What if Obama Had Lost? Did He Have a Concession Speech Ready? November 5, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in About Barack Obama, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: civil unrest, election results, election riots, Electoral Fraud, McCain, McCain victory, minority voters, Obama, Obama victory, racism, U.S. Election 2008, voter fraud
add a comment
Either Obama was going to win, or there were going to be riots. Here is one of the articles describing the kinds of preparations police were making in serveral US urban centers.
African Americans and other minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The Black vote was probably over 90%. White America did not elect Barack Obama, they would have preferred McCain/Palin. We should not forget that. It is a scary statistic.
If McCain had won, it was common wisdom that this would have to had been a result of massive electoral fraud. The presidency was stolen in 2000 and 2004. There was no reason — perhaps apart from Obama’s large lead in the polls (although even there there were discrepancies) — to believe it couldn’t happen again.
Imagine a McCain victory and riots in New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Newark, Detroit, etc. There can be no doubt (or can there?) that Obama would be on the air urging the rioters (insurgents?) to cease and desist. But what could he promise them other than eight more years of White racist neo-Fascist rule?
Thankfully, as we celebrate this historic moment, we do not have to live that imagined nightmare.
An Important Argument in Favor of Voting for Nader November 3, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: Afghanistan, bailout, Barack Obama, Bush, campaign, Clinton, debate, democrats, election issues, government, Hedges, history, hollaner, Iran, Iraq, McCain, Palestine, Palestinians, poverty, Ralph Nader, religion, republicans, taxes, U.S. Election 2008, vote, war
add a comment
Despite the fact that I agree with just about everything Chris Hedges says below, I voted for Obama. I am posting this because it is an honest and heartfelt plea for more than the marginal (and, in the long run, mostly inconsequential) improvements that Democrat presidents achieve as compared with Republican retrogression. In the case of the Clinton presidency, for example, he implemented more of a traditional Republican agenda than a Democrat one (as mild as they are). I voted for Obama because I believe that another eight years of neo-Fascist Republican rule could put the world on the brink of a major holocaust. But I understand where Chris Hedges is coming from. In essence, the United States has, in effect, a single party system. The Republicans and Democrats are simply the left and right wings of the single party that serves the interest of militarized Corporate America. For me a key question arises out of Hodges’ demonstration that we serious leftists would agree with Nader over Obama an almost every issue, and therefore the election is not about issues. That question is: what is it about the economic/political reality of the United States that makes this so? This is too deep and complicated question to go into here in any great detail; but in simple terms, I am convinced that it is impossible to realize genuine democracy (one that really does reflect the will of demos — the people) in a capitalist world.
I urge you to get past the question of whether it is “practical” or not to vote for Nader and to listen to Chris Hedges on what is ultimately important.
ONLY NADER IS RIGHT ON THE ISSUES
www.truthdig.com, Posted on Nov 3, 2008
|AP photo / Jose Luis Magana|
By Chris Hedges
Chris Hedges is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist who has covered many wars around the world. His column appears Mondays on Truthdig.
Tomorrow I will go to a polling station in Princeton, N.J., and vote for Ralph Nader. I know the tired arguments against a Nader vote. He can’t win. A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. He threw the election to George W. Bush in 2000. He is an egomaniac.
There is little disagreement among liberals and progressives about the Nader and Obama campaign issues. Nader would win among us in a landslide if this was based on issues. Sen. Barack Obama’s vote to renew the Patriot Act, his votes to continue to fund the Iraq war, his backing of the FISA Reform Act, his craven courting of the Israeli lobby, his support of the death penalty, his refusal to champion universal, single-payer not-for-profit health care for all Americans, his call to increase troop levels and expand the war in Afghanistan, his failure to call for a reduction in the bloated and wasteful defense spending and his lobbying for the huge taxpayer swindle known as the bailout are repugnant to most of us on the left. Nader stands on the other side of all those issues.
So if the argument is not about issues what is it about?
