Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Meet Some of Our Local Candidates
Here's a picture taken recently of Rep. Joe Donnelly and some of our local candidates who attended an Ice Cream Social at the Lion's Den in Walton. Candidates L-R: Marvin Griest, Coroner; Tim Banter, State Representative.; Julian Pugh, County Council; Gordon Southern, County Council; and U.S. Congressman Joe Donnelly (D-IN 2nd District). Not pictured but attending was also State Senate candidate Linda Klinck.
Thank you to the wonderful ladies in serving us the good ice cream!
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Book on Obama hopes to repeat anti-Kerry feat
Just an FYI. They're starting up again. Same old tactics. Hopefully, the public won't be fooled again this time!
Friday, August 01, 2008
Some thoughts on Republican energy policy...
Let me get this straight now....the the Dick Cheney energy policy along with the Republican congress' history of support for big oil are barking the loudest about our energy problems. What is it? Their profits aren't big enough so they want handed to them more? Is this a front just to combat environmentalists so that they can have the freedom to drill wherever and whenever they want without regard to anything? Someone said the perpetrator of the crime is usually tries to paint himself as the victim.
Don't fall for it for one minute public! If you vote for McCain you're getting hoodwinked into the same pattern of the last 20 years concerning energy. There is a pattern here folks...
Don't fall for it for one minute public! If you vote for McCain you're getting hoodwinked into the same pattern of the last 20 years concerning energy. There is a pattern here folks...
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
AFL-CIO NOW Blog: Answering the rumors about Obama
Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign for president is based on working-family values and important issues like health care, jobs and fair trade. Naturally, the right-wing rumor machine has been hard at work to change the subject, by making outlandish claims aimed at dividing and distracting us. The AFL-CIO is working hard to counter the rumors and lies leveled at Obama and keep the election focused on working people’s lives.
In a new mailer we’re sending to thousands of union households in key states, the AFL-CIO is taking on the rumors directly, giving straight answers to the questions people have about Obama. The mailers are attracting positive media attention, and bloggers are praising them as, as the Jed Report puts it, “the most effective anti-smear message of the campaign.”
More at the link...
Obama supporters step up effort to woo Hispanic, union voters
Barack Obama's supporters are launching renewed efforts to shore up support among two key constituencies - Hispanics and union members.
The AFL-CIO announced that, starting yesterday, it was sending mailers to more than 600,000 union households in the key battleground states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. "Union voters, like many voters across the country, are still learning about Senator Obama and have heard many things - some true, some false," the AFL-CIO said.
So one mailer tries to dispel the false rumors that Obama is Muslim, that he used a Koran for his Senate swearing-in, that he will not wear a flag lapel pin, that he won't put his hand over his heart while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and that he wasn't born in the United States.
The other mailer features testimonials about his record on jobs, healthcare, and workers' rights.
Meanwhile, the Democratic National Committee and Obama's campaign yesterday announced a $20 million effort to mobilize Hispanic voters.
The campaign plans to spread the money in all 50 states but will emphasize their efforts in swing states such as Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and New Mexico, Temo Figueroa, the Latino vote director for the Obama campaign, said at a news conference. The campaign said the money will be spent on registering and mobilizing voters, advertisements, and online organizing. It also plans to put additional staff in the four states and aims to train about 500 Latino organizers.
The largest phonebanking event for voter registration ever (woot!)
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: July 30, 2008
Filed at 10:02 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- Those 75,000 Democrats who will pack a football stadium for Barack Obama's convention speech won't be there just to whoop and holler on television. They'll form the world's largest phone bank to boost voter registration -- fired-up supporters using computer targeting the campaign has spent months putting together.
The move to the Invesco Field at Mile High stadium for the convention's final night next month -- at an additional cost of $5 million -- will capture a huge crowd the Obama campaign plans to put to work. They'll be armed with data gleaned through ''microtargeting'' unregistered voters the campaign believes are ripe to back Obama if pressed to get on board.
''If we do this right, we'll be unbeatable,'' said Steve Hildebrand, the Obama adviser overseeing the effort.
