Politics Doesn't Quit, but We Do

Greetings, Stumped Speech fans:

We're going on summer vacation, but please check back in August for new management and more political action as Am Word Magazine gears up for it's fourth season. Thanks for reading!

Best,

Your Host

Smashin' the Vote

Apolitical niche organizations are reaching out to energize their bases.

(Updated @ 4:30pm)

You may remember the ill-fated “Vote or Die” campaign made famous four years ago by P. Diddy, 50 Cent, Mya and other MTV rock stars. It was part of Citizen Change, an organization that sought to empower those in the 18-30 age range to vote in the 2004 presidential election. The non-partisan organization says on its website that it wanted to make voting “hot, sexy and relevant to a generation that hasn't reached full participation in the political process.”

Now rising to take Vote or Die’s place on the pedestal of “Bizarre Ways to Create Voter Turnout” is Smackdown Your Vote! The call to “get off the couch and get in the booth” may make voting hot, but we’re not sure about sexy.

Smackdown is a project by World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., and is making a run at those elusive under-30 voters that did their duty to avoid dying four years ago. It’s not at all clear as to why the WWE started its wrestling-themed voter outreach during the 2000 election cycle, but with 5 million viewers tuning into Monday Night Raw each week, wrestling fans could throw the election to the mat.

Wrestlers aren’t the only niche group being reached out to. The Poker Players Alliance, which tracks legislation related to gambling and works to support their belief that "poker is not a crime," is forming PokerPAC, a political action committee backed by more than 1 million members. Their website encourages voter registration, saying that those who don't vote "simply aren't part of the equation of political power."

On a completely different note, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Advocacy Alliance is encouraging citizens to “vote for the cure” and make sure the next president sees a petition outlining steps needed to help cure breast cancer.

Your fellow citizens offer food for thought, part III

The ire of the public is up again!

Last week, Obama said in a Pennsylvania speech: "...you go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they feel through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Read the full speech HERE (bottom of page)
Hear the speech HERE

Today, the Washington Post reported that McCain (as expected) disparaged Obama's remarks, saying "These are the people that produced a generation that made the world safe for democracy. These are the people that have fundamental cultural, spiritual, and other values that in my view have very little to do with their economic condition." 

The Depression, McCain said, did not destroy "their confidence that America and their own lives could be made better. Nor did they turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity."

The Post blogs are already full of comments. Here is a sample of the range of remarks left by Post readers (chosen for no partisan reason other than I am biased toward thoughtfulness as equally as I am biased toward idiocy):

I seem to remember in history class learning that a lot of people threw themselves from windows when the Great depression hit. I guess since he married a beer heiress he doesn't have to think about that. Posted by: The Oracle
_________________________________________________________

So the guy with how many houses and a second wife that is how rich tells us Obama is "elitist." Obama's comments were in reference to all the emotional polling issues that Republican bring up each election because they have nothing else to stand on. Anti-gay marriage ammendments, for example, allow a person to cling to their religion as one issue they can vote about instead of facing all the real issues affecting the country. Posted by: BaselBob
_________________________________________________________

Note to all: while those with money may be the elite, the term "elitism" refers to an attitude of superiority, regardless of income. In other remarks, though less openly, Obama's elitism has shown itself. That *this* is his year, and we shouldn't look for him to run again, is an elitist sentiment. His entire posture when delivering a speech--gesturing and speaking out across the heads of the audience--reveals an elitist attitude. Posted by: Allen Hoey
_________________________________________________________

Why not just get down on your knees and beg for the votes? Oh, the Fine Hunting Tradition! The Glory of the Depression! Where did most of the residents hardest hit by the Dust Bowl go? California. That's a big reason why California is so 'Liberal'- It's made up of people who had their livelihoods taken away by nature, their houses taken away by banks, and their dignity taken away by 'farmers' in California. Posted by: McCainIsOld
_________________________________________________________

An elite, unqualified, gutless, hypocrite like Obama -- who would have voted "present" on the Iraq war resolution if he could have (like his hundreds of gutless Illinois legislature votes) -- shows what he is really made of when he lies about not being present during Rev. Wright's tirades (and then has to change that lie), and now is trying to get out of what he said and meant about people who "cling" to religion. Posted by: Sal
_________________________________________________________

