Grandpa likes Obama???

I had dinner with my paternal grandparents last night, which is always an adventure. Grandpa is one of those perfectly stereotypical grumpy old men, but last night, he managed to shock me with the completely unexpected: he wants Obama to be the Democratic nominee so he can vote for him in November.

Ok, cool. Wait, What???

I am not sure how to process this. There are a few things in life I have come to count on and Grandpa being stubbornly, blindly Republican has always been one of them.

This is a man who, in the 60's, wouldn't let his 21 year-old daughter have the car to go see Kennedy speak at the University because "I didn't vote for him, what more do you need to know about him?"

His subversive, rebellious daughter-in-law (a.k.a my mother) quickly offered Aunt Carolyn a ride to the event, much to his dismay.

This is the man, who, upon finding out I was working for the Democratic Party during the 2000 election called, honestly confused about why I would accept such a job when, as he explained so simply "well, I am a Republican, you know."

It's come to be a fact of life, much like the sun rises in the east, grandpa is a Republican.

So, imagine my shock and disbelief when he admitted he would have liked to go hear Obama speak when he was in town last month, but at his age (nearly 90) and on his 3rd new knee, he couldn't manage waiting in line for several hours to get in.

I thought he might be making a joke, but he went on to discuss how he would vote for him in November.

Just add it to the list of things going on in this election year that I never expected to see in my lifetime.

Clinton, Obama, Michigan and Florida

Friday, the local state dem convention will be welcoming not one, but two presidential candidates. That's right, against conventional wisdom, both Clinton and Obama will be visiting a state that hasn't gone blue since Lyndon Johnson.

But then nothing is conventional about this primary season and I don't anticipate the coming months will reflect anything we've seen in the past....thankfully. Still, it's surprising they are both taking time out from their heavy campaigning in PA to visit a state whose primary is over AND whose super delegates have already made public their candidate choice.

Maybe its a sign of just how unusual things are this year...where every primary seems to count ...except for Michigan and Florida. Ok, so somethings haven't changed at all. :)

On the topic of Michigan and Florida, with a primary race so close and neither candidate looking like the pledged delegate vote is going to get them to the finish line, why are we not getting re-votes set up in these two states?

Who are we punishing here? It's not the voters fault the elections were scheduled too early. It's not the candidates fault either. And it's not like we are talking about some kind of corruption or dishonesty, they held their elections too early. Come on. Someone needs to pony up the cash and get another primary held in these states.

Aren't Democrats tired...exhausted really, with elections being decided on technicalities rather than an accurate reflection of the desire of voters? If I lived in Florida, I don't think I would vote at all anymore.

Inspired.

Eight years, I've been waiting for this.

You can't deny this is powerful stuff, even if you don't agree with his politics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHA_ZTvOgUMIt was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.

Yes we can.

It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.

Yes we can.

It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.

Yes we can.

It was the call of workers who organized; women who reached for the ballots; a President who chose the moon as our new frontier; and a King who took us to the mountaintop and pointed the way to the Promised Land.

Yes we can to justice and equality.

Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.

Yes we can heal this nation.

Yes we can repair this world.

Yes we can.

We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics...they will only grow louder and more dissonant ........... We've been asked to pause for a reality check. We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope.

Now the hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA; we will remember that there is something happening in America; that we are not as divided as our politics suggests; that we are one people; we are one nation; and together, we will begin the next great chapter in the American story with three words that will ring from coast to coast; from sea to shining sea --

Yes. We. Can.

The Issues

I've finally started taking a look at the basic issues positions of various candidates.
CNN has a nifty little interactive deal that lets you choose an issue and get a small bit of info on all the major candidates and what their position is on an issue. They tend to include specifics on if and when the candidate's position has changed over the course of time, which is interesting.

The major stuff they cover are:
Abortion - of course, because it matters so much if a president is pro-life or pro-choice, given this office has the ability to overturn supreme court decisions. This is not an issue on which I judge any candidate.

Gun Control - For me, the more you want to control my ability to purchase fire-arms, the better. I have yet to meet anyone who really wants too much gun control. Oh, you know, own guns, fine; just not the guns that make it so easy to kill in bulk. Oh, and I'd prefer that we not give guns to crazy people, children and I dunno, felons? Seems like it would be wise to limit sales to people who have proven they tend to break the law and shoot people. Hillary wins on gun control cuz she has the biggest paragraph next to her name.

