Thank you Rush Limbaugh!

I first heard tales of the Republican bru-haha this past weekend--the kerfuffle between Michael Steele, head of the GOP, and Rush over Steele's statement that Rush was "an entertainer" and has been known to make ugly remarks. Duh. Where's the surprise there? Why did this man then hurriedly rush (forgive the Pun) to retract or minimize damages from these statements, which are more or less true. When I heard this, my first reaction was "Brilliant, Rush is showing himself to be the ass he is, which will require conservatives and Republicans to finally take a stand and hopefully repudiate him as the "intellectual" leader of the GOP."

Reading Tim Egan's blog on NYT just confirmed my hopes, that in fact Rush was acting as his and the Republican party's own worst enemy--falling into the well-played trap set for him by the Democrats and egged on by Rahm Emmanuel's comments on "Meet the Press" (I believe). He represents all that is wrong with the Republican party--so focused on partisan divisions that he refuses to consider any sort of compromise or horse trading over issues. He pretends to be the moral force for the conservative party and yet as Egan's blog illustrates his comments are often racist, sexist and divisionary. How is that useful for putting our country back together again. Although, really, someone who could continually defend GWB over the past 8 years without batting an eye is maybe not the best role model for any political party. Even supporters of certain candidates should be able to look on their chosen one with some degree of criticality. Anyway, I'm going to defer to Al Franken's book from a few years ago: Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot.

Democracy-- Who needs it?

Now, granted, this article is from the beginning of February, but I can't help thinking about it over and over again. So, Gaddafi the Libyan leader who is now heading up the African Union--yes, the same man that former President Reagan called "the mad dog of the Middle East" who was linked or believed to have ties to terrorist acts in the 1970s and 80s and whose country was subject to U.S. sanctions for most of the 1990s.

So, in a recent address to the A.U. he proposes the following:

Speaking at the AU summit in Ethiopia, Col Gaddafi said Africa was essentially tribal and political parties became tribalised, which led to bloodshed.

He concluded the best model for Africa was his own country, where opposition parties are not allowed.

Fill in your own joke here. Unbelievable in this day and age someone who is seen as a "senior statesman" in Africa would say these things and think it is a viable solution to the myriad of problems facing African states. Of course, I guess in his vision of a United States of Africa, democracy would not be practiced. Well, this seems like a workable solution. Not.

Go figure. Remember, this is also the guy who has maneuvered to have himself labeled the king of kings in Africa.

Can't we all just get along?

So, I liked Obama from the beginning, although frankly i thought he would not be able to beat Hillary. But, thankfully, I was wrong. I guess I was believing the press--those that said he was just in his opening salvo with more to come in later years, too junior, too black, too inexperienced to be President. Sounds a lot like what we are hearing now: this stimulus package is dead, there's no way he's going to get it through, Americans are against it and him. Well, I'm in agreement with NY Times Op-Ed columnist Frank Rich, these ideas are totally at odds with how well he is doing these days as President. In fact, his approval ratings are still flying high, so are America's approval ratings for the stimulus package.

How ludicrous to think that the American public elected this guy and now expect the Republicans in Congress to object fiercely to anything and everything he suggests. For crying out loud, the guy is so far from arrogant that he has even said publicly that he is willing to take suggestions and work out compromises--even though it can be argued that these compromises have hurt the ultimate bill that emerged. But for the sake of compromise and trying to be a leader of us all, Obama is all about working with others. I guess the Republicans have gotten so fat and lazy after 8 years under Bush where you didn't have to and weren't expected to try to work with anyone across the aisle from you. Well, wake up guys, those days are over. If you didn't get the memo that accompanied Obama's victory, let me spell it out for you here: We the American people are sick and tired of your phony excuses saying you are standing up for us. The truth is that you care more about your silly dogmatic agenda than you do about caring for the needs of our country. It is not democrats versus republicans anymore. It's about America. Grow up and stop throwing your silly temper tantrums and try to be the bigger person by working with your peers no matter what party they have joined.

Sorry for venting, but it's pretty ridiculous this bitterness that isn't doing anything to correct the situation, but just making things worse. Although, frankly, after your recent performance, some of you will not be staying around very long after November, so enjoy your last few months in office. Good riddance.

Let me just say, my criticism toward Republicans is primarily directed towards those in Congress. Kudos to those Republican governors who can see past the ends of their noses and get past party rhetoric to find a way to work together with the Administration that actively sought their input in the stimulus package to begin with. So, not all are hopeless idealogues with no real concern for the needs of their constituents.

