The World According to Opa

Personally, I would have thought that this president was too astute of a politician to wade into this matter, especially now.

Believe it or not, according to an NPR news story Monday, lawmakers have actually set aside debate over the economy and other pressing national matters to argue over President Obama’s statement supporting the building of an Islamic center within walking distance from Ground Zero http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129236595. This will surely add to anti-Obama passion as mid-term elections in November draw near – just what Republicans need. Right?

This will confirm for some that Obama is a Muslim, for others that his real father was Malcom X, and for others that he wasn’t even born in the United States. So, a lesser president would have remained silent in the face of injustice at the hand of public opinion.

Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union” http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/state.of.the.union/ to talk about the upcoming election and was asked for his personal view on whether the mosque should be built in New York.

“It would be wrong to politicize the issue,” he said, adding that the decision should be “up to the people of New York” on where the Islamic center should be built. But the president, just by bringing it up, has already made it a political issue, has he not?

Personally, I would have thought that this president was too astute of a politician to wade into this matter, especially now. Notwithstanding, the president was correct in saying that we must respect the Constitution. We can’t tarnish people’s first amendment rights whether they are Muslim, Jewish, Christian or Mormon. Allowing the Islamic center to be built says to the rest of the world that America is truly the country established by our Constitution. And if two blocks away from Ground Zero isn’t far enough away for an Islamic place of worship and school, how far away is far enough? Or is there  no room for it anywhere in New York City?  How about in your city? Demonstrations against the building of mosques have broken out in many American cities http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/08/protests-against-mosques-ground-zero_n_674766.html.

Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said, “It tells you that he (the president) has a very disdainful view of the American people. And I think that’s one of the reasons his favorability ratings have come down, not just his job approval rating.”

I disagree with Mr. Gillespie on his first point, but am in total agreement with him on the second. The president does not have a disdainful view of the American people, not based on anything that he has said. But I do. Frankly, I’m disappointed – perhaps “disgusted” would be a better word — with more than two-thirds of Americans who, as indicated by their view on this subject, are so filled with hate and fear of all Muslims that they would want them deprived of their First Amendment rights simply because those who attacked us on 9/11 were Muslims radicalized by extremist forces exploiting the faith. This is tantamount, I believe, to the hatred of all Japanese, even American citizens of Japanese extraction, that most Americans felt following the attack on Pearl Harbor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment.

Writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, Michael Bard put it this way http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/the-proposed-lower-manhat_b_684081.html: “I have been disgusted by the right’s decision to politicize the issue, using the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the proposed Islamic center as a way to turn fear of “the other” into votes. (Newt Gingrich, an avid practitioner of fear mongering, has, not surprisingly, staked out a far-right position, equating Islam and the Nazis.) With each appeal to our basest, most xenophobic selves, the Republicans are systematically eroding the great American traditions of tolerance and diversity that have been a large part of the growth of the nation. (Note to the GOP: The Statue of Liberty is not just a pretty sculpture. It actually stands for something.) Even the use of the term “Ground Zero mosque” to describe the project is incendiary, intended to alarm at the expense of accuracy (the proposal is not for a stand-alone mosque, and the building would not be at Ground Zero).

Most of all, I have found it depressing that the right has turned a truly nuanced and complicated issue into a mean-spirited, us-versus-them test of patriotism.”

My wife’s dad, a deceased Marine veteran of WWII, was fond of saying, “I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it.” Now that’s true patriotism. I will expand on that in light of the current controversy by saying, “Although do not subscribe to your religious beliefs, I will fight to the death for your right to worship as you wish so long as your beliefs do not include the goal of overthrowing our democratic form of government.”

With over 3000 Muslims currently serving in our country’s military http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125755853525335343.html, having sworn to uphold this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, I cannot… will not believe that Muslim citizens cannot be trusted to serve the greater good.

This controversy, started by a right-wing blogger named Pamela Geller, has turned out to be a most fortunate distraction for Republicans. Now, rather than weighing Democratic efforts to restore the economy and build a better future for Americans against Republican proposals, namely, to dismantle enacted reforms and return us to the economic policies that got us into the mess we found ourselves in at the end of the Bush/Cheney years, voters will be increasingly blinded by doubt fueled by passions on steroids. Unfortunately, passion trumps reason every time for most of us.

Please feel free to respond with your views on this subject by posting a comment whether you agree with me or not.

I don’t care if members of Congress are Democrat, Republican, Independent , Liberal, Conservative, Progressive or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

March 14, 2010 — I received another viral e-mail this morning, one asking me to forward the same message on to at least twenty people. Perhaps you have received a copy of it yourself. It embodies a sentiment commonly expressed by persons who are opposed to health care reform. The message reads as follows:

“For  too long we’ve been complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that

1. Congress members can retire with the same pay after only 1 term.
2. They don’t pay into Social Security.
3. They specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (i.e. being exempt from fear of prosecution for sexual harassment).

