Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Republican Debate: The Ghouls Came out and Danced About…
There is something so dark and perverse about the Republican debates that I cannot stop watching them. In many ways I imagine it to be like a deathwatch that takes place hours before an execution, but this is so much more fun. The Wednesday night debate might have been called Dead White Men Walking. My wife has now taken to hiding upstairs when I watch these debates. She puts on her Bose headset to drown out the blather. But I turn the volume way up to torment her and my Republican neighbors three blocks away, who are so ashamed by what has happened to their Grand Old Party that they're voting for the Democrats this November. But it's not the debate that bothers my wife so much, as it is my own screaming, which I hardly notice anymore.
The inane nattering between McCain and Romney Wednesday night reached an new level of irrelevance as they argued who said what about timetables for leaving Iraq, highlighting the word "timetable" at least 25 times in a span of less than five minutes. Even the quirky Ron Paul became so frustrated that he tried to point out that there were real issues about the debacle in Iraq that might be debated. Their squabbles make Huckabee look, well, presidential.
All of this grotesque absurdity was underscored by the worshipping tone of reverence that took place in the house of Reagan as each candidate genuflected to the Gipper. It was so over the top that it was the first time, in my life, I felt the least bit of empathy for Nancy. Nancy even trotted out her old red outfit. The stench of the mothballs must have been so pungent that the organizers had to seat her next to Schwarzenegger whose olfactory senses were long ago destroyed from snorting steroids.
With all of the deification of Reagan at Wednesday night's debate, one might be tempted to overlook the fact that Ronnie had the vision and IQ of cheese. He was a man so empty and vacuous that, like a blank screen, you could project any idea or attribute onto him and it would stick. He was a simple mirror who reflected back only what people had cast onto to him and that's what made him so likeable to most everyone.
Throughout the debate McCain only looked backward, reliving another failed war that left him brutally scarred. He now relishes the idea of an endless war in the Middle East as he talks with a childish glee about Iraq. It's another failed war in which he is desperately trying to purge himself of those old nightmares that must haunt him daily. McCain, whose heroic effort at surviving in Vietnam has been so diminished by his pandering, that he has become an utterly tragic figure. The low turning point for this transformation occurred some years ago when he was besmirched and humiliated by Bush in the 2000 primary in South Carolina. Months later, McCain, broken, gave Bush one long sycophantic embrace, the picture of which still makes me cringe. As a result, he has lost all ability to be embarrassed by what he says or does.
John McCain is a seething cauldron of rage who has taken to channeling W's smirk when his opponents dare to challenge the veracity of what he says. It's clear he'd rather orchestrate a little bloodletting among his opponents than sit there fuming. His puffed up imagine of tough guy takes a serious hit when you realize he's 71. To bolster that image he's added Rambo and the Terminator, both aging relics themselves, to his posse. His poor bride Cindy is made to look younger, as each week of the campaign season passes, to make us believe that this old gasbag is still virile. McCain's only coherent response to how he would deal with the recession gripping this country was that he knew Jack Kemp and Phil Graham, two old political hacks who are so irrelevant, that by association, McCain was underscoring his own obsolescence.
The terminally good-looking Romney was perfectly coiffed Wednesday night. His handlers even gave him a Reaganesque hairdo, slicked back with Brylcream, in honor of this event. However, unlike the Gipper, they had to add a little tinge of gray at the sides to make him look wise in order to mask the goofy things he said.
But what really got my attention Wednesday night was the big plane looming in the background. What did the old Boeing 707 Air Force One, that shuffled Ronnie and Mommy around for eight gruesome years, have to do with these candidates? It took me a while to figure out that metaphor, but when I did, the whole spectacle made immediate sense to me. It turns out that this plane, number 27000, was the same, then brand new, plane that flew Dick Nixon into oblivion in 1974, and dumped the greatly diminished Reagan back in California in 1989. I can still see the stoop shouldered Dick and poor Pat climbing the airplane steps, like they were on a gangplank, and Dick turning at the top to flash that famous, " I am not a crook grin." Nixon then waved to the small white house crowd forced to witness this ghastly event, as the dark furies he unleashed were waiting to pilot him home.