One key to Obama's victory plan is to expand the electorate, bringing in more young voters, minorities, suburban women, seniors on fixed incomes and people who have been disaffected by politics and might respond to the freshman Illinois senator's message of change over the more experienced Republican John McCain.
President Bush used microtargeting techniques effectively in 2004, but his target was regular voters who were likely to vote for him. Obama's focus is more on finding people who are not registered to vote and figuring out how to persuade them to sign up and back him.
Hildebrand said the campaign has identified 55 million unregistered voters across the country, by comparing registration lists with lists of potential voters gleaned by mining consumer databases the same way credit card companies track people's spending. They say their research estimates more than two-thirds would vote for Obama if they were registered and motivated.
The campaign is already holding voter registration efforts across the country, and the convention will be followed by a big drive on the following Labor Day weekend.
The campaign is convening the 4,439 convention delegates in state-by-state meetings during the next couple of weeks, and they will be asked to commit time each week before the Nov. 4 election to register voters and persuade them to back Obama. That includes delegates who supported Hillary Rodham Clinton, some of whom still have hard feelings from the primary but are being asked to work diligently for the ticket.
The delegates will be part of a massive audience expected at Invesco on Aug. 28, when Obama becomes the party's first black presidential nominee. The campaign wants to use the hype surrounding the historic moment to build a volunteer force in all 50 states.
The Democrats plan to hand out 60,000 stadium tickets to state party leaders, with instructions to distribute them in a way that helps drive up Obama's support. That might mean rewarding local organizers who are volunteering their time for voter registration, or perhaps identifying independent or Republican voters who might be persuaded by hearing Obama accept the nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s ''I Have a Dream'' speech.
Not all states will be treated equally. Battleground states where voters are being targeted and Western states within driving distance of Denver will be given more tickets, with host Colorado getting the most. The Obama campaign sees the convention as a chance to put him on top in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1992.
The campaign has identified more than half a million unregistered potential voters in Colorado -- one-fifth of the state's eligible population. The numbers are even higher in some other battleground states.
Hildebrand points to Georgia as a prime example, where nearly a third of the voting-eligible population is unregistered -- more than half of those being black, Hispanic or under 24. He says Obama could win the state with a muscular drive to enroll them and with McCain losing Republican votes to Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia running for president as a Libertarian.
The campaign recognizes that people who live in battleground states will be more effective at persuading their neighbors than the traditional advertising campaigns, which is why it's important to send the masses who will be in Denver out with instructions and training to bring in votes.
In the past half-century, technology has replaced peer-to-peer, ground-game politics with the broader weapons of hitting opponents in television commercials and other mass advertising. The Obama campaign wants to use technology and microtargeting techniques to return to the political roots.
''What has won elections for 200 years is a neighbor talking to a neighbor, some peer talking to a peer,'' said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. ''People need other people to do their validating, especially young voters who are more resistant to ads and mainstream media reports.''
Enter the 75,000 people who will have to come hours early for Obama's acceptance speech to get through security, most carrying cell phones. As they settle in their seats, campaign aides will be on stage asking them to text message their friends and use call sheets to get people to register. ''There will be a lot of idle time. We put idle people to work,'' Hildebrand said.
The campaign effectively used similar organizational tactics in the Democratic primary, such as when tens of thousands gathered to see Oprah Winfrey campaign with Obama in Iowa and South Carolina. But this will be on a much larger scale and focus on voter registration besides persuasion.
The Obama campaign is using microtargeting not just to identify voters and their chief issues -- much as Bush did -- but as a way of going after the untapped resource of unregistered people.
''New technologies and the data that's available to us makes me fundamentally believe that we do not need to accept the electorate as it is,'' Plouffe said. ''It can be greatly expanded.''
The campaign has found about 8.1 million unregistered yet eligible blacks, another 8 million unregistered Hispanics and nearly 7.5 million unregistered people between the ages of 18 and 24. Officials also are looking at more women versus men, more highly educated voters, people on fixed incomes and those who have moved across state lines in recent years and could change the voter makeup.
