Is President Obama a Socialist?

Business Week (we all know what a liberal rag that is) ran a story last year that I recently stumbled upon and thought was both entertaining and informative. It asked the question: Is President Obama a Socialist?

The simple answer is no. And, judging from the article, no is also the complicated answer, the short answer, and the long answer. It’s the reasonable answer.

Let’s define Socialism. Socialism is an economic and political theory that advocates state ownership of major industries as a tool for distributing wealth more evenly in a society.

While Rush Limbaugh and others like him on the Far Right get political mileage out of implying that President Obama is a Socialist, the real Socialists of the world beg to differ, according to the Business Week article.

They say if the Obama Administration were establishing a true socialist state, we'd have at least a $15-an-hour minimum wage (instead of the current $6.55 federal minimum) and 30-hour workweeks. Every American would be guaranteed employment and health-care coverage. Oh, and homeless people would be occupying vacant office buildings in cities and vacant McMansions in the suburbs.

Business Week talked to Frank Llewellyn, national director of the New York-based Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest U.S. Socialist party, and to Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science at City University of New York (CUNY) and an honorary chair of the DSA. They also talked to a representative of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in Chicago and the Socialist Party USA in New York. In their view, President Obama is not trying to take over private sector industry and turn it into something run by the state to benefit the masses. Instead, he is “scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism.”

How influential are these Socialist political groups? The Socialist Party USA has 1,500 members. The much larger DSA has a whopping 7,000 members. By comparison, Wikipedia says there are about 55 million registered Republicans and 72 million registered Democrats in the US. The Coffee Party has 172,000 fans on Facebook and the Tea Party Patriots page has 115,000.

On Mar. 6 (2009) a New York Times reporter asked Obama whether his domestic policies indicated the President is a socialist. Obama laughed, replying "the answer would be no." In a later telephone call to the paper, Obama said enormous taxpayer sums had been injected into the financial system before his election. "The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk-taking has precipitated a crisis," Obama told the newspaper.

While the bailouts of 2009 may have given the federal government an ownership stake in a few industries, the Obama Administration never tried to take over the decision making process in at any major company. At worst, the administration may have stepped in and voiced an opinion on some management practices (particular those tied to executive compensation).

Of course, bank regulators come in and take over banks that are insolvent. Is that Socialism? We haven’t thought so in the past. And bankruptcy courts usually tell businesses how they can structure a plan to pay off their debts. Is that Socialism? Again, we haven’t thought so in the past.

It’s tempting to say that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t actually know what a Socialist is. But that’s obviously not true. He may be a Far Right ideology, but Rush is smart. He knows what a Socialist is. He knows Obama is not one. And Rush would like to expand the definition of Socialism to change that – at least in the public mind.

In the words that one prominent politician used recently, the idea that President Obama is a Socialist – well, that’s “barkings from the nether reaches of Glennbeckistan…”

Defining Moment: Obama's New Two Minute Ad

Abortion and The Jill Stanek Lie

I suspect that few people would disagree with me if I said that abortion was the most emotional issue in American politics...

I'm a Democrat. I disagree with my party on abortion. I don't really think there is a constitutional right to the choice of abortion. Oh, sure, I understand Roe v. Wade, and that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right to an abortion. But the Supreme Court has changed its mind before. On the other hand, I disagree with the Republican position that abortion is always (each and every time) just plain wrong because, well, the Bible says so. I own a Bible. I have some training in how to read it (and interpret it). I even like it. And it just doesn't say that - at least not as clearly as the Christian Right in America would have us believe.

You'll notice I used "Christian" there as an adjective, not a noun. I know that most of the people who believe in James Dobson have stopped reading by now. (They probably stopped reading at "I'm a Democrat.") In America, a group of political conservatives have tried very hard to take over Christianity (or at least the Church) and milk it for political ends. Let's face it: Republicans generally worship money. The blend of the Republican Party and the Religious Right reminds me very much of the Pharisees in the New Testament - politically conservative, very religious, and preoccupied with money.

Jill Stanek has a video. She lies in it. It's quite a moving video - which is to say that the people using her make good videos. You can find it on YouTube (I won't post it here). It's about Barack Obama and his time in the Illinois state legislature and, well, abortion. A colleague that I respect a lot sent me a link to it in an email. The video is five and a half minutes long. The last full minute is of a baby supposedly dying. The sensationalism is incredible.

I've called Stanek a liar. I'm sure she experienced something horrific. I'm sure her emotions are being used by others. But her video talks about a proposed law in Illinois, and here's her lie: "At the end of the day, his (Obama's) opposition (to this proposed bill) was responsible for living babies being left out to die." The problem is that the proposed law duplicate one already on the books. The law Stanek is talking about would have made something illegal that was already illegal.

I watched the video. And I replied to my colleague. Here's my reply...

Dramatic. You'd almost think they really left that baby there to die in the video...