I find it interesting that McCain and Clinton are both shocked... shocked! that anyone would dare insinuate that all is not well amongst the populace. Obama has not been a politician long enough to learn that most feel it necessary to sugar-coat and butt-kiss the voter at all times. Posted by: steve boyington
_________________________________________________________

In an honest conversation about what Obama said, i would have to agree that it smacks of a bit of elitism. I think it is a misstep for him, and I could see it being a bit problematic. If all he did was say that many blue collar voters were bitter, I think he should have stopped there. When he pulled in Religion and guns (erie) I thought uhoh...

NEWS FLASH: Politicians are elitist!
REACTION: shrug...

Posted by: sodumb

Seventeen Against One

Falling in line, a slate of Iraq vets hit the ballots as Republicans

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal reported that seventeen Iraq War veterans are running for the House, all as Republicans and all pledging to support John McCain. What the article didn’t mention is that they aren’t the first to try. If any of the 17 is successful, they will join Patrick J. Murphy, a representative from Pennsylvania’s 8th district, a self-identified Blue-Dog Democrat and the only Iraq vet currently serving in Congress.

The seventeen are all running under the guidance of Kieran Michael Lalor – a former Marine who is campaigning for the seat in New York’s 19^th – and his organization, Iraq Vets for Congress. Lalor’s opening remarks on the group’s website welcome his fellow veterans, but with a caveat:

“All veterans whose service to the United States brought them first to Iraq and now to a run for the House as pro-victory Republicans are welcome to become part of Iraq Veterans For Congress.”

What would Murphy say to that? He spent a year in Baghdad as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division. But the issues section of his own website openly states that he stood up against the troop escalation, voted to end blank-check funding for the war and introduced two resolutions in the House: the Iraq Accountability Act and the Iraq De-Escalation Act of 2007.

Corporal Lalor also writes, “We are unified in our commitment to relieve the Democrats of their command of Congress.”

Watch out, Captain Murphy. If enough of them are elected, the Republican warrior cabal might jump you, and your Bronze Star won’t protect you in halls of Congress.

This Week in Politics - Great Quotes

The two real political parties in America are the Winners and the Losers. The people don't acknowledge this. They claim membership in two imaginary parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, instead. - Kurt Vonnegut

We have come to realize that the only way the Democratic presidential campaign will end is either by bowling tournament, or the destruction of the earth. - NPR's Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me

McCain's Long Road Ahead and the Slipping GOP

A March 20 report by the Pew Research Center doesn't bode well for Sen. McCain, who is already having to shout to be heard above the ruckus of the Obama-Clinton campaigns. From the survey:

Fewer Voters Identify as Republicans

In 5,566 interviews with registered voters conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press during the first two months of 2008, 36% identify themselves as Democrats, and just 27% as Republicans. 37% claim no party affiliation.

As you can see, McCain is being met with an electorate that is increasingly turning away from the Republican party. Perhaps in response to this, part of the mission of his Service to America Tour aboard the Straight Talk Express is to "re-brand" the GOP.

If the problem is branding, I suggest a good place to start would be jettisoning the title "Grand Old Party." GOP sounds like a 19th Century gentleman's club (members only), and not something that's going to draw in the passionate crusaders of the next generation of political participants. It just reminds us that McCain is Old. He may be Grand, but so far he's not been the life of the Party.

Your fellow citizens offer food for thought, Part 2

(Comments from Washingtonpost.com's politics blogs:)

On Hillary Clinton's claim that she encountered sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996.