Health Care - This is a key issue for me. They turn it into such a complicated thing. For this reason, I am not all that hot about Hillary's position, tho better than conservative solutions (or non-solutions), it seems more like a jumble of stuff rather than a solid plan. Obama has the edge here with his proposed national health insurance program which is simply for those who cannot get it elsewhere. The only thing wanting is a mandate for coverage of all Americans. Most liberal candidates want to cover the cost of such a program by repealing the Bush tax cut for incomes over $250,000. Yay that.

Immigration - Of the guys left in, Gravel and Kucinich are the only two who opposed the Great Wall of Mexico. Am I the only one who thinks this is one of the dumbest plans ever? Don't get me wrong, I don't have a solution, but then it's not a visible "problem" where I am, so it's not as big a concern. We have help wanted signs at most of the fast-food joints in town, so if Mexicans have taken all the jobs in your area, come on up here, we need a new fry guy at the Mickey D's.

Stem Cell Research - Well, all the liberals support this and all the conservatives, save Giuiani and McCain oppose it. Is this an issue? Should it be an issue? No. Fund the research, it's important.

Iraq - Oh, for fucks sake. Alright, I was against it from the very beginning and Gravel, Kucinich and Obama were with me. But, well, I understand why the rest were not and I am willing to give them a pass based on what they want to do now and how reasonable and effective it will be. Let's take a look and see what they've got, shall we? Oh, that was just depressing. Can't blame them, I have no idea what should be done either. Cut and run is appealing, but probably not wise for the safety and stability of the region..blah blah blah.

Same-sex marriage - As vehemently as social conservatives oppose this, I support it. And yet, nobody is stepping up to be my candidate on this issue. Maybe they are right, it should be left to the states to decide. Still, I am disappointed guys.

Social Security - Well, as an issue, Mitt Romney (gasp) seems to offer the only pro-active suggestion of forming "an independent panel" which is probably just as useful as doing nothing at all. Doesn't concern me overly much, given that my generation long ago got the message that we should plan for retirement without Social Security as a consideration. Which is good, cuz clearly nobody plans to do anything about it.

Taxes - While Gravel's plan to get rid of the IRS is fun to fantasize about, I will go with Obama on this one. More child tax credits and less capital gains tax relief sounds like a good direction.

After a surface examination of the issues stances for the majors, I am leaning towards Obama. I like his positions on the issues that matter to me most: health care, taxes, iraq, plus he's got the stuff, that elusive quality that immediately says "this guy is a leader."

Republican tactics

Democrats.org has a post called "GOP Boasts About "Caging" Efforts" that's worth checking out...

"In a recent e-mail to party supporters, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach bragged about the Republican Party's efforts at "caging" voters. In an e-mail message sent to state Republicans, Kansas Republican Party Chairman Kris Kobach reviewed the party’s accomplishments this..."



So, this wasn't exactly what I thought I would be writing about when I revived my little political rant blog, but in reading the short blog story linked to above, I am reminded of something that happened 8 years ago when I worked for the Kansas Democratic Party during the 2000 election cycle.

Let me first say that I cannot say with certainty that Democrats don't do this kind of thing, but, I can say that the particular state party that I worked for did not. My impression, as well, is that conventional wisdom generally says the more people who vote, the better Democrats tend to perform in the resulting elections. So, if that theory holds true, and most democratic political operatives believe it does, democrats are better off going door to door to offer rides to polls to get as many people as possible out to vote. Hence the advent of the Get Out The Vote programs you often hear about as election day nears.

But anyway, back to this memory...it was the eve of the election. Several candidates were using a relatively new tool to contact voters...the recorded phone call. You use a phone list, like you would a mailing list and the computer calls the list to play the recorded message reminding people to vote or passing along whatever information the candidate chooses.

The morning the polls opened, we began getting calls from irate voters complaining that our candidates had been calling them at 1...2...3am with a message attacking the conservative opponent. Ironically, staffers working for the candidate the message supposedly came from received calls as well. Hmmm.

Our office was responsible for coordinating the use of this service for our candidates, we made all the arrangements with the company providing this service and after confirming with them, we found that there were no calls scheduled nor performed at those hours and well, we had no knowledge of any planned negative attack message either.

So you tell me? Who ends up benefiting from calls made at 2am claiming to be from the democratic candidate attacking his opponent on the eve of the election?