Obama benefits from a highly motivated group of supporters -- more than 2 million people living across all 50 states have volunteered to help elect him -- and a record-breaking fundraising operation that can fund these efforts nationwide.
''This is not smoke and mirrors,'' Hildebrand said. ''We're just the first campaign with the capacity to do it.''
He compares Obama's potential to change the party to President Reagan, who remade the GOP for a generation. ''If we do it right, we can be the dominant party for the next decade,'' Hildebrand said.
Published: July 30, 2008
Filed at 10:02 p.m. ET
DENVER (AP) -- Those 75,000 Democrats who will pack a football stadium for Barack Obama's convention speech won't be there just to whoop and holler on television. They'll form the world's largest phone bank to boost voter registration -- fired-up supporters using computer targeting the campaign has spent months putting together.
The move to the Invesco Field at Mile High stadium for the convention's final night next month -- at an additional cost of $5 million -- will capture a huge crowd the Obama campaign plans to put to work. They'll be armed with data gleaned through ''microtargeting'' unregistered voters the campaign believes are ripe to back Obama if pressed to get on board.
''If we do this right, we'll be unbeatable,'' said Steve Hildebrand, the Obama adviser overseeing the effort.
One key to Obama's victory plan is to expand the electorate, bringing in more young voters, minorities, suburban women, seniors on fixed incomes and people who have been disaffected by politics and might respond to the freshman Illinois senator's message of change over the more experienced Republican John McCain.
President Bush used microtargeting techniques effectively in 2004, but his target was regular voters who were likely to vote for him. Obama's focus is more on finding people who are not registered to vote and figuring out how to persuade them to sign up and back him.
Hildebrand said the campaign has identified 55 million unregistered voters across the country, by comparing registration lists with lists of potential voters gleaned by mining consumer databases the same way credit card companies track people's spending. They say their research estimates more than two-thirds would vote for Obama if they were registered and motivated.
The campaign is already holding voter registration efforts across the country, and the convention will be followed by a big drive on the following Labor Day weekend.
The campaign is convening the 4,439 convention delegates in state-by-state meetings during the next couple of weeks, and they will be asked to commit time each week before the Nov. 4 election to register voters and persuade them to back Obama. That includes delegates who supported Hillary Rodham Clinton, some of whom still have hard feelings from the primary but are being asked to work diligently for the ticket.
The delegates will be part of a massive audience expected at Invesco on Aug. 28, when Obama becomes the party's first black presidential nominee. The campaign wants to use the hype surrounding the historic moment to build a volunteer force in all 50 states.
The Democrats plan to hand out 60,000 stadium tickets to state party leaders, with instructions to distribute them in a way that helps drive up Obama's support. That might mean rewarding local organizers who are volunteering their time for voter registration, or perhaps identifying independent or Republican voters who might be persuaded by hearing Obama accept the nomination on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s ''I Have a Dream'' speech.
Not all states will be treated equally. Battleground states where voters are being targeted and Western states within driving distance of Denver will be given more tickets, with host Colorado getting the most. The Obama campaign sees the convention as a chance to put him on top in a state that hasn't voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1992.
The campaign has identified more than half a million unregistered potential voters in Colorado -- one-fifth of the state's eligible population. The numbers are even higher in some other battleground states.
Hildebrand points to Georgia as a prime example, where nearly a third of the voting-eligible population is unregistered -- more than half of those being black, Hispanic or under 24. He says Obama could win the state with a muscular drive to enroll them and with McCain losing Republican votes to Bob Barr, a former GOP congressman from Georgia running for president as a Libertarian.
The campaign recognizes that people who live in battleground states will be more effective at persuading their neighbors than the traditional advertising campaigns, which is why it's important to send the masses who will be in Denver out with instructions and training to bring in votes.
In the past half-century, technology has replaced peer-to-peer, ground-game politics with the broader weapons of hitting opponents in television commercials and other mass advertising. The Obama campaign wants to use technology and microtargeting techniques to return to the political roots.