In fact, Rudy's premature withdrawal from the race, before this debate, was one more catastrophic mistake that otherwise, had he stayed, might have given life to his message. What better symbol for all that Rudy stood for during this campaign than a big f------- plane in his background.
Nonetheless, his absence did not diminish the significance of what we were witnessing. With the four remaining Republican candidates sitting in the ominous shadow of that plane, I knew with divine clarity that we were seeing the last blood-curdling gasp of the Reagan revolution. Old white men lined up on the tarmac to take one last ride into oblivion, and with them the conservative ideology that has plunged this country into financial and moral bankruptcy. Unless, of course, the hapless Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton!
Bud McClure is a professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota Duluth. He is the author, most recently, of Putting a New Spin on Groups: The Science of Chaos, 2e, and is at work on a current book manuscript, "The Pink Nebula in Orion." He can be emailed at bmcclure@d.umn.edu



38 Comments so far
Show AllWhat would Barry Goldwater, a real Conservative, think of W and the other buffoons who have taken over the Republican Party?
After 8 years of arrogance and hypocrisy coupled with monumental incompetence there is no way the GOP should be awarded another victory at the polls.
Yet, as Prof McClure astutely observes, "Unless....Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton."
She is the Big Gun that the Dems will use to shoot themselves in the foot.
Clearly the Democratic Party elites want Hillary or Obama. But these seem to me the candidates easiest to beat.
Paul Krugman points out the Rs have won every race from Reagan on using race baiting. They only have one trick but they are masters of it.
Clinton is not a feminist and not a reformer. She is also, like Obama, a tired old corporate hack.
And then there is the question "What evidence is there that the Ds want to win?"
thank you, Bud! This had me laughing out loud. The current administration and some honest conversations have embarrassed some of my Republican relatives into voting Democratic & anti-establishment. It's quite a circus. I was just reading posts about Molly Ivins, and your humor reminds me of her.
Hey thanks for "...as he talks with a childish glee about Iraq."
I was trying to put my disquiet at McCain's delivery of "the surge is working" into words. The above is pretty much it, "childish glee" indeed.
I never agree with Rush Limturd, but he is right when he says the conservative base is fractured and the current presidential candidates are "uninspiring." And one has to admit that it is pretty hilarious when Ann Coulter claims that Hillary Clinton is further right than Mr. Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!
Claudius, it is worse. On Fox yesterday, Ann Coulter said that she would vote for the devil over John McCain. She even said she would *campaign* for Hillary if McCain is the GOP nominee. It looks like McCain the GOP's Lieberman.
The scary part simply might be that the only thing worse than having Ann Coulter on the other side might be having her on yours...
Thought Shaman,
I remember hearing Ann Coulter offer to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets the nod from the GOP. And it is a scary thought indeed when Ann Coulter is on your side.
Look folks, call Ron Paul Quirky because he has the nerve to speak truth...
BTW, he's the only candidate IN the Republicrat party that says get the troops OUT now!!!
I still think the best candidate was Richardson, but he's back in New Mexico being governor again, so I'm stuck trying to decide what I'm to do now.
Hillary has never been an option for me, not because I don't think she could do the job - nor has Barack, because I fear he couldn't. I think either one of them would do very well.
But where I've lived for ten years now, I've only met one democrat, and every republican I know nearly has apoplexy at the mere mention of Hillary. But the majority of them have hated what Bush was doing from the beginning. Quite a few have switched parties because of him, while others don't like the GOP lineup now.
That, even though it has been my hope to see a woman in the White House before I die; combined with what the GOP put us through the whole time the Clintons were in the White House before, is why I won't vote for Hillary. If she beats out Obama, those republicans who would have voted democrat won't vote at all. And if by chance she gets elected without them, it'll become more of the same kind of crap they went through from 1993 to 2000.
This country doesn't need that again. We need someone who might be able to heal some of the terrible wounds this country is suffering from. Obama may not be as qualified, but with a good cabinet and support team, he could for sure do a better job than Bush and his team have.
Only other choice is Huckabee, and then it would no doubt be the push to replace the Constitution with the Bible.