And now tell me that the story above isn't just more of the same, 8 years later. What is so offensive about this to me is that they were bragging about it in the referenced email.

"Hey, we managed to keep more voters away from the polls in a complete and utter corruption of the political process! Yeehaw!"

Look, everybody is trying to find that edge to increase the numbers in their favor, I know that; our office spent time doing just that, knocking on some doors, but not others, knowing that spending more time with certain people is a better use of resources...but not once, during the entire process did we ever do anything or even entertain the idea of trying to discourage people from voting.

Studio 60 - a not so liberal post

It should come as no shock that I was a West Wing junkie for 6 years. I very nearly cried when the show was cancelled. It always did a brilliant job of appealing to my liberal senses as well as my more egalitarian side. Just when you think they were getting too liberal, they would come up with a show that gave serious treatment to the idea that we need both sides represented in our government and that both sides may have legitimate points.

But, I'm not here to write about that show. I could go on and on. But, let's move on, shall we?
So, being a West Wing (and Aaron Sorkin projects in general) fan, my dispair was mollified upon hearing of the arrival of Studio 60.

New show, some West Wing veterans, Aarom and director, Tommy Schlamme back together again. Yay! (This post is coming now because I just got around to watching the last 6 episodes downloaded from iTunes.)

Ok, well, as anyone familiar with the show now knows, Studio 60 was no West Wing.
Liberal themes go hand and hand with Sorkin shows. That we have all come to expect. But, even I was sort of ....bothered...by HOW liberal the story lines got and it just didn't quite feel right. It personified everything conseratives love to hate. Hollywood, sitting in it's gilded throne, passing judgement on the rest of the country for not "getting" how things really are.

Not exactly the most ideal way to bring attention to what's wrong with the world. Hell, I even found myself occassionally sympathizing with Harriet, the token conservative, Christian.

So, while I miss the Sorkin, quick-witted, fast-pased, reeking of liberal-bias shows, I can see why this one didn't last.

Hmm, maybe we could work on getting term limits lifted and bring back the West Wing.

Rehashing an old topic

In response to my blog about my immense disappointment in the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, someone sent this:

_____________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

In the words of Trace Adkins, "Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from me".
Everyone, liberal and conservative have the right to say what they wish, within the law...and everyone else has the right to react the way they wish within the law.
Some people don't like what the Dixie Chicks said.
Some people don't like how groups of people reacted.

Oh well. You can't protect one and not the other.
"Everyone" has consequences to their speech and their actions. Has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The government did nothing to them. It was citizens that don't like what they said and decided to protest them....we have to protect their right to do that as well.
You can't pick and choose whose rights you want to stand up for.

_________________________________________________________

Well, you CAN pick and choose whose rights you stand up for, what with freedom of speech, but that's not really the issue.

The freedom of people to respond as they did to the DC's comment was never in question. I never advocated their rights be denied. What I said was, they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I think they are crappy people, plain and simple. Let's face it, the CD smashing parties were just a variation on book burning. Book burning! Who is in favor of book burning? Book burning is rarely an action taken by government against it's people, its usually people taking action against themselves and yet, its widely regarded as censorship.

Let me take one small moment to say, by the way, that death threats aren't protected speech and, correct me if I'm wrong, they are illegal. This was just one minor segment of what went on, but still, a disturbing example of the crazed, mob-like response these women received.

My point is there were two kinds of behavior: opinions expressed (and thus worthy of protection under the first amendment) and punitive action taken (which is very different). Seems like, to me, when a radio network pulls the other-wise popular work of an artist whose opinion (not expressed in the music) they don't like, even when their customers are requesting to have the music played...well, I'm not an attorney, but I bet there's one out there who would say "sue the bastards!"

lol my apologies, this particular argument is suffering from my current jet lag and general travel malaise. My point and the justification for it was much more precise before I started typing. But, what I want to make clear is this: I wasn't suggesting the government take away the rights of those who protested against what the DC's said. I was suggesting what they did was wrong - practically, morally, ethically I disagree with their opinions on EVERY level, dislike them personally (even tho i don't know them -ha!) and think they should be flogged, burned at the stake and fired from their jobs. In that order. (Was that a run-on sentence? my apologies) I think it sucks these people get to call themselves American. Seems to me, doing whatever is in your power to punish someone for their opinion (and this goes beyond just expressing an opinion in response) is as un-American as un-American gets.