Sandy's reality provides opportunity for Obama 'One America' redux

"For alongside our famous individualism, there's another ingredient in the American saga, a belief that we are all connected as one people...
"It is that fundamental belief - it is that fundamental belief - I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper - that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family: 'E pluribus unum,' out of many, one...
"...there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America."
- Barack Obama's keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention

Even in the face of an election season full of the most rancorous and extreme partisanship, there is a takeaway from the politics of the Hurricane Sandy tragedy, one that reprises President Obama's seminal assertion that, eight years on, there is still only one America. With the recent praises of FEMA and the president's leadership coming from the unequivocal Chris Christie, New Jersey's no-nonsense Republican governor, it appears that the storm that devastated that state and region has done what no hard running politician could do - show that level headed and reasonable responses to responsibilities destroy divisiveness in favor of cooperation.
READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Commander in Chief vs Commander of Shift

"You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies."
- President Barack Obama, talking to Gov. Mitt Romney at the third presidential debate, October 22, 2012

We have a Commander in Chief, and his name is Barack Obama. He successfully made the point that if Mitt Romney carries his knack for shuffling his positions into the realm of foreign policy, it will be a disaster for the United States' standing in the world. Unless, of course, like a third world despot, Romney is telling us one thing and telling the rest of the world something entirely different.


READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE...

What's so foreign about foreign policy?

In a time when so much of U.S. foreign policy involves our global military footprint, ongoing engagements, waning engagements and threatening engagements, it's easy to think that war is the sole function of that governing platform. Americans are conditioned that way; like a computer that insists on entering a discarded wi-fi password at your favorite cafe, many young voters cannot remember a time when it was not how we operated in war that ran our international relations, but how we manage our peace.

God, and the voters, willing, that period will return soon.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE...

Romney's Core

Mitt Romney, as CEO of the Salt Lake
Organizing Committee
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Given all the different positions that Mitt Romney has taken throughout his political career, it may be easy to label him a liar and a flip-flopper. But if voters are looking for the "real" Mitt, they will have a hard time trying to peer through the gauzy obfuscations to the man at the core. Mitt plays politics in a carnival funhouse, and one cannot tell with certainty if what they are looking at is the authentic Romney or one of a series of distorted reflections, each intended to please a particular block of voters.

Somewhere in the center of the rotating Romney record that spins on the public life turntable, needle dropping alternately (that's like an iPod shuffle, to you Millennials) on the Senate candidate cut, the Bain cut, Massachusetts governor cut, the 2008 presidential candidate cut, the 2012 GOP primary cut and the 2012 official Republican nominee cut, is a tall, silver spindle that is unmoving and unmovable. It is the axis around which everything that is Mitt Romney swirls.

The first debate, in Denver last week, was the ultimate clue that the Romney campaign is both more and less than it seems. To attribute his polymorphic politics to mere pandering, is to imply a schedule of nefarious plotting by the candidate and his campaign. That is not only antithetical to the moral man he claims to be, it ignores the possibility of a simpler explanation, an Occam's Razor, if you will. It is not only possible, but likely, that he sees no disconnection between his stoic center and the political characters he has trotted out on the stage throughout his life.

Read the entire article...

Can't hang your hat on polls when winds of crisis blow

In politics, you can't hang your hat on a poll, because the winds of global events will easily send it tumbling away. In the battle for leading a nation, there are only two things you can plant at the top of a poll: a flag or your ass, and if one isn't up there, the other soon will be.

It's safe to say that following the revelation of the recent video with Mitt Romney speaking "off the cuff," as he called it, at a high end fundraiser in Boca Raton, this spring, his keester is high in the breeze, hoisted with his own Mitt-tard, as it were. He just cannot get away from who he is. As Bob Marley sang, "You're running, and you're running, and you're running away, but you can't run away from yourself."

But there are still seven weeks until the decision is final, and anything can happen.

READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE >>>

Religion poll equates dense, Tea Party dunce demographic to Christian right

"On many important political and social issues, Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement also hold views similar to the views of Americans who identify with the Christian conservative movement..."

- Public Religion Research Institute, October 5, 2010

There may not be much of a surprise here, but a new poll published by the Public Religion Research Institute says that chances are, if you are White, non-Hispanic, call Fox News your "most trusted source of news about politics and current events," and prefer extreme Christian social values, you are supporting the Tea Party and its unhinged cabal of crazy candidates in this year's midterm election.

The biennial poll, conducted by the PRRI every two years since 2006, found that more than half (57%) of those in the ultra-conservative, Palin embracing, DeMint encouraged social conservatives in the Tea Party "consider themselves part of the Christian conservative movement." I guess it could be worse, considering the survey also found that more than 8-in-10 of them call themselves Christians.

 

[caption id="attachment_358" align="alignright" width="477" caption="What would Jesus do? This sign from the October 2, 2010, One Nation demonstration on the National Mall, in Washington, DC, has an idea, one with which the Tea Party may not agree. (photo by Carole Keith)"][/caption]

 

To bring home the point that these are not just fiscally-conscious, socially accepting Libertarians, the poll, which PRRI calls the American Values Survey, points out that almost two-of-three Tea Partiers surveyed are against abortion "in all or most cases," and less than 20% support gay marriage. (I would have thought that number was much worse.)

They are also - no surprise here - overwhelmingly Republican, with basically three-of-four saying they always vote GOP, and more than eight-of-ten (83%) saying they will be supporting Republican candidates in November.

Daily Beast columnist and "Wingnuts" author John Avlon, in a March column, called it "Obama Derangement Syndrome—pathological hatred of the president posing as patriotism," and says this "demonizing of our president" has "infected the Republican Party."

The more appropriate and timeless quote may be the one from Jonathan Swift, which appears as the epigraph of the John Kennedy Toole classic, "A Confederacy of Dunces." Swift said:

"When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him."

