Google
Subscribe in a reader

Top Stories My Zimbio

Saturday, November 8, 2008

The Obama Administration: Turning the US into Us


John Cusack compared the "promise" of the Obama campaign to "Antigone before the king." The comparison illuminates something we have to acknowledge.

In Sophocles' play, Antigone defies the king's decree, but without building allegiances, without words. She violates the king's decree solely with her silent determination to do what she believes is right. The king's decree has good intentions, but there is an ignored perspective that invalidates it. Antigone embodies that perspective. Her image is simultaneously beautiful and tragic, because her course is "a" right course, but the odds are impossible odds that she can legitimize it. Her powerful image shakes the community at the very core of their beliefs. Antigone's image forces the community to acknowledge what they previously refused to acknowledge. The old value system crumbles. Hordes of people break down and cry.


John Cusack characterized the "promise" of Obama's campaign as "Antigone before the king." The old value system collapsed into tears. But Antigone didn't bring about change. She makes the community realize their own responsibility to bring about change. Society does change, but it can't happen unless the community does the work.

The promise is over. We've shed our tears. It's time for actuality. But we can't expect a president to do it for us. The president is just a vessel through which we can achieve our goals. And Obama has given us a way to do this: http://change.gov/page/s/application:

This website is designed to provide prospective applicants with information to help them apply for positions in the Obama-Biden Administration. President-Elect Obama will make appointments throughout the federal government. Some positions will require Senate confirmation while others will not. Some appointments will be made during the transition process and others during the early part of the new Administration.


The presidential administration is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled with active citizenry. Now is the time to sign your name into the empty space. Otherwise, the promise isn't merely over. The promise of Antigone will have died in vain.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Republicans Attacking Palin after the Election?



When I first watched this video, I thought to myself, why is FOX News the one breaking this story? Isn't this an example of what FOX pundits would have called the liberal media's unfair attack on Sarah Palin? And then I read that the RNC did not buy Palin's $150k wardrobe. According to Newsweek, Palin was told to purchase three outfits for the convention, but instead, she went on a crazy spending spree:

While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.


That was money that the Republican party could have spent on a national advertisement, or on protecting one of their now lost Congressional seats. Not to mention, the wardrobes undermined the campaign's emphasis on her "Wal-Mart mom" identity. The campaign had strategized her identity as a point of distinction from Obama's "celebrity."

According to the same article, Palin's transgressions didn't stop with the spending spree. The campaign hadn't adequately prepared her attack on Bill Ayers:

Palin launched her attack on Obama's association with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground bomber, before the campaign had finalized a plan to raise the issue. McCain's advisers were working on a strategy that they hoped to unveil the following week, but McCain had not signed off on it, and top adviser Mark Salter was resisting.


If the campaign had a chance to complete the strategy before Palin paraded the accusations at her rallies, the campaign likely would have implied more than stated, or relied on surrogates to circulate the accusation. The indirectness would have mitigated the "mob" effect, and preserved the interests of moderates.

Instead, Palin lost McCain the support of people like Josh Simmons, University of Florida's "Gators for McCain" chairman. Simmons was so distraught by what he saw, he early voted for Obama two weeks before the election. When asked why, Simmons said, "I've seen a different John McCain than the one I signed up to work for."

Sarah Palin stole the Republican Party's money and may have lost the Republicans the White House. The party has to be pissed.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

Happy Obama Day!


I'm overwhelmed. My thumb is dead from responding to text messages yesterday. My phone is dead. My throat is sore from yelling. My neighborhood was dark, but we were howling and honking back and forth with people over the hills, in the distance. We live in a conservative town, in a conservative state. We couldn't see anyone else celebrating, but we could hear them. We knew we weren't alone.

McCain opened his arms to Obama last night. Bush opened his arms to Obama this morning. Obama opened his arms to them. Obama is going to work with them, with us, to get rid of "us" and "them." And I'm happy.

Happy Obama Day!

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Monday, November 3, 2008

Election Day, and Why the Polls Might Be Wrong

There are still certain scenarios where McCain can win this. Not all polls put Obama in the lead. Each pollster adjusts his numbers in order to get what he believes will be the right percentage of Evangelicals, Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, white men, women, elderly, college students, Republicans, Democrats, etc. So the polls vary wildly.

The polls don't really tell us anything in an election that differs so dramatically from other elections. If you can't tell in what percentages each group is going to come out to vote, you don't know how to adjust the numbers, and the poll becomes useless.

I donated yesterday to Obama's campaign. If I didn't need to spend the extra thirty bucks, so be it. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

You know, Mississippi doesn't have early voting. Many of Mississippi's blacks and Mexicans are manual laborers. I used to live next to an apartment that a construction company rented for its laborers. Particularly after the real-estate bubble burst, the bigger companies work the whole state and often only go home to their families on the weekends. Because MS doesn't have early voting, those laborers aren't going to be able to vote.

Mississippi also took party affiliation off this year's ballot in order to protect their Republican incumbents. The governor tried to violate federal laws by moving a close senate race to the very end of the ballot. There was a study during the 2004 election which showed that statistically, poor voters don't make to the end of the ballot. By moving the close race to the end of the ballot, the governor was protecting the Republican candidate from statistically Democratic poor voters. Luckily, the MS Supreme Court ruled against the governor and he changed the ballot back. But we still don't have party affiliation on the ballot.

There are tricks a plenty! My advice: Don't stay up all night waiting for the results to come in. If this race is close, Tuesday night could stretch into a long week, especially when the lawsuits start rolling in.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Thursday, October 23, 2008

A Conversation about "Anti-Americanism": What Are the Consequences of This Idea?

The following conversation is an ongoing debate that ensued from an earlier post I wrote. In light of Michelle Bachmann's (R-MN) desire for the press to investigate anti-American sentiment in Congress, my questions have to do with this poster Sandie Coleman's similar perspective. What percentage of American voters see the country in this way? How will that affect the leadership abilities of an Obama presidency? And more importantly, how does that howling call to weed out "anti-American" sentiment from the American populous affect Americans' interactions with other Americans?


Sandie Coleman:

Yes I do believe someone that hates America would serve in the Senate AND run for President. Thats destroying from the inside out....imploding if you will! Anyone that would vote for this man is unpatriotic and should leave this country. AMERICA, Love it or Leave it!

When Barack and his wife SALUTE the Flag, Swear Aligence to Her AND Sing the National Anthem...hell will probably freeze over.

These people are planning a bigger change in America than their supporters are aware of...AND IGNORANT TO!

GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.
Sandie Coleman | 10.21.08 - 6:40 pm | #


Anonymous:

Hey everybody, I found an idiot!!! Her name is Sandie Coleman. Does any circus need someone to shovel the elephant shit? Sandie Coleman is doing it already for free!!!
Anonymous | 10.21.08 - 9:56 pm | #


Sandie Coleman:

Spoken like a true Traitor. Your agenda is to keep Americans from recognizing you and people LIKE you. It did not work on me. Joseph Stalin once said he would destroy America from within by destroying our Patriotisim, Spirituality, and Morality.... Patient gradualisim takes a liftime to achieve and I have lived a long time. I have witnessed what these people have done to One Nation Under God, it is heartbreaking that you and people like you, DO NOT.
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 7:18 am | #


Gray Kane:

Hi Sandie,

I can understand why you would reject Anonymous, because Anonymous has rejected you. But I fail to see how Anonymous's rejection of you equates with his/her being a "traitor." That person's thinking differently than you by no means signifies that his/her thinking is anti-American.

You're calling Americans "traitors," and per the way you're denouncing Anonymous, you're calling everybody who supports Obama a "traitor," many of whom have served this country in a variety of capacities, including as valued members of our military. Are former and current US soldiers "traitors" if they support Obama?

If you are calling all Obama supporters "traitors," then per Obama's lead in every national poll, and per his statistical lead in 36 out of our 50 states, you're calling the majority of Americans "traitors." If that is what you mean, your argument doesn't make any sense.

As for Obama's own patriotism, even McCain has said that Obama is a patriotic citizen and that no one should fear an Obama presidency. McCain has said himself that his argument is not that Obama is anti-American. His argument is that Obama misrepresents facts and that therefore the American voter should not trust Obama's claims that he won't raise taxes on the middle class. McCain also does not trust Obama's judgment. But McCain has denounced the argument that Obama hates this country. McCain calls that belief a "fringe" belief and has repeatedly repudiated it. He has repudiated your belief as a "fringe" belief, Sandie.

Statistically, it is very likely that Obama will win the election. If that happens, my question is, how will you continue if this is the way you'll see the president of the United States, the majority(?) of the members of Congress, and the majority of Americans? How will you be able to function in what you perceive to be an anti-American America?
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 8:33 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

When Obama gets on national television, MEET THE PRESS, and states that he refuses to swear alegience to Our Flag and he wants to be President....YES HE IS A TRAITOR...and therefore, anyone that supports him IS ANTI-AMERICAN
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 8:38 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

McCain's statement about Barak's patriotisim leads me to believe in his ignorance as well as yours. I have watched this Nation go from one of Pride AND Integrity to compromised moral, political and spiritual beliefs. As a result, we are hated, ridiculed and laughed at throughout the World. Just because the majority votes, and I am having a hard time finding people that are actually voting for him. The polls say so, but IS IT TRUE? And does it really matter if there IS an election, the election has already taken place and McCain has surrendered. I think the majority of the American people are selfish and ignorant and together these elect the wrong people in office. Obviously you are one of them.

I, for one, obey the laws of the land, but I don't have to like it. I couldn't STAND the Clinton's, and look how they cheapened the White House, but I just waited until we could vote them out. I don't believe we will have that luxury with Barak and I think people are too stupid to know it.
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 8:46 am | #


Gray Kane:

Actually, what you're describing from "Meet the Press" never happened. I think you're getting this from a circulating email that has been disproved by factcheck.org:


http://www.factcheck.org/ askfact...em_conveys.html


Here's the transcript from that segment of "Meet the Press":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2444...4445166/page/2/


MR. RUSSERT: ...and they talk about the flag pin and about your wife Michelle's comment about being proud for the first time in her adult life as an American, and talk about Reverend Wright saying, "God damn America," and talk about standing at the national anthem at the steak fry and not putting your hand over your heart, all those things, challenging your patriotism...

SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, you know, I have never challenged other people's patriotism. I haven't challenged Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's, and I will not stand by and allow somebody else to challenge mine. The fact that I'm running for president right now is an indication of how much I love this country, because it has given everything to me. This country has been a great source of good. I've lived overseas and seen the difference between America and what it stands for and what other countries oftentimes stand for and where they fall short. I've, I've said before, my story's not possible in any other country on earth. You know, when I think about this country, I think about my grandfather fighting in World War II in Patton's army; I think about my grandmother staying home--staying back and, and working on a bomber assembly line while she was raising a kid in--as, as they're coming out of a depression. And, and so this country is the--it defines, for me, what's possible for not just me, but for so many people who see this as a beacon of good, including my father, who originally came here seeking an education in this country. So I love this country. It is what I have been fighting for, a--that America lives up to its values and its ideals. And that's what I think the people of Indiana and that's what the people of North Carolina are looking for right now. What, what--they love this country as well, but what they've believe is that the values that have built this country, the belief in--that hard work is rewarded, that you can raise a family and have health care, and buy a home and retire with dignity and respect, that those things feel like they're slipping away. And what this campaign's about, what I think this moment is about in America is whether or not we are going to fight for those ideals that make this country great, and, and if we miss that opportunity, then I think we will be doing a disservice to future generations. So I'm happy to have a debate, an argument with the Republican Party or any of my opponents about what this country means, what makes it great. And what makes it great, ultimately, is its people and how the American people are able to live out their America... (See the link for the whole article.
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 8:57 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

If the following doesn't get your attention and your emotions to> react--------NOTHING WILL!!> Read the whole thing-------or just the phrases in red if you must.> Regards,> David W. Trekell, Concerned Citizen>> The following is a narrative taken from Sunday Morning's televised"Meet> The Press'. and the author is employed by none other than theWashington> Post!! Yeah......the Washington Post of New York and Los AngelesTimesfame!!> Must say that I'm dually impressed..................>>> From Sunday's Televised "Meet the Press" Senator Obama was asked about> his stance on the American Flag. Obama Explains National AnthemStance>> Sun, 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, General Bill Ginn' USAF (ret.) asked> Obama to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the NationalAnthemis> played.>> The General also stated to the Senator that according to the United> States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171... During rendition of> the national> anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those inuniformare> expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right handoverthe> heart. At the very least, "Stand and Face It">> Senator Obama Live on Sunday states, "As I've said about the flagpin, I> don't want to be perceived as taking sides, Obama said. 'There are alot> of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol ofoppression.> And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombsbursting> in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and> less bellicose.> I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing.' If that were> our anthem,> then I might salute it. "We should consider to reinvent our National> Anthem as well> as to redesign our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.> It's my intention,> if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle> East Brethren.> If we as a Nation of warring people, should conduct ourselves as the> nations of Islam,> whereas peace prevails. Perhaps a state or period of mutual concord> between our> governments. When I become President, I will seek a pact or agreementto> send hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of> enmity, and> a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation haveplacedupon> the nations of Islam an unfair injustice. My wife disrespects the> Flag for many personal> reasons. Together she and I have attended several flag burning> ceremonies in the> past, many years ago. She has her views and I have mine". Of course> now, I have> found myself about to become the President of the United States and Ihave put> aside my hatred. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation,> and offer the> people a new path of hope. My wife and I look forward to becoming ourCountry's> First Family. Indeed, CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States> of America.>> WHAAAAAAAT the Hel l !!!>> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you heard it right. This could possibly beour> next President.
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 9:07 am | #


