Author: Maryscott OConnor

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

Over the past several years I’ve become convinced that the ways we classify political beliefs and ideologies (or perhaps the very definitions themselves) are in dire need of revamping. For instance…

What’s a “conservative?” Used to be there was a standard reply to that query, one that included the paeans to “small government, low taxes, laissez-faire” portraits of the federal government. Nowadays, however, when I think of a “conservative,” I think of a bizarre hybrid, a “free trader” crossed with a would-be Puritan, whose ideal federal government micromanages the individual’s private affairs, but still uses a hands-off approach in dealing with corporatism…

The same could be said of “Republican” — is there a shorthand descriptor of a Republican today? Aside from the fact that people like me use it as a one-size-fits-all epithet, I cannot think of anything that remains of the old definitions of Republicanism. Certainly there are, as there have always been, different subsets among the whole — but if you had to distill its essence, how would you describe a “Republican?”

And how about a “Democrat?” What does a Democrat stand for? Is there a quick sound bite that aptly summarises what it means to be a Democrat? (“Not a Republican” seems to be it, nowadays.) How about a “liberal?”

Here are some of the definitions of “liberal” that I’m happy to claim:

lib·er·al   adj.
— Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

— Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

— Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

— Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

— Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.

— Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; “a broad political stance”; “generous and broad sympathies”; “a liberal newspaper”; “tolerant of his opponent’s opinions” [syn: broad, large-minded, tolerant]

— Having political or social views favoring reform and progress

— Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition [ant: conservative]

— Given or giving freely; “was a big tipper”; “the bounteous goodness of God”; “bountiful compliments”; “a freehanded host”; “a handsome allowance”; “Saturday’s child is loving and giving”; “a liberal backer of the arts”; “a munificent gift”; “her fond and openhanded grandfather” [syn: big, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, handsome, giving, openhanded]

— Not literal; “a loose interpretation of what she had been told”; “a free translation of the poem” [syn: free, loose]

noun:

— a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties [syn: progressive] [ant: conservative]

Here are some synonyms:

— advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent, inexact, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

and some others:

— amiable, beneficent, benevolent, benignant, complaisant, favorable, friendly, generous, genial, gentle, good, good-hearted, gracious, kind, merciful, mild, obliging, sympathetic…

And, of course, we have John F. Kennedy’s superb distillation of liberalism. A sample:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
. . .

believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it.

. . .

But if by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

Though I am not Christian, I think that some of Jesus Christ’s statements could be used to perfectly sum up the concept of “liberalism.” Among them should always be included this one, from Matthew 25:31:

“… whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me…”
and

“… whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

Or to paraphrase an earlier biblical figure, to be a liberal means you ARE your brother’s keeper.

I don’t know if I ever believed differently than I do and have in recent years. If I did, it’s long forgotten. I just know that for as long as I can remember, I have taken very seriously the spiritual lessons of the ages, be they Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Buddhist or secular in nature and origin: be good to one another, help one another, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The languages may be different, but the one overriding theme of all spiritually based life lessons has always been the “Golden Rule.” It is that edict above all others, to be of love and service to my fellow human beings, that drives my actions, thoughts and feelings.

Being human we, of course, fail miserably to make the ethos of selflessness our overriding way of life. But regardless of how many missteps and defects of character litter our paths, how many detours born of selfishness and foolishness, the fact remains that if we are liberals, the service of others is our ultimate aim.

Our purpose on this planet is to help others. Period. It is not to serve our own desires for comfort, nor to fulfill our own goals of self-aggrandisement, nor to acquire and accumulate a surplus of possessions and accomplishments.

The very great irony in the liberal approach to life is that, if one works very hard at helping others, one finds the very fulfillment and satisfaction that eludes one when actively seeking them. In other words, to borrow a line from the 12 Step community, “You can’t keep it unless you give it away.” A life lived in service of other human beings results in limitless reward, while a life lived in service to the reward itself results in futility, emptiness and frustration. One has only to observe the pitiful and bathetic existence of the average socialite in her nightclub habitat or the average corporate fatcat buying homes in which he will never live and decorating them with gold umbrella stands to see this truth.

It is a long, strange trip, indeed, from innocence to consciousness, from self-interest to the common good. Along the way one may abandon some personal goals and acquire others. One may move from passive political observer to impassioned political activist. I was able to harness those characteristics about me that always had the power to engage, stimulate and otherwise powerfully affect people around me, and put them to work in the brave new world of blogging, reaching thousands of people and connecting with them on some very basic levels of cooperation, correspondence and comity.