-PBG

PoliticaSutra

The Passion of Political Partisanship

Partisan Politics requires three kinds of actions to thrive: to exist, through blind faith and bottomless financing; to replenish its adherents, luring them with passionate, serotonin inducing rhetoric, and fear of what happens if the other side gets control, that makes their hearts beat rapidly and their palm sweat in hungry anticipation; and to define the behavior of the adherents, so that everyone understands the amount of tunnel-vision necessary to maintain their roles, and the stubbornness required, to the survival of the dogma (which ups the passionate responses).

In the communities where political opinions are given more weight than they are probably worth, they are represented by three targets: money, passion and a strong belief in the moral high ground. In that way, the pervasive political partisanship assures adherents to their respective sides and gridlock in the political process.

As for passionate partisanship, it is further defined as the enjoyment of feeling that you sound, look, smell, feel and pray better than those whose politics you choose to despise, for they are your unholy adversary. Particular to this passion is the relationship between the talking point and the myopic mind, and the consciousness of pleasure from that contact, which is called partisan politics.

-PBG

We Stood Up!

Now it's time to march!

When I started this blog in 2005, one of the first comments I made was that we needed to stand up in order to get the one party government Republicans to stand down.

In 2006, when we actually started to make some gains, and became the majority party in Congress, it appeared we were on the right track. I was bitter, to be sure, about the South's unwillingness to catch up to the changes the rest of the country appeared to be going through.

Tonight, though the Electoral map shows that the last factor has not really shifted much, most of the rest of the country is heeding the call for change. Democrats, Independents, minorities, the young voters, the old, all stood up. Even the South has begun to shift, with Virginia, North Carolina and Florida choosing the man for the times rather than holding on to old time values.

We still have a long way to go, for it was (arguably) only the darkness of the last eight years that brought us to this new morning. But now that we have woken up, though some still slumber, we must take on our new challenges and not let up. Now that we are awake we must work. We must march. We must continue to fight and hold on to what we have gained. Stand up for what we believe in and work to make it so.

What can you do to help President-elect Barack Obama?

-PBG

Obama Baby Video

This video demonstrates Barack Obama's appeal to young voters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWrThVhwBwg

This video was written and directed by Bruce Kay.

Editing and graphics by yours truly.

-PBG

Managing the Conversation for Change

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things.—Niccolo Machiavelli

If national elections in the United States are about one thing, that thing is change. We change from liberal to conservative, from peace to war, from a strong domestic commitment stressing economic equity to a commitment to economic disenfranchisement. We give entitlements to the poor or we give tax breaks to the wealthy. We secure the futures of our working class or gild the parachutes of CEOs and CFOs, and grant them pardons when they do to their employees what our government cannot. We vote. We change.

The thing is, you can go three or four presidents and - unless there's a war or an economic collapse - not notice a thing. Sure, you may get a little more or a little less money back from your taxes, and there is the occasional media sensation or scandal, but as long as your working, life goes on; the paychecks come in; you fill your car with gas and take your vacations and love your family and take this wonderful American routine for granted.

It should come as little surprise then, that Americans tend to wallow in the rut of secure sameness, holding on to the day-to-day like a toddler to a binky. The times that allow this static lifestyle are numbing, so much so that politicians and purveyors cannot resist taking advantage of a lulled populace, picking our futures from our pockets like back alley thieves.

Indeed, it could be said that some Americans get to choose change, while others have change thrust upon them.

Just because Bush and Cheney have run our country over the cliff in a barrel of mismanaged change does not mean we are doomed to to splat like Wile E. Coyote on the stark floor of the Painted Desert, while they peer over the edge and dusts off their hands in satisfactory glee.

Admittedly, the news of the day is not good: Wall Street is teetering; McCain has been bumped up by throngs of white men in love with the legs and lies of Sarah "Peggy Hill" Palin (or her husband); gas is over four dollars a gallon again. But all that is what happens when "change" is unfurled like a "Mission Accomplished" banner. It's not change we can believe in; it's change they want us to believe. It's the kind of change where things are really just the same, which is what they really want. Our kind of change, Barack's change, really scares them, and their chants of "burn baby burn" (oops!) I mean "drill baby drill", in turn, scare us.

I may just be paranoid, but I fear that Palin especially - with her neocon church beliefs - is using words like "some of these CEOs and top management people" as code when she says they are "addicted to other people's money." I fear that Palin will foment an atmosphere of anti-Semitism disguised as classism. That is why we have to pull together behind Barack Obama.

Obama and Biden are challenging us to believe in change and be their agents in affecting it. If this change is going to happen, we must make it happen. Unlike the current administration that just wants us to go shopping and fill our cars with four dollar a gallon gasoline, the Democratic ticket wants us to have a hand in determining the course of our own democracy. What a radical idea!

"...creating change starts with creating a vision for change and then empowering individuals to act as change agents to attain that vision. The empowered change management agents need plans that provide a total systems approach, are realistic, and are future oriented. Change management encompasses the effective strategies and programs to enable those change agents to achieve the new vision." from Managing Change: An Overview, by Nancy M. Lorenzi, PhD and Robert T. Riley, PhD, published by JAMIA, Mar-Apr 2000

Unlike the populist politics of Obama, I think that when Bush 41 had his vision of "A New World Order" he was counting on the participation of multinational corporations, NATO, the IMF, the WTO and the World Bank to help create it. They are who he wanted to "empower." Not the people. God no.

Forty-one's legacy staff in Bush 43's White House wanted to continue in that direction. Even after 9/11 happened, they still went to Haliburton and Blackwater to help fight this stupid war in Iraq. They didn't ask anything out of us except to "go shopping."According to a 2007 article published in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations (who conspiracy folks think are in on this whole mess), "George W. Bush has revived George H. W. Bush's call for a 'new world order' -- by creating, in effect, a new new world order." But even this cabal isn't sure the world is ready. "Because the U.S. government is viewed as having undercut many global governance structures in recent years, any effort by this administration to rewrite the rules of the global game is naturally seen as yet another attempt by Washington to escape the constraints of international law."

