Responsible Government: Liberty vs. Profiteering

Udall, the EFCA, Liberal media and Coloradan's Who Like Blue Skies

2008-08-19T19:56:00.002-06:00

The other day I was puzzled by a TV ad railing against Udall for supporting the Employee Free Choice Act, which was portrayed in a campaign ad as denying employees the right to a privacy in votes regarding unionizing. It seemed like a bad thing to deny employee’s privacy in voting. I mean, it is generally accepted that employee rights are shrinking compared to the growing power and influence of corporations. So this ad is seeking to protect employees, so the EFCA must be a bad thing, and Udall must be a pretty bad guy to support it... Right? WRONG.

It turns out the ad is quite misleading, even though it was from a group called “The Coloradans for Employee Freedom”. It turns out this group is a front for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and other anti-labor groups.

In a cleverly Orwellian twist, “The Coloradans for Employee Freedom” present their argument as protecting the rights of employees from coercion without the protection of private elections. In truth, the EFCA would deny employers a secret ballot election when there is no evidence of illegal coercion and a majority of employees sign union cards. The EFCA is a bill that favors employee rights, and is being hotly contested by anti-union groups like “The Coloradans for Employee Freedom” and companies like Walmart, which will close entire stores if their union-busting intimidation and coercion don’t work. The aptly labeled “Boulder Liberal” Mark Udall J supports the EFCA, as does Sen. Obama, which is one reason Walmart is “educating” their employees about the possible risks to their jobs should Obama be elected President. The Denver newspapers parrot this message as if Walmart is just being socially responsible.

The “_____ for Employee Freedom” front group runs identical ads against many pro-labor candidates. The National Republican Senatorial Committee has similar ads, including one making the same claim against Sen. Obama.

Here is a good summary and background info on the EFCA and a link to the actual bill text.

Changing the subject slightly… Obama has been slipping in the polls. I believe this is due to McCain’s negative advertising, which is effective particularly when media consumers do not evaluate the content critically, as in the case of these anti-Udall ads. On the presidential scene, a great source of truth in advertising is Fact Check, which evaluates the claims made in campaign ads.

The mislabeled “liberal” mainstream media doesn’t help with critical evaluation, and has largely revived McCain’s campaign acting as an echo chamber for misinformation and playing up innuendo that makes for entertaining sound bites, such as the theme that Obama is elitist. Along those lines, here is a great article. Also, a good site illuminating media bias and lazing reporting is Media Matters. Rather depressingly, because of the sheer volume of misinformation being dished up by the media in Colorado, we have our very own Colorado Media Matters site.

My point in all this is: don’t trust the mainstream media to serve up the facts or the full story. They are protecting their own interests, which are ratings and profitability (selling ads). And always evaluate who is pushing a given perspective and know their agenda. The PAC’s doing the advertising have become masters of naming their organizations things like “Coloradan’s Who Like Blue Skies” which would invariably turn out to be a group advocating cloud seeding to produce rain.

McCain has a broken sense of humor

2008-08-03T15:48:00.007-06:00

When Barack Obama humorously notes that he doesn't look like previous presidents on our currency, in a serious warning not to let his being black be used as a divisive campaign issue, the McCain campaign fiercely denounces it as making race a campaign issue.

When the McCain campaign impugns Obama's popularity with comparisons to celebrities or mocks Obama's supporters with religious comparisons to Moses, McCain says it is just humor, just having a little good natured but still respectful "fun"...

Seems McCain's sense of humor is as broken as his common sense. First, it would be absurd for Obama to make race an issue. Further, the comment would have passed with no media fanfare or much notice at all, at least until the McCain campaign made a big deal out of it. So who is really making race a campaign issue? The fact is, Obama is just stating the obvious, while McCain is trying to make it divisive.

Obama is black. He will likely be our first black president. He doesn't look like previous presidents - BECAUSE HE IS BLACK! Deal with it. This is an unavoidable topic. It isn't "playing the race card"; it is just one way he is different from previous presidents. Being different can be good, can be bad, can be irrelevant, can be pertinent, and it can be comforting or scary, all depending on your perspective. Being black is part of who Obama is. McCain claims to want to deal with this the same way he deals with homosexuality in the military (don't ask, don't tell). This may be comfortable, but it is also dysfunctional.

Barack Obama routinely is asked by the press, by various interest groups, and by supporters (by seemingly everyone it seems) about issues of race and culture and religion. These are lines that are routinely used to categorize and analyze voters. These are also lines that have been exploited in campaigns to divide people and create fear that can be exploited for political gain (thanks Karl Rove). Obama does a great, thoughtful and sensitive job of addressing these serious, previously ineffable issues. His message is consistently one of mutual respect, understanding and unity.