Here's the Obama response,
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations


The Republican who sponsored the bill Jill Stanek is talking about in the Illinois state legislature has said in the Chicago Tribune that Jill Stanek's statements in the video are misleading. In his own words, "None of those who voted against SB-1082 favored infanticide." He also points out that the bill later passed with minor rewording - something Jill Stanek's (video leaves out). She also leaves out the fact that a law that covered the issue was already on the books in Illinois. Funny how people can stretch the truth to make it look like God is on their side...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/documents/072005100K6.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0905vplettersbriefs0sep05,0,3918744.story

Abortion is a horrible thing. I worked for a year as a counselor for an anti-abortion group, Birthright, in Augusta, Ga., in college. I don't mind saying in Democratic Party meetings (which I attend) that we need fewer abortions, that abortions need to be harder to get, and that there needs to be more obvious alternatives supported by state and local government. I don't know that I think abortion should ALWAYS be prohibited. But I'd be quite happy to make abortion far less convenient.

While I think that abortion is a horrible thing, I think there are a lot of horrible things out there. The James Dobsons of the world want me to think that abortion is a crystal clear Biblical issue. And yet the word isn't in the Bible. Abortion was around. Historical records document it in about Egypt in 1550 BC. Hippocrates (died 370 BC) discussed abortion and forbad general practice doctors form being involved in it (or in any other form of surgery).

Exodus 21:22-23 is an interesting passage. If two men fight and they injure a woman in the process and she loses her baby, they owe a fine. For centuries that's been the interpretation of that passage by Christian scholars and in the Jewish lit. The passages in the Bible that get used to support the idea of humanity beginning at conception are all poetic. I have enough Bible training to know that using them as the foundation of a theological position is bad exegesis. In most of the Old Testament, humanity begins with breath or blood, not conception.

I don't mind saying that abortion is a horrible thing. But the effort of the political right to put it in a religious context and make absolute statements about it is an assault on the general public's right to read God's Word for themselves. Like many issues in the Bible, there's no definitive statement. The ministers of politics who want to say that there is such a definitive statement - they're selling something...

And Jill Stanek appears to be a liar who makes good videos.

Abortion is a horrible thing. If we hadn't turned it into a religious litmus test, the church might be more interested in poverty (which is DEFINITELY a Biblical issue)...

Greg

Barack Obama's Tazewell Campaign Office Opens

The Obama Campaign opened an office in Tazewell County today and a fairly large crowd showed up for the event. I went, even though I was a little under the weather.

A couple of pictures of the event...

---

I met the campaign's Tazewell coordinator, Marilee, and realized after I left that I didn't get her last name or contact info. I'll post that later.

Several of the county's constitutional officers attended the event - Commonwealth Attorney Dennis Lee, Clerk of Court Buddy Blevins, and Sheriff H.S. Caudill.

Tazewell Democratic Party Chairman David Larimer was also there.

Puckett and Bowling both promoted party unity. Bowling supported Hillary in the primaries but was clearly excited about the Obama-Biden ticket. Puckett talked about the need to focus on the stark contrast between Obama and McCain.

Taxes: McCain or Obama

Taxes: that seems to be among the most powerful issues in this presidential election. The two candidates have both attacked each other's position on taxes. McCain's ads tell American's that Obama will raise their taxes.

For a few Americans, McCain's telling the truth - President Obama would raise their taxes. But for most Americas, the McCain statement about how President Obama will raise their taxes... that statement is a LIE. Not an interpretation of Obama's tax plan that I just disagree with, but the kind of lie that makes kids at an elementary school yell pants on fire!.

Is McCain lying to you (or your working age child)? I know Congress has to approve changes in the tax law. I know there are cynics out there who don't think any politician ever plans to keep any promise. But let's just talk about the tax plans the candidates have put forward.

I came across a short article at the Washington Post that has a simple little chart to help you tell. And in case you're not good with charts, I'll help you a little...

If you make under $18,981 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 5.5% - an average of about $567 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by two-tenths of one percent, or an average of nineteen bucks for people in this category. ($18,981 per year is about $9 an hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $18,981 and $37,595 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 3.6% - an average of $892 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about half of one percent, or an average of $113 for people in this category. ($37,595 per year is about $18 an hour, 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $37,596 and $66,354 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 2.4% - an average of about $1,042 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about seven-tenths of one percent, or an average of $319 per year. ($66,354 per year is a salary of about $5,529 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $2,552.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

These first three categories include 60% of all tax payers

If you make between $66,355 and $111,645 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 1.8% - an average of about $1,290 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes, too - but only by about 1.4%, or an average of $1,009 per year. ($111,645 per year is a salary of about $9,304 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $4,294.) If you're in this category, not only is McCain lying to you, but you'd be better off personally under the Obama plan than under the McCain plan.