''What has won elections for 200 years is a neighbor talking to a neighbor, some peer talking to a peer,'' said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. ''People need other people to do their validating, especially young voters who are more resistant to ads and mainstream media reports.''
Enter the 75,000 people who will have to come hours early for Obama's acceptance speech to get through security, most carrying cell phones. As they settle in their seats, campaign aides will be on stage asking them to text message their friends and use call sheets to get people to register. ''There will be a lot of idle time. We put idle people to work,'' Hildebrand said.
The campaign effectively used similar organizational tactics in the Democratic primary, such as when tens of thousands gathered to see Oprah Winfrey campaign with Obama in Iowa and South Carolina. But this will be on a much larger scale and focus on voter registration besides persuasion.
The Obama campaign is using microtargeting not just to identify voters and their chief issues -- much as Bush did -- but as a way of going after the untapped resource of unregistered people.
''New technologies and the data that's available to us makes me fundamentally believe that we do not need to accept the electorate as it is,'' Plouffe said. ''It can be greatly expanded.''
The campaign has found about 8.1 million unregistered yet eligible blacks, another 8 million unregistered Hispanics and nearly 7.5 million unregistered people between the ages of 18 and 24. Officials also are looking at more women versus men, more highly educated voters, people on fixed incomes and those who have moved across state lines in recent years and could change the voter makeup.
Obama benefits from a highly motivated group of supporters -- more than 2 million people living across all 50 states have volunteered to help elect him -- and a record-breaking fundraising operation that can fund these efforts nationwide.
''This is not smoke and mirrors,'' Hildebrand said. ''We're just the first campaign with the capacity to do it.''
He compares Obama's potential to change the party to President Reagan, who remade the GOP for a generation. ''If we do it right, we can be the dominant party for the next decade,'' Hildebrand said.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
GOP kills effort to release oil from U.S. stockpile
WASHINGTON - House Republicans on Thursday scuttled a bill that Democrats hoped would help lower gasoline prices by forcing the Energy Department to release 70 million barrels of oil — about a three-day supply — from the national stockpile.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democrats promised that the action would have produced immediate relief at the pump, as was the case with similar releases in 1991, 2000 and 2005. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve now holds about 700 million barrels.
Despite winning a clear 268-157 majority, the measure still lost. Democratic leaders had brought the proposal up for debate under rules requiring a two-thirds vote to pass.
But passing the bill by just a majority would have meant allowing Republicans to force a vote on new offshore drilling leases.
"They're hiding from a vote," said GOP leader John Boehner of Ohio. "They're scared to death to allow us to ... force their members to vote on drilling."
Democrats said the release from the oil reserve could provide relief at the pump within two weeks, though they would not say how much it would help $4-per-gallon gas. Earlier releases, such as a 34 million barrel drawdown in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War, caused prices to fall.
As debate began, the White House threatened a veto. "Rather than drawing down a strategic reserve intended to protect our nation's energy security from a severe supply disruption, Congress should pass legislation to increase domestic oil supply," the White House said in a statement.
More at link...
McCain questions speech, forgets Canada (and Columbia)
From NBC's Mark Murray
In his interview with NBC's Kelly O'Donnell, which will air on NBC's Nightly News tonight, McCain questions whether Obama should have given a speech in Berlin before becoming president.
"I would rather speak at a rally or a political gathering any place outside of the country after I am president of the United States," McCain told O'Donnell. "But that's a judgment that Sen. Obama and the American people will make."
However, on June 20, McCain himself gave a speech in Canada -- to the Economic Club of Canada -- in which he applauded NAFTA's successes. An implicit message behind that speech was that Obama had been critical of the trade accord. Also, McCain's trip to Canada was paid for by the campaign.
More at link...
p.s. don't let us forget Columbia last week, either:
Click here for article on McCain's visit to Columbia...
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Support for Obama crossing party lines
INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) - A Republican political get together is planned for Thursday night in Hamilton County. GOP loyalists will work on a strategy to support their candidate for president.