Those on the left who back Obama, although they disagree with much of what he promotes, believe they are choosing the practical over the moral. They see themselves as political realists. They fear John McCain and the Republicans. They believe Obama is better for the country. They are right. Obama is better. He is not John McCain. There will be under Obama marginal improvements for some Americans although the corporate state, as Obama knows, will remain our shadow government and the working class will continue to descend into poverty. Democratic administrations have, at least until Bill Clinton, been more receptive to social programs that provide benefits, better working conditions and higher wages. An Obama presidency, however, will make no difference to those in the Middle East.
I can’t join the practical. I spent two decades of my life witnessing the suffering of those on the receiving end of American power. I have stood over the rows of bodies, including women and children, butchered by Ronald Reagan’s Contra forces in Nicaragua. I have inspected the mutilated corpses dumped in pits outside San Salvador by the death squads. I have crouched in a concrete hovel as American-made F-16 fighter jets, piloted by Israelis, dropped 500- and 1,000-pound iron-fragmentation bombs on Gaza City.
I can’t join the practical because I do not see myself exclusively as an American. The narrow, provincial and national lines that divide cultures and races blurred and evaporated during the years I spent in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the Balkans. I built friendships around a shared morality, not a common language, religion, history or tradition. I cannot support any candidate who does not call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and an end to Israeli abuse of Palestinians. We have no moral or legal right to debate the terms of the occupation. And we will recover our sanity as a nation only when our troops have left Iraq and our president flies to Baghdad, kneels before a monument to the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi war dead and asks for forgiveness.
We dismiss the suffering of others because it is not our suffering. There are between 600,000 and perhaps a million dead in Iraq. They died because we invaded and occupied their country. At least three Afghan civilians have died at the hands of the occupation forces for every foreign soldier killed this year. The dead Afghans include the 95 people, 60 of them children, killed by an air assault in Azizabad in August and the 47 wedding guests butchered in July during a bombardment in Nangarhar. The Palestinians are forgotten. Obama and McCain, courting the Israeli lobby, do not mention them. The 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza live in a vast open-air prison. Supplies and food dribble through the Israeli blockade. Ninety-five percent of local industries have shut down. Unemployment is rampant. Childhood malnutrition has skyrocketed. A staggering 80 percent of families in Gaza are dependent on international food aid to survive.
It is bad enough that I pay taxes, although I will stop paying taxes if we go to war with Iran. It is bad enough that I have retreated into a safe, privileged corner of the globe, a product of industrialized wealth and militarism. These are enough moral concessions, indeed moral failings. I will not accept that the unlawful use of American military power be politely debated among us like the subtle pros and cons of tort law.
George Bush has shredded, violated or absented America from its obligations under international law. He has refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, backed out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, tried to kill the International Criminal Court, walked out on negotiations on chemical and biological weapons and defied the Geneva Conventions and human rights law in the treatment of detainees in our offshore penal colonies. Most egregiously, he launched an illegal war in Iraq based on fabricated evidence we now know had been discredited even before it was made public. The president is guilty, in short, of what in legal circles is known as the “crime of aggression.”
The legacy of the Bush administration may be the codification of a world without treaties, statutes and laws. Bush may have bequeathed to us a world where any nation, from a rogue nuclear state to a great imperial power, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others. This new order will undo five decades of international cooperation—largely put in place by the United States—and thrust us into a Hobbesian nightmare. The exercise of power without law is tyranny.
If we demolish the fragile and delicate international order, if we do not restore a world where diplomacy, broad cooperation and the law are respected, we will see our moral and political authority disintegrate. We will erode the possibility of cooperation between nation-states, including our closest allies, and see visited upon us the evils we visit on others. Obama, like McCain, may tinker with this new world, but neither says they will dismantle it. Nader would.
Practical men and women do not stand up against injustice. The practical remain silent. A voice, even one voice, which speaks the truth and denounces injustice is never useless. It is not impractical. It reminds us of what we should strive to become. It defies moral concession after moral concession that leaves us chanting empty slogans.
When I sat on the summit of Mount Igman in my armored jeep, the engine idling, before nervously running the gantlet of Serb gunfire that raked the dirt road into the besieged city of Sarajevo, I never asked myself if what I was doing was practical. Forty-five foreign correspondents died in the city along with some 12,000 Bosnians, including 2,000 children. Some 50,000 people were wounded. Of the dead and wounded 85 percent were civilians. I drove down the slope into Sarajevo, which was being hit by 2,000 shells a day and under constant sniper fire, because what was happening there was a crime. I drove down because I had friends in the city. I did not want them to be alone. Their stories had become mine.