I would, just once, love to see John McCain address the same questions that are routinely hurled at Barack Obama. But McCain seems to believe that race should be unmentionable. Could it be that McCain just doesn't have any compelling thoughts or messages on the subject? Or perhaps, having hired the same strategist Bush used in 2004, and the same man that smeared his own daughter in the 2000 primaries, McCain plans to use race as a divisive campaign issue. Or maybe he just thinks we shouldn't talk about it, for fear we might recognize our commonality and unite for a change!

John McCain and Public Financing

2008-07-29T20:36:00.000-06:00

Let them eat cake!

2008-07-29T20:26:00.000-06:00

Is this guy out of touch or what?

On Responsibility and Values

2008-07-29T20:15:00.002-06:00

Jeez. With people like this in politics is it any wonder people are disenchanted?

McCain on the Economy – are you sure this is the guy you want?!?!?!

2008-07-29T19:54:00.002-06:00

"I didn't pay nearly the attention to [economic] issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue." John McCain, Jan 2000 (The New Republic, Feb 10, 2008)

"I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." John McCain (Wall Street Journal, Nov 26, 2005)

"…Economics is something that I've really never understood as well as I should… I've never been involved in the financial stuff, the financial workings of the country…" John McCain (BalitimoreSun.com, Dec 18, 2007)

What it means to "win" in Iraq: McCain gives an answer in the Present Perfect Progressive tense

2008-07-27T18:17:00.008-06:00

I just listened to an interview of John McCain. It was really one of the most favorable interviews I've seen of him during this campaign. He was composed and seemed happy to be getting some media time after a week of Obama dominating the spotlight. He was asked to define what it means to "win" in Iraq. Here is his answer:

BLITZER: Define victory in Iraq.
MCCAIN: Sure. It's the classic outcome of a successful counterinsurgency, which this strategy is, an effective government in a secure environment, a social, economic and political process that's moving forward -- very importantly, a legal system that is functioning to protect the rights of the people, Americans withdrawing, and the Iraqi people having a chance at freedom and democracy, which, obviously, they were never going to have under Saddam Hussein, and we avoid the risk of a wider war; we Reduce the influence of Iran in the region; we have a positive impact, even as far away as Afghanistan, because success breeds success -- but an Iraq that is a stable, normal country.
And it's not over, as I said. Al Qaida is not defeated. They are on their heels, but they're not defeated. That's why we have a ways to go, but the progress, by any parameter, has been dramatically good. And that's a path to victory in Iraq, and you can see it every single day in Baghdad, Mosul, Basra and around the country. And I say, thank God.

Not too succinct, but it demonstrates that Obama is not the only candidate filled with optimism and hope. Let's just examine that a bit more... He talks about "moving forward", a legal system that is "functioning", "Americans withdrawing", Iraqi's "having a chance at freedom and democracy", then outlines the progress and the work left to be done.

The problem with this answer is it is all Present Perfect Progressive tense. For those rusty in verb tenses, this is used to "express duration of an acton that began in the past, has continued into the present, and may continue into the future." In other words, he has defined a process the leads someplace he describes as victory. But he has failed to define victory.

Once again, we find ourselves listening to someone steeped in tactical thinking, but lacking leadership. He describes the process, the work to be done. But McCain reveals his poor leadership skill. Leaders set the policy, define the strategy, and then support the tactitions. They define what to do, not how to do it.

In other words, his answer is vague, unmeasurable, unquantifiable, what is the word I'm looking for...

ENDLESS

Yeah, that's the word, endless.

Sometimes the best news is comedy

2008-07-27T15:24:00.000-06:00

And I don't mean FOX:

Responsible Republicans and Patriotism

2008-07-27T14:02:00.004-06:00

Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb) gets it. He recognizes that it does not serve McCain well to run ads attacking Obama's patriotism, especially when the charges he levels at Obama can be just as accurately turned around. It is incendiary and slanderous to suggest that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign." But what choice does McCain have? McCain is desperate.

At every turn he has been outflanked and outperformed by Obama. He is completely outclassed, and is demonstrating his desperation by the negativity of his attack ads. I'd be willing to bet that prior to Obama's cancelled troop visit, the McCain camp was probably preparing to attack Obama's patriotism for using the troops as a political prop the same way McCain does. The sad fact is that McCain is at a loss for ideas and solutions. His sole positive attribute and distinction is his military service. Everything else he suggests is either a continuation of Bush's cabal or a rewrite of Obama's ideas.

