I hesitate to even write about Acorn’s voter registration efforts as late as it is in the election season. But, when I flip to Fox News they are often hammering on it and even accusing Barack Obama as being a part of it. We’ll soon find out whether there is any credibility to their accusations in states like Ohio and Indiana. And, we need to be attuned to accusations of voter fraud by Republican Officials like in Colorado. These accusations from both sides occur in almost every strongly contested election year.
Acorn is a non-profit community action group that is targeting registration of young, minority, poor and other previously disenfranchised voters. It is well documented historically that these voters have had all kinds of legally questionable, unethical, and plain fraudulent practices used against them to deny them the right to vote. Acorn is intending to prevent this using a low budget, one-on-one, personal approach – this is a good thing.
In States like Ohio and Indiana, Acorn must follow some rules that some times aren’t mentioned. For example, Acorn temps (low paid temporary workers) have to take down the information people give them without judgment. These States don’t want these Acorn temps to exercise the power to decide who can and can’t vote. They are required to simply fill out the paper work and submit it. There is no question that some of these Acorn temps have been unethical. Some have filled out anything, even inventing names, asking people to register more than once, or use bogus names like Mickey Mouse. These Acorn temps are paid on a piece-meal basis and they are after their 18+ names to get their few bucks.
Acorn’s response to criticism is that they make an effort to train their people on legal eligibility and encourage them to be accurate and ethical in their work. Many of them are and there have been thousands of new people registered. But, there have been some questionable results. In an attempt to off-set some of the problems, Acorn management does some sorting – flagging those that are obviously bogus, and even flagging those that are questionable before they submit them to state election officials. They feel this represents a reasonable effort on their behalf to correct problems.
In the end, it is the state and local election officials that have the responsibility of making the final decisions and each state has its own unique rules. As good, honest, ethical, and responsible as most of these election officials are, there is some real risks here. We have had some disenfranchisement by these officials historically with poll taxes, literacy requirements, no work release time, unreasonable residency requirements, denial of registrations because people can’t be reached to confirm information, hanging chads, pre-mature closing and shifting of polling places, etc. The Democratic Party’s election officials in Chicago were famous for abuse back in the elder Mayor Daley’s day. We’ve had disenfranchisement by the Republican Party as well. Usually, they are a little more subtle about it. They have even used the courts to get their way as they did with the Supreme Court back in 2000 Presidential Election which insured the election of George Bush.
Then, on election day, the real proof of fraud comes into play and election officials are in charge. If they have done their work correctly, most bogus electors will be eliminated, if they even show up, which is unlikely. What credible election official will allow a dead person or Mickey Mouse to vote? But, the other side of the coin is their responsibility to make sure that legitimate electors are given the right to vote. Photo ID’s, where required, along with a proper paper trail should result in qualified electors getting a hassle-free chance to vote and a fair election.
Fraudulent voting practices is a terrible sacrilege in a democracy and should be punished severely regardless of who practices it. But, criticism of good intentioned, low budget, imperfect attempts to encourage eligible electors to vote is not voter fraud, it is mostly fear mongering.
Hopefully, this election will be over Nov. 4th or by early AM Nov. 5th so that we don’t have a continuation of the polarizing nastiness of this election. That may be too much to hope for!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Question: Why is John McCain so insistent on continuing Bush’s war in Iraq?
Is it to maintain political and military stability in the Middle East? This would be a justifiable goal.
Is it to protect our continued availability to oil until we can cease being reliant on that energy source? This is self-serving, but certainly in our vital interests.
Is it “nation building? I hope not. This is an ill-conceived policy that flies in the face of history and reality. They don’t want to be occupied just as we wouldn’t want to be occupied. They don’t want their families killed and injured and their infrastructure (homes, businesses, water, food supply, sewer, electricity, etc.) destroyed. They don’t want to be dictated to regarding their political, economic, and cultural policies. This should not be our goal. They should work this out themselves.
Is it to conduct the war on terror? I certainly hope we are not that naïve. Our war in Iraq has served only to increase the extremists like al-Qaida and the jihad factions not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the world within the rapidly growing Muslim religion.