Included in the JAMIA "Managing Change" article there is a table entitled "Reasons for Contemporary System Failures" which lists ways in which change implementation fails in a corporate environment. One does not have to look far to find the failures of the Bush-Cheney administration in their efforts to change the USA's approach to global politics. Of course, these (in italics) are just my associations and interpretations. Feel free to use your own:

Category	Examples
Communication	Ineffective outgoing communication
	Ineffective listening President’s August 2001 Daily Briefing: “Bin Laden Determined to Attack” Phoenix FBI Pet Goat
	Failure to effectively prepare the staff for the new system Condi and the NSA Differences with Colin Powell, Richard Clarke and Paul O’Neill
Culture	Hostile culture within the information systems organization Facts don’t matter; politics do. We'll make the facts fit. The Cheney push to reclassify documents, including a “new” kind of classification Outing Valerie Plame
	Hostile culture toward the information systems area They don’t have to know what we do, just what we say. We’ll make the press afraid to speak against us.
	No strategies to nurture or grow a new culture Could have used the opportunity after 9/11 to reach out to the rest of the world and unite to find a way to resolve the terrorist situation in a statesman like manner. Instead, things like “Dead or Alive,” “Bring it on!” Also, dissolving the Iraqi Army, not guarding the borders. Basically not having a strategy for peace.
Underestimation of complexity	Missed deadlines and cost overruns It’s hard to be president. Surplus to deficit How many billions has this war cost us?
	Lost credibility Mission Accomplished. Katrina: You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie. Medals for the idiots who planned and mishandled Iraq. Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson
Scope creep	Failure to define and maintain original success criteria Find WMDs Welcomed as liberators It will pay for itself
	Failure to renegotiate deadlines and resources if criteria do change Refusal to deal with Iran Refusal to re-evaluate relationship with Russia Refusal to acknowledge the bad intelligence, even before March ‘03 Refusal to allow the UN inspectors to do their jobs
Organizational	No clear vision for the change Holding on to the Cold War mentality of an evil enemy that must be vanquished. Holding that everyone longs for democracy and freedom – also a Cold War legacy
	Unintended consequences 5,000 dead soldiers Longest war the US has ever fought Loss of credibility in the rest of the world Shifting allegiances to try to find a suitable ally among the sects of Baghdad. Huge deficit.
	Ineffective reporting structure Abu Ghraib Reporting to Cheney and not the Pres.
	Staff turnover
	Staff competency
	Provision of a technical “fix” to a management problem Gonzales and Rove firing Federal Prosecutors Visiting Ashcroft in the hospital to get his approval for illegal wiretaps rather than agree with the acting AG
	Lack of full support of “boss(es)” Powell was against it; Lack of support of the American people, and we are the bosses
	Roles and responsibilities not clearly defined or understood by everyone Scott McClellan Richard Clarke The US Military W did not ask us to play our part; he felt as though he didn't need it. "Go shopping," he said.
	Several people vying to be “in charge” Cheney, Ashcroft, Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld (remember Rummy’s wanting to co-opt all intelligence for the DoD?)
	Adequate resources not available from the beginning Rumsfeld’s refusal to acknowledge the need for more initial forces - "You got to war with the army you have, not the army you want." Not enough intelligence, both the spy kind and the brain kind
	Failure to benchmark existing practices Well, there have been benchmarks. They just haven’t been met.
	Inability to measure success “When they stand up we’ll stand down.” They do keep moving the line lower. Can you say “everybody limbo!”?
Technology	System too technology oriented Too complicated for simple minds
	Poor procurement
	Lure of the leading (bleeding) edge Democracy anywhere will bring democracy everywhere. We fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here. A small force ought to be enough to do it.
	Inadequate testing Did anyone think this through, I mean with their brains?
Training	Inadequate or poor-quality training
	Poor timing of training—too early or too late
Leadership issues	Leader too emotionally committed “Bring ‘em on!”
	Leader's time over committed It’s hard to read stories to kids and saw logs in Crawford.
	Too much delegation without control Haliburton, Blackwater and Dick Cheney
	Failure to get ownership in the effort No call to join in the effort. Just go shopping.
	Leader's political skills weak duh
	“Lying” to get initial approval WMDs Spurious ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda Nigerian yellowcake Downing Street’s “Dodgy Dossier”

Again, the italics are mine. The rest is from: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000 Mar–Apr; 7(2): 116–124. Copyright © 2000, American Medical Informatics Association

Like I said, these are just my ideas. I'm curious to know if you have your own. Let me know. Even the briefest internet search brings a handful of past news stories illustrating the issue of Bush trying to shift us to this change of his:

"Members of the Bush administration keep talking about what a promising moment for peace this is. The suggestion is that the departure of Saddam Hussein, and the arrival of a new Palestinian Prime Minister, Abu Mazen, has changed everything. It is hard to see precisely how Saddam Hussein was preventing the Israelis and Palestinians from making peace. What has really changed is President Bush himself.

"Suddenly he is taking a strong personal interest in the peace process, and putting his own personal political capital on the line. But what motivates him is still a bit of a mystery."

-Bush's change of direction

by Jon Leyne BBC State Department correspondent

.........................
"Commentators have fixated on the invocation of 'preemptive' military action to counter enemies seeking 'the world's most destructive technologies.' Yet this is not the crazy idea it is often portrayed to be. To enforce a robust nonproliferation regime, preemption might actually make sense in certain cases. The real problem in the new strategy is not preemption but narrowness -- the focus on three wretched governments and terrorists, and the emphasis on force, coercion, and selective treaty enforcement as the main instruments of national policy.
Conservative defense intellectuals and officials deserve credit for highlighting the fact that effective nonproliferation requires changes in the policies or governments of states unwilling to abide by international laws and norms. Yet they then proceed to make the reverse mistake, looking only at the outlaws and ignoring the challenges posed by nuclear weapons in general. So long as some states are allowed to possess nuclear weapons legitimately and derive the benefits that flow from them, then other states in the system will want them too -- including, perhaps, the successors to the governments the Bush administration currently opposes. The proliferation threat thus stems from the existence and possession of nuclear weapons and theft-prone materials, not merely from the intentions of today's 'axis of evil.'