The fact of the matter is, Bosnia WAS a war zone when she visited, she WAS the First Lady, and they would have employed extraordinary safety precautions because there WERE reports of sniper fire in the area, and she WOULD have been whisked from the high risk airport area to a safer place.
___________________________________

And then she jumped out of the plane without a parachute and threw a hand grenade at them and killed all the bad guys and was awarded a Medal of Honor by the president.
___________________________________

I think that we are all blaming the wrong person here. The gullibility of the American public swallowed the line from the wire services. Editors and reporters filtered information that was never questioned by the liberal or conservative elements in America.
___________________________________

You know, she is looking like karl rove in a pantsuit---not good.I'm a so sick and tired of her manipulations and out right lies during this political process. HRC will squander the good of the country all because of her enormous ego and self-denial. And now she is a "agent of change"-- lady, please.
___________________________________

Clinton has shown herself to be completely amateurish in using this Bosnia trip in her campaign, or else she is utterly deluded in thinking that shots actually were fired at her. Clinton ought to have known that people would pounce on her mis-characterizations, and she ought to have known that the First Lady's trip to a war-torn Bosnia would have a paper and video trail stretching into the sunset.
___________________________________

Actually, Hillary was using the little Bosnian girl, Chelsea and the President of Bosnia as "human shields" against the sniper fire.

WHAT FUN!!!

___________________________________

McCain also mislead the public, saying his visit to a Bagdad market was safe, when he was protected troops and helicopters as he spent 10 minutes buying a falafal.

Let the "gravitas-off" begin...

Senators struggling up the corporate ladder

Updated March 24

President number 44 will be unprecedented. Not because he might be African American. Not because she might be woman. Not because he might be the oldest president ever. Forty-four will be only the 16th senator to become president, and only the third senator to go straight from Congress to the White House.

Richard Nixon was our last senator-turned-president. He represented California in the Senate from 1950-53 before becoming Eisenhower's vice president. He didn't become president until 1969. Kennedy, who became president in 1961, was the last to hop directly from Independence and Constitution Avenues over to Pennsylvania.

Arguably, being a senator can instill a person with a wealth of knowledge on many of the biggest issues facing our nation. So why don't senators get elected president?

Three AU professors, Candice Nelson, academic director of the Campaign Management Institute, Brian Schaffner, professor of political science and Walter Oleszek of the Congressional Research Service offered their thoughts on why there haven’t been many high legislators in the White House.

Senators play Twister on a daily basis, having to spread themselves out to deal with several problems at once. All three professors began by pointing out that senators have taken firm stands on a wide variety of issues that could later be criticized. These votes were not always cast with the good of the entire country in mind, because each senator has a specific constituency.

Of course, multitasking and vote casting are their jobs, Nelson pointed out, but she said that fact doesn't make it any easier to defend themselves come election time. Every vote is potential fodder for the opposition.

"Just think of John Kerry being criticized for flip-flopping: 'I voted for it before I voted against it,'" said Oleszek.

Schaffner thinks this actually makes it a good time for Obama to be running for president. “He doesn't have a long list of Senate votes yet that he has to defend,” said Schaffner. “Clinton, on the other hand, has spent a lot of time defending the Iraq War vote.”

There is another small, nagging problem that senators can’t avoid: Americans don’t like Congress. “Approval of Congress tends to be lower than of any other branch,” said Schaffner. “When a senator touts his or her experience in that institution, the public may not necessarily view that as a good thing.”

What experience senators do have doesn’t seem to translate well to the executive branch in the eyes of many voters.

"A senator does not have executive experience, as governors do, because a senator is just one out of 100. That makes it hard to show what they have done," said Nelson.

"Voters seem to like this quality in candidates," Oleszek said of executive experience. "Senators only manage their offices, maybe a committee if they are chair, or their campaign organization."

“Mitt Romney actually made this point several times in the Republican primary, arguing that while he had been in charge of large businesses and an entire state government, John McCain had never been in charge of anything larger than his Senate staff,” said Schaffner.

There are also problems with the bipartisan atmosphere of Congress and the black-and-white, individual race a candidate must run to get elected president.

"Senators are in a legislative environment where compromises are essential if measures are to advance. They deal in grays in order to put together winning coalitions," said Oleszek.

In Congress, several lawmakers will be "winners" on an issue that goes through. On the campaign trail, there is only one winner.

Oleszek said the candidates need to paint in bright colors, because presidential campaigns deal in contrast politics. "Senators may have a hard time adjusting to this campaign requirement," he said.

The 2008 presidential elections will be unprecedented because the electorate will have to choose between two senators. But also interesting will be the nature of the national campaign. Will two senators going head to head cancel out these unique sets of baggage, or significantly highlight them?

Fortunately for the future leader of the free world, the news is not entirely bad.