Is it that people like President Bush supported by John McCain simply refuse to accept the possibility that they “screwed up” in unilaterally initiating and managing the war in Iraq and that to admit those mistakes will result in a negative historical legacy? I’m afraid this is too large a part of our policy there.
Do we need to continue our presence in Iraq? Yes we do! But, we need to do so for the “right” reasons – to protect our vital interests and the vital interests of our allies as well as the well-being of civilization. Our goals and resulting policies need to be re-defined. And, after extended intelligent dialog, I think our presence in Iraq could be significantly reduced and clearly stated. We need stability in the Middle East and we need continued access to oil. We need someone as President with fresh, new ideas; someone with the ability to rise above simplistic “cowboy” diplomacy and actually negotiate from a position of strength; someone who has no personal stake in promoting their person legacy on the backs of brave, over-extended American soldiers; someone who understands that the United States has limited financial resources that are being squandered in this war instead of being used to build the future of this country. This does not mean we throw in the towel in the “War on Terror”. Our military should be reconfigured to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and harder hitting to respond to threats and/or actions taken by terrorist groups against us or our allies.
The 2008 Presidential Election gives us the window of opportunity to get this started in the right direction.
Is it to protect our continued availability to oil until we can cease being reliant on that energy source? This is self-serving, but certainly in our vital interests.
Is it “nation building? I hope not. This is an ill-conceived policy that flies in the face of history and reality. They don’t want to be occupied just as we wouldn’t want to be occupied. They don’t want their families killed and injured and their infrastructure (homes, businesses, water, food supply, sewer, electricity, etc.) destroyed. They don’t want to be dictated to regarding their political, economic, and cultural policies. This should not be our goal. They should work this out themselves.
Is it to conduct the war on terror? I certainly hope we are not that naïve. Our war in Iraq has served only to increase the extremists like al-Qaida and the jihad factions not only in Iraq but elsewhere in the world within the rapidly growing Muslim religion.
Is it that people like President Bush supported by John McCain simply refuse to accept the possibility that they “screwed up” in unilaterally initiating and managing the war in Iraq and that to admit those mistakes will result in a negative historical legacy? I’m afraid this is too large a part of our policy there.
Do we need to continue our presence in Iraq? Yes we do! But, we need to do so for the “right” reasons – to protect our vital interests and the vital interests of our allies as well as the well-being of civilization. Our goals and resulting policies need to be re-defined. And, after extended intelligent dialog, I think our presence in Iraq could be significantly reduced and clearly stated. We need stability in the Middle East and we need continued access to oil. We need someone as President with fresh, new ideas; someone with the ability to rise above simplistic “cowboy” diplomacy and actually negotiate from a position of strength; someone who has no personal stake in promoting their person legacy on the backs of brave, over-extended American soldiers; someone who understands that the United States has limited financial resources that are being squandered in this war instead of being used to build the future of this country. This does not mean we throw in the towel in the “War on Terror”. Our military should be reconfigured to be leaner, stronger, quicker, and harder hitting to respond to threats and/or actions taken by terrorist groups against us or our allies.
The 2008 Presidential Election gives us the window of opportunity to get this started in the right direction.
Obama and Wright controversy
In my estimation, it is truly unfortunate that this situation has developed between Senator Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I had expected racial prejudice to be a monster issue in the presidential campaign because much prejudice still exists in this country. Since it is no longer “politically or socially correct” to be openly prejudice, I had expected to see subtle criticisms and sly innuendos reminding people that Senator Obama is at least ½ black with a Muslim name to boot. We have seen this and will continue to do so. Oh, there are still many in our society that are so prejudice that they will outwardly and loudly criticize and denounce his candidacy when they are with a like-minded group of racists or in a group where those who know it is wrong lack the courage to speak their mind.
But, when the race issue is brought front and center by a black, highly educated, much respected, very successful minister of God, it is really sad. It brings fuel to a fire that Senator Obama has tried to rise above and beyond in his candidacy. He has worked hard and said most of the right things to put the race issue behind us where it needs to be. His focus has been on issues, change in direction that this country desperately needs, and issues of character and leadership.
