Peace Tree and Worldwide Sawdust. Foreign Affairs published a sobering article by Bruce Riedel in their May/June issue entitled, “al Qaeda Strikes Back.” Riedel, a Senior Fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution retired last year after 29 years with the CIA. Essentially, Riedel outlines al Qaeda’s resurgence while the Bush Administration has undermined our geopolitical position with their foolish war in Iraq. Hardly a dove, Riedel believes it is essential to our national security for al Qaeda to be “decapitated.” I agree with him. al Qaeda is a clear and present danger as a manifestation of radical Islam. Among the failings of the Bush Administration is how their incessant fear mongering has jaded Americans about the very real dangers of terrorism that still exist. What’s required is tough minded, realistic leadership that neither exaggerates dangers for political gain nor ignores threats as President Bush did in August 2001. The last thing this country should do is hand our enemies what they want: war with Iran. Riedel issues the following warning: “The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a ‘false-flag’ operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future. In the meantime, it should, of course, continue do its utmost to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and from fomenting violence and terrorism in the Middle East by using tough diplomacy and targeted sanctions. And it should not consider a military operation against Iran, as doing so would only strengthen al Qaeda's hand -- much as the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have.” I have a different take on Riedel’s warning. To be blunt, the Bush Administration will not be “deceived” by a “false flag” from al Qaeda. Rather, Bush and Cheney are hoping for a pretext to avoid a humiliating withdrawal from Iraq. With Republicans ready to jettison the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy in September, a war with Iran would be quite timely and convenient. Another false flag may be weapons smuggling into Iraq through Iran by operatives sympathetic to al Qaeda. Either way it is important to remember the antipathy that exists between Iran and al Qaeda. Iran has sponsored al Qaeda’s rival Hezbollah in Lebanon. After 9/11, Iran cooperated with Washington against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan out of their strategic self-interest. They view al Qaeda as a threat to their hegemony as well potential catalysts to instability on their borders. Tragically, the world is at the mercy of an unholy triangle as the motivations of Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Bush Administration and al Qaeda are converging. Ahmandinejad is besieged with problems. He’s terrified of dissent as domestic dissatisfaction with his regime intensifies. A war with the “Great Satan” would be a welcome distraction, as Iranians will surely rally to him if attacked. al Qaeda of course thrives on instability, chaos and any act that reinforces America’s image as an imperialist at war with the Islamic people. They’re laying in the high weeds to capitalize on instability in Gaza and Lebanon as well as exploit vulnerabilities in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is sucking wind and hemorrhaging support. The Republican Party is poised to pull the plug on Iraq in September. Bush and Cheney are desperate to avoid withdrawal and defeat in Iraq on their watch. A war with Iran would make extricating ourselves from Iraq nearly impossible. Of course our military, stretched to their limit in Afghanistan and Iraq is in no shape to prosecute any war with Iran. But the Bush Administration may be thinking that a controlled air war can be managed and strengthen their political position. As we’ve also seen, the Bush Administration is not overly concerned with details such as blowback, the fog of war and the heavy lifting of managing the aftermath once hostilities are initiated. Perhaps they’re also hoping war with Iran will distract from the publicity surrounding their scandals. These people are eminently capable of deluding themselves that a controlled air war is viable and just the tonic for their problems. Ultimately what I’m wondering is this: is America stupid enough to allow it? At this point I have little faith in the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership. It also doesn’t appear that the frontrunners for their party’s 2008 presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton nor Barak Obama possess the intestinal fortitude to stand up to aggression against Iran. They’ll sit back and see which the way the wind blows. I don’t like cynicism and believe it’s important to work for a truly progressive majority that is sensible and mature. I will not abandon my efforts as an activist to accomplish the ideals I believe in. However, as much as I prefer optimism, we’re on a collision course with calamity. It’s like watching a pile up happening in slow motion on the freeway while George Bush, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden crash their cars after binge drinking at an all night keg party.