Fortunately there are some responsible Republicans like Chuck Hagel who recognize that whichever candidate takes over as President Jan 20, 2009 will have a great deal of challenges to overcome, not the least of which is fallout from the divisiveness we've all witness over the last eight years (read "I'm a uniter, not a divider"). Just months from now the new President is going to need everybody to work together. So why is McCain trying to divide us? Could it be he'd rather sacrifice our future than loose a campaign?

McCain wrong, media mothballs interview!!!

2008-07-23T12:29:00.003-06:00

Wow! McCain is seriously wrong on facts of surge. CBS edited out McCain's gaffe! Talk about being cut a break by the that meanie lefty liberal media :)

In fairness, there is a pretty funny clip of Obama misspeaking, which doesn't happen too often. And, his error winds up being pretty much the truth anyway, but entertaining nonetheless.

McCain Flip-Flops on Torture

2008-07-20T16:26:00.004-06:00

McCain Flip-Flops Illustrate his Lack of Adherence to His Own Principles

For a guy who is so outspoken about criticizing Obama's so called flip-flops, McCain has some of his own. Quite a few- 66 in fact, by the count tallied here.

However, the most grievous is his reversed position on torture. For years, McCain has used his adamant objections to waterboarding to bolster his claims to be a maverick by disagreeing with Bush/Cheney and many of the party faithful on torture.

In a recent interview, McCain reiterates his stance on waterboarding:

Source: CNN LATE EDITION WITH WOLF BLITZER (Interview With Tony Blair; Interview With Senators Dodd, McCain - Aired November 4, 2007 - 11:00 ET)

MCCAIN: It is torture. There's no doubt about it. Mr. Mukasey will get briefed on the specific procedures that are being used. And I have every anticipation that he will say that it's illegal and that it is torture.

There's no doubt about it being torture, Wolf. Pol Pot used it in acts of genocide. Burmese monks today are being afflicted by this terrible torture -- practice of torture. And it's a violation of the Geneva Conventions, of which we are signatories.

Yet, despite such tough talk, just three months later, the Senator from Arizona voted against the so-called "Waterboarding Ban". H.R. 2082 is a bill that would require the intelligence community to adhere to the interrogation techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual and ban waterboarding.

Once again, McCain shows his true colors by putting politics before country, ethics, morals and his own personal experiences as a POW. Guess this means that McCain was against torture before he was for it.

McCain's and Obama's Foreign Policy Experience

2008-07-19T12:49:00.008-06:00

There seems to be a propensity for equating resume and age with experience and wisdom. This line of thinking gives rise to questions about Obama's readiness and qualifications to be POTUS. McCain by contrast, claims great experience (and age) to support his readiness and qualifications. However, if this logic were legitimate, Cheney and Rumsfeld would be doing a great job. Instead, Rumsfeld has resigned over bungled Iraq policy and Cheney, with approval ratings heading south, may yet be impeached.

For insight into the wisdom and foresight of McCain and Obama, let's review their stated projections regarding invading Iraq back in 2002.

In a September 29th, 2002 interview on CNN Sen. McCain said:

"I don't claim that any military operation anywhere is going to be easy. In fact, I think, whenever you commit American blood and treasure, it's a great risk and is a last resort and last option.

But I don't know of any Iraqi soldier who is willing to die for Saddam Hussein. We're not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we're not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies."

October 2, 2002, the same day that President Bush and Congress announced the joint resolution authorizing force against Iraq, then Illinois State Senator Obama, giving a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago said:

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

Obama wisely recognized the consequences of the worst foreign policy blunder of any recent U.S. President. He was able to look strategically at the big picture of U.S. involvement and foresee the devastating cost- political, financial and human, of occupying Iraq. McCain, then as now, illustrated by his bloviating talk of victory in Iraq and the success of the surge, does not seem capable of looking past the tactical challenges faced by the military.

Pretty Disillusioned with the Democrats

2008-07-08T16:06:00.001-06:00

I voted for the Democrats in 2006. I encouraged everyone I know to do the same. I gave money to several Democratic organizations. As I result of the collective efforts of millions of people like me, the Democrats gained a majority (albeit narrow) in both houses of Congress. The U.S. has the first female speaker of the house as a result. That is pretty cool.