If you make between $111,646 and $160,972 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 2.1% - an average of about $2,204 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes more - by about 2.5%, or an average of $2,614 per year. ($160,972 per year is a salary of about $13,411 a month, or a paycheck every two weeks of $6,191.) If you're in this category, McCain is lying to you about whether President Obama would raise your taxes; personally, you'd do better (on income taxes, at least) under McCain, but not by much.

If you make between $160,973 and $226,981 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes by 1.9% - an average of about $2,789 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes more - by about 3%, or an average of $4,380 per year. ($226,981 per year is a salary of about $18,915 a month.) If you're in this category, McCain is lying to you about whether President Obama would raise your taxes; personally, you'd do better (on income taxes, at least) under McCain.

If you make between $226,982 and $603,402 a year, President Obama would lower your income taxes, but not by much - an average of about $12 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes much more - by about 3.1%, or an average of $7,871 per year. ($603,402 per year is a salary of about $50,203 a month - which is more than I make as an elementary school teacher in a year.) If you're in this category, your taxes could possibly go up under President Obama, but not by much.

If you are in the top one percent of wage earners in America and make between $603,403 and $2.87 million a year, President Obama would raise your income taxes by about 8.7% - an average of about $115,974 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes a bunch - by about 3.4%, or an average of $45,361 per year. ($2.87 million per year is a salary of about $239,166 a month.)

If you are in the top one-tenth of one percent of wage earners in America and make over $2.87 million a year, President Obama would raise your income taxes by about 11.5% - an average of about $701,885 per year for people in this category. John McCain, if he became president, would lower your taxes considerably - by about 4.4%, or an average of $269,364 per year.

---

So...

Is McCain lying to you? The simple answer is yes. McCain wants you to believe that as president, Barack Obama would raise everyone's taxes. The truth is that he would attempt to lower taxes for 98% or more of the population. When McCain's ads tell you that Obama wants to raise your taxes, it's not just a lie, it's a damn lie. That makes McCain a damn liar.

If you're bringing home more than $240,000 a month McCain's your guy. Otherwise, he just wants you to help out his guys by voting for tax cuts for the obscenely rich...

Read my article on what the Wall Street Journal thinks of McCain's and Obama's tax plans.

While Rome Burned...

This is what they want to talk about. Them - the news media. Left or right, it doesn't matter. They want to talk about lipstick and pigs, about sex ed law in Illinois...

I enjoy telling people that I worked as a reporter for a while before I found honest work. I say it at school board and county government meetings. People laugh, I smile.

GOP presidential candidate John McCain has used the "lipstick on a pig" phase before. So has Vice-President Dick Cheney. In the past day or so, Senator Obama used the phrase. He was pretty explicit about the fact that he was talking about John McCain's economic plan. But the McCain camp came out almost immediately with the accusation that Obama was referring to Governor Palin. And they called the remark sexist...

And now the stuffed shirts at FOX and the liberal hacks at the NY Times and the left-leaning suits at CBS & NBC all want to talk about lipstick on a pig and McCain's outrage - instead of the economy.

What could we talk about...?

The Huffington Post came up with a short list:

• We could talk about the shrinking role of the US in world affairs.
• We could talk about whether the Wall Street bank Lehman Brother is going to collapse.
• We could talk about having to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
• We could talk about Iraq.
• We could talk about tomorrow's anniversary of 9/11.
• We could talk about rising unemployment.
• We could talk about the US relationship with Russia.
• We could talk about the OPEC meeting today where they cut production to help keep prices from going down.

There are probably a few other things. And instead we're going to talk about lipstick on a pig for a day or two.

I used to think that John McCain was an honorable man. Now I think his strategy is to tell more and more outrageous lies to keep from losing an election...

My Answer for Joe Porter of Champaign Illinois (The Change Obama Wants)

Dear Joe,

I read with interest your letter about the upcoming presidential election. (I reprinted it below; and I hope you don’t mind that I brushed up your grammar and punctuation a little.) Like you, I am in my mid-40’s – a born-again Christian, a husband, father, and homeowner. I am not a veteran; I wanted to join the military, but a medical problem kept me out. But I know the military well, since my father is a retired Army officer. And while I don’t actually own a small business, I do contract work in addition to my day job.

I don’t consider myself to be a liberal or a conservative, although for the last few years I have been involved in my county’s local Democratic Party. Party membership involves signing a pledge about how I’ll vote: I don’t have to vote for the Democrat, but I promised not to vote against the Democrat. The Republicans here do the same thing. I signed that pledge knowing that I could always simply quit the party if I needed to vote for the Republican; so far my conscious hasn’t made me do that – so, like you, I’ve been able to simply vote my conscience. I feel like we have a lot in common…

I understand why you don’t believe in two Americas. According to the Census Bureau, the 185,000 people who live in Champaign have a median household income of almost $40,000 a year. I live in Tazewell County, Va. (median household income about $30,500 a year) and I work in neighboring McDowell County, WV (median household income only about $19,500 a year). Where you live, 91% of country residents graduated high school and 38% graduate college. In the county where I work as an elementary school teacher (I work with children with disabilities), only about half the people graduated from high school and just 5% finished college.