But don't jump to conclusions. This group of Republicans, in one of the most Republican counties in the nation are working on behalf of a Democrat.
"I voted for Reagan and Bush and Bush, then Dole, then Bush and Bush," said Republican Chuck Lasker a GOP Obama supporter.
But this time, Lasker is voting for Barack Obama and he's trying to get other Hamilton County Republicans to do the same.
"There's a lot of disaffected Republicans out here. And so, just looking at the alternatives, I decided that Senator Obama better represents my views," said Lasker.
Full article at link. I do believe Indiana is a VERY disgruntled state right now. I kind of like it.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Gobama! Knocking it out of the park in his patriotism speech!!!
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
The America We Love – as prepared for delivery
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Independence, Missouri
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists – farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys – left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous – for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.
And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day – a shot heard round the world – the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.
Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism – theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war – more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.
We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues – health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security – but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
My concerns here aren’t simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.
In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day
.
Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views – these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America’s traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.
Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.
What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I’m not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I’m referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.
One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That’s my idea of America.
I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton’s Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That’s my idea of America.
I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That’s my idea of America.
As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.
For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.
That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.
I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.
The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed – he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.
Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.
We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.
For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.
In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.
I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.
We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.
As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker’s rights.
It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.
And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.
When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.
Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They’ve defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.
Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.
And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: “When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support.”
In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.
That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
The America We Love – as prepared for delivery
Monday, June 30th, 2008
Independence, Missouri
On a spring morning in April of 1775, a simple band of colonists – farmers and merchants, blacksmiths and printers, men and boys – left their homes and families in Lexington and Concord to take up arms against the tyranny of an Empire. The odds against them were long and the risks enormous – for even if they survived the battle, any ultimate failure would bring charges of treason, and death by hanging.
And yet they took that chance. They did so not on behalf of a particular tribe or lineage, but on behalf of a larger idea. The idea of liberty. The idea of God-given, inalienable rights. And with the first shot of that fateful day – a shot heard round the world – the American Revolution, and America’s experiment with democracy, began.
Those men of Lexington and Concord were among our first patriots. And at the beginning of a week when we celebrate the birth of our nation, I think it is fitting to pause for a moment and reflect on the meaning of patriotism – theirs, and ours. We do so in part because we are in the midst of war – more than one and a half million of our finest young men and women have now fought in Iraq and Afghanistan; over 60,000 have been wounded, and over 4,600 have been laid to rest. The costs of war have been great, and the debate surrounding our mission in Iraq has been fierce. It is natural, in light of such sacrifice by so many, to think more deeply about the commitments that bind us to our nation, and to each other.
We reflect on these questions as well because we are in the midst of a presidential election, perhaps the most consequential in generations; a contest that will determine the course of this nation for years, perhaps decades, to come. Not only is it a debate about big issues – health care, jobs, energy, education, and retirement security – but it is also a debate about values. How do we keep ourselves safe and secure while preserving our liberties? How do we restore trust in a government that seems increasingly removed from its people and dominated by special interests? How do we ensure that in an increasingly global economy, the winners maintain allegiance to the less fortunate? And how do we resolve our differences at a time of increasing diversity?
Finally, it is worth considering the meaning of patriotism because the question of who is – or is not – a patriot all too often poisons our political debates, in ways that divide us rather than bringing us together. I have come to know this from my own experience on the campaign trail. Throughout my life, I have always taken my deep and abiding love for this country as a given. It was how I was raised; it is what propelled me into public service; it is why I am running for President. And yet, at certain times over the last sixteen months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged – at times as a result of my own carelessness, more often as a result of the desire by some to score political points and raise fears about who I am and what I stand for.
So let me say at this at outset of my remarks. I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.
My concerns here aren’t simply personal, however. After all, throughout our history, men and women of far greater stature and significance than me have had their patriotism questioned in the midst of momentous debates. Thomas Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of selling out to the French. The anti-Federalists were just as convinced that John Adams was in cahoots with the British and intent on restoring monarchal rule. Likewise, even our wisest Presidents have sought to justify questionable policies on the basis of patriotism. Adams’ Alien and Sedition Act, Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans – all were defended as expressions of patriotism, and those who disagreed with their policies were sometimes labeled as unpatriotic.