The symbolism of the aircraft in the background is double extreme ghastly - reminds us of extreme imperial blowback, and extreme climate change mechanisms. The psych-ops strategy calls for rubbing it in the faces of the authoritarian followers - like military parades.
#
McDee February 2nd, 2008 2:35 pm
"What would Barry Goldwater, a real Conservative, think of W and the other buffoons who have taken over the Republican Party?
After 8 years of arrogance and hypocrisy coupled with monumental incompetence there is no way the GOP should be awarded another victory at the polls.
Yet, as Prof McClure astutely observes, "Unless….Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton."
Barry Goldwater would endorse Ron Paul. As Dr. Paul is the only actual conservative running for the presidency.
And since when has speaking the truth and having a plan considered "quirky"?
It appears most people are approaching these party nominations in a popularity contest kind of way. Not surprising though considering this is a country of sheep.
Beautiful imagery of That plane...
Actually I think Goldwater and McCain would have gotten along great.
Both were Air Force pilots. Both got much better press than they deserved. Both were from Arizona. Both were more predictably conservative than moderates and independents thought.
Goldwater had active minority race voter suppression going on for him in his campaigns. Some later Bush race suppression specialists got their start under Goldwater.
Both Hillary and I were Goldwater supporters at the time.
I had friends who also liked Goldwater who wouldn't support Reagan because he was too conservative.
Goldwater was a charming and interesting guy but not a maverick and not a liberal.
But, like one guy said, "They told me if I voted for Goldwater we would end up in a land war in Asia. I did and we did.
Here is how it plays out: Obama gets the nomination and the Washington Hill-Billys are so pissed they switch to the Republican and win the nomination, McCain runs with Ron Paul as Independents and the country is so fed up with the establishment they vote in the McCain/ Paul team.
Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a B707.
Will the US withstand the impact of these candidates?
"With the four remaining Republican candidates sitting in the ominous shadow of that plane, I knew with divine clarity that we were seeing the last blood-curdling gasp of the Reagan revolution."
With Edwards gone, the Democrats are about to nominate a sure loser who will be beaten by the non-Mormon McCain or the non-McCain Romney, both of whom have promised us less jobs and more war. It's not the Reagan Revolution we need be concerned with but the even greater and far more odious Bush Revolution, the tipping point in American history that ended both American democracy and the American middle class. Joe and Josephine Sixpack will shuffle off heedless and half-assed to the polls, covered in Republican Slime, and once again put a bullet right between the eyes of America's future.
The best democratic candidate was Kucinich, but he's gone. The best left is Gravel, but almost no one has heard of him, despite the fact that he almost single-handedly ended the Vietnam war by almost single-handedly ending the draft.
Either Hillary or Obama will win the democratic nomination. Hillary is the only democratic candidate the motley crew of Republicans out there can beat, so she's the one they really want. Obama can beat them, but we really don't know what he plans on doing if elected. The reason why he can beat the republicans, despite his being a black man, is because he has managed to do what no one else has managed to do, which is galvanize the younger voters into getting out there and voting.
I think we're going to have to vote for Obama, and keep our fingers crossed.
Faith and politics don't mix. If you need to cross your fingers, you're hosed.
When we voted for Wellstone here in Minnesota, you didn't have any doubts. You knew it in your guts because he "came out". Obama's a wildcard of his own choosing. Why is it that?
Why is Ron Paul always lumped in with the other "evil Republicans?" Anybody who has taken the time to inform themselves can clearly see that Ron Paul stands as far apart from the other Republican candidates as Kucinich does in the Democratic Party. I'm really sad to see all this partisan bashing on CD that is passing for more intelligent discourse. I expect such "football game" thinking from FOX News, but not from a progressive website.
With Kucinich and Edwards out, anybody who believes that stopping the war in Iraq and avoiding future wars is a main priority should take a closer look at Ron Paul.
If we continue occupying Iraq and possibly launching more preemptive wars in the Middle East, things like health care, the environment, education etc. aren't even going to matter because we will go the way of the Soviet Union.
Borussky wrote: "Clinton is not a feminist and not a reformer. She is also, like Obama, a tired old corporate hack."
