In a word, Obama’s acceptance speech was magnificent. If this didn’t "close the deal" as the bubbleheads kept demanding, nothing will. That didn’t stop the AP, the only national news wire, from sending out an "analysis" that was sharply at odds with the reality last night in Denver. Compare it with the analysis by the New York Times, hardly a foe of McCain. (Read the AP’s heavily biased anti-Obama Ron Fournier’s piece on Gov. Palin here). The media will not be Obama’s friend. Nevertheless, it was a flawless convention, and Denver sparkled.
My only complaint was the constant drumbeat of speaker after speaker calling President-elect McCain "my friend" and talking about honoring his service. I suppose it’s necessary. But let’s remember that the Republicans never honored the service of George McGovern, who flew a remarkable 35 missions as a bomber pilot in World War II, holding a job with one of the highest casualty rates in the military. McGovern won the Distinguished Flying Cross, a step below the Medal of Honor. McGovern never tried to exploit his service. And the Republicans never thanked him for it.
Another point that must be made in the weeks ahead: Even if McCain is a maverick (he’s not) and even if he wants to do something about energy and global warming (he doesn’t), a McCain victory will bring a McCain administration. That will mean three things. First, the cohort of GOP operatives that has wrecked the government and subverted the Constitution stays and becomes more entrenched. Second, more plunder policies of the big corporations and oligarchy, including Big Oil, that McCain needed to win. So goodbye to real steps for new energy and steps to address climate change. Third: a far-right Supreme Court, appointed with the approval of the extensive and well-funded network of "conservative" judicial activists that want to turn the legal clock back to the 19th century.
Even if you are an independent who suspends all disbelief about McCain and buys into the maverick myth, you can’t get away from those three realities. Even if McCain suffered terribly as a POW, his presidency will bring these three terrible, inevitable outcomes. Even if he seems like "one of us," he will bring us four worse years because of the unavoidable company he must keep to win. The Sarah Palin pick only reinforces this. The inexperienced Alaska governor will appeal to one base: social conservatives (she is anti-abortion — wants to criminalize it in all cases; evangelical, mother-of-five, blah-blah-blah). I just hope the Democrats say this — all the time.
Why is it so hard for the Democrats to have a clear message? Why do they continue to be defensive when they could have a great, quotable, sound-bite-rich positive message?
1. Democrats are for freedom of speech. Republicans want only a limited freedom here. They want to prevent you from criticizing their religion, policies or position. The Republicans want to declare anyone that does not believe as they do to be non-patriotic.
2. Democrats are for freedom of (and from) religion. Republicans want to force you to choose from a short list of formal religions. If you don’t, you’re a non-citizen. This includes atheists, wiccans and anyone who doesn’t attend an acceptable church. You’re not allowed to actually have a personal relationship with your god, it must be brokered through one of their certified government-funded faith-based organizations.
3. Democrats are for freedom of life. Republicans want to tell you what is acceptable in the kitchen, bedroom, garage, back-yard, school, business and in your mind. Republicans don’t think you have the right to tell them how to live, but they have the obligation to force you to follow them.
How hard are those positions to frame positively? I’ve just done so with only a few minutes composition and I think the above would resonate with more people than they would alienate. Maybe the Democrats are too afraid to alienate anybody.
Maybe I should become a Democratic strategist…
Progressives stand FOR peace, social and economic justice. Ask a neo-con if he supports peace, social and economic justice, and he’ll either hem and haw (which means “no”), or he’ll ignore the question and ask, “You’re a liberal aren’t you?” (also a “no”).
Progressives stand FOR civil rights. Neo-cons oppose civil rights on the general principle that they allow terrorists, illegal immigrants, and other criminals to flout the law.
Progressives stand FOR the investment of public resources to improve the public weal. Neo-cons oppose this on general principles. The only legitimate use of tax-dollars, as far as neo-cons are concerned, is on military spending. (Oh, they claim to support expenditures on police and penal systems too, but look how woefully underfunded those are. The difference is that the military-industrial complex turns a profit, whereas public safety is a — brrrr!! — strictly non-profit endeavor, which makes it virtually socialist.)
Progressives stand FOR a living wage, and FOR public regulation of workplace conditions, and FOR well-funded, vigorously enforced food and drug safety regulations, and FOR affordable health-care for all, and FOR strong American labor unions and FOR retirement benefits and FOR educational opportunities. Neo-cons are against such things on the principle that they “interfere with the free market” — hahahahaha! (Whoops. I forgot…that isn’t a joke.)
“Democrats are for freedom of speech” – are you guys nuts? Haven’t you heard about the assault on Milt Greenberg’s Chicago WGN program in which his guest, Stanley Kurtz, a respected researcher, was verbally beaten up for trying to find out the facts about Obama & Wm. Ayers’ relationship? Or, how about the assault on the ABC producer on a public street during the Denver convention. Or how about the call to the Justice Department to block an independently financed McCain ad? It sounds more like fascisti bootjacks inhabit the Obama camp than defenders of free speech. Get real!
When women survive torture, they’re called victims; when men survive torture, they’re called heroes.
Terry Dudas, it may surprise you to learn that quotation marks are generally reserved for quotes. I said “progressives” not “Democrats”. Democrats are members of the Democratic Party. Their attitudes and political philosophies range considerably. Some of them are indistinguishable from conservatives.
Of course, it might be argued that the term “progressives” is itself elastic, but whereas I cannot control how others choose to apply it, I can define it in my own usage (see above).
If, by “assault on the ABC producer on a public street during the Denver convention”, you are referring to the arrest of Asa Eslocker while taking pictures on a sidewalk outside the Brown Palace Hotel, my understanding is that he and his crew were asked, numerous times and over a fairly long period, to stop “blocking the sidewalk”, by security acting on behalf of hotel management, and having refused to do so, was finally arrested.
I agree that it’s suspicious, given the fact that Eslocker was attempting to photograph senators leaving a meeting with VIP donors. You’re free to speculate, unless you have evidence of collusion between hotel management and politicos or their donors, in which case I urge you to publish it.
https://www.denverpost.com/ci_10317164
Regarding the Kurtz affair, it’s Milt Rosenberg, not Greenberg. You use the term “respected researcher” to describe Kurtz, but others have used to terms “right-wing hatchet man” and “smear artist”. It isn’t surprising that Obama supporters would object, and if he wants to take a swing at the big boys I guess he ought to know they’ll swing back.
When you say that Kurtz was “verbally assaulted” apparently you mean that people said things about Kurtz which you don’t like. Which part of “freedom of speech” don’t you understand?
The Chicago Tribune has the full text of the Obama email re Kurtz, online:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/chi-obama-wgn,0,3744149.story
Regarding the attack ad on Obama and complaints to the Justice Department about it, the issue was whether the ad was in compliance with federal elections law.
Obama’s camp argued that “by advocating Obama’s defeat, the ad should be subject to the contribution limits of federal campaign law, not the anything-goes regime of issue advocacy”. The Huffington Post covered this issue extensively, so you might want to read this:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/25/obama-asks-doj-to-block-t_n_121251.html
Emil: One correction. Neo-cons also believe strongly in using tax dollars to bail out their financial partners like Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, a long list of banks, Lehman, JP Morgan Chase, any number of hedge fund billionaires and others who proudly join the neocons in backing a core plank of Republican ‘free’ market economics: privatize gains and socialize losses.
This may, though, be one of those fine points of economics that McCain — perhaps even Palin — have a hard time grasping.