Then, on the scene steps a pastor of a primarily Black Christian Church who is of an earlier generation that is still fighting the battle against prejudice as it was done 40+ years ago. He is angry, and rightly so, that minorities have been characterized as deficient rather than only different. In many cases, injustice exists in our society for Blacks, Hispanics, etc. He knows it, Senator Obama knows it, and all of us know it if we read the statistics on unemployment, poor educational opportunity, % of those incarcerated, discrepancies in income levels, etc.
In direct contrast, Senator Obama sees the solution to these problems as something that can be changed positively over time without focusing on all the old wrongs. He himself has demonstrated how a bright, well educated, ambitious black man can rise above all the prejudice that exists. There are many other examples of bright minority leaders; and, if we and the media give them the chance, they will step up to help lead this country. We can only hope that they will not be hindered by obsessing over past wrongs and will be allowed to help create a better future for us all.
But, when the race issue is brought front and center by a black, highly educated, much respected, very successful minister of God, it is really sad. It brings fuel to a fire that Senator Obama has tried to rise above and beyond in his candidacy. He has worked hard and said most of the right things to put the race issue behind us where it needs to be. His focus has been on issues, change in direction that this country desperately needs, and issues of character and leadership.
Then, on the scene steps a pastor of a primarily Black Christian Church who is of an earlier generation that is still fighting the battle against prejudice as it was done 40+ years ago. He is angry, and rightly so, that minorities have been characterized as deficient rather than only different. In many cases, injustice exists in our society for Blacks, Hispanics, etc. He knows it, Senator Obama knows it, and all of us know it if we read the statistics on unemployment, poor educational opportunity, % of those incarcerated, discrepancies in income levels, etc.
In direct contrast, Senator Obama sees the solution to these problems as something that can be changed positively over time without focusing on all the old wrongs. He himself has demonstrated how a bright, well educated, ambitious black man can rise above all the prejudice that exists. There are many other examples of bright minority leaders; and, if we and the media give them the chance, they will step up to help lead this country. We can only hope that they will not be hindered by obsessing over past wrongs and will be allowed to help create a better future for us all.
Racism in our electorate today?
How much racism exists in our electorate today? I have a sense that there is a lot. It is not politically or socially correct to be racist and most people keep their feelings under wraps unless they are with a group of like-minded racists. But, historically, blue collar, white America has been a bastion of racism. I think that situation still exists. In fact, I think Hillary Clinton’s success with this group is in some measure their prejudice rather than her populist appeal.
There are unknowns with Barack Obama. He is young, he is inexperienced, his skill as an orator sometimes allows him a free pass on substance, he has a liberal voting record which bothers some conservative leaning voters, etc. But, I think the thing that bothers many blue collar, whites and rural whites is that he is black (actually ½ black). This is uncharted territory, a black man making a serious run for the Presidency, just as it was for John F. Kennedy our first Catholic President in 1960. Then Senator Kennedy had a difficult time holding the Protestant, blue collar, white base because of fear of having a Catholic President. I can remember my own father, a craft union man, offering a strong, widely held opinion that if John F. Kennedy were elected President the Pope would be “calling the shots.” That sounds pretty silly today.
We have passed the Catholic hurdle and hopefully we can pass the race one as well. We need to judge Barack Obama on a whole host of standards, but race is not one of them. I think Obama’s speech on race and his denunciation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should suffice. Wright’s damaging rhetoric on racism, although somewhat accurate, is reverse racism characterized by bitterness and obsession with the wrongs of the past. It’s the “poor us” syndrome that is all too true and unfortunately prevalent amongst some blacks. Obama wants to go beyond this. He wants to look to the future. And, given the chance, he might very well do much towards eventually putting racism behind us. We’ve accomplished this with religious differences and ethnic differences – the Irish for example – and we can do it with race.