Dick Cheney: Servant or Master?

click to enlarge I really do wonder who is in charge at the White House. Bush increasingly seems like a impudent child to me, more and more and the days drag by. Even this week, when I hear Pelosi or Reid speak-out forcefully against BushCo, I still feel a little shock in my brain - have I grown so accustomed to not seeing adults behaving like adults in Congress that I am still shocked when I see it? I am the most jaded and cynical person I know and still it jolts me somehow. Now when Congressional members of the GOP start doing it, something will truly be amiss. P.S. It is also a total coincidence that this is post 666 on my blog... or is it really?

Who will stand with Bush now?

click to enlarge Yesterday, on the 4th Anniversary of "Mission Accomplished," Bush vetoed the military funding bill. In that bill was funding for safer Humvees, Walter Reed restoration, body armor and the list goes on and on. It may have been my imagination, but Bush seemed even more cocky that usual - like his middle finger was pre-lubed. Also, during Nancy Pelosi's response speech, she seemed mad as hell. You could see the enriched anger in her face and hear it in her voice. From Bush's speech of May 1: The Democratic leaders know that many in Congress disagree with their approach and that there are not enough votes to override the veto. I recognize that many Democrats saw this bill as an opportunity to make a political statement about their opposition to the war. They sent their message, and now it is time to put politics behind us and support our troops with the funds they need. Someone is out to lunch. You mean the American people are making a political statement? Maybe we just want our soldiers back home from this unnecessary war, that you started by lying through you teeth to the American People. This one kills me: For example, Iraqi and coalition forces have closed down an al Qaeda car-bomb network, they've captured a Shi'a militia leader implicated in the kidnapping and killing of American soldiers, they've broken up a death squad that had terrorized hundreds of residents in a Baghdad neighborhood. General Petraeus was confirmed by the Senate in January, so you are telling me in the past 4 months, we have closed down ONE car-bomb network, captured ONE Shi'a leader and busted ONE death squad? That is your progress? We made better progress in Vietnam. Bring the troops home NOW.

Hey, John McCain "its your support for Bush and his Iraq war ... Stupid"

I'm not with this nitwit, Whit Ayres regarding his comments in WaPo regarding John McCain: "It's a far more competitive race than it was six months ago, but I think people continually have a tendency to jump to premature conclusions about political campaigns," said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster not working for any of the candidates. He added that McCain's "national stature is so great and the campaign's fundraising potential is so great that it would be a serious mistake to write him off prematurely." Both, NitWit, Whit Ayres, and John McCain have to be stupid to think the American people are going to support his campaign. McCain can launch his bid for the White House all he wants. His candidacy is going nowhere fast. This turkey is done! Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has surged past McCain in national polls because of one thing, McCains public and private support for Bush's unpopular war and policy in Iraq. "Hey, John McCain, its your support for Bush and his Iraq war... Stupid" But that is just my opinion. What's yours? African American Political Pundit is a proud member and a regular contributor to the Independent Bloggers Alliance

So Who Has That Vision Thing?