“Senators tend to represent large diverse constituencies, which helps prepare them for running a national campaign,” said Schaffner. “Senators also have typically developed a large network of donors and their national experience may provide them with more gravitas relative to a governor.”

So in the words of comedian Stephen Colbert, the presidential election is promising to be a “gravitas-off.”

Where Have All the Issues Gone?

This week I’m pulling some interesting numbers from a Feb. 28 Pew poll on the candidates’ images. Polls can be overwhelming, and there are significant clusters of people who don’t believe in their accuracy, or simply consider them meaningless. What I find of interest, however, is the illustration of American fickleness that polls give us. Polls also give us things to lodge in the backs of our minds when reading news stories.

A majority of voters, 56 percent, say that Obama has not provided enough information about his policies and plans for the country. Only 28 percent of voters said the same for Clinton.

These are curious numbers. The Issues section of Obama’s website is very detailed. There are 20 specific issue sections that can be easily downloaded as the “Blueprint for Change.” For each of those 20 issues, Obama gives specific actions he would want to implement if elected. There are still plenty of vague statements and woe-is-America lines, but most of them are accompanied by details.

Clinton’s Issues section, on the other hand – which has 14 segments – is compiled of more ambiguous titles, so you aren’t entirely sure what you are going to get when you click on a heading. For example, “Restoring America’s Standing in the World,” leads you to some vague statements about peace and reform. Most sections give specific policy proposals, while the rest only offer her beliefs and references to past actions.

So, are they not talking, is the news not reporting, or are we not listening? Out of curiosity, although I don't know how relevant this is, I took a quick look back at Washington Post articles written about these candidates since Feb. 1st. I found specific (i.e. mentioned in headline) policy-related articles on the following:

For Obama: 6 stories on Iraq, 2 on foreign policy, 2 on the economy, 2 on NAFTA, 1 on Israel, 1 on parenting tips (ha), 1 on union aid, 1 on Cuba, 1 on bilingual education, 1 on the tax code and 1 on abortion.

For Clinton: 5 stories on Iraq, 4 on the economy, 2 on foreign policy, 2 on health care, 2 on NAFTA, 1 on poverty, 1 on Cuba and 1 on immigration

Don’t forget, some of these stories are details from the debates or are rebuttals to attacks from other candidates, while others are transcripts of Q&A sessions; very few are straight issue news stories.

It’s a vicious cycle. If candidates talk too much about specific issues, voters might get bored, tune out or just forget what was said. But it seems that they can talk about other things too much, too. The question is, if half of the electorate thinks Obama doesn’t discuss policies enough, what would they say he IS talking about?

Political Children's Books for Democrats

Recently, Stumped Speech reviewed a highly irresponsible children’s book, Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed! Partisan not in the youthful values of sharing and honesty, but of low taxes and a hands-off government, the conservative book was disheartening to those who plan on raising their children to have open minds and to perhaps think for themselves.

Not to be outdone, a sister book was published in the same year by a relative unknown, Jeremy Zilber, called Why Mommy is a Democrat.

Unlike the liberal-bashing in Help! Mom!, this book takes a more positive tone, emphasizing why Democrats are good. Mommy is a squirrel with a healthy, happy young brood. Each page is a lesson in why one should be a Democrat: “Democrats makes sure everyone always has enough to eat, just like Mommy does. Democrats make sure everyone plays by the rules, just like Mommy does.”

The gross over-generalizations are paired with dreamy color pencil drawings of the squirrel children playing games, going to the doctor and cleaning up after themselves, all under Democrat-momma-squirrel’s watchful eye.

The book would seem rather underwhelming and droll if it weren’t for what is going on outside the window of the squirrel family’s tree house. A homeless man wearing a baseball cap with an American flag on it encounters presumed Republicans acting counter to what Mommy and the good Democrats do.

On the page where we learn that Democrats make sure no one fights, just like Mommy does, we see the homeless man reading a newspaper with the huge headline, “WAR!” On the page where children can find out that Democrats make sure everyone is treated fairly, a fat, well-dressed couple stroll by the homeless man, ignoring him with upturned noses. The wealthy sir is trailing money and carrying a newspaper headline touting the latest tax refund.