War, with all its euphemisms about surges and the escalation of troops and collateral damage, is not an abstraction to me. I am haunted by hundreds of memories of violence and trauma. I have abandoned, because I no longer cover these conflicts, many I care about. They live in Gaza, Baghdad, Jerusalem, Beirut, Kabul and Tehran. They cannot vote in our election. They will, however, bear the consequences of our decision. Some, if the wars continue, may be injured or killed. The quest for justice is not about being practical. It is required by the bonds we share. They would do no less for me.
“Stink-eye Politics” – Running Against the Republicans AND the Democrats: Why I’m Campaigning for Cindy Sheehan October 31, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: Ann Wright, anti-war, Bush Cheney crimes, Casey Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan candidate, Democratic Party Iraq War, Democratic Party priorities, Dennis Kucinich, House Judiciary Committee, Impeach Bush Cheney, Iraq war, John Conyers, Nancy Pelosi, peace mom, Republican Party Iraq War, roger hollander, U.S. Election 2008
add a comment
Thursday 30 October 2008
by: Ann Wright, t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Cindy Sheehan is running against both the Republican and Democratic establishments, but more specifically against Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi. (Photo: Chris Usher / TIME)
I am in San Francisco this week before the election, campaigning for Cindy Sheehan. She is running against both the Republican and Democratic establishments, but more specifically against Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi.
As speaker of the House, Pelosi represents and leads the Democratic Party that failed to end the war in Iraq, failed to hold the president and vice president of the United States accountable for the lies in the war in Iraq, taking impeachment out of the constitution and “off the table,” knowing about the torture program and refusing to make it public and stop it, voting for FISA eavesdropping on American citizens, OK-ing the $700 billion bailout and a lot more. She knew these things and didn’t stop them.
In the summer of 2007 while we were in hot, dusty Crawford, Texas, for the third summer in a row protesting Bush’s continuation of the war in Iraq, Cindy decided to challenge Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table. In one of her first statements upon becoming speaker of the House of Representatives in January 2007, Pelosi had said impeachment hearings would be too divisive for America. As recently as yesterday, October 29, she has said there is no evidence of wrongdoing by the administration. (Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke for hours on the floor of the House of Representatives about the administration’s criminal acts and many books have been written on the subject.)
In July 2008, Cindy announced that she was giving Pelosi ten days to put impeachment back into the Constitution. In those ten days, Cindy and a team numbering from 20-60 persons from Camp Casey traveled from Crawford to Washington, DC, stopping at towns and cities along the way to talk about the lack of accountability for criminal acts by government officials while in office (war in Iraq, kidnapping, torture, illegal eavesdropping.) When we arrived in Washington, DC, 400 persons joined us to march from Arlington National Cemetery to the House of Representatives, where we sat all day in the hallways around Pelosi’s and House Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers’ offices.
Cindy, the mother of Casey Sheehan (who was killed in Iraq in April 2004); former CIA presidential briefer and US Army Captain Ray McGovern, and minister and ex-US Air Force Captain and Chaplain Rev. Lennox Yearwood, met with Conyers for over two hours, urging him to begin Congressional hearings that could lead to the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
They emerged from Conyers’ office visibly shaken after Conyers told them that the Democrats were more concerned about winning the 2008 presidential election than about ending the war in Iraq or about holding Bush and Cheney accountable for their criminal actions.
Upon hearing the results of the talk with Conyers, 47 of us surged into Conyers’ office and refused to leave until Conyers called for impeachment hearings. About 8 o’clock that night, the Capitol police came into his office and arrested all of us.
Since Pelosi had not put impeachment back onto the table, while in Washington, DC, Cindy announced that she would run for Congress against the speaker of the House.
In January 2008, Cindy moved from her home close to the Bay area to Pelosi’s district in San Francisco and began her campaign for Congress. She relentlessly spoke at hundreds of civic events in San Francisco and attended meetings of virtually every organization in the city. In a short time, she became a visible presence in the city.