Congress’s latest game is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform Bill being considered. This isn’t logical. We don’t have an elite that’s above the law.

I don’t care if members of Congress are Dem., Rep., Ind. , Lib., Con., Prog. or whatever. The self-serving must stop. The proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution (below) would do that. This is an idea whose time has come.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law applying to citizens of the USA that does not apply equally to Senators & Representatives; and Congress shall make no law that applies to Senators & Representatives that does not apply equally to citizens of the USA.

This is fair, to the point & non-partisan. The only ones who would be against it are members of the Congress!”

Sound reasonable? Sure it does. As Sara Palin, playing to the pent-up resentment of Tea Partiers, would say, “You betcha.” And, on the surface, I agree with the concept. But the author is wrong. More than just members of Congress would be against it. I am against it. I am against it as a priority at this time because it is unreasonable to expect Congress to ever consider even debating such an amendment? Read what Snopes.com has to say about it.  The URL is http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp.

It sounds good, much like the idea of term limits for Congress sounds good, but it’s nothing that the Congress of the United States would ever consider, many members thereof truly being self-serving as the author of the message has pointed out. So, the only way this, kind of common sense proposal for a Constitutional amendment can ever become law is by way of the grassroots alternative to amendments, a national convention such as is provided by Article V of the Constitution. But amending the Constitution this way is very, very difficult. In fact, it’s never happened. Congress has proposed amendments to the Constitution on several occasions, at least in part, because of the threat of an Article V convention. Rather than risk such a convention taking control of the amendment process away from it, Congress acted pre-emptively to propose the amendments instead. At least four amendments (the Seventeenth, Twenty-First, Twenty-Second, and Twenty-Fifth Amendments) have been identified as being proposed by Congress at least partly in response to the threat of an Article V convention.

So, argue about this first, Congress exempting themselves from laws and voting raises for themselves, and health care reform will never happen, nor would anything else in the public interest. Which, by the way, is exactly what the health insurance industry and Republicans, for purely political purposes, want. Looked at in the full light of day, this is just another salvo from the right aimed at sinking President Obama’s agenda for change.

Maybe if the Tea Party and the new Coffee Party combine their growing voices to lobby enough state legislatures, things like this will someday come to pass. But don’t hold your breath. In the mean time, let’s not inhibit progressives’ efforts to pass laws that will benefit all/most Americans, laws that will help to prevent the wholesale takeover of our One Nation Under God by corporate profit interests.

Please feel free to post a comment.

 Mirror, mirror on the wall, which political party is the dirtiest of all? To answer this question, we need to consider some history.

According to the WiseGeek website, dirty politics can occur at any level of public service. Political candidates often use financial records like tax returns to embarrass an opponent or a nominee for a political appointment. Family members and known political associates may also become fair game in dirty politics. A candidate’s mental stability may be challenged, especially if he or she offers up an emotional or overheated response to dirty politics as did Ed Muskie during his bid for the presidency in 1972 . A negative ad campaign, however, is not always the same as dirty politics, provided the charges in the ads are true and verifiable.

Controversy surrounding accusations that Senator Chris Dodd, as Chairman of the Senate’s Banking Committee, and Senator Kent Conrad have accepted bribes and other “sweet deals” from the likes of failed mortgage giant, CountryWide Bank, are making things tough for Dodd, a five-term veteran lawmaker from Connecticut. He’s trailing in the polls for reelection this year against his Republican rival, Rob Simmons. The Republican propaganda machine obviously smells blood (see my earlier posting, Dodd and Obama – Are They Really Corrupt Birds of a Feather?).

Whether the accusations against Senators Dodd and Conrad can be proven or not, we don’t know. But, if they can be, why has there not been action taken against Dodd and Conrad since secret testimony was given to Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week? Are Democrats on the Reform Committee blocking action? Is that why was the testimony was “leaked,” or could it be that what is only rumored is more politically damaging to Dodd and Conrad that what can be proved? Ask me — I think this smacks of dirty politics.

According to a recent Gallup poll on what professions the American people most and least respect, nurses ranked highest (congratulations, dear). Politicians were fourth from the lowest, just ahead of lobbyists, telemarketers and used car salesmen. Why? Well, I suspect it’s because we all know that politicians lie and resort to all manner of dirty tricks, to include slander, libel, and forgery, to embarrass or discredit a political rival. Political campaigns are notoriously outcome-oriented, so rival candidates are both likely to engage in dirty politics. Even though we are repulsed by the use of dirty politics, we tend to overlook or minimize what our candidates do, then we damn the repugnant acts committed by the other guys. As in our watching of professional sports in America, especially football and ice hockey – we want referees to call foul on the other team, but we are happy if they’re looking the other way when our team fouls.