In other words, the use of patriotism as a political sword or a political shield is as old as the Republic. Still, what is striking about today’s patriotism debate is the degree to which it remains rooted in the culture wars of the 1960s – in arguments that go back forty years or more. In the early years of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam War, defenders of the status quo often accused anybody who questioned the wisdom of government policies of being unpatriotic. Meanwhile, some of those in the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties reacted not merely by criticizing particular government policies, but by attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself – by burning flags; by blaming America for all that was wrong with the world; and perhaps most tragically, by failing to honor those veterans coming home from Vietnam, something that remains a national shame to this day
.
Most Americans never bought into these simplistic world-views – these caricatures of left and right. Most Americans understood that dissent does not make one unpatriotic, and that there is nothing smart or sophisticated about a cynical disregard for America’s traditions and institutions. And yet the anger and turmoil of that period never entirely drained away. All too often our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments – a fact most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal.
Given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions. None of us expect that arguments about patriotism will, or should, vanish entirely; after all, when we argue about patriotism, we are arguing about who we are as a country, and more importantly, who we should be. But surely we can agree that no party or political philosophy has a monopoly on patriotism. And surely we can arrive at a definition of patriotism that, however rough and imperfect, captures the best of America’s common spirit.
What would such a definition look like? For me, as for most Americans, patriotism starts as a gut instinct, a loyalty and love for country rooted in my earliest memories. I’m not just talking about the recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Thanksgiving pageants at school or the fireworks on the Fourth of July, as wonderful as those things may be. Rather, I’m referring to the way the American ideal wove its way throughout the lessons my family taught me as a child.
One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii. I remember the cheers and small flags that people waved, and my grandfather explaining how we Americans could do anything we set our minds to do. That’s my idea of America.
I remember listening to my grandmother telling stories about her work on a bomber assembly-line during World War II. I remember my grandfather handing me his dog-tags from his time in Patton’s Army, and understanding that his defense of this country marked one of his greatest sources of pride. That’s my idea of America.
I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, listening to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I remember her explaining how this declaration applied to every American, black and white and brown alike; how those words, and words of the United States Constitution, protected us from the injustices that we witnessed other people suffering during those years abroad. That’s my idea of America.
As I got older, that gut instinct – that America is the greatest country on earth – would survive my growing awareness of our nation’s imperfections: it’s ongoing racial strife; the perversion of our political system laid bare during the Watergate hearings; the wrenching poverty of the Mississippi Delta and the hills of Appalachia. Not only because, in my mind, the joys of American life and culture, its vitality, its variety and its freedom, always outweighed its imperfections, but because I learned that what makes America great has never been its perfection but the belief that it can be made better. I came to understand that our revolution was waged for the sake of that belief – that we could be governed by laws, not men; that we could be equal in the eyes of those laws; that we could be free to say what we want and assemble with whomever we want and worship as we please; that we could have the right to pursue our individual dreams but the obligation to help our fellow citizens pursue theirs.
For a young man of mixed race, without firm anchor in any particular community, without even a father’s steadying hand, it is this essential American idea – that we are not constrained by the accident of birth but can make of our lives what we will – that has defined my life, just as it has defined the life of so many other Americans.
That is why, for me, patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is also loyalty to America’s ideals – ideals for which anyone can sacrifice, or defend, or give their last full measure of devotion. I believe it is this loyalty that allows a country teeming with different races and ethnicities, religions and customs, to come together as one. It is the application of these ideals that separate us from Zimbabwe, where the opposition party and their supporters have been silently hunted, tortured or killed; or Burma, where tens of thousands continue to struggle for basic food and shelter in the wake of a monstrous storm because a military junta fears opening up the country to outsiders; or Iraq, where despite the heroic efforts of our military, and the courage of many ordinary Iraqis, even limited cooperation between various factions remains far too elusive.