While slightly less pervasive, the subliminal message is clearly present: Republicans are the evil antithesis of Democrats. (The children often play with donkey toys.) And of course, the overt message is that Democrats rule and Republicans drool, because Democrats are, you know, nice. They are warm and fuzzy, like Mom. 

While slightly more heartwarming as a bedtime read than the depressing story and scary drawings in Help! Mom!, Why Mommy is a Democrat is no less of a detriment to young minds, contributing only to their closing.

Fortunately, a movement large enough to get these two books noticed outside Rush Limbaugh has not yet sprung up. The question is, does the political mind warping of our children stop with simple literature? We already have religious-themed cartoons, so what next, The Justice League goes partisan? The name is already ripe for the political picking. I don't doubt that someone will snatch that up and attempt a re-branding.

Issue Comparisons #1 - Picking, Choosing and Labeling

I am in the process of reading through the issue statements posted on the three leading presidential candidates' websites. But before I get to that, two things are immediately telling: what issues are absent from the platforms of each candidate and how each issue is labeled. Here is what you can find on each candidate's website (wording their own):

Sen. John McCain

Economic Stimulus Plan
McCain Tax Cut Plan
Government Spending, Lower Taxes and Economic Prosperity
Straight Talk on Health System Reform
Strict Constructionist Philosophy (unique to McCain)
Human Dignity & the Sanctity of Life
Lobbying & Ethics Reform
Commitment To America's Service Members: Past And Present
Education
National Security
Stewards of Our Nation's Rich Natural Heritage
Protecting Second Amendment Rights (unique to McCain)
America's Space Program (unique to McCain)

Sen. Hillary Clinton

Strengthening the Middle Class
Providing Affordable and Accessible Health Care
Ending the War in Iraq
Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming
Improving Our Schools
Fulfilling Our Promises to Veterans
Supporting Parents and Caring for Children
Restoring America's Standing in the World
A Champion for Women
Comprehensive Government Reform
Strengthening Our Democracy
Reforming Our Immigration System
An Innovation Agenda
Creating Opportunity for Rural America

Sen. Barack Obama

Civil Rights
Disabilities
Economy
Education
Energy & Environment
Ethics
Faith
Family
Fiscal
Foreign Policy
Healthcare
Homeland Security
Immigration
Iraq
Poverty
Rural
Service
Seniors & Social Security
Technology
Veterans
Additional Issues

Clicking on a candidate's name will take you to the Issues section of their presidential website.

Talk to the hand

Here's one reason students Barack the vote: respect

The Obama, John McCain, Ron Paul, and Mike Huckabee campaigns in Washington and Idaho treated young journalist-bloggers from the University of Washington like pros. The Hillary Clinton campaign couldn't be bothered.

By David Domke

http://www.crosscut.com/2008-election/11938/

The D’Oh! Factor - First Installment

Courting super-delegates goes grassroots 

My roommate just forwarded me an email that she received from the Clinton campaign. It has started a new website about super delegates, perhaps because they aren’t happy about Sen. Barack Obama cold-calling delegates himself. The message begins:

“There are a number of misconceptions about the role that delegates will play in this election, so we've launched a new website, the Delegate Hub, to help you cut through all the myths about the race for delegates.”

The message continues:

“It's important that we respect the independent judgment of automatic delegates, who have the responsibility of casting a vote for the candidate they believe is best qualified to be president.”

That paragraph was immediately followed by this link (which I found rather humorous):

“Click here to send a note to local automatic delegates telling them why you support Hillary, and why you think she will be the best leader for our party and our nation.”

On the main page, you will find five facts about Democratic delegates. The last two are the following:

“FACT: Florida and Michigan should count, both in the interest of fundamental fairness and honoring the spirit of the Democrats' 50-state strategy.

FACT: There is a clear path to an overall delegate majority (pledged + automatic) for Hillary Clinton after all states have voted -- with or without Florida and Michigan.”

As one who intends to make a career out of facts, I can tell you that those don’t quite fit the standard definition.