Running as an independent, she had to collect 10,000 signatures to be on the ballot, and despite all odds, she became only the sixth independent candidate for Congress from California to raise the required number.
Then the Democratic Party and corporate media machine kicked into gear. No mainstream media in San Francisco covered her official announcement for Congress and none have covered her race against Pelosi. Suddenly, the “peace mom” whose talks and appearances had been covered extensively in San Francisco around the country by the media – was iced out. Print, TV and radio interviews dried up. Only internet news media would publish her writings and cover her active campaign in San Francisco.
This week I joined the many volunteers from all over the country who have knocked on doors, held signs on street corners, passed out issue position papers and talked to voters about why Cindy is challenging the woman in the leadership position of the House of Representatives.
It turns out that the voters in San Francisco are just as angry as Cindy is about Pelosi’s refusal to stop funding war, her knowledge about torture from briefings of the administration and her refusal to hold Bush and Cheney accountable for their criminal acts. From the informal polls I have taken this week of voters coming out of the City Hall’s early voting station, Cindy’s campaign against Pelosi has triggered a strong response against Pelosi.
It has been very interesting to see the expressions of longtime Democrats who work in City Hall as we ask them to consider voting for Cindy. They have the same expression, the “stink eye” on their faces, as the Republicans with whom we have argued in Congress over the past five years about the war in Iraq and torture.
In those moments, the “stink eye” reflex to accountability and to standing up to the existing political system reveals the real challenge – forcing the two major political parties that have been tacitly working together to promote and continue war and to hold no one accountable – to move over for real change in our political system.
VOTE CINDY FOR CHANGE!
Ann Wright is a retired Army Reserve colonel and a 29-year veteran of the Army and Army Reserves. She was also a diplomat in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She resigned from the Department of State on March 19, 2003, in opposition to the Iraq war. She joined Cindy Sheehan and 12,000 others in the ditches of Crawford, Texas, in August 2005 to protest President Bush’s war on Iraq. She is also the co-author of the book, “Dissent: Voices of Conscience.”
Obama, Yes, a Thousand Times Yes, of Course, But … October 29, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in About Barack Obama, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: Barack Obama, Bush Cheney, John McCain, McCain victory, Military Commissions Act, military industrial complex, Obama policy, Obama presidency, Obama victory, roger hollander, stolen elections, U., U.S. Election 2008, U.S. militarism, vote for Obama
add a comment
© Roger Hollander, October 29, 2008
In 1964 I worked full time on the Johnson/Humphrey campaign, motivated in a large part by the hawkishness of Barry Goldwater vis-à-vis Vietnam. We elected Lyndon Johnson, and he proceeded to escalate the War beyond our wildest nightmare.
That was the last time I bothered to vote in a presidential election until 2004, when the prospect of a second Bush term was so unthinkable that even the notion of supporting the candidate for the latter day Democratic Party of Clinton and Bush Democrats did not come close to overriding my fear of such an outcome. We all know the outcome.
My absentee ballot for Obama/Bidden was in the mail some time ago, going to the key state of Pennsylvania. The thought of a McCain/Palin victory is so beyond the pale that even as the democratic socialist that I am, who sees a fatally truncated democracy in play in capitalist America, I find myself as close to praying for an Obama victory as an agnostic can get.
Let’s keep things in perspective. Eight years of Cheney/Bush (yes, in that order) has moved the country so far in the direction of patriarchal militarized fascism, that even a moderate like Barack Obama appears to be nothing less than a Saviour.
I am aware that Obama is generally considered to be a Liberal Democrat. Labels aside, the country has so drifted (drifted like an avalanche) to the right that our political perceptions tend to be somewhat skewed. We have seen, for example, candidate Obama shifting away from his original audacity (unconditional dialogue with Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea), as mild as it was, towards today’s apparently obligatory Republocrat hard line orthodoxy. He wants to take the troops out of Iraq and send them into the Afghanistan quagmire. You will not hear Obama utter the phrase that classically came from the lips of Dwight David Eisenhower in his farewell address: military industrial complex.