Gray Kane:

Sandie,

I provided the links to both factcheck.org's disproving of that email and the transcript from Obama's interview with Tim Russert on "Meet the Press." You're citing an email. I'm citing the original source and providing you with the link to "Meet the Press" to prove it's the original source.

Your misconceptions are coming from fictions that have been created and disseminated in order to get a person's preferred candidate into office "at all costs." The particular cost of this email that you're citing is the loss of truth, honesty, and American respect for other Americans.
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 9:38 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

Hi Gary,
This is another respected site to check facts http://www.snopes.com/politics/o...obama/ obama.asp. Search this and you will see there is a picture of your Sen. Obama NOT saluting the flag and NOT singing our Nationl Anthem. There is an Ancient Writing that says, "My people parish for a lack of knowledge". I am not easily fooled, Gary. Try your tactics on someone else.

Sincerely,

A True Patriot
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 9:49 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

Dear GRAY Kane,
This is an excerpt from Michelle Obama's thesis from Princton University. The fact that SHE can't get over "feeling black" IS NOT the fault of ther so call "white" friends. No one even MENTIONS COLOR EXCEPT BLACK PEOPLE!!!!!

"My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before," the future Mrs. Obama wrote in her thesis introduction. "I have found that at Princeton, no matter how liberal and open-minded some of my white professors and classmates try to be toward me, I sometimes feel like a visitor on campus; as if I really don't belong. Regardless of the circumstances underwhich I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second."
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 9:57 am | #


Gray Kane:

Yeah, I've seen that picture. Pictures, like soundbites, misconstrue events by reducing them to a single instant, without the surrounding context that gives them their meaning, like these pictures:

http://images.theage.com.au/2008...CCAIN- 420x0.jpg

http:// punchup.files.wordpress.c...john_mccain.jpg

Neither picture has been manipulated, and yet neither picture accurately represents what happened.

By the way, your primary argument up until now has been based on a fiction. You now easily switch to new evidence without so much as a reflection on the fact that you insisted on the accuracy of a fiction. That shows you're more interested in discrediting Obama than you are in evaluating information in search for the truth. If you were interested in the truth, then your discovery of a falsehood should cause you to wonder.

But the fact is, you've made up your mind, Sandie. The truth is now irrelevant to you. You just demonstrated that your opinion is more important to you than any evidence that even you can present.
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 10:23 am | #


Gray Kane:

Also, I'm not sure why you are bringing up Michelle's racial awareness as evidence of "anti-Americanism." If Michelle feels like an outsider for being black, then what she is outside of is whiteness, not America. The two are not equivalent, Sandie.
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 10:28 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

The fact that Michelle has to "discuss" her blackness says she is still angry over OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE.

In regard to jumping to another subject; I went to "check facts" as you prompted me to do and upon looking, I STUMBLED UPON those items. It was more evidence as far as I am concerned and it doesn't matter what the circumstances were surrounding the "non salute", it doesn't wash. If you want to be President of an organization you must be in AGREEMENT WITH that organization. A house divided will fall!!! I believe that Obama brings division not unity and THAT is why I refuse to vote for him, and THAT is why I call him and his "partner" anti-american. Although, I said "Not Partiots" the anti-american was YOUR WORDS.
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 11:16 am | #


Gray Kane:

Sandie, you used the word "traitor." Traitor is as anti-American as you can get. When I acknowledged that anti-Americanism was the crux of your argument, you confirmed it with the following statement:

"YES HE IS A TRAITOR...and therefore, anyone that supports him IS ANTI-AMERICAN"

My point about your switching evidence is not that you just discovered new evidence and that's not fair. Of course that's fair. That's understandable.

My point was that you repeatedly cited a fiction as a fact, and then when that fiction got revealed for what it was, you didn't care.

That shows that your argument is not dependent on its evidence. On the contrary, the evidence you choose is dependent on whether or not it supports your argument, which is why all of the evidence you've provided is flimsy at best. None of it proves your point that Obama is unpatriotic or anti-American.

You insist that for a black person to feel uncomfortable around whites is for a black person to be unpatriotic, but that doesn't make sense. Blacks form this nation's "heritage" as much as whites do.

Hypothetically speaking, let's say you as a white person were to feel uncomfortable when you're the only white person in a black community. Would that make you unpatriotic? If the black race's discomfort with the white race equates with a lack of patriotism, then the other way around is also true. Because both races are equally a part of our nation's heritage.

If you felt discomfort around Native Americans, does that make you anti-American?

Do you see how silly this is? The logic is flawed on many levels, Sandie.
Gray Kane | 10.22.08 - 8:55 pm | #


Sandie Coleman:

Once again you distort the facts yourself sir. I still quoted you in the anti-american word usage...that was the point. I did say he was unpatriotic because he refuses to swear allgience to the American Flag....Patriatisim 101. I have not had the opportunity to fully investigat your claim regarding the Meet the Press interview. The lady that forwarded it to me, takes pride in checking those things before sending them therefore, I must confess I did not check them myself. Again, when I went to do the research, I came across those things. Now, the words you put in my mouth. At no time did I EVER say that to be black is to be unpatriotic. What I said was, She (M. Obaba)was whinning about Princeton MAKING her feel uncomfortable when in fact, no one can make you feel any thing. You either are comfortable in who you are, or you or not. When a drug addict says, well they made me feel...so I used...everyone in America, including you, say...THEY ALWAYS BLAME SOMEONE ELSE. Well, this is the same thing. No matter how many opportunities some folks have, they will always find fault and try to change and bend it until it is as distorted as they. I for one am sick and tired of people coming to America, or being born here, and trying to change it. There are changes that were needed and they occured. To change it in the way the liberals have done, has the result of utter destruction. I hold moral values to be the most important weapon we have against our enemies. I consider our patriotism to be the gauge by which we can "see" how hard you might fight to keep us safe. I am not stupid nor prejudice or anti anything except anything that tears down our moral, spiritual and patriotisim as a United country. If that makes me bad...so be it!
Sandie Coleman | 10.22.08 - 9:28 pm | #


Gray Kane:

You cited Michelle Obama's comments about race as support for your argument that Obama and his supporters are unpatriotic. When I questioned your use of the citation, you supported it by saying,

"The fact that Michelle has to 'discuss' her blackness says she is still angry over OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE."