"The nonproliferation radicals recognize that the good guys of today can become the bad guys of tomorrow. So they say the United States must retain and 'upgrade' an enormous strategic arsenal forever to deter or defeat any adversary. At the same time, they argue that the new bad guys (rogue states and terrorists), unlike the old bad guys (the Soviet Union), cannot be deterred and contained and so must be eliminated quickly. The Bush administration thus essentially favors a strategy of repeated regime change plus a large, steadily modernizing nuclear arsenal.

"This bleak vision makes sense only if the determination to retain deployed nuclear arsenals forever does not exacerbate proliferation risks, and if the weapons being retained provide a necessary, usable, and effective deterrent against threats that are greater than proliferation. Since neither of these assumptions is valid, the strategy is flawed."

Bush's Nuclear Revolution: A Regime Change in Nonproliferation

George Perkovich

From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2003

--------------------

BUSH: "We've got a plan in place. The plan says there will be elections in January, and there will be. The plan says we'll train Iraqi soldiers so they can do the hard work, and we are. And it's not only just America, but NATO is now helping, Jordan's helping train police, UAE is helping train police. We've allocated $7 billion over the next months for reconstruction efforts. And we're making progress there. And our alliance is strong. We're making progress.

"It is hard work. It is hard work to go from a tyranny to a democracy. It's hard work to go from a place where people get their hands cut off, or executed, to a place where people are free. But it's necessary work. And a free Iraq is going to make this world a more peaceful place."

from the first Presidential debate, Kerry/Bush-Sept 30, 2004

-------------------------------

"Our work in Iraq has been hard.

"Helping construct a stable democracy after decades of dictatorship is a massive undertaking. Yet we have a great advantage. Whenever people are given a choice in the matter, they prefer lives of freedom to lives of fear. Our enemies in Iraq are good at filling hospitals, but they do not build any. They can incite men to murder and suicide, but they cannot inspire men to live, and hope, and add to the progress of their country. The terrorists' only influence is violence, and their only agenda is death.

"Our agenda, in contrast, is freedom and independence, security and prosperity for the Iraqi people. And by removing a source of terrorist violence and instability in the Middle East, we also make our own country more secure.

"Our coalition has a clear goal, understood by all -- to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations. America's task in Iraq is not only to defeat an enemy, it is to give strength to a friend - a free, representative government that serves its people and fights on their behalf. And the sooner this goal is achieved, the sooner our job will be done."

-- President Outlines Steps to Help Iraq Achieve Democracy and Freedom
Remarks by the President on Iraq and the War on Terror
United States Army War College
Carlisle, Pennsylvania--May 24, 2004

So I guess now that we have started re-regulating the financial industry, we're in for a newer new new world order. Can I order a new leader who listens to the people and not the New World Order?

-PBG

Jingoism, Optimism and Enthusiasm

Obama and the Europeans

(I know... it sounds like a fifties group)

"It's not only Obama's youth, eloquence and energy
that have stolen hearts across the Atlantic. For Europeans,
there have always been two Americas: one of cynicism,
big business and bullying aggression, another of freedom,
fairness and nothing-is-impossible dynamism.
If President Bush has been seen as the embodiment of
that first America, Obama has raised expectations of a
chance for the nation to redeem itself in the role that - at
various times through history - Europe has loved,
respected and relied upon."

-Associated Press, Berlin, July 23, 2008

"The people in Europe expect a different kind of
foreign policy for the USA from Obama,
away from military dominance and
towards more cooperation and negotiation."
- Interview with Thomas Bauer, Research Fellow
at the Center for Applied Policy Research,
Munich, by Academic World

These bipolar views of US policy and behavior make it easy to understand why our allies in Europe are nervous about being on the same team with us. We're the Jimmy Piersall of NATO - they need us to help them win, so they put us in and we work hard to win, but we sometimes get frightfully out of control.

We are collectively convinced by our own paternal conservatism - that which won the West, subjugated the Indians and institutionalized racism - that to take a tack other than "bullying aggression" is to show cowardice. Barack Obama's statements about having a meaningful dialogue with those who would otherwise do us harm flies in the face of that. It is therefor the contention of Europeans that the "military dominance" to which Herr Bauer refers is seared into the mindset of conservative Americans. To them, we are a country run by gunslingers whose credo might be, "If yer talkin' ya ain't shootin', and if ya ain't shootin', yer yella!" Helluva caricature we've created for ourselves.

It is to those cartoon Americans whom reporters like NBC's Andrea Mitchell refer when they say:

"[W]hat if he is so celebrated in Europe, that there is criticism back home? That it doesn't play well in parts of the country that are, you know, a little bit more jingoistic, and a little bit more isolationist, which includes, perhaps, parts of the Midwest and Appalachia, and other parts of key battleground states, where seeing him celebrated in Europe might seem to be an implicit criticism of America."
- Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, to MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski, July 17, 2008

This bit of thoughtful punditry is wrong on so many levels, most importantly because there is no way that it can be said that Obama is actively courting the jingoist vote. Jingoists don't vote. Politicians can never measure up to their chauvinistic ideal of "real"Americans.

To be sure, criticism will come from the Right, but from a different kind of flag waver. The conservative National Review says the mistake is Europe's, not Obama's. A mistake, it says, being made by people on both sides of the Atlantic:

"Disappointment on two continents is inherent in the current enthusiasm. Europeans regard Bush, his America, and his foreign policy as little short of diabolical. They see Obama as the Fifth Cavalry riding in to save them from such dangerous folly."
- The Editorial, National Review Online, July 22, 2008

Setting the sarcasm and cynicism of the NRO editorial board aside, the senator's visit to Europe is not meant to save the Europeans, but to save us, or at least to lay the groundwork. You see, Europeans are not celebrating Obama, the man. They are rejoicing for the same reason many of us are: the end of the George W. Bush presidency. That the possible replacement for this mis-president is a forward thinking, eloquent, intelligent, bright, concerned and charismatic man like Barack Obama just helps up the hope-factor. Why not rejoice in that?

"A potential president who is beloved by Europeans? It just feels -- wrong, somehow. If our staunch European allies aren't inflamed with anger, how do we know we're doing something right?"
- James Kotecki's Video Blog, July 21,2008 - Politico.com

-PBG

Yes We Can Say That

Public Finance, FISA and the Death Penalty:
The DLC and the Erosion of a Dream Candidate

"...the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken,"

Barack Obama in a video statement about opting out of public finance
for his presidential campaign.