So why are we here? What do we hope to achieve? What’s it all about, Alfie?

Liberals want to live in a world whose political leaders serve the people, rather than their own interests. We want American politicians to serve their constituents, rather than the corporate interests represented by the lobbying industry, let alone their own selfish aims (which almost always begin with retaining their seats of power, to the exclusion of actually using that power in the manner they ought).

We want to live to see the day when healthcare is a human right, not a pricey privilege or a “benefit.” We want to live to see a day when the government regulates corporations, not personal lives. We want to be told the truth by the media and by those the media cover. We are sick of the lies, the spin, the charade. So sick of our default setting perception of anyone in government or power being distrust and cynicism. And so very sick of the wretched, ubiquitous suspicion that the whole system is rigged and there’s nothing about it we can do.

We are idealists. That’s what liberals are, really; those who see what is and ask, “Why?” and see what isn’t and ask “Why not?” Liberals want to see met the basic needs of every human being. Liberals look at a world where one rich man can build an entire city out of gold while millions of poor people go without nutrition, water or medicine for their entire lifetimes — and ask, “Why is this so? Is this not wrong — and insane? And why do so many refuse to see it as such?”

In their paradigm, liberals see the utter horror and futility of war and demand that every other possible option be tried before resorting to such a disastrous, destructive action as war. Liberals believe that government exists to serve the people, not the corporate, moneyed interests; that the function of a federal government is to protect and promote the flourishing of every individual citizen, and usually from the very corporate, moneyed interests which currently control virtually everything on this planet…

In their paradigm, liberals believe that people ought to be let alone to live their lives as they see fit, barring any injury to others. Liberals believe in the radical equality of every human being. Liberals believe in the sanctity of privacy, of calling one’s body one’s own — of being free, within the parameters of a liberal society, to live without fear of being molested (both literally and figuratively) by others’ ideas of how they should be living.

If “I am my brother’s keeper” is one side of the liberal coin, “Live and let live” is the other.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

It’s time for someone to tell Republicans to stop lying to the American people about taxes, and maybe Joe Biden is the perfect man for the job.

Biden calls paying higher taxes a patriotic act
WASHINGTON – Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden said Thursday that paying more in taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans. The Republican campaign for president calls the tax increases their Democratic opponents propose “painful” instead of patriotic.

Under the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, people earning more than $250,000 a year would pay more in taxes while those earning less — the vast majority of American taxpayers — would receive a tax cut.

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people,” Biden said in an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Noting that wealthier Americans would indeed pay more, Biden said: “It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”

Naturally, as soon as the words were out of his mouth, the Republican propaganda machine went into overdrive and began spewing the “Democrat equals higher taxes equals BAAAAAD” lie all over the media.

I’m not a speechwriter, but god, I wish I were, because the time is RIPE for The Speech About Taxes; the one that spells out, for once and all, in clear and concise and simple language to the American people, just what a load of bullshit they’ve been sold by the Republican Party each and every single time they’ve heard this “Taxes are Bad” propaganda line. And not just, as any sensible person knows, because taxes pay for our roads and our police forces and military and schools and on and on and on — but because this whole bill of goods they keep selling is based on the fallacy that Republicans actually give a good goddamn about the taxes that the majority of Americans pay, when all they really care about is that it appears they care about it, that it appears they’re for cutting taxes for everyone — when what they really care about is cutting taxes for the wealthy and for the corporate and for the oligarchic.

Paying taxes is patriotic, in the most basic sense of the word: contributing to the common good along with the rest of your fellow citizens, contributing your fair share to pay for common goods and services is patriotic.

You want to know what’s unpatriotic? Weaseling out of paying your fair share, that’s what. Taking and taking and taking and when it comes time to put something back into the kitty, looking around and finding a buddy in the system who’ll get you a backdoor pass. That’s unpatriotic. That’s downright shameful. John McCain and his Republican Party and their corporate buddies and lobbyist enablers have been pulling that shit for decades and turning around and calling themselves the patriots — and getting away with it.

And it’s about goddamned time someone stood up, pulled the covers off them and told the truth about it.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

House Adopts Plan to Ease Offshore Drilling Ban

Like Rachel Maddow, I am frequently disgusted beyond belief at congressional Democrats’ seeming perennial willingness to cravenly cave on issues that cause them electoral fear.

However, though it appears yet another of those cowardly Democratic crumbles in the face of political intimidation, today’s vote on offshore drilling is actually one of the most brilliant pieces of political jujitsu I’ve ever seen from a Democratic House of Representatives.