I responded by identifying that "our American heritage" includes black sentiment. I also pointed out that a black American's discomfort around whites no more equates with anger over "our American heritage" than a white American's discomfort around blacks. None of this is a twisting of your words, Sandie.

As far as I can see, you're blaming other Americans for your own personal discomforts in this country. Other Americans are not unpatriotic because you miss the way you were raised, Sandie.

Also, you blame "liberals" for what? For Bush's "socialist" bailout of the banking system? Bush devised the bailout. And he's also built the federal government into a huge intervention into personal lives, with even a new cabinet position that has repeatedly violated our American civil liberties that were granted to us by the US Constitution. He doesn't lead. Bush ignores problems until a catastrophe happens, and then uses that catastrophe to take more federal power over our personal activities.

Who are the "liberals" you're blaming? Me? I voted Republican until 2004, and then in that election I didn't vote. Bush and our current Republican leadership destroyed this country's fundamental principles of individualism, personal liberties, human rights, and private ownership of capital (our lending institutions).

The Republican party has baited us with words like "patriotism" and "family values," ideas we all agree with. But the Republicans reduced those values to just words, flags to be waved to attract voters like you, Sandie. The real meaning of those words, which you pretend to defend, is lost because of those you support.

Bush fabricated the Culture War so the Republican party could divide and conquer our country, ignore our founding principles, and focus on little more than augmenting their own power. If you were to ask me, their actions equate with what you call destroying this country from the inside. They're the ones you should be worried about.

But instead, you're so focused on identifying "anti-American" sentiment in American citizens that you've positioned yourself against (anti) Americans. You came here to this site, ignored traditional values like "treating others with decency and respect," and spewed a litany of defamatory words against me and Americans with words like "unpatriotic" and "idiot."

Re-read our conversation. I have not called you a single name, Sandie. I don't believe in name calling. It goes against my core values.

But you don't share those traditional values. You claim you do, but you don't demonstrate them in your actions.

And you have the nerve to tell me that
Gray Kane | 10.23.08 - 2:31 am | #


Mrs. Gray:

You know what's patriotic, Sandie? Embracing diversity of thought, even if you personally disagree with some of those thoughts. Embracing the freedom of discourse, even if the discourse makes you uncomfortable. Acknowledging that the way you--as an American--see the country is not the same as the way another American sees the country.

We all have a different lens by which we view the American story, because we all have different sub-stories within it. And that is okay. The founding fathers began to argue about the intent of the Constitution less than ten years after they wrote it. Protest and dissent is not only PART of the American tradition - it is THE VERY ESSENCE OF the American tradition. And yes, "change" is part of that. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Hancock, et. al. certainly recommended a radical departure from the status quo. One might call them--gasp!--"liberals."

And it was also "liberals" who brought us abolition, womens' suffrage, the Pure Food and Drug Act (so that you know you're buying hamburger meat and not minced cat), and the environmental regulations that protected the U.S. from becoming the cesspool of pollution that most of Europe is right now.

If there is any sentiment that is anti-American, it is the attempt to silence those on the other side by declaring their views "unpatriotic" because they are not in line with YOUR agenda. That's encouraging groupthink, and it is antithetical to everything that America is supposed to represent.

America is not a collection of symbols--a flag, an anthem, a uniform. America is freedom. And yes, that includes the freedom of thought that you are so ardently trying to demolish.
Mrs. Gray | 10.23.08 - 4:37 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

Obviously you are one of the idiots that thinks it is a "freedom of thought" that says it is ok to murder millions of unborn lives everyday. If it makes me unpatriotic to say this is wrong then the shoe does it. Yes I do want people that want to destroy us from within to get out of America. You liberals call yourselves American's but what you really are is selfish, you want what you want and you want it at the expense of the unborn and the ignorant. It makes me sick to know you share the same planet with me.

The whole point in the "black" conversatioin is this....I refuse to give place to this stupidity any more so this will be my last statement...maybe. So here it goes...we have all see on the evening news how the young black men go into elite colleges, join the Frats and then turn it into a drug distribution center. When interviewed one of these "people" said...we don't want to fit in, we want to tear it up". I have lived among black, both good and bad. I can tell you for a fact that the bad are bad to the bone and want nothing more than to destroy our Nation. When people with this mentality get into places of authority, they destroy everything they touch. I used to think my family was wrong in trying to stop desegragation but, hindsite is 20/20 vision. All we have gotten through trying to be nice is drive by shootings, epidemic in drug abuse and our Courts clogged with unnecessary lawsuits. However, this is America and we are supposed to just "let anyone come in and change it because it is progress". Bull! Now these two idiots with their "Poor pitiful me I'm black" attitude wants to come in and run for office that neither are qualified to go anywhere near...because of their attitudes.

I am sick of liberals and their media that they use to do their bidding. After all, all you hot shots know advertisement works..on idiots. I don't listen to ads or you...I CAN NOT BE FOOLED.

It is not MY OPINION that I seek to preserve, it is the Nation and its FOUNDATION that I seek to preserve and the very fact that you are too blind to see that tells me that you are part of the problem.

Once and for all! WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM ANY MORE! Whoopie Goldberge and her loud stupid mouth, along with all you other idiots that want to start trouble where there isn't any...you are the problem. I am very sick of dealing with babies in leadership.

Bill & Hilary rented out rooms in our nations capital when they were in office. Hillbilly idiots in office. I can only imagine the family bar-b-ques that Barak and Michelle will have! THIS CHEAPENS THE OFFICE. In doing so it brings our enemies to our door step. Everyone blamed Bush for 9/11---IDIOTS.. Eight years of no pride in their work is what brought on 9/11 and we can expect more of it coz the party will be on if they get elected.