When they say it just because it sounds good

Clinton's Cojones

One of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s favorite sound bites is to say that America needs someone who is ready to be commander in chief on day 1. Just last night, in the face of her Wisconsin defeat, she had this to say:

"Both Senator Obama and I would make history. But only one of us is ready on day one to be commander in chief, ready to manage our economy, and ready to defeat the Republicans. Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice. That is what I would bring to the White House. That is the choice in this election."

Despite her rhetoric, the Senator from New York should know that the president is only commander in chief of the armed forces, and not of the economy or the citizenry.

Article II, Section II of the U.S. Constitution refers to Presidential Powers:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Being Presidential – the candidates on Castro

Summaries of today’s press releases

Obama calls for political prisoners to be released and says that if Cuba takes steps toward becoming a democracy, then the U.S. must be prepared to normalize relations with it.

“Today should mark the end of a dark era in Cuba's history. Fidel Castro's stepping down is an essential first step, but it is sadly insufficient in bringing freedom to Cuba.”

Clinton put out the longest piece. She also calls for the release of political prisoners. Clinton says she would engage Latin America and Europe, enabling the U.S. to pursue an active policy in helping to bring freedom, democracy and opportunity to Cuba.

“The American people have been on the side in the Cuban people's struggle for freedom and democracy in the past and we will be on their side for democracy in the future.”

McCain also calls for the release of political prisoners, but expands his call to demand that Cuba legalize all political parties, labor unions and free media, and to schedule internationally monitored elections. He says Cuba’s transition to democracy is inevitable and the U.S. must help spark the revolution.

"Today's resignation of Fidel Castro is nearly half a century overdue. For decades, Castro oversaw an apparatus of repression that denied liberty to the people who suffered under his dictatorship.”

Paul weighed in a day late, calling for the removal of trade embargoes against Cuba. He believes the opening of free markets could push Communism out of the Western Hemisphere.

"Free trade and the open exchange of information are the best tools America has to combat international tyranny."

It might be Democrat v. Democrat in November

“In the election last night, sound bites and personality profiles finished a strong first and second. Real issues, which came in at a distant third, might drop out of the race.”

In the race for media attention, both Democratic candidates are scoring sweeping victories. For the week of February 11 to the 17th, Hillary Clinton has snagged headlines twice as often as McCain has, and slightly more than her rival Barack Obama (a two percent difference).

Despite winning 57 percent of the political stories, the tone of pieces highlighting Clinton was generally more negative than stories about Obama.

The media, as it is wont to do, has all but ignored Huckabee. He may be refusing to back down, but major news organizations don’t seem to care and do little more than afford him the occasional pat on the head. His percent of the campaign stories for the week was a dismal ten percent – his highest in the past month. (The week before Super Tuesday, Huckabee was all but forgotten, with only three percent of news stories going to him.)

Cable television news spent 62 percent of airtime waging their tongues about the elections. Radio came in second place with a slightly less pervasive 46 percent of their coverage going toward the candidates.

Anchors continued their fair and balanced use of biased language. Instead of saying by how much Obama was ahead of Clinton, or that a Clinton supporter was considering switching, Katie Couric said that “a chill went through Hillary Clinton's campaign today” during a Feb. 15 newscast.

And so went the week.

Source: PewResearch.org

Political Children's Books for Republicans

Forget those touch-feely children's books about teaching kids to be nice to each other and listen to their parents - now you can start on their political indoctrination early!

There is disturbing evidence out there that becoming an adult doesn't ensure maturity. Political elections drive home this unfortunate reality. If adult partisan politics, name calling, narrow-mindedness and the repetition of empty messages aren't strong enough for you, then we can ensure it will get worse by raising our children to do the same.

One of the many books from such authors is the God-fearing, liberal-smearing Help! Mom! There are Liberals Under my Bed! written by the former co-captain of South Carolina's Security Moms for Bush, Katharine DeBrecht. 

The book illuminates the old saying that people should never discuss religion or politics if they want to keep the conversation civil. Apparently, we should be indoctrinating our children to put thoughtfulness and tolerance aside, and instead distrust other people and other ideas based on labels. The book is disheartening, especially for someone who realizes they are going to be getting old and needing care when the children having these books read to them at night are coming into political power.

(Next week: Equally fair and unbalanced criticism of another irresponsible book, Why Mommy is a Democrat.)