Having a plausible explanation for a complete reversal of a principal policy does not mean it is ok. If you have to explain a change in policy position by saying, "We can say that because..." you are rationalizing your faulted integrity. The irony is that this election is not so much about the desperate necessity for changes in policy for which there is considerable consensus; it is really an election about integrity, something that has been missing from politics for generations. And if the statements coming out of the Obama campaign recently are any test, political integrity will remain an oxymoron for generations to come.

I was curious as to what may have changed in Senator Obama's campaign that would cause them to legitimize these controversial reversals. Was it just a typical "move to the center" that is characteristic of all post primary presumptives? Or was it something else, like maybe part of the deal with Hillary was to move to a more centrist, DLC approach in exchange for that wing of the party not making a fuss at the convention?

I decided to examine whether there were parallels in the DLC's way of thinking and the changes in the Obama stance. While some of the connections are arguably spurious, I did find enough that it is worth questioning if this is the source code for the new Obama campaign.

The DLC

"House members shouldn't be intimidated by pressure groups who view the FISA bill's immunity clause as a litmus test on respect for civil liberties. It's not. Rather, it is an over-emphasized aspect of a broad bill that could constructively define the rules of signals intelligence collection in the 21st century. This bill represents an excellent opportunity for House members to strengthen their civil-liberties credentials by supporting a law that improves and clarifies the standards for intelligence collection."
- Jim Arkedis, director of PPI's National Security Project, in a Feb. 2008 article about the FISA debate on the DLC website

"...given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives - and the liberty - of the American people."
- Obama statement about his support for the FISA compromise that passed the House last week (from Talking Points Memo.com)

One does not have to look far on the DLC's website to find support in its mission. An op-ed piece that appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 2003 gives legitimacy to its raison d'etre:

"In 1996, a survey by the Washington Post compared the views of delegates to the Democratic convention with those of ordinary registered Democratic voters. They might as well have come from different parties. On every single social and economic issue, the views of the registered Democrats were closer to those of all registered voters than to those of Democratic delegates.

Almost two-thirds of Democratic delegates wanted to cut defense spending; most registered Democrats did not. A majority of Democratic delegates opposed a five-year time limit for welfare benefits; two-thirds of registered Democrats supported it. Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by a margin of more than 2 to 1."

from a 2003 article in the LA Times by Al From and Bruce Reed (now president of the Democratic Leadership Council)

This is as good a time as any to say that I really am not against the DLC. They are an essential part of our party. If the Democrats were a ship, the DLC might be the rudder that keeps us upright while we in the liberal wing are the wind in her sails. The challenge for us is who is at the tiller.

Yet they do represent the establishment, and that is whom we all thought Barack was running against the last four months. At least I thought so. I'm certainly old enough not to be naive about politicians, but I thought he would take firmer stands, and not "cave" as some bloggers have put it.

One of my important issues is my opposition to the death penalty. But like those on the right who oppose a woman's right to choose, I know that I cannot make the death penalty a pillar of my decision making when it comes to my vote. Yet when our candidate came out against the recent SCOTUS decision against the death penalty for anyone but killers, I still felt as if there was one less thing to like about Obama.

As reported in yesterday's online version of the Wall Street Journal, Obama said:

“ 'I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,' Obama told reporters at a press conference in Chicago.

"The expected Democratic nominee said he believed the rape of a child 'is a heinous crime' that fits the circumstance..."

And the DLC's take on the death penalty? They are reactionarily (?) entrenched after the punishment they took in the 1988 Dukakis campaign:

"[A]fter 12 years in the presidential wilderness, Democrats rallied to Gov. Clinton, who positioned himself in the 1992 campaign as both hard-headed and warm-hearted. He proved that he would defend the social order by not only supporting the death penalty but actually taking a break from the campaign trail to return to Arkansas to preside over an execution."
-Marshal Wittman, from a May, 2005 article in Blueprint Magazine, from the DLC's website.

In another February, 2006 DLC article from Blueprint Magazine, Virginia's newly elected Democratic governor Tim Kaine said he won in part because he was able to sidestep making his "personal faith-based opposition to capital punishment" a campaign issue by saying that he would follow the law because, " I was...telling voters that I took the oath of office as seriously as my wedding vows."

And because, as stated in the LA Times piece cited above, "Democratic delegates were split on the death penalty; registered Democrats favored it by a margin of more than 2 to 1," it seems the DLC encourages an ambiguous stand on the death penalty for those who are morally opposed to it.

To be sure this is speculation on my part. It is impossible to prove that the DLC specifically is an influence in these apparent reversals, and despite it all, obviously none of these things will keep me from voting for Obama in November, but for sure some of the glimmer is gone. The shine, as they say, is coming off the rose. I just hope there is still some left after Denver.

I wonder if Bobby would have compromised this much.

-PBG

The Wiretapper in the Mirror: Congress Wimps Out

In today's debate over the warrantless wiretapping bill - aka changes to FISA -Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) who spoke against passage, expressed the concerns of both sides when she called it "lipstick on a pig" .

In speaking for the bill's passage, California Republican Dan Lungren said that "it's not the Mona Lisa, but it is a pretty good paint job." More like a snow-job. The only thing that's getting painted over here is the Fourth Amendment. The fact that Congress sees capitulating to the Executive as the proper way to do the country's business flies in the face of checks and balances and doesn't serve "We the People" at all.

In contrast to Lungren's calling this "a great day," at least Speaker Pelosi had the sense to say that it was not, and yet she voted for it.

What really peeves me about this is that it is so obvious to the rest of us why the Congress' approval ratings are abysmal. They are not doing the people's business. They are doing business people. They were voted into office to make waves, and yet you could skip Dennis Kucinich across the water and still not make the White House lawn wet.

There is an outrage growing in the electorate. If Senator Obama really wants to be an agent of change, he must step up and vote against this bill when it gets to the Senate. Getting the country's business done is not an excuse for doing bad business.