These two people HATE AMERICAN HISTORY and they want to change America at it's foundation...THATS WHY THEY ARE ANTI-AMERICAN....yo
Sandie Coleman | 10.23.08 - 7:45 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

As an after thougt. Women's Lib, and the liberals brought us that, brought us latch key kids and kids killing kids. No I don't support Women's Lib either. I don't support our government "buying houses" for everyone, the American Dream is one that everyone has an equal opportunity to pursue, NOT REALIZE NECESSARILY! The LUCKY get to realize the dream...NOT HANDED THE DREAM...ACHIEVE IT! You liberals want our Government to be Socialist, giving to everyone. That isn't the way it works here and you need to get your stupid ass out of the Country if that is your mentality. BETTER YET GET A JOB!

All men were created equal. We have equal opportunities TO WORK AND ACHIEVE. NOT equal oppotunities for our Government to Support us! There are legitimate Social needs but when you start DEMANDING stuff...no one wants to give it to you.

This selfish attitude is why I say Liberals ARE THE PROBLEM. Have you ever noticed that these people that are hollering are also getting checks from the Government. What they are saying is "we want a raise". Well so do the rest of us but we "PROVE WE DESERVE IT THRU HARD WORK" and then we get that raise.

I'm thru giving place to your stupidity GRAY KANE. Which makes me wonder, Gray, cross between black and white? See you don't even know WHO you are how can you possibly have an intelligent comment when you are confused as to that!

You need to set your stupid ass down and shut up. Better yet...get off the planet!
Sandie Coleman | 10.23.08 - 7:56 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

Just because I ignored YOUR ASSESMENT of Meet the Press interview, does not mean I refused the "truth". What happened was, I refused to TRUST YOUR SOURCE! I have other places I can check things out that are not your bias. It is YOU who thinks YOUR OPINION is so valuable that you call me close minded because I don't adhere to YOUR WAY!

AGAIN....you and MRS. GRAY are IDIOTS! I hope to NEVER MEET YOU!
Sandie Coleman | 10.23.08 - 8:00 am | #


Sandie Coleman:

A Russian arrives in New York City as a new immigrant to the United
States .. He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and
says, 'Thank you Mr. American for letting me in this country , giving me
housing, food stamps, free medical care, and free education!'

The passerby says, 'You are mistaken, I am Mexican.'

The man goes on and encounters another passerby. ' Thank you for having
such a beautiful country here in America !'

The person says, 'I not American, I Vietnamese.'

The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops,
shakes his hand and says, 'Thank you for the wonderful America !'
That person puts up his hand and says, 'I am from Middle East , I am not
American!'

He finally sees a nice lady and asks, 'Are you an American?'
She says , 'No, I am from Africa !'
Puzzled, he asks her, 'Where are all the Americans?'
The African lady checks her watch and says...'Probably at work!'
Sandie Coleman | 10.23.08 - 8:03 am | #

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Monday, October 20, 2008

Would You Give up Your Right to Privacy to Prevent This?

Has anyone ever heard of Brightkite? It's a creepy alternative to Twitter. Instead of merely stating what you are doing, Brightkite uses your IP address or cell phone's coordinates to tell everyone where you are doing it.

How does this change the dynamic of internet stalking? Imagine a pedophile who doesn't have to convince young adolescents to give up their locations in order to find them.

I recognize that Brightkite has privacy settings. But how many parents are aware of everything their children download? My 13yr old brother can fill up a hard drive in a week's visit. And now that I've discovered Brightkite, I'm glad he doesn't own a cell phone.

But I've seen kids who do.

Don't get me wrong. I can envision how this is an incredible organizing tool for community organizers. Political campaigns, event organizers, guerrilla marketing companies, activists, et al could have a field day with this technology. Community organizers can identify who is around, assign everyone a role, and instantly mobilize.

But not all events are legal ones, and an effectively organized instantaneous event is one that can't be intercepted.

Please don't misunderstand me: I am not advocating that additional governmental regulation--or worse, surveillance--protect us here. In fact, that's part of my concern. With each new technological fear, there's a new excuse for excessive governmental expansion into our private lives.

But imagine we lived in Israel, and those who orchestrate bombings had this incredible power to instantaneously organize.

This is a sincere question. What other option is there besides governmental involvement?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Course Blogs: Writing in a Collaborative Environment

I have to acknowledge that while I have addressed educational concerns on this site, this is not a typical post for Roundhouse Rhetoric. But I didn't write this for Roundhouse Rhetoric. I wrote this for Compspot as a follow up to a teaching workshop I conducted on Friday about using blogs in the classroom.

For those who are not interested in teaching writing, but who are interested in blog-promotion tactics, this post does offer something for you. It addresses how to increase a blog's visitors, how to transform visitors into readers, how to turn readers into return readers, and how to encourage comments.

As this election season has progressed, I have reduced Roundhouse Rhetoric to political commentary. For those who are interested in political blogs, the section on comments discusses how partisanship can increase comments but decrease the likelihood of readers' responding to each other--as well as how to overcome this problem without giving up the benefits of partisanship.



In "Teaching Digital Composition with Blogs," Krista Kennedy lists four different types of course blogs:

Individual blog by Instructor: an instructor's blog offers an alternative course-management system through class announcements, lecture notes, syllabi, policies.... But an instructor's blog preserves a traditional classroom hierarchy, reduces the students' understanding of writing to what the teacher can advise, de-emphasizes writing as a contextually determined practice, fails to promote the students' voices. And it offers absolutely no infrastructure to entice students to keep writing after the course.

Individual Student Blogs: promote ownership of work, encourage reflection, are less constrained by community norms, demand some technological responsibility, and increase the likelihood of a student's writing after the termination of the course. But individual blogs make classroom community more difficult, demand an outgoing personality, and require more time for assessment.

Small-Group Blogs: encourage collaborative reflection, are conducive to peer review, and are a good communication tool for other group projects. One of the problems of group work is the teacher's inability to assess who is doing the most/least work, and the students' frustration from this inequality of effort with an equality of grade. The blog infrastructure alleviates this problem. Because the blog documents the author of each post, the teacher can see who is doing the work and who isn't. But the group nature of a communal blog diffuses responsibility for (and pride from) the blog as a whole. And the students will not keep writing after the end of the course.

Class Blog: promotes ongoing discussion, is more conducive to comments, and is easy to assess. This type of blog is great for a literature course. But individual voices can get subsumed, and the lack of individual ownership diffuses responsibility and pride. And the students will not keep writing after the end of the course.

The last three of these four types of course blogs encourage students to have a voice in a community that extends beyond the classroom. Because of this transformation of the classroom's community, blogs provide opportunities for students to address multiple audiences simultaneously. In other words, not only do non-student readers increase the likelihood of a student's enjoyment from writing, they emphasize the role of audience in writing.