I know! Whodathunkit!

Rachel Maddow, in the “Talk Me Down” segment of her MSNBC show last night, actually missed an opportunity to more thoroughly explain this to her audience with the help of the charming and intelligent New York Democratic House Representative, Louise Slaughter. Too intent on focusing on the Democrats’ “cave,” Maddow overlooked Slaughter’s incisive explanation, which the New York Times also distilled easily:

Under the Democratic legislation, adopted by a vote of 236 to 189, oil companies would lose some tax benefits, utilities would be required to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and a ban on developing fuel from Rocky Mountain shale would be lifted.

The legislation, which faces significant hurdles to becoming law before Congress breaks at the end of the month, would allow drilling as close as 50 miles from the coastline if adjacent states agree and 100 miles out no matter a state’s position. It would impose stricter oversight on the agency that handles oil leasing and royalty payments after recent disclosures of improper relationships between its employees and oil industry representatives.

“We are opening up to 400 million acres off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to drilling and expanding the availability of oil by at least 2 billion barrels,” said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the Natural Resources Committee. “And we have done so in a balanced, reasonable and responsible manner.”

Republicans, who have made political gains by portraying Democrats as flatly opposed to new drilling, said the measure was a sham intended to provide Democrats cover from voters furious over gas prices. They faulted it for failing to add incentives for coal and nuclear power and for not limiting environmental suits against drilling proposals. They also criticized Democrats for not negotiating with Republicans in writing the bill.

“We are engaged in exactly what the American people are sick of, and that is political games here in Washington that are intended to be political games and have no outcome,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.

A Republican effort to sidetrack the measure with a procedural tactic was rebuffed on a vote that generally adhered to party lines. That cleared the way for approval of the proposal, which drew strong support from Democrats including conservatives from states with strong oil and gas industries. On the final vote, 221 Democrats and 15 Republicans supported it; 176 Republicans and 13 Democrats were opposed.

“It represents a critical turning point,” said Representative Dan Boren, Democrat of Oklahoma, who praised the bill for provisions that would encourage greater use of natural gas. “Today is the day we begin to open our domestic opportunities.”

Though Republicans derided the measure, saying it kept too much of the Outer Continental Shelf and the underlying reserves off limits to drilling, the decision to entertain expanded offshore drilling was a stark reversal for Democrats, who have supported a coastal drilling ban since 1982. They were motivated by the Republican attacks and by the view that keeping the stricter ban would be unrealistic this year. Relaxing the ban became the party’s fall-back position.

Democrats said Republicans were left frustrated because the bill robbed them of a chief line of attack in allowing Democrats to vote for new drilling in conjunction with clean energy initiatives.

“This is a classic case where in the interests of doing good politics, we also did good policy,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.

But Republicans called the entire exercise political, saying Democrats were willing to consider new offshore drilling only because they were certain the bill would not become law.

“It is a Peter Pan story,” said Representative Don Young of Alaska, who led the Republican opposition to the measure. “It is a figment of the imagination. It is a political gimmick.”

Slaughter on Maddow’s show claimed she would be willing to bet her “… house and lot” that no new drilling would actually occur.

In other words, the Democrats, by allowing this bill to be voted on and to pass, get to have their cake and eat it, too.

Sometimes, it’s not caving. Sometimes, it’s winning.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

To call a spade a bloody shovel means more than speaking plainly; rather, it means saying something that is true but unpalatable — or impolitic.

During an otherwise stellar appearance on David Letterman’s show last night, Barack Obama missed an opportunity to deliver a kidney punch to John McCain. In my view, this missed opportunity vividly exemplifies a weakness in the election style Democrats have used over the past three decades.

(I’m not saying Obama’s campaign exemplifies this style; to the contrary, despite a few missteps — and who among us could do better? I submit that, given the fact that Barack Obama has steamrolled over every obstacle thus far, this man just might know better than anyone how to correct the Democratic Party’s mistakes of the past and finally, FINALLY beat these bastards in this rigged game. But I’m making a point here, so… bear with me.)

Letterman asked, and I’m paraphrasing,

“If you’d been able to pick your Vice-Presidential running mate after McCain picked Palin, would you have chosen differently?”

Obama answered — and again, I’m paraphrasing:

“I chose the person I want in the room with me, giving me wise advice and different points of view…”

Intelligent, cogent and sincere.

But I think he should have phrased it thusly:

“Maybe this is another difference between Senator McCain and me:

I didn’t pick my running mate because I thought he would help me WIN; I picked him because I thought he would help me GOVERN.”