There are unknowns with Barack Obama. He is young, he is inexperienced, his skill as an orator sometimes allows him a free pass on substance, he has a liberal voting record which bothers some conservative leaning voters, etc. But, I think the thing that bothers many blue collar, whites and rural whites is that he is black (actually ½ black). This is uncharted territory, a black man making a serious run for the Presidency, just as it was for John F. Kennedy our first Catholic President in 1960. Then Senator Kennedy had a difficult time holding the Protestant, blue collar, white base because of fear of having a Catholic President. I can remember my own father, a craft union man, offering a strong, widely held opinion that if John F. Kennedy were elected President the Pope would be “calling the shots.” That sounds pretty silly today.
We have passed the Catholic hurdle and hopefully we can pass the race one as well. We need to judge Barack Obama on a whole host of standards, but race is not one of them. I think Obama’s speech on race and his denunciation of Rev. Jeremiah Wright should suffice. Wright’s damaging rhetoric on racism, although somewhat accurate, is reverse racism characterized by bitterness and obsession with the wrongs of the past. It’s the “poor us” syndrome that is all too true and unfortunately prevalent amongst some blacks. Obama wants to go beyond this. He wants to look to the future. And, given the chance, he might very well do much towards eventually putting racism behind us. We’ve accomplished this with religious differences and ethnic differences – the Irish for example – and we can do it with race.
Does government work?
Does Government Work?
Let’s discuss this question. The first conclusion one can come to is obvious – under a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican Congress for most of this time it doesn’t work. Why should anyone be surprised by that conclusion? The answer is simple: Republicans have shown they know how to win elections, they just don’t know how to govern.
What do you expect when you get a governing party whose stated principle coming from their hero Ronald Reagan is, “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem?” They have lived up to their principle – government is the problem if led by Republicans!
They have doubled the national debt.
They’ve gotten into two wars, one of which has merit. And, these wars have been so poorly managed that we are still there fighting after 5 years. The infrastructure of these countries is destroyed (I’m talking water, sewer, electricity, roads, schools, medical care, etc.); we’ve killed thousands of civilians; we are spending $10B a month; they don’t want us there; and we take videos of vegetable markets surrounded by bombed out neighborhoods and pass it off as progress. We should be using video contrasting before the war to now to understand why they don’t like us.
They’ve deregulated everything they can to let the “market system” loose to do its thing. The problem is that “its thing” is greed, corruption, and poor judgment when there are no controls. It has led us to unprecedented economic collapse and a massive government bail-out.
They’ve promoted their “trickle-down” economic theory and created an environment where wealth has been concentrated in the hands of the privileged few leaving the rest of U.S. to fewer, lower paying jobs. It is an environment that if we aren’t careful could lead to class warfare.
They pushed an education program of “no-child-left-behind”, didn’t fund it, and then complain that more money doesn’t give us good education. It sure doesn’t under their leadership. Our student population is falling behind the rest of the world with terrible future consequences.
They have stood behind the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical industry creating a situation where 45M people have no health insurance and are at the mercy of someone’s good will for treatment. We have higher infant mortality rates, lower longevity rates, and poorer general medical treatment than most of the advanced countries of the world. It is interesting that most of them have universal health care and their citizens are not using up all their life savings to treat serious illness.
We’ve had two catastrophic natural disasters; and, other than efforts by non-profit groups like Habitat for Humanity and money from Hollywood stars, too little has been done to provide re-building of these areas. And, contrary to some people’s opinion, these two groups are not private enterprise. The private enterprise efforts have come about through poorly managed bureaucracy resulting in “no-bid” contracts and corruption with little accomplished.
Jobs are disappearing with our present economic crisis. But, even before this, they were being eliminated through out-sourcing abroad and workers being forced to accept jobs that don’t pay enough to provide a decent middle-class living: jobs that pay so poorly that the only ones who will take them are illegal immigrants. These immigrants are hard working people who will work for less because it is better than their own countries can offer and they hope that they can work themselves up to something better.