I would like to believe that an Obama presidency would begin to dismantle militarized armed-to-the-teeth America, but I have seen nothing in him to suggest that he either understands the need or has the intention. I would like to believe that an Obama presidency would take on the health insurance industry and give us genuine universal health care on a single payer basis (a la Canada), but I do not see that coming either. I would like to believe that an Obama presidency would genuinely take on Wall Street, the Banks, the corporate media, and re-negotiate NAFTA out of existence, but I don’t see that happening either. Do you?
[I hope I will be proved wrong.]
Nonetheless I do not discount the Obama “phenomenon.” Tom Hayden said that he doesn’t necessarily endorse Obama, but he does the Obama Movement. I have predicted all along that President Obama will provoke profound disappointment amongst his most committed followers; that he has raised expectations that he cannot possibly fulfill. This is good. Other good things coming out of an Obama presidency should include more balanced judicial appointments, an end to know-nothing anti-environmentalism, reversing the scandalous tax cuts to the rich, and perhaps a breather from the attacks on Roe v. Wade.
Of course, electing its first Afro-American president, something that would have been inconceivable not that many years ago, will be of enormous moral and political significance in a country whose original constitution considered African slaves as nothing more than chattel property.
Will an Obama presidency and a Democratic Congress hold the Cheney/Bush gang accountable for their various crimes? I seriously doubt it. Presidential lying about extra marital sex? Yes. Taking the country to war based on conscious lies? Ask Nancy Pelosi.
Nevertheless, no sane, informed, intelligent and good willed American will do other than vote for Obama/Bidden. As I stated earlier, I have already. The level of disaster that will result from a McCain/Palin victory is almost beyond imagination.
But let’s consider that possibility (shudder). My thesis is that the only way McCain can win at this point is by again stealing the election via electoral fraud and voter disenfranchisement, as the current incumbent did in 2000 and 2004. In such circumstances, how will the Obama Movement react? With the same relative passivity as in the previous two stolen elections? I doubt it, but I don’t foresee the possibility of a reversed outcome or anything resembling an uprising. And we should not forget that to deal with whatever dissent and civil disobedinece that may be mounted against a stolen election, Bush/McCain will be armed with the Military Commissions Act, which in effect gives the president carte blanche to detain without habeas corpus.
If contemplating such a possibility doesn’t keep you up at night and get you out to the polls on November 4, I don’t know what will.
As Election Nears, Dirty Tricks Grow More Common October 28, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: Add new tag, dirty tricks, Electoral Fraud, Huffington Post, political dirty tricks, roger hollander, U.S. Election 2008, voter fraud, voter intimidation
add a comment
Sam Stein, Huffington Post, October 28, 2008
As the election nears, examples of political dirty tricks are emerging with greater frequency.
On Tuesday, the Virginia Pilot reported that a phony Board of Elections flier was circulating the state “advising Republicans to vote on Nov. 4 and Democrats on Nov. 5.” Voting, of course, is on the 4th only, creating fear among neutral observers and the Obama campaign that people were simply going to miss the opportunity to go to the polls.
Earlier this month, meanwhile, an anonymous flier was circulating in predominantly African-American neighborhoods in Philadelphia telling voters they could be arrested at the polls if they show up to vote with outstanding arrest warrants or unpaid parking tickets. This is also untrue.
Dirty tricks and phony fliers represent the dark underside of nearly every election. And certainly, when it comes to the current contest, these tactics started long ago. Last March, as Time Magazine noted, a letter was being sent around Colorado, warning that out-of-state students could not register if their parents claimed them as dependents in another state.” One of the more common falsities making its way through email chains has warned voters in some states (updated below) that they will be turned away from the polls if they wore paraphernalia demonstrating their support for one particular candidate.
Since these antics are becoming more and more common we encourage readers to send in tips or episodes they have witnessed to the Huffington Post.
UPDATE: Several readers have pointed out that, in fact, several states do prohibit passive electioneering (buttons, t-shirts, etc.) in polling places. In Texas, for example, the law is as follows:
[A] person may not wear a badge, insignia, emblem, or other similar communicative device relating to a candidate, measure, or political party appearing on the ballot, or to the conduct of the election, in the polling place or within 100 feet of any outside door through which a voter may enter the building in which the polling place is located.