Please let your senators know that they must not pass this bill.

-PBG

It's Not Over until the Lady in the Pantsuit Sings

The Seething from the Clinton Camp

After the Rules & Bylaws Committee reached its decision Saturday, Hillary's staunch supporters on the committee - Harold Ickes and Tina Flournoy - issued a statement on Hillary's website, saying, "This decision [to take delegates away from Hillary in Michigan] violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party."

What follows the statement are blog-posts from Hillary's rank-and-file, some of which are quite disturbing. Here are a few samples:


"I am extremely upset as to the way this whole thing is being run. Does every vote count or just who the delegates and super delegates feel like voting for. I want Hillary and I will not vote for bHo !!! I refuse to vote for him. We can tough it out another 4 years with McCain."

"Is this democracy? This entire election is so unfair to Hillary. I can honestly say that if BHO wins this I will not vote for him. 4 more years is not that long to put up with McCain. I guess it's the principle of the entire process. R&B committee has people so angry we will never be united."

"I have complete records of all my donations over the years and after today's sickening farce of a meeting of the UNdemocratic RBC, I will be requesting they return my money in full."

"Yo, this DNC be trippin' if they be thinkin' be gonna be standin' for this. That's what's up!"

"This is not over until the lady in the pantsuit says it is and she’s in it to win:) "

"Four years is not that much to put up with..."? Have they forgotten what Bush did in the first four years? In the first three? Heck, in the first year?

What strikes me about this gushing venom is that the conventional wisdom says that most of these folks will end up voting for Obama. It's hard to see from this how we get there, but get there we must. A call for unity must come from Hillary herself, and she must rally those who are so disappointed to get behind the nominee. She doesn't have to be on the ticket (in fact, I hope she isn't), but as a force of nature, she can really swing into action for the Democrats and for our country. Any deal that closes this cycle has to include her calming her supporters who feel disenfranchised, and motivating them to vote for the change, if they can't bring themselves to vote for the man.

-PBG

Needed to Nominate

Consensus, Compromise and a Head-On Collision

As I watch the DNC Rules Committee hearing today, there are a couple of things that come into my mind.

First, though I hate that the Democratic process has been like watching the slow motion crunch of an Alligator Alley head-on collision, it is a really great thing that this is happening now instead of on the Convention floor in August. We need a nominee.

That brings me to the second thing. I have one word for the Rules Committee: consensus. I've heard them talking about compromise, but that means someone has to give up something they are attached to, like Hillary would have to let go of her campaign's dogged determination to seat and count every delegate in Michigan and Florida as they voted. Given her rhetoric in a May 22 e-mail:

"I'm so proud that so many people -- more than 300,000 of you -- are standing with me to ensure that the 2.3 million votes cast in Florida and Michigan are counted. It's such an important principle in our country: when the voters speak, we count their votes.

"Your commitment to that principle means a lot to me, and to the people I talk to in Florida and Michigan who want to make sure they have a voice in this election. Yesterday, I spoke to voters in Florida, and they are all too familiar with the consequences of not counting every vote.

"On May 31, we'll hear the decision from the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee on whether they'll seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. And while we wait to hear their ruling, you and I must keep fighting together to win every last vote in the final three races."

-Hillary for President email, May 22, 2008

I would find it quite surprising that she would be willing to compromise, and an unwillingness for compromise is an unwillingness for consensus. To be sure, compromise is not needed for consensus because the latter means wanting what is best for everyone in the party. But Hillary wants what's best for Hillary, and her campaign seems to think that what is best for Hillary is what's best for the Party.

Yet the consensus that must emerge by the National Convention cannot be the result of a resignation or capitulation. Consensus here comes from realizing the consequences of continuing a potentially devastating intra-party fight. Consensus comes from stepping up and being supportive of the process, the Party and the nominee. There are no losers when we stand together.

-PBG

Moulting Hulls: A New Way to Campaign

How Barack Obama is Changing the Conversation of Political Campaigning

Picture a beach. Large, with windswept dunes, tall, dry grass spears from it as sparsely as the hair on John McCain's head. Scattered across the sandy hills are old bunkers, built by Nixon, Reagan and Bush 1 and 2, and even JFK, LBJ and WJ Clinton. There old fart politicians wait for the new politicians that dare to challenge their turf. They have survived by keeping their big guns sighted on the sea.

When the new ships carrying hopeful politicians attempt to cross the narrow bay, the old guard opens fire. They don't aim to sink the approaching boat - merely to make it list a little. That way, they can bring it in to shore in the guise of offering assistance.

"I don't know who shot at you," they say. "I just heard an explosion and came running. But you're lucky. We just happen to have a plan, er, I mean a shipyard where we can make the repairs for you and you can be on your way. Oh, don't worry. We've been doing things this way for years."

The fresh faced politician looks forlornly at this unwelcome handler.

"Oh, don't worry about the money. You're one of us. As long as you need your ship patched, we will be here for you. Now off you go."

Sure enough, a couple of days later, the new politician's ship is ready to set to sea. Indeed, it is repaired, and though a couple of planks, some nails and some pitch don't make it too attractive, it is seaworthy. So off he goes, charting a course to success on unpredictable surf.

But the people on other islands, who need him to give them a lift, see the poorly dressed gash in his ship's hull, and don't trust the repair. They definitely are hesitant to get on board. Then they look around at the other ships making their way to the harbor and shudder. Everywhere they look, on every hull, is an equally nasty patch.

The town crone hobbles up to them and, seeing their concern, says "Don't worry, dearies. This always happens. Just pick the boat you hate the least and climb on," and up a gangplank she waddles.

A lot of the other older folks do the same thing. Some of them even convinced their neighbors and family to join them. "Hurry up or you'll be left behind! You won't have a say about the ship's course," they shout from the deck rails.

Then, from the direction of the bunkered beach island, they see something miraculous. A smoldering ship begins to list, but instead of heading for the old shipyard, it turns and makes a heading toward them. They all gasp as they see it begin to list, smoke pouring from its side. They all see the smoke and they all know what happened. Those who haven't chosen a boat shake their heads in disbelief. Those on the old decks cackle with laughter and point at the fool coming towards them.