Eleven percent of the population where you live in Champaign has some sort of disability, according to the Census Bureau. With coal mining being a leading occupation here, and with the environmental and nutritional issues that come with life in a poor, rural mining community, over 40% of the people in the county where I work have some kind of medical condition that results in disability, according to the Census Bureau. Champaign has such a high income and education level compared to here and such a healthy population, it’s easy to see why you don’t understand the idea that there are two Americas. You’ve lived a sheltered life. When it’s 20 miles to the nearest Wal-mart or McDonalds and your family is too poor to have its own car, it’s harder to believe that you can be whatever you want to be. It’s nice to know that you believe the government should help the legitimately downtrodden.

Like you, I’m concerned about the future of our great nation. Like you, most folks I know choose not to be involved in politics – unless you count attending school board meetings when the county decides to close their school, or going to public hearings about a project to get county water piped in to a new area.

You said that we were in the unique position in this country of electing out leaders. I’m not sure what you mean by that. If we could talk, I could give you a long list of other real democracies on earth where people elect their leaders. Great Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand come to mind right away. But I think there are at least a one or two dozen more. America is a great country. I got to live a few other places while my father was in the Army. And I spent some time overseas working for a Christian missions organization. So I’ve seen other places and I understand just HOW GREAT America is. But it’s not unique in being a democracy.

Like you, I don’t agree completely with any political candidate (or even with my wife) all the time. Like you, I look at the big picture and think about credentials and about character.

You began to lose me when you started to talk about change. There are two candidates in this election: John McCain and Barack Obama. Both of them say they want Change. I listened to both of their speeches on television when they accepted their party’s nominations, Barack Obama talked about change, and I thought he was pretty clear about what he meant by that. John McCain talked about change, too; but it wasn’t all that clear to me what HE meant by it. (I was especially disappointed that John McCain couldn’t even bring himself to mention the name of our Republican president, George W. Bush, who has brought our country to the point where both candidates today seem to think we need some change.)

You said (and I’m quoting you here) “Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me.” I agree. And I guess that’s my biggest concern – that John McCain hasn’t told us yet what changes he wants to make. He talks in the broadest possible generalizations about putting America first, about energy, about being a prisoner of war, and about how mean the media is to him. In contrast to that, Barack Obama has put forth some pretty specific policy ideas that I guess you’ve missed.

Before we go much further, I wanted to thank you for your willingness in your letter to overlook Senator Obama’s genealogy, upbringing, and religious background. Even though his mother is white, I know there are lots of people who can’t get past the fact that he looks Black; I’m glad you're not one of them. He’s denied being a Muslim (would that be so horrible?) and I have pictures of him eating a hotdog and drinking a beer (real Muslims don’t do either of those things); but I know there are a few ignorant people out there who still think he’s a Muslim because his father was. My father was a Mason, but I don’t even really know what that means. I’m glad you’re willing to set that aside and not remind us of it. Between having a Black father from another country, growing up with a single Mom, and being exposed as a child to Islam, the bigots out there will have a field day with America’s more stupid voters. I appreciate you not bringing any of that up.

Let me tell you about the change that, as I understand it, Senator Obama wants.

1. He wants people to have health insurance that they can afford (even if they are only 23 and haven’t graduated college yet – like my oldest daughter) and can take with them if they change jobs. These days many people don’t have that.

2. Senator Obama wants to cut taxes for people who make less than $250,000 a year. Under the Republicans we have moved back to having a huge difference between what the richest Americans make and what the average American makes. President Bush cut taxes for the richest Americas in the hopes that those people would be nice to you and me and create jobs for us. After eight years I think it’s safe to say that THAT hasn’t worked. Senator Obama wants the rich to pay more of their fair share in taxes. John McCain thinks that idea sounds reckless and that it will be bad for America, but the Wall Street Journal disagreed in an editorial on August 14. The WSJ said “The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant.” What did they think of McCain’s plan? This is what they said: “The McCain plan would lead to deficits the like of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today.” Remember, this is the Wall Street Journal, not some group of liberal hacks at the NY Times.

3. Senator Obama wants to get us out of the expensive political mess in Iraq. American soldiers are dying and it’s not clear why anymore. The Iraqis don’t seem to want to solve their own problems. They have a budget surplus while we’re paying their security bills. But John McCain doesn’t seem to want to change the way we deal with Iraq.

4. Barack Obama wants to make a bigger commitment to education – especially when it comes to our youngest children – and to fix the problems of No Child Left Behind. John McCain doesn’t.

5. Barack Obama wants to work to stop global warming. John McCain picked a vice-presidential candidate who doesn’t believe in global warming.

Of course, there are other issues. But those are some of the major ones. They are areas were we need change, areas where Obama has detailed policy statements about how we should bring about change and where McCain doesn’t.