I could go on and on as many of you can. But, it is pretty obvious, the Republicans attitude that government doesn’t work is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The good news is that it can work if you have the right people running it. Oh, it won’t be easy and probably won’t be accomplished quickly. Mistakes will be made and will need to be corrected. It would be nice to move to something similar to what we experienced in the 1990’s where we had unprecedented prosperity, close to full employment, and a balanced budget with a surplus. Let’s give the Democrats a chance. The Republicans have told us that government won’t work and they’ve lived up to their word.
Let’s discuss this question. The first conclusion one can come to is obvious – under a Republican President for 8 years and a Republican Congress for most of this time it doesn’t work. Why should anyone be surprised by that conclusion? The answer is simple: Republicans have shown they know how to win elections, they just don’t know how to govern.
What do you expect when you get a governing party whose stated principle coming from their hero Ronald Reagan is, “government isn’t the solution, government is the problem?” They have lived up to their principle – government is the problem if led by Republicans!
They have doubled the national debt.
They’ve gotten into two wars, one of which has merit. And, these wars have been so poorly managed that we are still there fighting after 5 years. The infrastructure of these countries is destroyed (I’m talking water, sewer, electricity, roads, schools, medical care, etc.); we’ve killed thousands of civilians; we are spending $10B a month; they don’t want us there; and we take videos of vegetable markets surrounded by bombed out neighborhoods and pass it off as progress. We should be using video contrasting before the war to now to understand why they don’t like us.
They’ve deregulated everything they can to let the “market system” loose to do its thing. The problem is that “its thing” is greed, corruption, and poor judgment when there are no controls. It has led us to unprecedented economic collapse and a massive government bail-out.
They’ve promoted their “trickle-down” economic theory and created an environment where wealth has been concentrated in the hands of the privileged few leaving the rest of U.S. to fewer, lower paying jobs. It is an environment that if we aren’t careful could lead to class warfare.
They pushed an education program of “no-child-left-behind”, didn’t fund it, and then complain that more money doesn’t give us good education. It sure doesn’t under their leadership. Our student population is falling behind the rest of the world with terrible future consequences.
They have stood behind the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and medical industry creating a situation where 45M people have no health insurance and are at the mercy of someone’s good will for treatment. We have higher infant mortality rates, lower longevity rates, and poorer general medical treatment than most of the advanced countries of the world. It is interesting that most of them have universal health care and their citizens are not using up all their life savings to treat serious illness.
We’ve had two catastrophic natural disasters; and, other than efforts by non-profit groups like Habitat for Humanity and money from Hollywood stars, too little has been done to provide re-building of these areas. And, contrary to some people’s opinion, these two groups are not private enterprise. The private enterprise efforts have come about through poorly managed bureaucracy resulting in “no-bid” contracts and corruption with little accomplished.
Jobs are disappearing with our present economic crisis. But, even before this, they were being eliminated through out-sourcing abroad and workers being forced to accept jobs that don’t pay enough to provide a decent middle-class living: jobs that pay so poorly that the only ones who will take them are illegal immigrants. These immigrants are hard working people who will work for less because it is better than their own countries can offer and they hope that they can work themselves up to something better.
I could go on and on as many of you can. But, it is pretty obvious, the Republicans attitude that government doesn’t work is a self-fulfilling prophesy. The good news is that it can work if you have the right people running it. Oh, it won’t be easy and probably won’t be accomplished quickly. Mistakes will be made and will need to be corrected. It would be nice to move to something similar to what we experienced in the 1990’s where we had unprecedented prosperity, close to full employment, and a balanced budget with a surplus. Let’s give the Democrats a chance. The Republicans have told us that government won’t work and they’ve lived up to their word.
Testing a new President
Testing of a new President.
Joe Bidden recently warned a listening crowd that Barack Obama, a brilliant 47 year old new President, will be tested early in his Presidency by some sort of international incident.
This is a typical Joe Bidden gaff. However, judging from what has happened with previous new Presidents, it could very well be true. The refreshing thing about Joe Bidden is that he is not scripted and he will tell it the way he sees it even if someone could argue that it wasn’t a wise issue to bring up in the campaign. The Republicans have jumped all over it which is to be expected.