The first class discussion about audience has to address privacy concerns. The general guiding principle for online behavior is "Don't write or upload what you wouldn't want your parents, kids, or future employers to associate with you." Bring articles to class that exemplify potential problems and facilitate discussion.

Once students readily acknowledge privacy concerns, they're ready for the expanded community. This means the teacher has to find ways to draw external readers to her course blogs. One way to attract readers is through a free ad-exchange service, like Entrecard.

Don't think of an ad-exchange service as a distraction from the course. Entrecard's categories facilitate a discussion of how students can establish a theme for their blogs, and how those themes help to determine their blogs' audience.

Entrecard offers still other pedagogical opportunities. If a course uses individual student blogs or small-group blogs, then the students will have to create advertising banners like this one on the left. An advertising banner is an opportunity for a class discussion about image design, a popular topic for most composition textbooks.

While composition textbooks limit discussion to the interpretation of images, advertising banners enable a conversation about the creative process: how to use the image to define an audience; how to attract and control the viewer's eye movement through imaginary lines, color, contrasts, shifting planes; and how that eye movement plays a role in the viewer's interpretation. In other words, a teacher easily can transform an ad-exchange service into a pedagogical tool.

When used effectively, Entrecard can solicit a minimum of 300 extra visitors a day to a course blog. Of course, there are other marketing tactics that you can assign:

1) Students can label their posts with tags that will help search engines find the students' posts.

2) They can leave insightful comments on popular blogs; the comment template has a field where students can leave their blogs' URL and thereby link their comments to their own sites. (Teachers can have the students email links so the teacher can find them and give the students credit.)

3) Students can advertise the title and link of each new post on Twitter.

4) Students can join blogging communities through an interface like MyBlogLog and send a message to their communities with the title and link of each new post.

5) Students can Digg their posts. If a student adds the appropriate code to her blog's template, more readers can rate her post, and each post's rating will appear on the post itself. The higher the post's rating, the higher the likelihood that the post will attract even more readers.

But if you don't require it, the students won't do it, and if you require too much, the students won't do it. Although I would provide the students with a lengthy list of marketing tactics, I would assign only two or three that I as their teacher can easily keep track of--like their exchanging ads on Entrecard, commenting on popular blogs, and Digging their own posts. If you don't require any form of advertising, you're decreasing the likelihood of strangers commenting on your students' posts, which diminishes both the attractiveness of blogging and the learning opportunities that a blog provides. Students need a hearty traffic of visitors in order to practice addressing different audiences.

Of course, "visitors" are not the same as "readers," but this difference can promote a valuable classroom discussion about how to turn "visitors" into "readers": the timeliness of a post's topic, a captivating title that clues the reader into that topic, an image or video that draws the viewer's attention to the post (or a series of images that move the viewer's eyes throughout the post). Once the visitor is already looking at the post, stylistic devices, an effective sequence of information, vivid illustrations, and other standard topics of a composition course will transform that "visitor" into a "reader."

The next class discussion to have is how to turn a "reader" into a "return reader." Interestingly enough, the best advice for turning "readers" into "return readers" doesn't come from composition textbooks. Students will find the best advice in other blogs--on blogging-resource sites like Problogger and Blog Assistance, as well as buried in marketing and money-making blogs. Have your students run a Google blogsearch on "return readers" and "blog building." Ask them to bring advice from the blogosphere into the classroom. This will acclimate them to research, include them in the teaching process, and encourage an active-learning environment.

Free services like Google Analytics show a blogger how many new and repeat readers she has each day, which posts they read, how long they spend on the site, how they encountered the site, etc. If the course blog doesn't belong to the teacher, require the students to sign up for such services, because they help students determine what what worked and what hasn't, what has given them a voice, and what deprived them of it. Services like Google Analytics provide rhetorical mirrors that reassign the pedagogical role from the teacher to the student--in her desire to enhance the inherent draw of her writing.

Another important class discussion to have is how to encourage comments. Timely posts catch readers while they're still experiencing an event, before they've had a chance to intellectually process their opinions; in other words, a timely post can capture a reader's desire to discuss its topic.

Polarizing statements help a reader to identify her own stance in a debate, which increases a reader's recognition that she has something to say. But this can have negative consequences, too. Consider these comments on a post about the last presidential debate:

TheBoBo says:

Obama is still stuttering around Ayers and ACORN - I sure hope McCain hits him hard on those again because he just completely sidestepped that altogether. Obama just continues to lie about his associations.


pak lah says:

i dont really follow this presidential debate but isnt mccain suggesting nuclear energy that seems blurry on its policy and may cost burden to taxpayers? but anyway i dont side to anyone and im not american either. Should any of these men wins it is time to walk the talk.


Jenny Lynn says:

BAHZING! Finally! I kept yelling at the tv screen, and THIS debate he was finally listening to me! LOL! Thank god for Joe the Plumber, we just needed a good clear example, and "poof" thank you Joe. Still would hav like Romney, but I really like John McCain and Palin. AND! (I swear HE could hear my screaming at the TV because when I said to him WHAT ABOUT THE PALIN is a C*NT t-shirts, McCain brought it up just a breath later!) BAHZING!!!


Akira says:

Remember Obama? : "If you have something to say to me, say it to my face!" Finally McCain realized the friendly old fair-minded grampa routine is not getting respect or support.

I think McCain is still too polite. If he's gonna go down, he should at least go down in a blaze of glory, not pretending that Obama is just another mainstream politician.

Too little, too late?


Eowyn says:

Yes, McCain was much tougher in this last debate, but I was exasperated by how inarticulate he is. But at least he provided more specifics, instead of the usual mantra of "I can do it. I know how to get it done."

It was Obama that truly amazed me, changing so many of his prior positions. He sure sounded like a moderate. This is yet another reason why I find him frightening: It takes a very very facile liar to be able to lie so smoothly. He is the biggest con-man this country has ever seen. God save us.


Zephyra says:

I didn't like either McCain or Obama in the debate. What do you think about Bob Barr?
A is A


Robin says:

I thought McCain was much better than in the previous debates. I'm not American but I've been following the campaign because, like it or not, whoever gets elected in the States affects the rest of us as well. We've just gone through an election here in Canada where the campaign lasted a total of 38 days and there were 2 debates. It amazes me how Americans can put up with a process that lasts almost 2 years and that to become President you have to spend in excess of 500 million! Watching the news the day after the debate, I think Joe the Plumber received more coverage than the candidates!!!