I believe those who attack America’s flaws without acknowledging the singular greatness of our ideals, and their proven capacity to inspire a better world, do not truly understand America.
Of course, precisely because America isn’t perfect, precisely because our ideals constantly demand more from us, patriotism can never be defined as loyalty to any particular leader or government or policy. As Mark Twain, that greatest of American satirists and proud son of Missouri, once wrote, “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” We may hope that our leaders and our government stand up for our ideals, and there are many times in our history when that’s occurred. But when our laws, our leaders or our government are out of alignment with our ideals, then the dissent of ordinary Americans may prove to be one of the truest expression of patriotism.
The young preacher from Georgia, Martin Luther King, Jr., who led a movement to help America confront our tragic history of racial injustice and live up to the meaning of our creed – he was a patriot. The young soldier who first spoke about the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib – he is a patriot. Recognizing a wrong being committed in this country’s name; insisting that we deliver on the promise of our Constitution – these are the acts of patriots, men and women who are defending that which is best in America. And we should never forget that – especially when we disagree with them; especially when they make us uncomfortable with their words.
Beyond a loyalty to America’s ideals, beyond a willingness to dissent on behalf of those ideals, I also believe that patriotism must, if it is to mean anything, involve the willingness to sacrifice – to give up something we value on behalf of a larger cause. For those who have fought under the flag of this nation – for the young veterans I meet when I visit Walter Reed; for those like John McCain who have endured physical torment in service to our country – no further proof of such sacrifice is necessary. And let me also add that no one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign, and that goes for supporters on both sides.
We must always express our profound gratitude for the service of our men and women in uniform. Period. Indeed, one of the good things to emerge from the current conflict in Iraq has been the widespread recognition that whether you support this war or oppose it, the sacrifice of our troops is always worthy of honor.
For the rest of us – for those of us not in uniform or without loved ones in the military – the call to sacrifice for the country’s greater good remains an imperative of citizenship. Sadly, in recent years, in the midst of war on two fronts, this call to service never came. After 9/11, we were asked to shop. The wealthiest among us saw their tax obligations decline, even as the costs of war continued to mount. Rather than work together to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and thereby lessen our vulnerability to a volatile region, our energy policy remained unchanged, and our oil dependence only grew.
In spite of this absence of leadership from Washington, I have seen a new generation of Americans begin to take up the call. I meet them everywhere I go, young people involved in the project of American renewal; not only those who have signed up to fight for our country in distant lands, but those who are fighting for a better America here at home, by teaching in underserved schools, or caring for the sick in understaffed hospitals, or promoting more sustainable energy policies in their local communities.
I believe one of the tasks of the next Administration is to ensure that this movement towards service grows and sustains itself in the years to come. We should expand AmeriCorps and grow the Peace Corps. We should encourage national service by making it part of the requirement for a new college assistance program, even as we strengthen the benefits for those whose sense of duty has already led them to serve in our military.
We must remember, though, that true patriotism cannot be forced or legislated with a mere set of government programs. Instead, it must reside in the hearts of our people, and cultivated in the heart of our culture, and nurtured in the hearts of our children.
As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted. But it is our responsibility as Americans and as parents to instill that history in our children, both at home and at school. The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker’s rights.
It is up to us, then, to teach them. It is up to us to teach them that even though we have faced great challenges and made our share of mistakes, we have always been able to come together and make this nation stronger, and more prosperous, and more united, and more just. It is up to us to teach them that America has been a force for good in the world, and that other nations and other people have looked to us as the last, best hope of Earth. It is up to us to teach them that it is good to give back to one’s community; that it is honorable to serve in the military; that it is vital to participate in our democracy and make our voices heard.
And it is up to us to teach our children a lesson that those of us in politics too often forget: that patriotism involves not only defending this country against external threat, but also working constantly to make America a better place for future generations.