Stark, simple and true. Did John McCain pick Sarah Palin because he thought she was the best of all possible candidates for the role of Vice-President in a McCain Administration?

The very suggestion is a joke. Nobody could make that suggestion with a straight face unless he worked for McCain or Fox News. McCain picked Palin to help him win the election.

Just one more in an endless series of proofs that John McCain’s campaign slogan of “Country First” is an empty, shallow and insulting lie.

Last night, Keith Olbermann exposed another vivid example of John McCain’s craven, wanton priorities:

… Senator McCain said it most concisely in June.

“Look,” he said. “I know the area, I’ve been there, I know wars, I know how to win wars, and I know how to improve our capabilities so that we will capture Osama bin Laden – or put it this way, bring him to justice. We will do it. I know how to do it.”

Sen. McCain seems to be quite serious, that he and he alone, not the CIA, nor the U.S. Military, nor the current President  can capture bin Laden. Thus we must take him at his word, that this is no mere ludicrous campaign boast.

We must assume Sen. McCain truly believes he is capable of doing this, and has been capable of doing this, since last January. “We will capture Osama bin Laden… we will do it. I know how to do it.”

Well then, Senator, you’d better go and do it hadn’t you?

Because, Sir, if a man or woman in this nation, Democrat or Republican, had a clear and effective means of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden… If that person had been advertising his claim, Senator for eight months… But if that person not only refused to go to responsible authorities in government and advise them of this plan to catch bin Laden, but further announced he would not even begin to enact this secret plan to corral the world’s most hated man until the end of next January….

… you are to some degree great or small aiding and abetting Osama bin Laden.

… You, Sir, are blackmailing some portion of the American electorate into voting for your party, by promising to help in the capture of bin Laden only if you are made president!

“I’d rather win an election than catch bin Laden!”

… Senator, as you and your Republicans shed your phony, crocodile, opportunistic tears tomorrow on 9/1 “TM”, in front of the utterly disingenuous banner “Country First,” the fact is, you have shown that it is John McCain first, and the country last.

Now, hopefully most intelligent people can see that McCain’s claim is, indeed, a “mere ludicrous campaign boast,” –most intelligent people probably know that John McCain does not have a “secret plan” to capture Osama bin Laden, and that he is not so despicable a human being as to withhold it on condition of his election to the Presidency…

But Olbermann has a point, and it’s fairly clear: John McCain cares more about winning this election than solving any of the myriad grave problems this nation faces, be they terrorism, a failed economy,  the failing public education system, rising poverty and dismal healthcare… well, we all know what those problems are. And if John McCain truly cared about solving them, he’d be spending his campaign time talking about how he’d solve them, instead of spending it talking about — well, talking about himself and how wonderful he is and Barack Obama and how terrible he is.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The horrible irony, for liberals and Democrats, when it comes to “playing politics,” is that we constrain ourselves with rules that “conservative” Republicans never follow. A few weeks ago I lamented the differences between the conventions run by Democrats and Republicans, noting:

Here we all are, paying APPROPRIATE TRIBUTE to John fucking McCain and his honourable fucking service to his country, and the horrific tortures he underwent in Vietnam…

And all I can think about now is what the goddamned Republicans would do to him if he were the Democratic nominee. The purple fucking bandaids they’d be parading around at their convention, mocking that service and that torture. The talk radio blowhards’ belittling and questioning of his being shot down.

And, in a personal parallel, I think of my father, and what might have happened to HIM, had he survived and gone into politics as a Democrat. The SAME FUCKING THING that happened to John Kerry, that’s what. And the same fucking thing that WOULD happen to John McCain if HE were a Democrat — the thing that HE CANNOT or WILL NOT see, that his TOTAL LACK of empathy allows him to ignore.

They are fucking SCUM, these goddamned so-called “conservatives.” These motherfucking REPUBLICANS. They will waltz into Minneapolis or St. Paul — which is it, anyway? — and they will puff up their faux-patriotic chests and call themselves “lovers of country” and think THEMSELVES the TRUE PATRIOTS — all the while HATING HALF OF AMERICA.

And the Democrats in Denver will have stood to attention during the raising of the flag and the singing of the National Anthem and the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance — and they will have bowed their heads and nodded solemnly – AND SINCERELY — while Democratic politician after Democratic politican reminded them and the national audience that John McCain DOES love his country and DID serve his country honourably and suffer terribly for her…

And next week HORDES of “conservative” Republicans will JEER and LAUGH at Democrats and BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and his RADICAL WIFE — those FOREIGN, WEIRD, BLACK BLACK BLACK LEFTISTS — and MOCK their LIBERAL, QUEER, UNAMERICAN-NESS and their LIBERAL, QUEER, UNAMERICAN supporters…

And THEY’RE the PATRIOTS???