I breathed a sigh of relief. Sensible grownups were back in charge. The drums of war would fall silent. As a nation, we could begin to make amends with our allies and others we've wronged. We could begin to focus on the economy, jobs, infrastructure, education, and energy independence - things that will make us stronger.

Looking back at the past two years, I'm pretty disappointed! To begin with, we are not only still in Iraq, we are more committed thanks to greater spending and the commitment of more troops. The Democrats in Congress have not only failed to end the war, but have just passed the largest military spending bill ever. Our civil rights continue to decay in favor of more executive power for government and corporate aided spying, errr, I mean "domestic surveillance". Gas prices are up along with oil company revenues and foreclosure rates. We can't afford to pay for educational programs or health care, yet we're making tax cuts permanent. Where have all the sane people gone???

True Believers and the Power of Thought

2008-07-08T15:27:00.002-06:00

"the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds" - Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for Virginia (1776)

Recently there has been lots of focus on the power of thought. Books and coaches revealing the "secret power" of what is now called neuro-linguistic programming and neuro-associative conditioning. As in, "The Secret", spotlighted on Oprah or Tony Robbins seminars. These ideas go back at least to the 1930's, and probably much further. I couldn't help thinking about this as I listened to speeches made by John McCain and Barack Obama during the 2004 Republican and Democratic conventions.

John McCain opened his RNC address by quoting Franklin D. Rosevelt: “This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.” He continues by submitting the re-election of Bush/Cheney as an evaluation of our nation's moral courage and resolve. He jumps quickly to beating the drums of war, saying "The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of". Within a few breaths, he frames the conflict as a noble contest between human dignity and "a malevolent force" that disputes God's love, right and wrong, good and evil. In support of his conclusion that "we must fight - We must!" in order to "vanquish this unpardonable enemy" he manages to refer to weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, terrorism, 9/11, heroism and courage, love, freedom, and justice, 9/11 (again), the Cold War, cruelty, mass graves, torture chambers, unity after 9/11, liberating Iraq, the "war against terrorism", being safer now than after September 11th, military and ideological superiority, and al Qaeda. John McCain concludes with the words "Stand up with our President and fight. We're Americans. We're Americans, and we'll never surrender. They will."

"They will". Presumably given the context, "they" means Democrats. The implication is that Democrats will surrender. The implication is that Democrats are despicable, yellow-bellied cowards- downright un-American vermin lacking the fire in the bellies to fight for freedom and justice and the American way. Whoa, sorry, I was on a roll...

OK, back to convention addresses. Barack Obama opened his DNC address by holding himself out as an example of civil progress and unity. He speaks of his father who was born and raised in Kenya, son of a cook and domestic servant to the British dreaming of an "America, that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity". He speaks of his mother who was born and raised in post-depression Kansas, to a father who "the day after Pearl Harbor... signed up for duty; joined Patton’s army, marched across Europe [while] Back home, my grandmother raised a baby and went to work on a bomber assembly line." He speaks of a "tolerant America" where his parents "imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential." He continues speaking of America's greatness, quotes from the Declaration of Independence, sites freedom of speech, political expression, and the right to vote. He rolls through the standard Democratic fare: jobs, the economy, education, community and faith, energy independence, Constitutional freedoms, health care, family unity. He pays tribute to John Kerry, citing his heroic service in Vietnam and years of public service since then. He cites "Constitutional freedoms that have made our country the envy of the world, and [John Kerry] will never sacrifice our basic liberties, nor use faith as a wedge to divide us." He ends on the upbeat, hopeful note that we, as Americans, can overcome the challenges we face.

Let me summarize:

John McCain
25 minutes
themes: war, destiny, right and wrong, good and evil, threats and militarism
message: unite to fight, fight, fight...

Barack Obama
17 minutes
themes: family history, tolerance, diversity, shared dreams, opportunities, hope
message: unite to overcome challenges

Both McCain and Obama gave moving, well delivered and well received speeches; clearly each deeply identifies and truly believes what he said. Each comes around to the same conclusion: we need unity. Obviously, I'm being much more critical of McCain's speech - because I don't identify with his premise or the underlying assumptions.

Humor me for a moment, and return to the frame of mind from which I first listened to these two speeches. I was thinking about the power of thoughts (and speech) to influence one's destiny. From that perspective, if we head into the next four years with leaders speaking of fighting wars and never surrendering, what is the likelihood we'll still be engaged in conflicts? Is a true believer like McCain likely to lead us to a more peaceful and prosperous future? I doubt it.

In light of the power of thoughts and words to shape our future, I ask you to think about which words you would prefer to hear over the coming four years post-Bush/Cheney.