In Case You Weren’t Scared Enough: Palin on “Fruit Fly Research” October 28, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in Sarah Palin.
Tags: Huffington Post on Palin, McCain Palin, Palin fruit fly research, Palin not qualified, Palin science, Palin's qualifications, Republican candidates, Republican Party Vice President Nominee, Republican Presidential Ticket, Sarah Palin, Sarah Palin quotes, U.S. Election 2008
add a comment
Todd Palmer and Rod Pringle, Huffington Post, Oct. 27, 2008
Today, we are blogging from Durham, North Carolina, where we are trying to do our humble bit to help elect Barack Obama. On Friday, Sarah Palin gave us yet another reason to feel good about what we’re doing here.
We are far from the first people to comment on this subject — even within the Huffington Post — so we’ll keep it brief. But Palin’s mockery of “fruit fly research” during her October 24th speech on special-needs children was so misconceived, so offensive, so aggressively stupid, and so dangerous that we felt we had to comment.
Here’s the excerpt from the speech:
“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up, anyway? […] You’ve heard about, um, these — some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense, and sometimes these dollars they go to projects having little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not!”
It’s hard to know where to begin deconstructing this statement. This was a speech on autism, and Palin’s critics have pounced on the fact that a recent study of Drosophila fruit flies showed that a protein called neurexin is essential for proper neurological function — a discovery with clear implications for autism research.
Awkward! But this critique merely scrapes icing off the cake.
Fruit flies are more than just the occasional vehicles for research relevant to human disabilities. They are literally the foundation of modern genetics, the original model organism that has enabled us to discover so much of what we know about heredity, genome structure, congenital disorders, and (yes) evolution. So for Palin to state that “fruit fly research” has “little or nothing to do with the public good” is not just wrong — it’s mind-boggling.
What else does this blunder say about Palin and her candidacy? Many people have used it as just another opportunity to call her a dummy, since anyone who has stayed awake through even a portion of a high-school-level biology class knows what fruit flies are good for. But leave that aside for a second. Watch the clip. Listen to the tone of her voice as she sneers the words “fruit fly research.” Check out the disdain and incredulity on her face. How would science, basic or applied, fare under President Palin?
We have other questions. Who wrote this speech? Was he or she as ignorant as Palin about the central role that fruit flies have played in the last century of biomedical research? Or was this a calculated slight to science and scientists — a coded way of saying, “We don’t care what you know or what you think”? We find it odd that, of all the examples of dubious expenditures of public funds, the speechwriters alighted on this one.
Whatever the explanation, it scares us. Everyone who has suffered, either personally or indirectly, from an inherited illness, and anyone whose life has been lengthened or enriched by modern medicine, should channel Palin’s flip comment when they stand in the voting booth on November 4th.
Alaskas Largest Newspaper Endorses Barack Obama October 26, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: abandon McCain, Alaska, Alaska endorses Obama, Alaska for Obama, Alaska rejects McCain, John Mcain, McCain and national interest, McCain Palin, roger hollander, Sarah Palin, U.S. Election 2008
add a comment
Of course they’re endorsing Obama. They’ve lived with Palin. They know her. They realize McCain’s huge mistake.
October 26, 2008
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The Anchorage Daily News, Alaska’s largest newspaper, has endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.
The newspaper said Sunday the Democrat “brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand.”
The Daily News said since the economic crisis has emerged, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has “stumbled and fumbled badly” in dealing with it.
“Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown’s root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it,” the paper said.
The Daily News said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has shown the country why she is a success as governor. But the paper said few would argue that Palin is truly ready to step into the job of being president despite her passion, charisma and strong work ethic.
“Gov. Palin’s nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency — but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation,” the paper said.
“Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time,” the paper concluded.
The Exodus Continues October 25, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, John McCain, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: conservative Republican, http://www.republicansforobama.org, Republican candidates, Republican Party, Republican Presidential Ticket, Republican ticket 2008, Republicans for Obama, Republicans reject McCain, roger hollander, U.S. Election 2008
1 comment so far
Tony Campbell, 10/24/08
In the wake of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Senator Barack Obama last Sunday I wrote the following statement:
“My gut feeling is that there will be a significant number of moderate Republicans who will endorse Obama over the next week or so.