And the fucking corporate media will lap it up and stoke the flames and goddamn if half this motherfucking country will go to the polls and vote for John motherfucking McCain and the party of HATE.

Sure enough, the Republicans remained true to ugly, predictable, hateful form; their convention was an exercise in shameless dishonesty and supposititious patriotism. Given four days to speak to the American people and make their case for John McCain, they chose instead to spend the vast majority of their time mocking, belittling and sneering at Barack Obama — and his proposals for solving this country’s problems and for this country’s future — and, by extension, his millions of supporters.

One of my few complaints about the Democratic convention goes to those rules we liberals always feel compelled to follow:

… to those of us more rabidly partisan among the “ANGRY LEFT,” the myriad acknowledgements of the laudable and honourable service of John McCain to his country were like icepicks to our lizard brains. “NOOOOOO! Kick  him in the NUTS!!!”

I could almost hear my fellow frothing left wingers in their respective living rooms screaming it with me.

My discomfiture extends to the post-convention period; I know I am not alone in feeling heartily sick of hearing Democrat after Democrat acknowledge that “John McCain is a patriot, John McCain loves this country, too — we just have different ideas about how to go forward…” Blah blah blah.

Look, I know the rules. Following them is the liberal, decent, moral thing to do. But there is a difference between (laudably) eschewing the politics of hatred and putrescence the Republicans embrace — and making this perennial decision to PUSSYFOOT around the FACTS because to state them plainly and baldly sounds… not nice.

THE FACTS… are not nice. To state them in the way that I would, and am — “These people do NOT love their country” — is the very definition of impolitic. I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama hold a press conference and quote ME.

But these guys are the best and the brightest, right? It sure as hell seems to me that Aaron Sorkin is on the team over there at Obama HQ. Surely he and his staff could craft a plethora of perfectly phrased statements that STATE these ugly facts in words that live in the middle ground between my sort of “These motherfuckers are full of shit” blog-stylings and the last thirty years of failed Democratic discretion.

I am free to let loose all manner of invective on John McCain and the Republicans — and as many can attest, I frequently do. Unconstrained by the rules of politesse or by the common sense required when one’s audience is not merely a relative handful of blog readers but an entire nation, I daily loose my cannons of rhetorical bombast on the mendacious, manipulative, maleficent swarm of miscreants that is the Republican Party and its right wing base of christo fascist neocon zombie brigade (see what I did there?).

Barack Obama and his campaign — being neither insane, self-indulgent nor politically suicidal fools — must to a great degree adhere to the rules of prudence and sagacity that require both expert timing and superb verbal craftmanship as they continue the epoch battle for the future of this nation. To date, they have proved themselves artful and astute…

I only hope that as the McCain campaign and the nest of vipers with whom John McCain has allied himself continue to prove themselves devoid of anything resembling honour, true patriotism or even common decency, Barack Obama and his campaign prove themselves willing to speak not only plain truth but brutal truth when necessary.

Sometimes a spade is not just a spade. Sometimes that spade is a bloody shovel, and you have to be willing to point to it and to the man holding it.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

So Lieberman got a cool reception from Senate Democrats yesterday

The motherfucker is lucky I wasn’t there.
THEY… ignored him. THEY… were “disappointed” in him. THEY… have yet to kick his sorry fucking quisling ass out of their goddamned caucus for fear of losing his pathetic vote. As if it matters. As if he’ll hesitate to SELL IT TO THE HIGHEST FUCKING BIDDER ON THE REPUBLICAN TEAM the next time it matters to HIM.

That fucking piece of SHIT. “What am I, a DEMOCRAT, doing at this convention?”

DON’T YOU FUCKING CALL YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT, you fucking piece of shit. You LOST the Democratic primary in your state, remember? So you fucking CALLED yourself an “Independent” and lied to your “friends” — BARACK OBAMA AMONG THEM — to get their support against Ned Lamont, who BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU IN THAT PRIMARY, to snatch back your precious Senate seat.

You worthless fucking piece of shit.

I HOPE YOU DIE. SOON.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

“I have a dream that my four little children
will one day live in a nation where they
will not be judged by the color of their skin
but by the content of their character.”