But the real issue for you seems to be more simple. You seem to think that John McCain is more qualified to be president because he is, well, older (for starters) and he’s had a harder life. I know McCain is a war hero and I respect that. But I don’t think being beaten by people who speak a different language than yours somehow gives you the qualifications to be president. We’ve had lots of presidents who were Commander-in-Chief even though they’d never been in the military before being elected. That’s what makes us different from places like Thailand and Venezuela, where the military gets involved in government on a pretty regular basis.

I don’t think anyone (including McCain) is ever really qualified to be president. The job is too important and our country too great. It’s not like there’s a course you can take – Presidential Readiness 101. Barack Obama has been serving people through his involvement in politics for a couple of decades now. John McCain has been at it a little longer because, well, he’s older. Both want change. I’ve heard them both say it. McCain hasn’t really told us what that change would look like and how our country would be different from the mess that eight years of government by his political party has left us with. Obama has told us what that difference would be like.

While I’ve sent this out as an email in the hopes that it will reach you, you can also find it on my web page at http://gregcruey.blogspot.com. If you still really don’t understand the change that Barack Obama wants, go to my web page and leave me your phone number. I’ll call you (if you really exist) and try to explain it more clearly.

Your friend,

Greg Cruey

PS Thanks again for not bringing up the stuff about race and religion and just looking honestly at the issues involved. I really appreciated that.

---

Joe Porter's Letter:

Dear Friends:

My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois. I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat.

I don't believe there are "two” Americas but that every person in this country can be whomever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They
vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news", thinking that what they hear is always spun by whoever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and are calling it "change".

”Change what?,” I ask.

”Well, we're going to change America,” they say.

”In what way?,” I query.

”We want someone new and fresh in the White House,” they exclaim.

”So, someone who's not a politician?,” I press.

”Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama,” they state.

”So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House – that system's all wrong?”

”No, no, that 20 part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.”

And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois, so
most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a
brilliant orator and talks about change? CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his
qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton, look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady?

The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes. For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully
at the two leading applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take. John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973,in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp. When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis , during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished
Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq. Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply
want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference.

Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate in 1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is a higher priority for them than trust". Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated
leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand . It is time for thinking Americans to say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why. There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.

I want a President who's qualified to lead.

Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech at the DNC in Denver Tonight

Barack Obama Bio Show at INVESCO Field Before the Acceptance Speech

Barack Obama Back in 2004 at the DNC

Part I:


Part II:

Latest Viral Video Smear - Obama "Makes Fun" of the Bible

I got an email tonight from a friend - the latest viral smear going around. It supposedly showed Senator barack Obama making fun of the Bible. I think the two minute nine second video is a few out of context clips from a speech that probably lasted thirty minutes. Even out of context, I didn't hear anything that I personally took to disresect for the Bible. It was a string of rhetorical questions about how to apply the Bible to geovernment. The way you are supposed to know it is disrespectful is that a narrator tells you it is disrespectful. You be the judge, the clip is here.

My response to my friend is posted below...

Thanks for Passing this on. I sent it to the Obama camp's anti-smear people. A few thoughts...

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." Most of you will recognize those lines as the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. Later, that 232 year old document continued, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable, that all men are created equal..."

Did you flinch? Those WERE Jefferson's words. It DID actually read that way at one time. Benjamin Franklin convinced Jefferson that "sacred and undeniable" wasn't really the language we wanted to use, and instead the philosophical language of Pythagoras was adopted - and the truths became "self-evident" instead. The Founding fathers TRIED to keep the Bible out of our early legal documents.

I'm a Baptist. I believe in the separation of Church and State. Most Baptists used to believe in that; now I'm not so sure. In addition to being a Baptist, I spent ten years on the mission field - in the Pacific, in Asia, and at the Asia HQ for my inter-denominational agency in Canberra Australia. Among other things, I've served as a Baptist deacon, had the privilege of baptising a citizen of Communist China, and broke the law in Nepal by teaching Bible to converts from Hinduism.

What did Senator Obama say in this video? He suggested, quite rightly, that Christians themselves have difficulty determining how the Bible should apply to government. My daughter in South Carolina lives in a county where she can by bread and milk at the grocery store on Sunday morning, but not dog food or toilet paper. She has to wait until church is out (until 2pm I think, by law) before the county's blue laws will allow her to buy items other than essential groceries. Why? The fourth commandment: Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. It doesn't seem to matter that the Biblical Sabbath was Saturday. They haven't read Colosians 2:16 which says that Gentile Christians ought not worry about being judged over that particular commandment. The blue laws in South Carolina are a particular group's (arguably wrong) interpretation of the Bible, made into law.

Senator Obama talks in his speech about how the Bible affirms some of his important beliefs for him. He talks about how Progressives in the Democratic Party have avoided religion and how he thinks that's a bad idea. He talks about the need for religion in America. At no point does he offer any disrespect for the Bible. Even this short video clip taken out of context only seems disrespectful because a narrator lets you in on that secret.