McCain's response was interesting. He claimed that he had already been tested back in the early 1960's during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He explained that he had set in a cockpit of a fighter jet on a carrier off the coast of Cuba with a target in his lap. I fail to see this as a test. He was waiting for orders from someone up the chain of command who was being tested – President John Kennedy.
He didn’t mention it, but serving time in a North Vietnamese prison camp is a personal test and he passed that test – he survived which is admirable. But, many people have faced personal tests, including Joe Bidden.
Personal tests are not equivalent to the kinds of tests a President might see early in their administration. Quite honestly, enemies of the U.S. could care less that John McCain set in an airplane with a target back in the early 1960’s or in a POW camp in Vietnam back in 1970’s. The notion that he is immune from a test from our enemies is in my estimation bogus, wishful thinking.
What is disconcerting is John McCain’s response. His gut reaction is to think about shooting someone. Luckily, John Kennedy, a war hero in his own right, did not subscribe to this kind of thinking. What a Presidential test requires is a carefully thought out, crafted, and executed plan from our country based on a multitude of choices at their disposal. John Kennedy did that! He used brinkmanship diplomacy to resolve this test with no shots fired, no WW III, and the Soviet Union backing down.
I think we could have avoided the war in Iraq if President Bush had thought through his options on how to deal with Saddam Hussein rather than a “Cowboy” gut reaction. We may have even quickly destroyed al Qaida in Afghanistan and been out of both of these conflicts long ago had our leadership been thoughtful.
Maybe we should think about John McCain’s comments and his “maverick” solutions to crises. By contrast, judging from Barack Obama’s method of decision making, we can take some small measure of comfort that he would think it through. I think that is pretty close to what Colin Powell suggested when he endorsed Obama.
Joe Bidden recently warned a listening crowd that Barack Obama, a brilliant 47 year old new President, will be tested early in his Presidency by some sort of international incident.
This is a typical Joe Bidden gaff. However, judging from what has happened with previous new Presidents, it could very well be true. The refreshing thing about Joe Bidden is that he is not scripted and he will tell it the way he sees it even if someone could argue that it wasn’t a wise issue to bring up in the campaign. The Republicans have jumped all over it which is to be expected.
McCain's response was interesting. He claimed that he had already been tested back in the early 1960's during the Cuban Missile Crisis. He explained that he had set in a cockpit of a fighter jet on a carrier off the coast of Cuba with a target in his lap. I fail to see this as a test. He was waiting for orders from someone up the chain of command who was being tested – President John Kennedy.
He didn’t mention it, but serving time in a North Vietnamese prison camp is a personal test and he passed that test – he survived which is admirable. But, many people have faced personal tests, including Joe Bidden.
Personal tests are not equivalent to the kinds of tests a President might see early in their administration. Quite honestly, enemies of the U.S. could care less that John McCain set in an airplane with a target back in the early 1960’s or in a POW camp in Vietnam back in 1970’s. The notion that he is immune from a test from our enemies is in my estimation bogus, wishful thinking.
What is disconcerting is John McCain’s response. His gut reaction is to think about shooting someone. Luckily, John Kennedy, a war hero in his own right, did not subscribe to this kind of thinking. What a Presidential test requires is a carefully thought out, crafted, and executed plan from our country based on a multitude of choices at their disposal. John Kennedy did that! He used brinkmanship diplomacy to resolve this test with no shots fired, no WW III, and the Soviet Union backing down.
I think we could have avoided the war in Iraq if President Bush had thought through his options on how to deal with Saddam Hussein rather than a “Cowboy” gut reaction. We may have even quickly destroyed al Qaida in Afghanistan and been out of both of these conflicts long ago had our leadership been thoughtful.
Maybe we should think about John McCain’s comments and his “maverick” solutions to crises. By contrast, judging from Barack Obama’s method of decision making, we can take some small measure of comfort that he would think it through. I think that is pretty close to what Colin Powell suggested when he endorsed Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