This election marks a potential turning point in American history. The American people will either elect the first black President, following the dictates of logic, self-interest and absolute common sense… or they will elect John McCain and prove that at least a slim majority of the voters in this nation are ignorant fools, religious extremists, blind believers of the partisan propaganda of the right wing, outright racists — or some horrifying combination of those descriptors.

If you hear the dogs, keep going.
If you see the torches in the woods, keep going.
If they’re shouting after you, keep going.
Don’t ever stop. Keep going.
If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.

They’re out there. We know they’re out there. And they will vote against Obama because he is a black man. Period. Some of them — probably many more than we’d like to believe — are registered Democrats. Such is the reality of racism in America in 2008.

This much is true: Many millions of people will vote on the issues and many millions will vote reflexively based on other factors like how they always vote, what propaganda they believe, which “personalities” they prefer and so on. This much is also true: Many millions of people will vote for or against Barack Obama because he is a black man.

Make no mistake: The single determinative factor in this election is the colour of Barack Obama’s skin. And there is nothing we can do about the people who will vote against him because of it, just as there is nothing the other side can do about the people who will vote for him because of it.

There are still many, many votes to be won on the issues; the Obama campaign knows this as surely as they know the Republican Fraud Machine didn’t shut down in 2004. They’re doing their job and, insofar as I can see, they’re doing it well, given the huge — albeit predictable — disadvantage the Democrat always faces in a hostile and Republican-owned media.

The question remains, then, for those of us sitting on the sidelines, subject to hourly mood swings based on polls and biased media coverage and the myriad other depressingly familiar and predictable factors we understandably experience as harbingers of doom in modern Presidential politics: What are we supposed to do about all this?

 I could tell you to ignore the polls and the media, but that would be silly; you’re political junkies just like I am — telling you to ignore it all would be like telling a heroin addict to ignore the baggie of China White on his kitchen counter every day for the next two months.

We have options. First, and most important: If you really, truly care about the outcome of this election, then get off your ass and DO SOMETHING. Register voters, is my first suggestion. It’s the single most important factor in this race, next to… race. Nearly 8 million African Americans — eligible to vote — are not registered to vote:

Nearly one in three African Americans have yet to get registered

While Sen. Barack Obama’s historic campaign has injected a powerful dose of enthusiasm into America – particularly Black America – there are still 8 million African Americans that have not yet been moved to register.

Rick Wade, who handles African-American voter outreach for the Obama campaign says that some 32 percent of the Black voting-age population is currently out of the loop. “Our principal focus has been a 50-state voter registration initiative,” Wade told NNPA. “I think we all appreciate that if we increase the number of African American registered voters and then increase turnout and get people to the polls on Nov. 4, then Sen. Obama will be the next president of the United States.”

Four years ago, more than one in 10 voters was Black, he said. “If the percentage of African Americans was a mere two-and-a-half percent higher, 13.5 percent, Democrats would currently be running for re-election at this time,” he said. “For example in the state of Ohio in 2004, we lost by two percent or 100,000 votes. There were 270,000 unregistered African Americans. I use that as an illustration to show how the African American vote can make the difference in a state and across this country. So the African American vote can absolutely make the difference in this election.”

You bet your ASS this race is going to be about race. You don’t think the racists out there are voting based on race? Well, FUCK THEM. We’ve got the issues voters. We’ve got the intelligent voters. That still leaves us having to make up the deficit made by the racists and the fools. Get out there and register voters.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I want to say something now to those of you who seem to honestly believe there is little to no difference between Barack Obama and John McCain — that the differences are essentially cosmetic (pardon the expression) and that we’re dealing with Tweedledee and Tweedledum again. Now, I don’t agree. I just don’t; but that is an argument we can have another day. Surely we can agree on this: if for NO OTHER REASON, can we not agree that the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency is preferable to that of John McCain because of its historical significance and the defeat of the forces of racism — of ignorance, hatred and sheer fucking EVIL — amassing against it?

If you believe that there is NO DIFFERENCE between Obama and McCain and you consider yourself a leftist or a liberal, then are you not ALL THE MORE interested in seeing Obama elected on this point alone? There is no other viable candidate, my friends. Your pleas for Cynthia McKinney or Nader fall on deaf ears this year of all years: We have the opportunity to break completely new ground with this election, regardless of how you perceive these candidates’ positions on the issues.

Yes, I just said that: If you think it doesn’t matter which of these men is elected, then work your ass off for Obama BECAUSE HE IS A BLACK MAN and THAT IS ENOUGH OF A REASON.