AVROHOM BILGREI says:

When is B.O. going to talk "ENGLISH" rather than "FIGERIN" and start "FIGURING" out how to talk ENGLISH rather than EBONICS ?
TO MENTION LOUSY DICTION IS VERBOTEN ?
HEAVEN FORBID ONE NOTE HIS "BLACK" ENGLISH !
Perhaps he should be more "discriminating" and articulate the final "g" , not to do so is "N.G." !
Eloquent is one thing, inarticulate is another !
Verbal detail is one of the building blocks of "eloquence" !


Anonymous says:

Apparently you haven't noticed that Palin rarely pronounces 'g's in words ending in 'ing'.


Three different types of readers commented on the post: named (and linked) conservatives, named foreigners who don't have a vested interest in the post's topic, and an untraceable anonymous commenter. Although the blog's conservative slant helps readers to identify their own positions in the argument, its polarizing statements prevent dissenters from feeling that their comments are welcomed.

Notice that the commenters are not replying to each other. This is the result of the post's failure to acknowledge different viewpoints. Because the blog preaches to the choir, those who feel comfortable enough to reply don't express different enough opinions to get a conversation started. When dissenting readers get the gumption to reply to such a post, their responses are likely to appear both agitated and agitating, like they're flaming a war by just responding. By simply acknowledging different viewpoints, even polemic bloggers can reduce the likelihood of this conundrum.

Timely posts and polarizing statements are not the only way to solicit comments. A post can directly ask readers a question.

But when this tactic appears forced, it ultimately fails. Not only do questions have to be relevant to the post as a whole, but the readers' answers have to provide missing pieces to the puzzle. In other words, the post becomes a collective effort at understanding.

Once a post attracts comments, the student's replies to those comments can either encourage future comments, or dissuade other readers from contributing. Dave Taylor reminds us of what a blog's reader looks for: "I don't want to read just your [the blogger's] opinion. I want to read other people's responses to your opinion and, ideally, your retorts to them" (See Michael A. Banks' Blogging Heroes, p.9). The experienced blogger routinely has to think of answering one reader in terms of writing to other readers. Taylor offers the following advice: "Instead of reacting defensively--or offensively--what you want to do is what any business needs to do when they encounter criticism. Take a deep breath, and then come at it from the perspective of 'How can I make this a plus?'" (7).

But this should be open to debate in yet another class discussion. Bring a post's comments to class. Discuss how the blogger's replies affect the students' desire to join the conversation. Role play "blogger," "commenter," and the "silent reader." Ask the "silent reader" to explain how the "blogger's" response affects her desire to pay attention to or participate in the discussion. Let the students use their observations to make their own authorial decisions.

Internet popularity won't appeal to every student, so I encourage students to earn an income from their blogs. I tell my students they can use their blogs to host advertisements, sell their own products, write reviews, or collect donations (tips for their posts).

I also recommend that they Google the term "widget" to learn how to modify their blogs for self-expression.

While I'm a strong supporter of course blogs, I have to discourage teachers from assigning technology and marketing tactics that they themselves don't use. If you're thinking about assigning blogs next semester, sign up for a Blogger or Wordpress account. Start blogging and applying these marketing tactics ASAP.

If you encounter problems or develop any questions, feel free to reply to this post or contact me.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Friday, October 17, 2008

And Now for the Lighter Side of This Election



Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

The Real Joe the Plumber

A lot was said in tonight's debate about Joe the Plumber. Here's the actual discussion between Barack Obama and Joe the Plumber, uncut and uncensored by Fox News:


Stumble Upon Toolbar

Monday, October 13, 2008

Obama's "Terrorism" and the Last Presidential Debate



As stated in my last post, the realities of our economic crisis snuck up on the McCain campaign and undermined McCain's strategy to make national security the central issue of this election. As a result, McCain's tactical use of Bill Ayers lost its surrounding strategy and unfortunately took a center role in McCain's campaign. Without a larger argument, the repeated reference to Obama's middle name and Palin's likewise repeated assertion that Obama "sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists" have played on racial fears to the point of producing verbally aggressive mobs that even McCain felt the need to censure.



The national-security strategy would have encouraged McCain's supporters to see Obama as a failed Commander and Chief--in other words, as someone who views terrorism as inevitable and thus as something he accepts living with, even on the level of his acquaintances. Instead, many interpret McCain's assertions to signify that Obama is a terrorist. In other words, some of McCain's supporters are vocally responding to the singular tactic because there's no strategy to contextualize their response.

Even if McCain had wanted to back away from this strategicless tactic, the Republican National Committee won't let him. This is their new ad:



Not all Republicans agree with this strategicless tactic--in part because it doesn't hold water. The only government Ayers rebelled against was Nixon's during the Vietnam protest era, and since being acquitted, Ayers has worked tirelessly to give back to the community. Bill Ayers is neither a wanted criminal nor recruiting members for terrorism. For the entirety of Obama's adult life, Ayers has been a state-hired professor, now Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois. He founded the Small Schools Workshop and the Center for Youth and Society. His list of awards includes one for his being "Champion of the Public Interest." He won the MacArthur genius grant six times. In response to McCain's attacks, 2853 educators have signed a recent endorsement of him. And with each day, McCain's tactic increases the likelihood of someone making an attempt on Ayers' life.

Obama's association with Ayers was a temporary one that had to do with their shared interest in reforming Chicago's education system. McCain's attempt to associate Obama with such "terrorists" originally didn't have to hold up under scrutiny, but now that this tactic has taken center stage for the McCain campaign, its flimsy reasoning embarrasses a lot of intelligent Republicans. Some Republican candidates who are up for reelection run ads that associate them with Obama, not with McCain.

My question is, Which direction will McCain take in this week's debate? Will McCain submit to the Republican National Committee's decision that he should pursue flimsy guilty-by-association arguments? Or will he try to initiate a new strategy that brings order to the chaos of his campaign and supporters?

Obama has all of Al Gore's states from the 2000 election, and some of Bush's states. Excluding toss-up states, Obama has 277 of the 270 electoral votes that he needs to win the election. That's right: if you threw out the states where the race was within 5%, Obama still has more than enough electoral votes to win the election. If you were to count the toss-up states according to the average of how they're polling now, Obama has 353 electoral votes. In other words, he would win by 83 electoral votes.

McCain has to swing all eight of the toss-up states to his favor, but that alone can't win him the election. In addition to that, McCain needs to win in a state like Virginia, with its 13 electoral votes, in order to win the election. Currently, according to the average of the polls taken there, Obama's winning in Virginia by 6.3%. It is possible for McCain's "Obama associates with terrorists" tactic to work in a state like Virginia.