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal. So how do you select the candidate you support for President? Is it issues? Hair? Charisma? Perhaps you’re persuaded by an impressive resume? Ideology? Is it their religion or ethnicity? A single issue that for you dwarfs any other consideration? And if you’re a Democrat or Republican, how do you know when candidate X is the one you support to be your party’s nominee? Perhaps you reject both parties completely and prefer nominees of third parties such as the Greens or Libertarians? As a liberal Democratic Party activist, I’ll know the candidate I support when I’m compelled to knock on doors and phone bank in get out the vote (GOTV) efforts. Activism is disruptive to one’s life. It has to be coordinated around one’s work schedule and personal life. Often done after hours, on weekends and at the expense of more pleasurable activities. Hence, I need to be inspired by a candidate before I sign up and help in their effort to become president. Inspiration is not something easily quantified. We know inspiration when we feel it. So, what are the ingredients that inspire activists to stuff envelopes and get doors slammed in their faces? What are we looking for in our next president? Henry Adams, an American historian and the grandson and great grandson of two presidents once said that a president "resembles the commander of a ship at sea. He must have a helm to grasp, a course to steer, a port to seek." The first President Bush contemptuously described this as “the vision thing.” Inspiring vision may come from unpredictable sources. Not many regarded FDR as a transformational figure prior to 1932. He was an ambitious politician often talking out of both sides of his mouth. Ironically, one month after becoming the Democratic Party’s nominee in 1932, FDR criticized incumbent President Herbert Hoover about government spending: "Let us have the courage to stop borrowing to meet continuing deficits. Revenues must cover expenditures by one means or another. Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you know and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse." Ultimately, FDR governed with a very different vision and responded to the Great Depression with heavy deficit spending. The New Deal combined with FDR’s leadership in World War Two elevated this deal-making pragmatist into a transformational agent of change. Through an activist government, FDR presided over a vision of economic fairness and helped liberate millions from Hitler’s tyranny. In 2004, activists such as myself were inspired by a single vision: deposing Bush. Bush/Cheney had set the American house aflame and I wanted him out of power before it burned down completely. I didn’t sense much of a vision from Kerry and I didn’t care. He wasn’t Bush and that was enough. Now I’m looking for a candidate who can “force the spring” as Bill Clinton put it in his 1993 inaugural speech. I want to support a candidate that is an agent of transformational change and renewal. Admittedly, I am setting the bar high. There is no perfect formula for determining which if any candidate meets such a criteria. In most campaigns for public office I ask myself three questions about prospective candidates: 1) What do they know? 2) What have they done? 3) What are they going to do? At this point, there is only one candidate among the announced field in the Democratic Party that intrigues me: John Edwards. His record on Iraq troubles me but I’m starting to believe Edwards is sincere about learning from his mistake. Edwards has also demonstrated life perseverance following the loss of a teenage son. His wife is an inspiring model of perseverance as she supports the campaign in spite of cancer. Several years ago my Dad and I were talking about a particular individual who seemed to lack empathy. My Dad observed this was someone who would benefit from life, “knocking him on his ass.” Edwards has the knowledge of someone who has been “knocked on his ass” through emotional trauma. I’m impressed with how both he and his wife responded to tragedy. This is also a self-made man. His critics or as Katie Couric would put it, “some people” might say you can’t trust a man who made his fortune as a trial lawyer. I see a man who rose from humble beginnings and became a champion advocate for aggrieved individuals against concentrated corporate power. That is what Edwards has done with his life. Indeed, Edwards life is far more impressive to me than a garden-variety insider’s resume. When conservatives speak of tort reform they’re talking about stopping effective advocates such as John Edwards from helping the common person stand up to entrenched power. To this point Edwards has been admirably specific about what he intends to do. His healthcare plan is serious and substantial. On issues ranging from global warming to taxes, John Edwards has not shied away from articulating an activist progressive agenda. Listening to John Edwards makes me think of FDR when he spoke of the “forgotten man” in 1932: "He works, he votes, generally he prays - but he always pays - yes, above all, he pays. He does not want a political office. He is the one who keeps production going. He is strongly patriotic. He is wanted whenever, in his little circle, there is work to be done or counsel to be given. He gives no trouble. He is not in any way a problem (unlike tramps and outcasts); or notorious (unlike criminals); or an object of sentiment (unlike the poor and the weak); or a burden (unlike paupers and loafers). Therefore, he is forgotten. All the burdens fall on him - or on her, for it is time to remember that the Forgotten Man is not seldom a woman." I’ll wait a bit longer. I want to observe how the candidates conduct themselves through the fishbowl of presidential politics for a few more months. Perhaps Al Gore will surprise me and join the fray. Maybe Barack Obama can demonstrate he’s more than a platitude machine. Ironically, Obama today reminds me of John Edwards in 2004. Perhaps Bill Richardson can convince me he’s not simply an agent of the establishment. For damn I won’t support Hillary Clinton. At this time, John Edwards appears to be the one with the “vision thing.” And that means, I’ll likely be phone banking, canvassing and stuffing envelopes on his behalf in a few months.