Like I said: I do not believe for a second that’s the only reason to elect Obama. But if you NEED a reason to stop bitching and moaning and spreading your negativity around like so much stinking fucking manure — I just gave it to you. Don’t call yourself a liberal in my presence and tell me it isn’t a damned good fucking reason, or I will have to seriously question whether you ever took a history class, let alone have been paying attention during your lifetime to the realities of racism in this country.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You have choices. You can watch the polls as they come in on an almost-hourly basis and bemoan the state of things as they are — or you can get up and TRY LIKE HELL TO CHANGE THINGS.

“This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit – that American promise – that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It’s a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours – a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln’s Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could’ve heard many things. They could’ve heard words of anger and discord. They could’ve been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead – people of every creed and color, from every walk of life – is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

‘We cannot walk alone,’ the preacher cried. ‘And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.'”

DIGG THIS STORY

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

So… MSNBC “dropped” Olbermann and Matthews as anchors.

Well… Olbermann, for one, has NO BUSINESS being a news anchor.

He might as well be wearing an Obama t-shirt on the air every night.

He knows it, we know it and everyone else knows it.

I’m pretty sure that’s why he excused himself from Minneapolis.

Matthews CANNOT anchor a news desk; he doesn’t have the skill set, and I’m pretty damned sure he knows it — god knows the rest of the world does. God knows the person who washes his drool-covered shirts does (I’m sorry, Tweety; I do sort of like you, but you DO sort of drop spittle more than an arthritic halfback drops shovel passes.)

This wasn’t a fucking FIRING.

The one who should be fired… is Tom Brokaw.

Tom Brokaw, venerable though he may be, needs, if not outright firing, new status as “MOSTLY retired” after that BIZARRE display after the “9/11 Tribute.”

It is arguable that what Olbermann did may or may not have been necessary or appropriate. What is NOT arguable? That Brokaw was OFF HIS NUT: A huge “Tribute” to the “fallen” occurs… the lights come up… and he basically clears his throat and says, “So, anyway, back to my dry analysis of this convention.” For over 90 seconds. He fails to acknowledge the so-called “tribute.”

Now, some might argue Brokaw’s staggering faux pas was, in fact, a slowing of journalistic reflexes. That he was aware of the appalling, nakedly opportunistic and manipulative douchebaggery the Republicans had just displayed in that so-called “tribute” — and simply didn’t know what else to do but pretend he hadn’t seen it.

I would argue that Brokaw is probably too far up their asses to know the difference between their usual douchebaggery and moments of unusually grotesque and nauseously partisan Republican fuckwaddery.

But that’s probably just me.

The fact is, the only surprising thing about the news that Olbermann and Matthews have “been removed” from the anchor desk at MCNBC (aside from the admittedly cruel wording, which is probably little more than a sop to the people who really wanted them kicked off the network entirely)…

Is the fact that this so-called “dismissal” happened AFTER the conventions… AFTER the effect of their partisan editorial commentary has already done the bulk of its work. Sure, there’s still Election Night. But no one’s votes will be affected on Election Night.

So, no, AG… For some reason, I just do not see this particular moment in news history as the one that’s going to lose it for Obama.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

His first comment:

How can Obama juggle being president and a Black Man?

Intersted (sic) in hearing comments on this issue!

I mean really how can a black man handle being president?

We all know that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for a mom to be VP…right?

A My Left Wing regular responds:

what do you think
the problems would be that need juggling? What is it about being a Black man that you think conflicts with being president? Is there some job or policy about which Obama will have to say, “You know, Joe, I’m a Black man, so i can’t do this one.  You’ll have to take it?”

Give us a guideline by outline the problem as you see it for us.  Please.

To which I respond, with my usual irrepressible aplomb:

That giant swinging cock will get in the way, of course.

Everybody knows that.

And the possibly syphilitic troll comes back, using those tactics they probably teach in Seminars for Conservatives Who Blog:

Giant swinging cock

Well it might be more pleasing to the interns!! But see that’s a positive…this thread is here to explore the negatives of being a black man and trying to juggle responsibilities.

Could it that black men are inferior to the rest of the population? You know similarly to being a women and having children…women can’t multitask and juggle responsibility like a white man can..as this has been pointed out so very well in the media since Sara Palin has come on the scene.

Now… here’s my response to THAT…

Nobody’s buying this ridiculous propaganda you’re trying to sell.

 Not here, anyway. And while you may be swaying a sizable portion of the mouthbreathing population, I think they were voting for McCain anyway.

I have a challenge for you:

Name ONE major media outlet that has EVER suggested that Sarah Palin would have trouble with the Vice-Presidency because she has children and/or she is a woman.