Once elected, Congressmen and women, as well as other elected and appointed “public servants” in the United States, take on the title, “The Honorable”. Really! How hypocritical can you get? No wonder so many Americans fail to go to the polls on election days.

According to her book, Dirty Politics: Deception, Distraction and Democracy, Kathleen Hall Jamieson asserts that dirty politics have always played a role in American elections — ever since the times of Washington, Adams and Jefferson. Jefferson, for example, is said to have used pamphlets filled with incriminating or embar- rassing information about his political opponents, and several presidential elections since may have been swayed by the use of such dirty tactics.

I, for one, was dismayed by the dirty tricks committed during the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Perhaps the worst example was Republican on Republican when, after losing badly to John McCain in New Hampshire, Bush operatives decided to “chop him up” in South Carolina. Flyers appeared saying that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman (he and his wife have an adopted Bangladeshi girl), that his five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam had made him mentally unstable, that his wife was a drug addict – rumors and innuendo. Mr. Bush and his chief strategist then, Karl Rove –always denied any involve- ment, but they did nothing to call their attack dogs off and McCain’s campaign never recovered.

The dirt got even deeper during the national election in 2000 between Bush and Gore. Whether it really mattered or not, the Gore camp was accused by the Bush camp of being “the John Wilkes Booth” of political assassinations for bring up such “trifling” things as George Bush’s arrest and fine for admitting to a DUI charge when he was 30 years old – worse for his record on support for education in Texas, 48^th in the nation while he was governor here. The Bush camp retaliated with ridicule of Gore’s proposed tax initiatives for energy incentives, for his advocacy for the environment, and for claiming to have invented the Internet. The actual word Gore used in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer was “create”. True, he did not invent the information technology used. But as a Congressman and later a Senator, Gore did do important legislative work that lead to making the government’s ARPANET available for commercial use – what Gore had referred to in the bill he sponsored as the “Information Super Highway”. So, in an important way, Gore did take the initiative to “help” create the Internet. While Gore’s campaign did turn negative, it wasn’t necessarily dirty. Everything it said about Bush was true and verifiable.

Who can forget the “swift-boat” attack ads against John Kerry in 2004 by the 527 group, Swift Vets and  POWs for Truth? This was in retaliation for Kerry backers pushing the story about George Bush having gone AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard after completing Air Force flight training to avoid service in Vietnam. The charge cost Kerry’s campaign dearly when documentary evidence to support the claim turned out to have “likely” been forged – but forged by which side of the argument? We may never really know. Why Bush’s failure to graduate from flight training and to fly in combat in Vietnam didn’t come up during the 2000 election campaign, we don’t know. Some speculate, however, that Gore’s campaign was afraid that the Bush camp would counter with stories about Clinton’s draft dodging. In my judgment, while the Kerry campaign’s skirts weren’t completely clean, the skirts of the Bush camp were definitely soiled – badly.

Despite the ugly things said and the disreputable accusations made by the McCain/Palin attack dogs in last year’s national election, I was truly proud of John McCain when, during a town-hall style rally, he repudiated a supporter for calling Obama an “Arab”, implying that he was not truly American and not to be trusted with the security of our nation. But, for the life of me, I cannot think of anything said or implied to by the Obama campaign that was anything but truthful and respectful toward McCain – Obama himself praising McCain for his many years of dedicated service to his country.

But the Democratic Party has not always taken the high road in national politics. According to historian and author, Joseph Cummins, the 1960s was the era of Democratic dirty tricks. In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Cummins said, “In 1964, Lyndon Johnson oversaw one of the most corrupt elections ever against his Republican rival, Barry Goldwater.  President Lyndon Johnson, seeking his first elective term after taking over for the assassinated JFK, set out not just to defeat Goldwater, but to destroy him and to create a huge mandate for himself.

Johnson created a top secret after-hours group known as the “anti-campaign” and “the five o’clock club.” These political operatives, in close contact with the White House, set out to influence the perception of Goldwater in America’s popular culture. They put out a Goldwater joke book entitled You Can Die Laughing. They even created a children’s coloring book, in which your little one could happily color pictures of Goldwater dressed in the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.”

So, mirror, mirror on the wall, which political party is more likely to resort to the use of “dirty” tricks?  Hmmm… you chose. But I think it has more to do with the candidate than with which party he or she claims. Like love and war. elections are always “end game” contests.

Feel free to comment, whether you agree or not.