But would it work in all of the toss-up states?

Florida is one of those toss-up states. Obama's currently winning in Florida by 3.8%. In order to win in Florida, McCain's attack on "Obama's affiliation with terrorists" has to avoid any form of nativist tone. Otherwise, McCain will lose the much needed support of Cuban Republicans. In other words, he can't allow another Florida sheriff to refer to Obama as "Hussein," as if Obama's foreign name were an indication that he's "not like us" enough to be president. That argument is not going to fly with Florida's Hispanics. Nor can McCain allow a crowd member to refer to Obama as an "Arab," as if Obama's foreign ancestry precluded him from being a "real American." In fact, the whole "un-American" claim treads in dangerous waters, and with Florida's having 27 electoral votes, McCain can't expect to lose Florida and then easily make up the votes with other states that are more firmly in Obama's corner.

The RNC's new ad puts McCain in a difficult position. Will he continue to tell his supporters that they shouldn't fear an Obama presidency? Or will he go where the money tells him to go and run the risk of one of his supporters' making an attempt on Bill Ayers' life? Or on Obama's or his family's lives? Can the McCain campaign tie Obama to "terrorism" without emitting a nativist tone that will lose him Florida?

Or will McCain transition to an actual strategy that diminishes the role of Bill Ayers in his campaign?

Only Wednesday's debate will tell.

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

The Second Debate and McCain's Strategicless Tactics


Fox News' text poll revealed that 82% of Fox's viewers saw McCain as having won last night's debate. My guess is that McCain's use of "that one" to refer to Obama was a conscious rhetorical decision to solidify his Fox News base. McCain couldn't bring up "Obama pals around with terrorists" without losing the ensuing discussion, but he had to dehumanize Obama in keeping with the claim.

But how does that claim fit into a larger campaign strategy?

There has been a lot of talk about McCain's having political tactics, but no strategy. He once did have a strategy, though, and the tactic of associating Obama with terrorism makes sense within that now lost strategy. McCain's original strategy was to emphasize national security as the focal point of this election.

It was for this reason that McCain insisted that the fundamentals of the economy were strong right up until Bush introduced the bailout. During the primaries even McCain acknowledged that the economy was his weak spot. His presupposed strength always had been national security. But the realities of the economy snuck up on him, and pulled his campaign strategy out from under him.

The realities of the economy snuck up on him. McCain's economic adviser Phil Gramm made his comment about "a nation of whiners" as a conscious political tactic. Conservatives have long referred to liberals as "whiners." Gramm intended to denounce all pleas that the economy had to take center stage--as merely a liberal ploy to take control of the election. But rather than rally conservatives behind his call, rather than provoke conservative pundits to denounce the mainstream media's concern about the economy as little more than liberal whining, Gramm's statement backfired. For the next two months, McCain struggled to maintain that our lending institutions were fundamentally strong. But in the latter half of September, McCain could no longer ignore our nation's tragic economic realities.

McCain's campaign strategy of emphasizing national security gave way overnight to hodgepodge tactics, like his grandstanding at the bailout's negotiations. What would have been a mere nuance in a greater argument about national security, McCain's attempt to tie Obama to Bill Ayers now sticks out like a disruption in McCain's campaign. Bill Ayers is neither a wanted criminal nor recruiting members for terrorism. For the entirety of Obama's adult life, Ayers has been a state-hired professor, now Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois. He founded the Small Schools Workshop and the Center for Youth and Society. His list of awards includes one for his being "Champion of the Public Interest." The only government he rebelled against was Nixon's during the Vietnam protest era--when Obama was eight years old. Obama's association with Ayers was a temporary one that had to do with their shared interest in reforming Chicago's education system. McCain's attempt to associate Obama with such "terrorists" originally didn't have to hold up under scrutiny. McCain's tactic of tying Obama to Ayers in the American psyche originally was little more than an addendum to an overarching strategy. McCain's experience was to overshadow "Hussein" Obama's little-known identity in this "scary time" for American national security. The Republican-devised $850 billion bailout wasn't supposed to happen. But the realities of the economy snuck up on him.

If you want to hire a personal bodyguard, you hire someone you intimately trust. McCain's original strategy of running for the nation's bodyguard relied on Obama's personal history remaining relatively unknown. When Hillary Clinton tried to decontextualize Obama's unknown background by dragging Reverend Wright under the spotlight, Obama responded with his "A More Perfect Union" speech, a race speech that will appear in American history textbooks for the next untold number of generations. Since then, Obama has been on a personal biography tour to introduce himself to those Americans who didn't know anything about him. The only way for McCain to secure American uncertainty about Obama required that McCain attack the truthfulness of what Obama says.

This part of McCain's original strategy was visible in last night's debate. McCain repeatedly claimed that Obama was going to raise taxes for the middle class, and Obama repeatedly responded that no, he was not, that he was going to lower taxes for everyone who makes less than $150k, and raise taxes only for those who make $250k or more. McCain ultimately contested in keeping with this carryover from his original campaign strategy. McCain insisted that Obama's voting record was more important than anything Obama said--thereby insinuating that Obama was a liar.

The voting record that McCain refers to is Obama's rejection of the Bush tax cuts. The Republican Congress passed legislation that lowered taxes for the middle class in the same bills that lowered even more taxes for the top 1%. Because of their augmenting effect on the now $10 trillion deficit, Obama voted against all tax cuts that included cuts for the top 1%. This is Obama's "record of voting against tax cuts for the middle class." He was trying to reduce the likelihood of our economically ending up where we are now. Of course, now that we're here, Obama's strategy to prevent us from ending up in this situation differs greatly from his strategy for getting us out of this situation. According to Obama last night, while raising taxes in the past might have mitigated some of our current economic problems, raising them now for anyone making less than the top 1% would only exacerbate those problems. Small business owners would take a hit, which would trickle down to their employees. To protect small businesses and their employees, Obama proposes lowering taxes even further for 95% of Americans, and raise them only for the top 1%.

McCain argues that Obama's voting against the Bush tax cuts signifies that Obama's against all tax cuts--and that Obama's insistence otherwise means only that Obama's a liar. Again, originally this was part of a larger strategy to position the certainty of McCain against the uncertainty of Obama in an election for this nation's bodyguard.

The question whose answer we'll find in the next few weeks of polls, not to mention on Nov 4 itself, is, Will McCain's tactics work on their own without their overarching strategy?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

Monday, October 6, 2008

Keating Economics

Stumble Upon Toolbar