It's true that Hillary is a DLC corporate candidate, but I'd like to know why you think Obama is one as well. What has he done to prove to you that he is a 'tired old corporate hack'?
GOP race baiting is losing its zing. Sure, it still plays in the deep south, but the Dems can win easily without the deep south. Look, the current mayor of Chicago, the son of a race-baiting mayor from Bridgeport, one of the most racist neighborhoods in the city, is supporting Obama, and the wealthiest woman in the country is Oprah Winfrey. Times have changed, even if the GOP has not.
Also, while Goldwater was a USAF pilot, McCain was a Navy pilot -- they might not get along so well after all.
Paul B wrote: "When we voted for Wellstone here in Minnesota, you didn't have any doubts. You knew it in your guts because he "came out". Obama's a wildcard of his own choosing. Why is it that?"
Paul, maybe it's because he saw what happened to Kucinich in 2004 and this year.
Remember Poe's story, "The Masque of the Red Death"? This prelude to the republican convention is to determine who will be invited to the party:
"No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal -- the redness and the horror of blood..."
"But the Prince Prospero (Dubya) was happy and dauntless..."
And so it goes...
The real question for me is any of this relevant? It looks like this country is going to go through some really hard times and fairly soon. I'm in survival mode more than anything right now. I for one am weary of all that the United States stands for. We were never great as I was told as I watched cartoons on a black and white TV in the fifties and said the pledge of allegiance in school. Despite the propoganda that was pumped into me about the Indians that we stole this country from or the Blacks that we enslaved or the countless wars we have started and countrys we have meddled in. Elect a new president? Maybe it would be better for the world if we just quickly met our demise like a cancer cut out so the rest of the world can finally live in peace! Sorry to feel that way but we suck as a country!!
RSJ,
And then maybe he's just another crypto-neocon. His noteable absense on so many votes in '07, his initial support of Liebermann in CT, and speaking to AIPAC in '06 are all I need to go on.
If his politics are true, he doesn't need to hide them -- unless he's afraid of the corporate media. If so, he has no business running for high office because it'll be a modus operandi throughout his tenure. Avoiding controversy, playing into the hands of the corporate media at every turn, etc. Outwardly it becomes indistinguishable from the usual enabler Dems.
Because, most likely, there is little inward distinction either.
If ever there was a time for a THIRD PARTY to emerge...
This whole election is depressing! It looks to me like more of the some old mess! But, I did get a good laugh out of this article! Because that was my opinion of the Republican's! But, I lost my faith in the American people last election. When they elected the same Mafia Chieftain to a second term. So I am not expecting to much from this election.
Ronald Reagan was not an unintelligent President, he was one in the arly stages of Alzheimer's. Americans elected and admired a demented man as President. They elected him in spite of the fact that he showed signs of dementia during the debates. This I will never forget. Even a person who is mentally handicapped can fool the American people, and become President. What kind of people are we?
Dudleydoright: Right on the money. Very well put.
What kind of people are we?
________________________________________________
Well, let's just say that there's a reason that "Bad-- Or, the Dumbing of America" isn't on the fiction shelf.
Paul wrote: "And then maybe he's just another crypto-neocon. His noteable absense on so many votes in '07, his initial support of Liebermann in CT, and speaking to AIPAC in '06 are all I need to go on."
So you're hanging your whole 'hate Obama' thing on the fact that he made a few speeches for Lieberman before he supported Lamont and that he made a speech to AIPAC? He obviously has not supported any of Lieberman's policies in the Senate, so what did it matter? Have you read his speech to AIPAC? What did he say that you dislike so much? He wants peace between Israel and Palestine -- is that some kind of endorsement for Ohmert's government?
Paul wrote: "If his politics are true, he doesn't need to hide them — unless he's afraid of the corporate media. If so, he has no business running for high office because it'll be a modus operandi throughout his tenure. Avoiding controversy, playing into the hands of the corporate media at every turn, etc. Outwardly it becomes indistinguishable from the usual enabler Dems."