Catch-22

So, I don't know about you, but as happy as I am about Obama's win, it is tempered by real concerns over what he has ahead of him. As much as I believe in him as a leader, there is a big part of me that would not wish this job on anyone, much less someone I like. So, there it is. I want him to be my leader, but I don't want him to have to deal with all the attendant headaches. There are certainly perks to the job, but in all seriousness, why would someone want to be President of the U.S.? Power, glamour, privilege alongside a devastated economy; tremendous public debt; difficult relations with Iran, Venezuela and even now Pakistan; increasing difficulties in Afghanistan; neverending violence and blood shed in Iraq not to mention all the other skirmishes, humanitarian and ecological nightmares dotting the globe. These are not soft and easy times to run a country, much less the previously acknowledged leader of the free world. Although, frankly, that designation has been tarnished under our current leadership and his freewheeling, unitary ways that have served to alienate longstanding allies and further ignite enmity among our enemies and in some cases among our friends. This is not fun. I wish him and his family the best, but more importantly I choose to pray for him. I pray for wisdom, discernment, good counsel and strength. He will certainly need all these and much more to tackle the job ahead. But, maybe like Esther, "for such a time as this" he has been put in place to show the type of strength and leadership that is necessary to rechart America's course. Only time will tell.

I have had discussions with McCain supporters who, though appreciating the enormity of what it means to have elected a black man as President, feel that he has a huge task set before him due to extremely high expectations as a result of promises made in the campaign and due to his iconic status that is reminiscent of JFK. Certainly he will make some mistakes along the way, but the true test of leadership is how he handles his mistakes: taking responsibility or pointing fingers? hiding behind executive privilege and finding convenient scape goats or owning up to his shortcomings? All in all, we as the American people have a responsibility to allow him to be human although we desperately want him to strive for the best and we must keep his feet to the fire in this, while allowing for grace along the way.

Affirmative or Negative?

I don't often like to get involved in national political discussions because it usually gets pretty heated and people cling so tightly to their biases that it seems pointless to have started the discussion in the first place. Although this is my natural tendency, I must say that this current Presidential campaign has really created a sense of passion and urgency within me to actually talk about these issues more. So, here goes...

When I was in highschool, I was on the debate team (Lincoln-Douglas value debating). In this setting, we had to come up with 2 arguments on a particular topic: the affirmative and negative. The affirmative argument was always a longer, more detailed case because the burden was on the affirmative to prove a point or make a case for something. The negative had an easier time, in some ways, because it was generally created on the fly in response to the affirmative's case. The negative didn't have to necessarily prove their own case, just that the affirmative's case was flawed. I feel that there are many similarities to today's Presidential race.

To be clear, I am an Obama supporter and have been since he announced his candidacy. With that said, I have appreciated how, on the whole, he seems to have aimed to fight for this position based on his values, beliefs and his plan for the country. In other words, he seems to be taking the position of the "Affirmative," if you will allow the metaphor. John McCain, on the other hand, hasn't presented a coherent, clear plan so much as he has presented a battery of reasons why Obama is a bad choice, ie the "Negative." Based on this assessment alone, I can't really see why to vote for him. It's not enough to say that your challenger is a bad choice, you need to show me why you are a good choice. Moreover, the character assassination and racial/religious/etc slurs are really disappointing.

In the past, I admit with much dismay, I voted for Bush because I (mistakenly) thought he was a man of character who we could trust to run the country. I had also liked McCain for the fact that he did not run with the pack. This campaign, however, has illustrated that he is more concerned with being elected than holding on to his previous values of independence and integrity. Allowing his VP pick to slander his opponent and allowing his supporters to brandish disunifying language and ideas about being "a friend to terrorists" or "anti-American" is hitting below the belt and seems to promote the old way of DC politics where the Republicans try to claim the sole title of "American" and "patriot" and "family values." It's disgusting.

I am one of those swing voters who is not so much about party as I am about the person. President Bush has done a fine job of embarrassing me and the country and raising my gall with his policies promoting torture and the like, while under the flag of God and patriotism. I don't condone torture and neither does God. This is truly the issue that forced me out of any sort of Republican sympathy. Not only that, but his association with Rove and the types of low politics that attack a person's character with unfounded accusations and fear-mongering is not something with which I want to be associated. Now, in this election, it would appear that McCain is following that same strategy, but with far less success.

Here's the deal: McCain doesn't have a real plan, all he can do is lob these underhanded character attacks and misrepresentations in hope that it will buy him some measure of success. Despite Obama's sojourn into the Keating 5 scandal ads, overall, he has been respectful of his competitor and has not sunk to this name-calling and below-the-belt tactics like McCain. Rock on Obama and shame on you McCain.