The story is about two young boys who want a swing set, but their parents are making them work for it because "having everything given to them would not make them feel good about themselves." Thanks to the boys' entrepreneurial spirits, they decide to take life's lemons (there is a tree in their backyard that was provided by God) and start a lemonade stand. 

Early on, the book seems fairly benign, other than a huge picture of President Reagan hanging on the wall in the boys' home. The book is idyllic, as most children's books are, where mom is attractive and sweet and the boys play baseball, say their prayers at night and never fight. The boys even decide to save some of their profits for shoeless children.

The story changes when the brothers dream about an adventure to "Liberaland." The drawing is striking, full of businesses called K-Marx, Spend-Bucks Coffee, It Takes a Village Daycare and Duey Taxim & Howe LLP. The boys work hard in Liberaland to set up their lemonade business.

"And then one day, a liberal appeared." Like Midas and gold, everything a liberal touches (in the book) goes to rot.

From there, the book becomes blatantly bigoted, railing against taxes and regulation. Senators Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton make cameos as town rulers who are there to tax the boys' profits, take down the photo of Jesus they put on their lemonade stand, harangue them for not following the law that children must eat their vegetables and pass a law that limits the sugar content of the lemonade, thereby ruining it. 

In the end, the liberals declare that the boys are charging too much and pass a law (which is named rather obviously after several prominent democratic leaders) that makes the lemonade stand the property of the town. The liberals buy dustpans for the shoeless children, hang a photo of a big toe (which never made sense) where the photo of Jesus was and charge an inflated price for the lemonade. 

At the very end, the liberal characters are profiled. For example, Mayor Leach (who looks just like Ted Kennedy), was said to have earned his millions the old-fashioned way, by marrying into it (a stab at John Kerry). His three children attend the Elite Academy for Special People and he takes half of everyone's money to build roads and bridges named after him. 

The world in this book is black and white, painting all liberals as tax-mongering, Jesus-hating people who want to legislate businesses into the ground. The not-so subtle subtleties in the drawings are even more telling than the actual story. There is often someone sitting on the bench by the lemonade stand reading a newspaper with a ridiculous headline such as, "Sneeze and Gas Tax Enacted." The liberals are all unattractive, and at one point make the boys cry. 

The book was written in 2005, but it reminds us how election season brings out inflamed passions, which often lead to irrationality. There is nothing for a child to learn from the story but the ignorance, intolerance and pettiness of some adults.  

 

For more, see the Washington Post's "Raising a Political Bigot."

Definitions of Liberal, from the American Heritage College Dictionary:

(You should read it, because this took a long time to copy out of my dictionary!)

1a. Not limited to or by traditional, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes or dogmas; free from bigotyry.  1b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad-minded.  1c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.  1d. Of, being, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism.

2a. Tending to give freely; generous.  2b. Generous in amount; ample. 

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate.  

4. Related to or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum.

5a. (Archaic) Befitting a lady or gentleman.  5b. (Obsolete) Morally unrestrained. 

Your Fellow Citizens Offer Food for Thought

Comments on some of washingtonpost.com's politics blogs. The respondents have a tendency to start fighting with each other. NOT edited for grammar, spelling or content; NOT chosen for any (partisan) reason other than they were interesting:

"I'm a white male republican from Texas, now living in Colorado. I've voted Republican in every election for the past 20 years. This election, I plan on voting for Obama. But if Hillary is the nominee, I will vote for whatever schmuck the Republicans put on stage. I believe Republicans--and even some independents and democrats--will come out in droves to make sure we don't have another Clinton in the White House."

________________________________________

(A response to another comment:) "MSNBC, but that's not the only place I have seen that doc....and apology? Who do you think your are? Why don't you address the real questions? You don't? Do you have NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER? This party is divided? We in Illionois know in terms of just the amount of work OBAMA has done in Illinois, he has worked less that any of the three candidates (no show and no voting). Those of us not from Chicago, have been watching him...he has not kept a singel campaign promise to us. He talked change, and yes it go him elected in Illinois, of course when Jerry Ryan's exhusband had to drop out of the race because of a sex scandal he pretty much ran unopposed. He's not had to do any work, he's not paid his dues, you have to earn peoples respect...A lot of people would cross the Republican line not to vote for him...."