A larger section of the Obama speech seems helpful:

...they (the Religious Right) need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who's Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage so radical that it's doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values...

You can read the whole speech here.

I submitted a comment on YouTube to pfforamerica (the account that hosts this video YouTube). It said simply that the entire speech was online and my coomment gave the address. He has approved other comments since I submitted mine; he approved one yesterday that said, simply and elloquently, "obamas a coke snorting bisexual." But he doesn't want his viewers to read the whole speech. He has 30 seconds snipped together from a 30 minutes speech. And it is out of conext.

Pfforamerica - he is the one who is arrogant.

My name is Greg Cruey. And I approve this message.

I'm attending a party meeting tomorrow night and I hope to be able to get Obama yard signs. If anyone wants one, let me know and I'll see what I can do...

A PS. I found this piece of the speech regarding the pledge of allegiance interesting since it was made well before the lie was circulated at Obama woldn't say the pledge:

It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God;" I certainly didn't.

Compare and Contrast: Obama & McCain on Taxes

I generally forego the pleasure of reading the Wall Street Journal because, frankly, it's not in my budget. But this week I've obtained it for free a couple of times while staying at Embassy Suites in Charleston, WV during a workshop my wife is attending.

Today's WSJ has an editorial on the Obama tax plan on A13. It was interesting.

I have two quotes:

The McCain plan would lead to deficits the like of which we have never seen in this country. It would take money from the middle class and from future generations so that the wealthy can live better today

And then there's this...

The Obama plan would dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class filers to do their own taxes in less than five minutes and not have to hire an accountant.

The paper goes on to say that Obama's tax plan would be good for small business, and that while it would raise taxes on the top 1% of household, those richest tax filers would still pay less than they did in the 1990's.

Conservatives have cried and whined about one aspect of the Obama tax plan in particular. Obama's plan would not raise taxes on single individuals making up to $200,000 a year or on couples making up to $250,000. Conservatives see this as a marriage penalty for single individuals making more than $250,000 in joint income. Those individuals would be better off under the Obama plan, from a tax standpoint, to avoid marriage. Some among the Religious Right argue that the Obama plan would aggravate the break down of marriage as an institution in America.

I laughed when I read that. Anybody man that can look at a woman and say, "Honey, you know we'd be better off if we just lived together... we'd save on our taxes!" can't view marriage as being particularly important to his religion - especially when together they'd be making a quarter of a million a year as a household. Give me a break...

Mark Warner to Give Keynote Address at The Democratic National Convention

Barack Obama picked former Virginia Governor and Senate candidate Mark Warner to give the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month.

According to Politico Sen. Obama is targeting Virginia as a traditionally Republican state that he could turn blue this year. Virginia hasn't voted for a Democrat for President since Lyndon Johnson carried the state in 1964.

Warner will speak on Tuesday night of the Democratic Convention. The theme of Tuesday’s night program at the Convention is Renewing America’s Promise.

While Warner is giving the Convention's keynote speech, Hillary Clinton will speak later that evening.

Obama's choice of Warner for the keynote address has renewed speculation that he will choose Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has his Democratic running mate.

Obama in Berlin

Barack Obama addressed a crowd of over 200,000 people in Berlin's Tiergarten Park today. Watch the video...

Barack Obama's Muslim Heritage: How Deep Does It Go?

Barack Obama's father was a Muslim. No one denies that. So how deep does his Muslim heritage run? I haven't heard much discussion of that issue. And I was surprised when I looked into the question myself, because the answer is that Obama's Muslim heritage doesn't climb very far up his family tree.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. (1936–1982) was Senator Obama's biological father. He was born and he died a Muslim. Did he have much input into Senator Obama's life? Not really. He left when Senator Obama was two years old. The senator saw his father once in his life after that, at age 10. And since the Senator's father was already married in Kenya before 1961 and kept this a secret from Senator Obama's mother, Ann Dunham, the short marriage was probably illegal.

Senator Obama's grandfather (Barack Hussein Obama, Sr.'s father) was Onyango Obama (1895-1979). Onyango was born a Christian, worked for Christian missionaries for a while, and converted to Islam during World War I while in exile in Zanzibar (a Muslim area of Tanzania). Onyango's third wife, Sarah Obama, raised the senator's father, Barack Obama Sr. She is still alive, professes to be a Christian, and Senator Obama calls her "Granny Sarah." (Senator Obama's actual grandmother, named Akumu, separated from Onyango Obama shortly after the birth of the Senator's father.)

Barack Obama Sr. (1936–1982), the father who left him so early in life, seems to be the only male in the Senator's family tree who was born and died a Muslim. The senator was raised by a white woman from Kansas (Ann Dunham, a confirmed agnostic) and by his Christian grandparent. As a family heritage goes, that's not a very Islamic one...

Did You Hear Michelle Obama Talk Trash About "Whiteys?"