Suddenly, as they are all watching, the smoke stops, and slowly, the ship begins to right itself. "Look at that," says a young girl standing at the harbor, pointing. There, in the wake of the ship, the old smoldering hull is sinking. The boat now wears a shiny new hull, a confident one, and the people on shore rush to meet it. They cannot wait to climb aboard and meet the captain.


Somehow, Barack Obama has found a way in politics that doesn't involve putting a patch on controversy and hoping you don't see it. He's found a way to turn attacks into gold because it's not about the ship; it's about commitment to a destination. Instead of standing up like a petulant child and saying, "I'm not bad. They are," he stands firmly and says, "This is what the real issue is. It's racism. It's divisiveness. It's dismissiveness. But if we confront that, this is what's possible. We maintain our ship because we are committed to our course."

His biggest challenge will be going back to the bunkered island, his ship constantly renewing itself under their fire, and seeing if he can get the old farts to get on board.

-PBG

The Context of Context

When they heard his words, they were shocked by their vehemence. They were "taken out of context," as the popular excuse goes. He tried to assure us that when you look at the entire sermon, it was perfectly in line with the congregation's beliefs, not nearly as inflammatory as the little soundbites that the "media" keeps playing over and over and over again.

"Have you read the entire speech? Next question."

Yet the difference between the words and the speech from which they were extracted don't seem entirely distinct. So if it is not in the speech itself, where is the context of these words that fire up the Right and puzzle the Left?

It is the context of culture, a construct of the environment of the ecosystem of the mind. We all have a perspective, and the trick to great oratory is knowing how to give context to that perspective. Barack Obama has the gift of an agent of change to understand the world through the perspectives of others, so the social context of his speeches can be broad and sweeping and - if he loses track - unintentionally alienating to some segments of the public.

Reverend Wright, on the other hand, is so used to basing his context on the perspective of his congregation (which may or may not be the perspective from which he originally viewed life), that his speeches are intentionally narrow and sharp and targets like an arrow, but an arrow meant more to incite than to wound. It's what preachers do. They speak to their audience. They incite and they excite. They know what it takes to grow their garden.

-PBG

Remembering Days of Daisies and Death

On the Fortieth Anniversary Of a Memphis Killing

What is the color of nostalgia? I'm old enough to remember a past through a classically clouded sepia haze, but I'm also young enough to see the past through a shower of pop art daisies.

Remembering the times when daisies were on everything from black-light posters to bell-bottoms to that spot of smooth skin between Goldie Hawn's belly button and bikini line (sock-it-to-me), it sounds like a time of love - of innocence and joyful self expression. In some ways, it was.

"If any of you are around when I have to meet my day, I don’t want a long funeral. And if you get somebody to deliver the eulogy, tell them not to talk too long. And every now and then I wonder what I want them to say."

But mixed into that psychedelic rainstorm and brainstorm is the bloody shadow of cut roses that are doomed before they ever open their petals to the world.

"Tell them not to mention that I have a Nobel Peace Prize—that isn’t important. Tell them not to mention that I have three or four hundred other awards— that’s not important. Tell them not to mention where I went to school."

It may be that we bundle roses into bouquets, when they've only just started to smell and barely to flower, to indicate that there is a greater beauty in our relationships and in our lives that awaits joyful discovery even as the fragrant petals await their time to smile.

"I'd like somebody to mention that day that
Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to give his life
serving others.

"I'd like for somebody to say that day that
Martin Luther King, Jr., tried to love somebody."

But when cut roses fall onto the coffins of the dead, it means something else. It represents the unfulfilled potential of a life abridged, an abrupt end to discovery's trajectory.

"I want you to say that day that I tried to be
right on the war question.

"I want you to be able to say that day that I
did try to feed the hungry.

"And I want you to be able to say that day
that I did try in my life to clothe those who
were naked."

It is these dying roses that fall like hailstones through the bright mist of a 1968 daisy shower. They are the shrapnel in the flower power explosion. Anyone who remembers that April day remembers the scars it left on our hopes, the holes it tore in our dreams: disbelief; distrust; and a toxic infection that - by the end of June - turned most activists into apathetic cynics.

"I want you to say on that day that I did try
in my life to visit those who were in prison.

"I want you to say that I tried to love and
serve humanity."

But I don't mean to categorize April 4, 1968 as just another element in the concept we call "The Sixties," or even to lump it into the multi faceted maelstrom of that one, tragic year. I want to call that day what it was - it was the day the drum major died.

"Yes, if you want to say that I was a drum major,
say that I was a drum major for justice.
Say that I was a drum major for peace.
I was a drum major for righteousness.
And all of the other shallow things will not matter.
I won't have any money to leave behind.
I won't have the fine and luxurious things of life
to leave behind. But I just want to leave a
committed life behind."

From Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Drum Major Instinct" speech,
delivered February 4, 1968 at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia

The child I was then is only a small part of the man I am now. Remembering that day, in the carpool, when Mrs. Pazol told us that Martin Luther King had been assassinated, I wonder how much I really understood of the man. Indeed, I am lucky that I live in a city that considers itself not only his birthplace but also the guardian of his legacy. When Atlanta finally allowed itself to breathe, the years that followed had a momentum that was unstoppable. Achievement and equal opportunity have been growing here since then, despite the rednecks in their white sheets.

But no one thinks the words "We Shall Overcome" are passe, ready to be retired. Even if Senator Obama captures the Presidency, that ends nothing. The past month of "their church vs. our church," "their pastor vs. our pastor" shows that not only is there still a feeling of disconnectedness in the African American community, but there is also a white racist behind every tree ready to spring a backlash onto the conversation.

Senator Obama's ascendancy, however high it goes, is good for the country. It's good for "White" America and it's good for "Black" America. Even the disturbing overtones in the public debate in March are good because we can see how much farther we actually have to go to see equality from every racial perspective, which is one of the main points of Sen. Obama's speech on race.

One thing is clear: in a country where our Founding Fathers were proud to declare e pluribus unum - out of many, one - there can never be equality without generosity; there can never be freedom without a voice; there can never be unity without understanding; there can never be an "us" as long as there is a "them."