________________________________________

"Faux (Fox) News referred to McCain as a [Democrat]. If that's true, Ron Paul could be a D or a pygmy head hunter from Papua, New Guinea."

________________________________________

"As a resident of Washington State, it was nearly impossible to find a can of whoop-ass I needed for a Saturday backgammon tournament. I heard that the Obama team had gone through the state, and had bought every single can of whoop-ass it could get its hands on, a rumor substantiated by caucus results throughout the nation. Why doesn't the Post tell its readers in the Potomac area that they will not be ablr to get their hands on any cans of whoop-ass over the next few days, not even the 64 ounce ones sold at Costco?"

________________________________________

"Hillary's voice is one that represents all of America. Not just the poor or uneducated as most have been misled to believe, my wife and I hold six degrees. The media's sexist bias and misinformation campaign is afraid to give her a voice and ask the tough questions of her opponent, notice how the media handles Obama with kid gloves? They don't even give her equal air time and resort to personal and family insults."

________________________________________

"Bad enough to have all this fear-pushing from the Clinton Camp during the Primaries,
But then, you have to Fear the Republicans,

THEN, Back to fearing the Terrorists,
the Chinese,
the Immigrants,
the Economy,
H5n1,
Sars,
AIDS,
Serial Killers,
Chinese Toys,
The Planet,
Killer Bees,
And Finally, the Old Standby,
Barack Obama (as the BoogyMan)

What a bunch of Chickens."

One Night in Primary Land

Overheard at Washingtonpost.com on February 5th.
Your thoughts?

Of course it's a horse race. I don't understand why everybody objects to that. - Benjamin Bradlee, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post.

This is an election campaign; it's called a race for a reason. - Leonard Downie, Jr. Executive Editor of the Washington Post

Character matters and character is action. Reading the long stories - there are books on all of these people (and by the candidates) - that's the answer, not in the daily scrub of did so-and-so snub so-and-so." - Bob Woodward

Politics Blogs - The Good, the Bad, and Otherwise

As a holdout of traditional journalism, I continue to have a love-hate relationship with blogs, especially those attached to news organizations. In a world where the immediacy of information and a flood of “facts” pouring out over the airwaves and on the Internet threaten to overwhelm us, blogs have two great potentials.

The instant publishing platform allows a journalist – trained professional or basement citizen – to sort through the facts and attempt to make sense of them almost as immediately as those facts appear. That allows us, the public, to turn to a trusted source before we become so saturated with information that we lose our way.

These constant and ongoing updates are a contemporary staple of politics. The presidential campaigns are big targets of these blogs. The blogs allow us to know what just happened and with a little more information than 45 second television news spots. They have great potential to instantly break down events of both macro and micro scales.

Unfortunately, blogs have their vices, and some are potentially dangerous to American journalism. A reporter’s drive to find “events” and information to “package” can lead to certain, underlying stories being overlooked. The demands on bloggers to think about, report on and write up their pieces simultaneously with the generation or release of information means these blogs often scratch only the surface.

The danger lies in the rush that can cause slower-developing issues to be ignored. The rush also means that established sources may get a five-minute phone call to spit out a quote before the reporter moves on, because there is no time to develop the story further. The blogs become commentary, sometimes indistinguishable from editorials.

How, then, should readers feel about blogs attached to major news organizations? What parts are information, what parts are thoughtful observations based on experience, and what parts are individual opinions? How much news can a person really get from a blog?

Some blogs, such as the Fact Checker from washingtonpost.com, put a great deal of time and effort into looking beyond the stories. Those bloggers ought to be commended, and ought to signal to major newspapers that they aren’t doing their job. Stories about fabrications or exaggerations in political campaigns and other public relations are important if news organizations still believe in taking truth to power. They may not be events, and they may not be pre-packaged stories, but newspapers should still cover them for the benefit of the wide audiences they command.

Running this blog is therefore a big step for me. But I believe that such a politically aware student body ought to have an intelligent outlet for its thoughts and a way to share insider stories on the unique experiences it gets to have. The students of American University are an active bunch, both in their thoughts and in their work, which is why they should be heard during a presidential election.