I dare you.

ONE major media outlet.

Not a BLOG. A MEDIA organisation. Like the New York Times, that BASTION of liberalism? Washington Post? Newsweek, perhaps, or Time? CNN? MSNBC?

You see, my trollish friend, the reason I know you will be unable to meet this challenge, is because no media organisation has ever come close to suggesting that the reason Sarah Palin would be inadequate in the role of the Vice-Presidency is because she is a woman and/or a mother.

The REASON she would be inadequate — no, SUPREMELY, MISERABLY INCOMPETENT — in the role of Vice-President is that she lacks even the rudimentary base of knowledge and intellect required of someone in such a role.

Even if we forget for a moment that the Vice-President actually does have other responsibilities, let’s focus on the one that has MOST people concerned about Sarah Palin and the fact that aside from her admittedly acute zingers in that speech the other night, most of the rest of it sounded like Wikipedia facts recited by a junior high student aiming for a good grade in debate class:

The primary role of the Vice-President of the United States of America is Being Prepared to Become the President of the United States of America at a Moment’s Notice. You know — Leader of the Free fuckin’ WORLD? Finger on the Button? Walk into the G8 and command worldwide respect?

And this country — and the rest of the world — knows Sarah Palin isn’t prepared to become President of a Wal-Mart, let alone this country.

Something Republicans seem to forget is that we are coming to the end of EIGHT YEARS of a disastrous Administration headed by a person with EXACTLY that kind of a glaring, gaping defect of intellect and skill-set.

Sarah Palin is GEORGE W. BUSH WITH A VAGINA. And the VAGINA isn’t the problem. The PROBLEM… is three feet higher.

On behalf of the majority of the nation, I’d just like to say…

“Thanks, but No Thanks for THIS Bridge to Nowhere.”

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

My Father Before His Death
at Khe Sanh
on February 8, 1968

Someone on EuroTrib accused me of borrowing from the Republican playbook by “making light” of McCain’s POW experience and torture with the phrase “…languished, lamentably, tortured in a POW camp, while John Kerry earned those Purple Hearts in combat.”

My response was as follows:

As the daughter of a man who was killed in Vietnam, I do not take lightly ANYONE’s service in war. Ever.

I do, however, take seriously and personally the outrageous mockery and derision THEY heaped upon John Kerry’s bravery and honourable service in that same war.

LANGUISHING in a POW camp is NOT something to be taken lightly.

Please note the definition:

1.    to be or become weak or feeble; droop; fade.
2.    to lose vigor and vitality.
3.    to undergo neglect or experience prolonged inactivity; suffer hardship and distress: to languish in prison for ten years.
4.    to be subjected to delay or disregard; be ignored: a petition that languished on the warden’s desk for a year.

That’s not taking it lightly.

Nor do I take lightly the TORTURE he suffered — though his fellow Republicans, with their rewriting of the definitions of torture, certainly would seem to, despite their paeans to HIS PERSONAL experiences.

His response — that I still hit below the belt — would suggest, to me, at least, that his original criticism was rather disingenuously motivated in the first place; but I guess I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nevertheless, I stand by my defense. I am the daughter of a Gold Star Wife, a Daughter of the American Revolution — an orphan of the Vietnam War whose Marine Corps First Lieutenant father was killed at Khe Sanh three months before she was born.

I never met my father because men like John McCain chose sacrificing hundreds of thousands of human beings to the machinery of endless war over admitting their mistakes… or, as I now believe, they made those sacrifices deliberately on the altar of their true gods: money and power.

And now John McCain is an old, rich man and has become the chess player instead of the pawn and aims to sacrifice many more hundreds of thousands, if not millions, to another generation of the military industrial complex, whose only end is money and power.

FUCK THAT, and FUCK HIM. Thirty-some-odd years ago, he suffered greatly as a POW in Vietnam, and I feel for the man he was then. Today, I feel for the people he intends to torture and kill.

FUCK HIM.

Crossposted from MY LEFT WING

My fellow Americans,
I me my,  I, I, I Me my; I. I. I, I, I — I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my, I, I, I.  I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W.  I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W. I, I, I. Me, My, I. I, I, I.

My friends,
I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W.  I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. P.O.W.  I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my. I, me, my.  I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I. Thank you, and God you, and God bless America.

I defy you to find a recent convention speech with more personal pronouns.

Barack Obama’s speech:

This campaign has never been about me; it’s about you.”

John McCain’s speech:

This campaign has never been about you: It’s about me.