Okay, so he follows the same path of a Kucinich or Nader and is ignored and ridiculed by the media so we get four more years of Bush Republicanism. FDR ran the same kind of 'inspire the people' campaign, but also got things done once elected, leading to him being called a 'traitor to his class.' Outwardly, for the purposes of getting elected, he does seem superficially like most of the Dems, with a much more liberal record, but this does not mean he will not fulfill some of his promises once in office. He did in Illinois, where he passed reform legislation in the state house and other accountability and transparency measures. It's absurd to suggest that the only way to 'prove' you're really a liberal is to marginalize yourself and be defeated. It's also absurd to assert that because you run a smart campaign that takes into account the corporate media bias, that is necessarily going to be your M.O. when you are in power. That's assuming facts not in evidence, considering Obama's career in politics, which has been overwhelmingly progressive. Again, look at FDR.
Paul wrote: "Because, most likely, there is little inward distinction either."
He's just a smart politician who is not going to make the same mistakes that Kucinich and Edwards made. It seems Obama can only win with you by playing a losing game. Some of us would like a winner for a change.
Well ya know Bud, I actually enjoyed your article right up to the end;
"Unless, of course, the hapless Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton!"
Considering the timing of this article I can only assume that it is an indirect "endorsement" of Barack Husein Obama as the democratic nominee. Good luck with that!
If the "hapless Democrats" want the White House then Hillary Clinton is their only remaining hope. Barack Husein Obama is unelectable in the General Election.
You do make a good point though, the current crop of Republicans are a sorry lot indeed! I like to listen to them as well, and I keep thinking to my self, what is going on here? Are both the major parties trying to throw this thing.
Perhaps I am missing something, can someone explain to me why Ms. Clinton is so unelectable, compared to Mitt Romney or John F'ing McCain?
But no the starry eyed hopeful of the Democratic party are buying into the platitudes of "change" as if "hope" and "change" without substance actually mean anything. I mean c'mon does any one really believe that a man of Muslim heritage named Barack Husein Obama actually stands any chance of being elected president of the good old USA in 2008? Right smack in the middle of our great crusade, er, um I mean war on terror?
The democrats are indeed hapless! The sooner progressives realize this and get out of the Democratic party the better.
Vote Green in 2008! Leave the corporate fascists to their own kind.
Chunga, you've got a few things wrong in your rant:
Obama was never a Muslim at any time in his life, and he didn't come form a Muslim family. His father was born a Muslim, but was an atheist by the time Obama was born. His parents split when he was a baby, and he grew up in a Christian household, and he is a Christian to this day.
As far as 'electability,' I have talked with many people, including some Republicans, who like Obama but say they would never vote for Hillary. She has very high negatives against any of the GOP candidates; Barack does not. In fact, according to some polls, he beats McCain easily.
If the Green Party had a viable candidate in 2008, I would vote for them but, as it is, Obama represents the best chance for a progressive in the White House next year.
So, go ahead and vote Green -- maybe we'll get another four years of a warmongering Bush clone who'll destroy what's left of the nation completely. By not voting against them, you'll leave the corporate fascists to run the country into the dirt.
Of course, you can pat yourself on the back that you didn't 'compromise' by voting for the most liberal Democrat to run for the presidency since McGovern while your country suffers.
RSJ,
I did read his speech to AIPAC. A few thoughts struck me then, and they remain with me now:
* AIPAC is a one-sided and unabashed foreign lobby. They exist to further the interests of Israel, period. Certainly peace in the Mideast is of American concern, but by meeting with AIPAC Obama sent a clear message to other parties. The US shouldn't kissing up to foreign lobbies.
* His speech was framed from a chapter in Bush's/PNAC's "axis of evil". The whole thing was a case for Bush's foreign policy: the Iranian threat to Israel (rather than the overall threat of permanent war in the Mideast -- or war=peace, which we seem to be preferring instead).
* The overall fawning nature of his speech. I can't pinpoint one particular passage or the other, but it's so sugary it gives diabetes.