Did you hear the news about Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago? The news about it is out there in the blogosphere and on the radio waves. It supposedly happened on July 1, 2004 in at the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference in the Women’s Event.

There's only two problems:

1. That meeting wasn't at the church; it was at the Chicago Sheraton.
2. Michele Obama wasn't there.

So, back to the question in my title: Did you hear Michelle Obama talk trash about "Whiteys?" No. No one did, because she didn't. It's just part of the smear campaign...

Heard some other rumor? You can probably find the truth here: Fight the Smears


© My Hobo Soul

Free Bumper Sticker: Obama '08

Click here to get your free "Obama 08" sticker...

Sports as a Metaphor for Life? After the Derby, Hillary Hopes Not...

This story is just too easy. I don't know how I could avoid writing about it...

Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama picked horses in the 134th running of the Kentucky Derby. Barack picked Big Brown to show. Hillary picked Eight Belles (the only filly in the field) to win. But Hillary did more than just place a bet; in a classic political metaphor, she seemed to "endorse" the filly:

I hope that everybody will go to the derby on Saturday and place just a little money on the filly for me," Sen. Clinton told supporters in Jeffersonville, Ind., ABC News reports. "I won't be able to be there this year - my daughter is going to be there and so she has strict instructions to bet on Eight Belles.

How did the Derby turn out?

If you're alive and have a television or a radio, you've probably heard that Big Brown won. Hillary's horse? The filly came in second (beating 18 other colts), but broke two ankles getting the job done and had to be put down in front of over 150,000 people after she collapsed on the track.

The incident was sad. But any hope that the political metaphor could somehow go unmentioned out of respect for the dead horse - well, that's an incredibly naïve expectation.

Picture courtesy of Banamine

The Huffington Report has a good news write up on the event.

The blogosphere is peppered this morning with posts that comment on the politics of the Derby.

The people at Politikly Dot Com had this to say:

Symbolically, the Kentucky Derby was a Hillary Clinton nightmare. After touting the one filly in the race, Eight Belles, the horse finished second to the colt “Big Brown” and then collapsed after crossing the finish line, breaking both front legs, and had to euthanized in front of 150,000 people. Oh yeah, Obama beat her by 7 votes in Guam today…

Peter Loffredo was more emphatic:

Woah! You think the Universe doesn't speak to us? Hillary's pick in the Kentucky Derby came in second, collapsed with two broken ankles, and had to be put to sleep!
I repeat - Woah!!

Maybe a little too emphatic.

I don't have a sign in my yard for either of the two remaining candidates for the Democratic nod. I supported Edwards until he dropped out. I went to a local caucus last month and had to pick one of the two left in order to participate, so I flipped a coin and it came up for Barack. I'll vote for the Democrat in November (and against four more years of Bush government, which is what I think McCain represents).

So was the Derby a metaphor for life (or at least for politics)? I don't know. It's entertaining to point out that Big Brown (like Barack) was an under dog; Big Brown started from the 20th spot (the worst spot on the field), and a horse in that position has only won the Derby three or four times in the 134 runnings.

It's also entertaining to point out that Big Brown has only run in three previous races. Is that a metaphor for Barack's seeming lack of political experience as a first term US Senator? I don't know. But it's entertaining.

If Hillary loses in North Carolina and Indiana this week and doesn't drop out, she could be taking the legs out from under any possible future run for the White House. was the race a metaphor for that? You be the judge...

---

I can't close without mentioning Guam. I spent a year of my life on the scruffy, snake-infested island. The Democratic Caucus in Guam gave Barack another win, but by a razor thin margin: Obama 50.077% to Clinton's 49.923%. Only seven votes separated them in a contest where 4,521 people took part.

Is Barack Obama a "Closet" Muslim? Hmmm...

First, let me say that I think the idea of a "closet" Muslim is an oxymoron. I don't think Muslims ever deny or hide their faith - especially not for religious reasons.

Barack Obama's father was a Muslim, from Kenya. His father left his life early (around the age of three, I think) and died in 1982. Obama's step-father was an Indonesia Muslim. Indonesia has more Muslims than any other country on earth; but it is a comparatively secular country compared to most other nations with large Muslim populations. In the early 1970's Obama was sent to the US to live with his mother's parents while his mother, Kansas-born Ann Durham, pursued her PhD in anthropology and traveled the world. Durham died in 1995.

Obama and his family have been active members of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for over 15 years now. He's written about "how he accepted Jesus Christ into his life," in the words of a Christian Broadcast Network (CBN) story on the issue.

But the best evidence that he is not a Muslim is a video of him, recorded by CBN, denying that he is a Muslim. You can watch that video here.

I lived in countries with large Muslim populations and studied Islam. Muslims do not deny their faith - not for any reason.

But isn't his middle name Hussein? Yes, it is. That's a Muslim name. His father (who named him) was a Muslim. But what's in a name? Being named "Isaac" or "Esther" doesn't make you Jewish. Your name alone doesn't make you belong to a particular religion...