Four hours later, I wrote this update after Ken Adelman announced he was voting for Obama.
“Ken Adelman is a bonafide Conservative. If he is able to vote for Obama, then the exodus is just beginning…”
Scott McClellan, Bush’s former press secretary has announced that he is going to vote for Obama. McClellan stated that he is supporting Obama because he has “a message that is very similar to the one that Gov. Bush ran on in 2000.” How ’bout them apples? W’s “Compassionate Conservatism” meets O’s “The Change We Need”.
Another former G.O.P. office holder, Minnesota ex-Governor Arne Carlson, endorsed Obama after Powell’s announcement. Obama’s last major hurdle is to win the endorsement of a sitting Republican member of Congress. It has long been rumored that Senator Chuck Hagel may break from the pack to support Obama or perhaps Senator Richard Lugar (Indiana) may support Obama based on his direction for U.S. foreign policy.
My prediction: By Sunday, a sitting member of Congress from the Republican Party will endorse Obama. If that occurs, all bets are off as far as a landslide victory for Obama on November 4th…as the Republican Exodus Continues…
By the way, on a lighter note, when did D.L. Hughley get a news program? If an Obama presidency means that he and David Alan Grier are allowed to get their own shows…I might have to vote for Bob Barr or Ron Paul.
Yet Another Republican Jumps Ship October 25, 2008Posted by rogerhollander in Barack Obama, John McCain, U.S. Election 2008.
Tags: abandon McCain, Barack Obama, Barack Obama endorsement, conservative Republican, John McCain, Republican candidates, Republican Party, Republican Presidential Ticket, Republicans for Obama, roger hollander, U.S. Election 2008
1 comment so far
What Motivates Me to Support Barack Obama
While my crystal ball may be no clearer than anyone else’s, I am sure that we need to choose a President who exemplifies the 21st Century and is not just an echo of the Cold War mentality. I personally admire John McCain, but I simply cannot see him inspiring the nation and our world economic partners to work together and solve our very daunting problems. My Obama support-decision matrix includes the characteristics of Judgment, Temperament, Charisma, Intellect, Adaptability, Virtue, Vision, Traditional Republican Values, and dedication to “Main Street.” Barack Obama is without question the superior choice for me based on my analysis below.
Temperament: Inside and out of the next administration, the next president needs a personality and disposition that does not inflame problems, but intelligently resolves them.
Charisma: Is there any question?
Intellect: Obama finished at the top of his class at Harvard while McCain finished very close to the bottom of his class at Annapolis; if there is doubt, listen to each of them respond to a complex question.
Adaptability: I measure this characteristic by a person’s ability and willingness to compromise to achieve a solution to a problem
Virtue: Obama’s choice to serve his Chicago community and forego lucrative options to apply his acknowledged skills, speaks volumes about his character.
Vision: I see Obama’s view of the world as deep and nuanced to reflect reality as opposed to ideology. I am particularly enthusiastic about his plans for converting to clean energy, improving our environment, and encouraging national service.
Judgment: Obama sees the world in wide angle and Technicolor, as suggested by his views on Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. Even the Bush administration is beginning to use some of the diplomatic tools Obama has long been discussing.
Traditional Republican Values: Republican Presidents from Lincoln through Ford were strong advocates for equal rights, balancing labor and business, consumer protection, protecting the environment, a humble but vigorous foreign policy, promoting peace through strength, fiscal integrity, and unafraid of great challenges. A traditional Republican would never condone torture or cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners regardless of circumstances. Dwight D. Eisenhower probably embodied these traits as well as any Republican President; I see Barack Obama in the same vein, although arguably even more inspirational.
Main Street Values: America is comprised mostly of folks from “main street” who earn their wages, work in their communities, raise their families, and aspire to create a better world for their children. Barack Obama has worn the shoes of main street. His values and success are derived, not from privilege or position, but through real life experience, hard work, and commitment to his ideals and family.
The opportunity to elect such a leader does not come around often; I hope that America does not squander this opportunity!
Joel Haugen is the Republican Party’s candidate in Oregon’s 1st Congressional district.