Regarding the Corporate Media. "Playing them" is a bullshit excuse. Playing into their hands is more accurate. The only reason Kucinich and Edwards were ignored is that we HAVE OBAMA AND HILLARY for the corporate media to gravitate toward. They picked the "players" and neglected those who'd more carefully state the truth. Don't you get it? If there was no Obama or Hillary, we'd be staring at an Edwards/Kucinich ticket whether or not the corporate media wanted it.
I have no respect for people that dance when the puppetmasters pull their strings. What other masters will Hillorama or Obomarry dance to, for "fear" of bothering them? And at what point does tactical darting around the Bush blend into complete spinelessness? Much closer than you'd think, apparently.
RSJ -
You have mistaken my hyperbole as a statement of fact. It is of no never mind to me what religion the man is, and I certainly never said he is or ever was a Muslim. But rest assured his Muslim heritage, which is undeniable by your own statement, will be raised in the General election, and he will be damned if he does and damned if he does not, respond that is. The hell with facts and rational analysis, were talking about the race for president in the good ol' USA here.
I also have talked to plenty of people, you know just plain folks, Republican and not. It's amazing how many people, south of the Mason Dixon line, call him Osama etc. And I have been told by several people who consider themselves "independents", that they will not vote for him because of his Muslim heritage.
As far as pole regarding the general election are concerned, they are worthless at this juncture, to many variables still out there.
Finally to your assertion of Obama's "progressive" credentials. Sorry but I have seen nothing but a smooth talking, nice looking, centrist. His empty platitudes do not move me. His record on the national stage is sparce, and screams, CENTRIST TRIANGULATOR!!!!!!
I will vote Green in this election, and I will rest easy, much easier than I did after holding my nose to vote for John Kerry in 2004. And when the Democrats blow the election I will expect nothing less than to see your ilk try to blame me for your own abandonment of truly progressive ideals.
The Democratic party has lost it's sole and should be put out of all our misery.
Chunga, you wrote: "You have mistaken my hyperbole as a statement of fact. It is of no never mind to me what religion the man is, and I certainly never said he is or ever was a Muslim."
You said he had a "Muslim heritage" and he hasn't. Next time announce your 'hyperbole' in advance and I won't bother to respond to it.
Chunga wrote: "But rest assured his Muslim heritage, which is undeniable by your own statement, will be raised in the General election, and he will be damned if he does and damned if he does not, respond that is."
His "Muslim heritage" was very much denied in what I said. Read it again. He has already responded to this, but you apparently weren't paying attention.
Chunga wrote: "The hell with facts and rational analysis, were talking about the race for president in the good ol' USA here."
It's true, some people don't care about facts or analysis; those people vote Republican. That would account for less than 25 percent of the electorate.
Chunga wrote: "I also have talked to plenty of people, you know just plain folks, Republican and not. It's amazing how many people, south of the Mason Dixon line, call him Osama etc. And I have been told by several people who consider themselves "independents", that they will not vote for him because of his Muslim heritage."
Don't tell me -- progressives aren't doing well in the South! Knock me over with a feather! Anyone who thinks Barack Obama has a Muslim heritage is not going to vote for any Dem or third party candidate. So what? They are a small and dwindling minority. BTW, Obama set a record in Illinois in his US Senate run, getting 70 percent of the vote over 27 percent for the Republican, in a state where the central and southern parts are much like the south and racism is supposedly live and well. We heard before the election that the white farmers in southern Illinois would NEVER vote for a black man -- yet they did, in big numbers. Your analysis is about two decades behind the times.
Chunga wrote: "Finally to your assertion of Obama's "progressive" credentials. Sorry but I have seen nothing but a smooth talking, nice looking, centrist. His empty platitudes do not move me. His record on the national stage is sparce, and screams, CENTRIST TRIANGULATOR!!!!!!"
Usually when people say things like this, it's because they really don't know his positions. You can read them here: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Remember, I have repeatedly said he is not a flawless candidate -- just a lot better than the others who have a chance of being elected in 2008.
Chunga wrote: "I will vote Green in this election, and I will rest easy, much easier than I did after holding my nose to vote for John Kerry in 2004. And when the Democrats blow the election I will expect nothing less than to see your ilk try to blame me for your own abandonment of truly progressive ideals."