When the time finally comes to stop singing "We Shall Overcome," no one will remember why we even sang it to begin with. Until then, we all must sing it, because if not for keeping our eyes on that distant time, we would be forever still, lying in our own blood on the cold, concrete balcony of a Memphis motel.

-PBG

Riders of the New Crusade

Liberty by the Sword:
Quest and Empire in an Age of Fear

"To McCain, a commitment to universalism
requires American expansionism. Indeed,
to McCain it is precisely commitment to
this imperial vision that makes American
patriotism superior to other brands of
nationalism. Our own patriotism would
become compromised by stinginess and
selfishness were we to show more restraint
in world affairs."
(Matthew Yglesias, on theatlantic.com, February 25, 2008)

"Our pioneer ethos, inspired our belief in ourselves
as the New Jerusalem, bound by sacred duty to
suffer hardship and risk danger to protect
the values of our civilization and impart them to humanity."
(from a John McCain speech at USC in 2002, extolling the virtues of Teddy Roosevelt's brand of patriotism)

"Proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof."
(from Leviticus 25:10, inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia)



sits high in his saddle, the reins of his mount coiled around the gloved hand in his lap. In his other hand he holds a bell-shaped lamp, given to him by the priests of Columbia. His red mantle is piped in white stars that bob on a wave of blue like gulls on the ocean. The early morning January sun glints of his gold helmet with a light so bright, it is as if God himself were winking at those gathered around.

"Oh," gasps the crowd at this regal sight. "So majestic," exclaims an awed onlooker. "So brave," adds another. "So holy," affirms a third, and they all nod in agreement. "Yes, holy. Yes."

"We are born with responsibilities to the country that has protected our God-given rights, and the opportunities they afford us," says McCain to those attending the spectacle, while waving freedom's lamp for all to see. "I owe my country every opportunity I have ever had. America has given my life the sense that I am part of something greater than myself. We're the world's leader. So stand up with me, my friends. Stand up and fight for America -- the last, best hope of mankind!*"

Turning his horse to the noblemen seated in the gallery, he adds, "I want to thank those of you who have generously financed this campaign through the indulgences you purchased form Pope George the W. You will surely be rewarded in this world 'with lower taxes and less regulation*', enormous profits and golden parachutes."

Cheers erupt from the well-heeled noblemen and gentlewomen seated just below Pope George,who is shuffling his golden shoes in a dance of exultation. Their enthusiasm is so great that even those who stand across the pitch, ankle deep in muck, with collars of blue, even those who mourn the bravery of young blood, cannot help but shout with excited glee.

Turning back to the noblemen, McCain the Grey says, "We're not a country that prefers nostalgia to optimism. We don't hide from history. We make history.*" He then turns his horse and rides to the city gate, waving his lamp of Liberty all the way.

The children of the blue collars chase after him, their hearts filled with optimism, their pumping fists filled with the promise of destined glory. They howl and shout, "Make way for McCain! Make way for McCain!" They follow him out of the city, and for the next hundred years they fall, their blood turning deep, sandy hoofprints into pools of red mud.


change awaits its turn. Obama the Good watches as clouds of enraged dust swirl and settle on stone streets and hapless shoulders of ragged men, women and children. In this corner of the town, the sun is obscured by flies as hungry as the people they feed on.

Obama turns to a sea of expectant faces. Bright, haunted eyes look to him - eyes of innocence opening to a well of experience, and reaching into the bottom of a heart where stone walls once awash with endless hope long ago dried up and shrank away to pebbles holding only small puddles of despair. They long to have their hearts refilled. They long for a time beyond cynicism and defeatism.

As if in response to McCain's exhortations, he says, "It's the same course that offers the same, tired answers to workers without health care, and families without homes, and children who go to bed hungry in the richest nation on Earth.

"Americans know that we need to take responsibility for ourselves and our children, that we need to spend more time with them and teach them well. But we also believe that there is a larger responsibility that we have to one another as Americans.**"

In his own heart, Obama is in despair. He has renounced a revered teacher, something he shouldn't have had to do. But in order for his campaign for a hopeful city to continue, he knows he must turn aside anger and fear. "We believe that we rise or fall as one nation, as one people, that we are our brother's keeper, that we are our sister's keeper.

"I will not allow us to be distracted by the same politics that seeks to divide us with false charges and meaningless labels. In this campaign, we will not stand for the politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon.**"

Even now, while McCain is off bludgeoning the world with Liberty in the name of patriotism, his minions run with axes high toward the valley to try to keep Obama and his hopeful hoard from climbing up. But as they get to the edge of the valley, they here these words coming from Obama:

"I have asserted a firm conviction -- a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people -- that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

"It means taking full responsibility for own lives -- by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.^"

The enraged crowd's weapons withdraw at his words and they begin to quiet. "Is this man not also a patriot?" they wonder.

"What we know -- what we have seen ," continues Obama, "is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope -- the audacity to hope -- for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

"At this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time.' This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected.^"

And now, for the first time, Obama the Great looks around at those who had come to quash him and his beliefs and sees they are actually listening. They call to him, "You talk of unity? What about our jobs? What about our children? What about what we believe? Unless we feel safe, what good is it to talk of fixing ourselves? We like the idea of a fight, of forcing a fix on those who aren't like us, better than giving our taxes to you to for your huddled masses. "

"It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children," returns Obama, "but it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger, and as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.^"

___________________________________

In the end, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land" is not an edict to take liberty to the world by violent means. It is a reminder that we are free, that we must remain free. Our proclamation comes in our actions, in the values of respect, tolerance and a healthy generosity to our fellow human beings. We act and therefor we live free. No one ever got closer to freedom at the business end of a bayonet, and no one ever got closer to God from behind the butt of a rifle.

* words from Sen. John McCain's victory speech in Texas, after clinching the Republican nomination, March 4, 2008.

** words from Sen. Barack Obama's speech in Texas that same night.

^ words from Sen. Barack Obama's speech addressing racism and the Rev. Wright controversy, March 18, 2008.

-PBG