When we pile up mountains of debt for the next generation to absorb, or put off changes to our energy policies, knowing full well the potential consequences of inaction, we are placing our short-term interests ahead of the nation’s long-term well-being. When we fail to educate effectively millions of our children so that they might compete in a global economy, or we fail to invest in the basic scientific research that has driven innovation in this country, we risk leaving behind an America that has fallen in the ranks of the world. Just as patriotism involves each of us making a commitment to this nation that extends beyond our own immediate self-interest, so must that commitment extends beyond our own time here on earth.
Our greatest leaders have always understood this. They’ve defined patriotism with an eye toward posterity. George Washington is rightly revered for his leadership of the Continental Army, but one of his greatest acts of patriotism was his insistence on stepping down after two terms, thereby setting a pattern for those that would follow, reminding future presidents that this is a government of and by and for the people.
Abraham Lincoln did not simply win a war or hold the Union together. In his unwillingness to demonize those against whom he fought; in his refusal to succumb to either the hatred or self-righteousness that war can unleash; in his ultimate insistence that in the aftermath of war the nation would no longer remain half slave and half free; and his trust in the better angels of our nature – he displayed the wisdom and courage that sets a standard for patriotism.
And it was the most famous son of Independence, Harry S Truman, who sat in the White House during his final days in office and said in his Farewell Address: “When Franklin Roosevelt died, I felt there must be a million men better qualified than I, to take up the Presidential task…But through all of it, through all the years I have worked here in this room, I have been well aware than I did not really work alone – that you were working with me. No President could ever hope to lead our country, or to sustain the burdens of this office, save the people helped with their support.”
In the end, it may be this quality that best describes patriotism in my mind – not just a love of America in the abstract, but a very particular love for, and faith in, the American people. That is why our heart swells with pride at the sight of our flag; why we shed a tear as the lonely notes of Taps sound. For we know that the greatness of this country – its victories in war, its enormous wealth, its scientific and cultural achievements – all result from the energy and imagination of the American people; their toil, drive, struggle, restlessness, humor and quiet heroism.
That is the liberty we defend – the liberty of each of us to pursue our own dreams. That is the equality we seek – not an equality of results, but the chance of every single one of us to make it if we try. That is the community we strive to build – one in which we trust in this sometimes messy democracy of ours, one in which we continue to insist that there is nothing we cannot do when we put our mind to it, one in which we see ourselves as part of a larger story, our own fates wrapped up in the fates of those who share allegiance to America’s happy and singular creed.
Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The News You Don't See Today: Kucinich brings up Articles of Impeachment in Congress
Didn't you hear? Last night in congress, Rep. Dennis Kucinich brought up the Articles of Impeachment. Anyone hear about it? I haven't. The only way I know about it is because I receive his campaign's emails and they sent me an alert telling me he was on C-Span bringing up the Articles of Impeachment. I've been watching the mainstream news all day today, read the local newspaper and I haven't read or heard one thing about it.
The only place I've been able to hear of it is youtube. For several excerpts of his move, see here. This will now be on the congressional record for as long as our country remains a country.
The only place I've been able to hear of it is youtube. For several excerpts of his move, see here. This will now be on the congressional record for as long as our country remains a country.
Senate Republicans Block Taxes on Oil Majors
WASHINGTON - Senate Republicans have blocked a Democratic plan to tax the windfall profits of the largest oil companies.
Democrats on Tuesday failed, 51-43, to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster of the energy package, and bring the bill up for consideration.
Democrats said the huge profits enjoyed by the largest U.S. oil companies should be reined with motorists paying more than $4 a gallon for gasoline and oil prices soaring well beyond $100 a barrel. But Republican critics said higher taxes on oil companies would increase — not lower — gasoline prices and reduce the incentive for domestic oil exploration and production.
Ok. I thought this was what the people wanted? As I understand, the taxes would be used to create/support more alternative/renewable energy domestically?
Florida people don't want drilling & exploration in their backyards. Miles O'Brien of CNN stated yesterday that there is only 3 months to 2 years of oil in ANWR according to high and low end estimates depending on our domestic consumption rate.
We really need to find other options. We can't drill our way out of this.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