But didn't he take the oath of office on the Qur'an? Sorry; that was Keith Ellison, Congressman for Minnesota's 5th District. Obama used his family Bible. (The Qur'an Ellison used once belonged to Thomas Jefferson.)

The simple truth is that there is no evidence that Obama is a Muslim and plenty of evidence that he's not. Anyone who insists on saying that he's a Muslim probably has an agenda other than promoting the truth...

Primaries & Caucuses: SuperTuesday and the Saturday Stumble

For a variety of personal reason, I never really got around to commenting on SuperTuesday. But now that the dust has settled a little, there are some things worth saying about each party's race for the presidential nomination.

I haven't heard much comment on voter turnout.

• In Colorado, about 120,000 people turned out for the Democratic Caucuses; the GOP drew only about 55,000 people. Colorado went for Clinton in 1992 (but not in 1996), for Jimmy Carter in 1976, and for Johnson in 1964. In the last 12 elections that state has gone to the Democrats just three times.
  
• In Georgia, 1,046,000 people voted in the Democratic Primary. Only 958,000 people voted in Georgia's GOP Primary. Georgia went for Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976 and 1980, and Clinton in 1992 (but not in 1996).
  
• In Missouri only about 585,000 people voted in the GOP Primary compared to around 820,000 in the Democratic contest. Missouri has gone to the GOP in seven of the last 12 presidential Elections.
  
• In North Dakota the Democrats drew almost 18,000 caucus goers, compared to only about 9,000 for the GOP. North Dakota hasn't voted for a Democrat in November since 1964.
  
• In Oklahoma the Democrats drew over 400,000 voters to their primary while the GOP only saw about 330,000 come out. Like North Dakota, Oklahoma hasn't voted for a Democrat in November since 1964.
  
• Democrats in Tennessee drew 614,000 voters to their primary, while the GOP managed to get out only about 547,000 (even with favorite son Fred Thompson running). Tennessee went for Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Carter in 1976, and Johnson in 1964, but they've gone to the GOP in eight of the last 12 elections.

The question: Will this translate to the November election? Maybe...

The trend continued in Louisiana, where over 350,000 people voted in the Democratic primary yesterday and only and only about 155,000 voted in the GOP race. The state went for Kennedy in 1960, Carter in 1976, and Clinton twice, but has gone to the GOP two-thirds of the time since 1960.

---

Did SuperTuesday have winners? Well, it certainly had losers on the GOP side. Fred Thompson placed fifth in his home state. I'll go back to the actor metaphor I heard somewhere a while back and say that Mike Huckabee seems to have gotten the part that Fred Thompson tried out for.

Romney fell victim to a combination of factors. There was the fact that the Conservative vote was divided three ways. That made it easy from McCain to pull out a win in states like Missouri and Oklahoma. In a head-to-head race with just the two of them, Romney might well have beaten McCain out of those 90 or so delegates. Romney fell victim to high expectations; he was expected to do better than he did, and that made it difficult to justify staying in the race. I think Romney also fell victim to his own ambitions in as much as he's more committed to being president someday than he is to being president now. He could be perceived as having hurt the party by staying in, so he suspended his campaign.

While McCain carried the day, the biggest GOP winner may well turn out to be Huckabee. The former Arkansas governor is now the only choice for many Conservatives and logic choice for the anti-McCain block. Huckabee picked up the endorsement of Dr. James Dobson, champion of the Religious Right. And Huckabee's two wins yesterday testify to his new status as Last Conservative Standing. Mathematically, it's still possible for Huckabee to win the nomination (especially is Romney releases his delegates to vote however they want). It's not very likely, but it's possible at the moment.

On the Democratic side, SuperTuesday proved that the Clinton-Obama race really is a tie. That translates to a win for Obama. And that momentum carried him to three new wins yesterday. More and more, the focus of the Democratic race is on SuperDelegates since it doesn't look like either candidate will get enough delegates from the primary and caucus process to win outright.

---

The Saturday Stumble is the name pundits giving to the performance of McCain and Clinton yesterday. If McCain is not careful, he could end up being offered a position as Huckabee's VP. If Hillary is not careful, she could just plain lose.

No one seems to stay a front runner for very long...

---

In case you hadn't noticed:

• Fred Thompson endorsed John McCain.
  
• Ron Paul made some statements to the effect that he probably really would support the GOP candidate (he refused to rule out running as an independent during a Washington Post interview a few weeks ago).
  
• NYC Mayor Michael Bloomburg seems to have shut up about running for President as an independent now that it looks like the GOP will nominate a moderate candidate.
  
• President Bush said yesterday that McCain wasn't a moderate and endorsed McCain's credentials as a true Conservative.
  
• Conservatives from Ann Coulter to Dr. Dobson are suggesting that their people should just stay home in November and left the Democrats have the White House if McCain is the nominee.
  
• And Mike Gravel is still technically a candidate for the Democratic nomination.

But who cares about trivia...