That's called a self-fulfilling prophecy. You won't vote for the Dems so that they'll fail and then you'll point and laugh as -- what -- we get four more years of a Bush clone? You must be proud of yourself. I'll blame you for your self-absorbed selfishness in not voting for the most progressive candidate the Dems have had since McGovern, except Obama's no McGovern, nor is he a simp like Kerry. He doesn't run to lose, and he knows how to win, as he's proven in the past.
"The Democratic party has lost it's sole and should be put out of all our misery."
Perhaps Obama will get it back, if given the chance.
RSJ -
We shall see. You go ahead and support Mr. Obama. Perhaps I will be proven wrong, and if I am I hope he lives up to even 1/4 of your expectations.
But denying the reality of his Muslim heritage is fooling yourself.
Heritage:
something that comes or belongs to one by reason of birth.
By virtue of his father being born Muslim, he has a Muslim heritage. Deny it all you like, it will still come up in the general election, as will his name. It is not my issue, but it will be an issue.
It is a valid issue to be considered, and you do your self and your candidate a dis service to pretend it does not matter.
"Usually when people say things like this, it's because they really don't know his positions."
I've seen his website, read his book, watched him speak via streaming media, and read articles both pro and con. Some times when people don't agree with your point of view, it is because they have reached different conclusions from the same evidence.
You vote your conscience and I will vote mine, and if at the end of the day you want to blame me for coming to different conclusions about what is best for our country, so be it.
Chunga wrote: "By virtue of his father being born Muslim, he has a Muslim heritage. Deny it all you like, it will still come up in the general election, as will his name. It is not my issue, but it will be an issue."
Chunga, Obama's father left the family when he was two years old, and he was an atheist by that time. He met his father only once during his life. That's hardly a 'Muslim heritage.' Yes, I expect the GOP will try to use this to defame him,. but you might notice -- from Romney's campaign, if nothing else -- that the same old GOP dirty tricks aren't working as well as they did in the past. Besides, I saw Obama, running for the Dem nomination and the US Senate seat in Illinois, fight back against underhanded attacks -- he's a pretty good counter-puncher.
Chunga wrote: "You vote your conscience and I will vote mine, and if at the end of the day you want to blame me for coming to different conclusions about what is best for our country, so be it."
That's fine -- just don't vote your conscience for the wrong reasons or based on a GOP smear campaign. besdies, I wouldn't blame you anyway -- I voted for Nader in 2000.
Paul, to answer your comments briefly: If Obama had campaigned against AIPAC in the current environment, you and I know he'd be cooked as a national candidate. Not fair, but a fact of life. I think Obama is going to slowly pull the country to the left in measured steps, as he did with the conservative state senate in Illinois. Going in a progressive direction, even slowly, is better than continuing to head in a GOP-neocon direction, which the two major GOP candidates have promised.
Obama has promised to get us out of Iraq, including closing the permanent bases; restore habeas corpus; close Gitmo; ban all torture; institute cheap health care for everyone who wants it and cover the indigent; restore FEMA to effectiveness; and raise the taxes of those making over $200,00 a year while making offshore companies pay their fair share in taxes and holding corporations responsible for the damage they cause. He also has shown in his career that he cares about poor people and has actually known some.
That's a good start, by my lights, and he's the only game in town at the moment.
As in Illinois, he will play politics to get elected so that he can accomplish these goals -- for all of Kucinich's, Nader's and Edwards' virtues, two of them have no power to affect anything, and Dennis is struggling to hold on to his seat in Congress.
Remember that in the early 1960s, Martin Luther King was asked about forming a third party and turned the idea down. He thought he could be more effective working with the JFK Democrats -- and some liberal Republicans -- to enact civil rights legislation. He was right. If Obama is elected, the Green Party, Nader, et al, will have a president who will listen and take action at the head of the government. If a Republican wins, they'll be pushed out into the wilderness, just like under Bush. Those are the stakes this time.
It's possible even the top 1 percent want a change, as well. The natives are getting restless and that's not good for the bottom line.
I will be pleasantly surprised if the top fiscal 1 percent in this country fail to insure that MItt Romney will become president, for those with the money to influence the voting machines wins.