Sarah Palin, the darling of the political right, is now being touted as the front-runner for the 2012 Republican nomination. It is clear that all of the so-called qualifications that used to be necessary for a potential presidential candidate have been thrown out the window. Her followers are so blinded by their shock and awe of a black man in the White House that they are willing to support someone who, in the past, would not have been given a second thought.
Let's see, President Obama is one of the most highly intelligent people in government, has excelled in every arena he's entered (e.g., educational and political), married well, is a devoted father and family man. He was handed the worst mess of any U.S. president ever, had to actually start working before he was sworn in because the public had lost complete confidence in the sitting president (Bush), and has dealt head-on with all of the major problems he's faced.
The economy has survived the worst, corporate profits are at an all-time high, Wall Street is making money, the banking system has stabilized and third-quarter GDP growth was higher than expected. And, by the way, in the face of nearly universal Republican opposition, Obama's actions saved General Motors and the auto industry, which, two years ago, was left for dead. GM issued an IPO last week and their stock sold at near record levels, netting $11.7 billion for the U.S. Treasury. All of these accomplishments are lost on Palin's supporters, who would rather focus on the fantasies of Obama's Muslim, terrorist and socialist connections.
If Obama had daughters old enough to bear children and one became pregnant when he was running for president, it would have been considered a disqualifying factor. Yet, the so-called "values voters" completely ignored the fact that Palin's daughter Bristol had a child out of wedlock. Palin took 6 years to get a 4-year college degree, matriculating at several different schools before finally finishing. She has no advanced degrees, no areas of expertise, no depth of knowledge about any subject. She has little, if any, knowledge of the world, believing that Africa is a country and that foreign policy is equivalent to a flyover of her home state, as long as she can visualize Canada and Russia from an aircraft. She served as mayor of a Alaska town with a population smaller than most four-year universities, and quit after a half term as governor of one of the least populous states in the Union.
Her sole qualifications seem to be that she's attractive, has folksy language, takes cheap shots at her political opponents (especially President Obama and first lady Michelle), hunts, fishes and shoots caribou from helicopters. But she's white and, as far as Palin's supporters are concerned, it doesn't matter how qualified President Obama is or what he's done while in office. They would rather elevate someone who would make America a laughing stock around the world than to support the current occupant in the White House -- the man who saved capitalism and, thus, saved them from themselves.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Does Congressional Black Caucus Need New Blood?
Rep. Charles Rangel is pleading for mercy after the House ethics committee earlier this week found him guilty of 11 violations of House rules. The 80-year-old New Yorker has served in Congress since 1971 and his tenure is similar to that of several other members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Does the CBC need new blood?
The Democrats in Congress experienced a drubbing in the Nov. 2nd election, except for Rangel and other Black Democrats in the House. To a person, every one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who ran was re-elected. Two Black Republicans were also elected in South Carolina and Florida, which adds an interesting dynamic to the mix.
Why were the Black Democrats all returned to Congress? The reason is that nearly all represent "safe" districts which were carved out for them. This means the only challenge they ever really experience is during the primary when the voter turnout is extremely low. In the general election in November, there is either no Republican challenger or there is a sacrificial lamb on the ballot -- someone Republicans know will lose by 40 to 50 percentage points.
The lack of competitive races in the "black" districts also suppresses turnout in midterm elections. Because these candidates are a shoo-in for the November election, there's not much incentive for Black voters in their districts to go to the polls, as evidenced by the abysmal 10% turnout among Black voters on Nov. 2nd. There's no president on the ballot and, while there may be some statewide or local races that are interesting, these often do not receive the same level of exposure and emphasis by the media.
But this shouldn't be the case. There needs to be some new blood with some new ideas among the CBC. The lack of any genuine competition leads to a sense of stagnation as well as a sense of entitlement. After all, these seats are not thrones where elected officials can just occupy them for decades. They are offices that represent the people. Consider these facts:
The Democrats in Congress experienced a drubbing in the Nov. 2nd election, except for Rangel and other Black Democrats in the House. To a person, every one of the members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) who ran was re-elected. Two Black Republicans were also elected in South Carolina and Florida, which adds an interesting dynamic to the mix.
Why were the Black Democrats all returned to Congress? The reason is that nearly all represent "safe" districts which were carved out for them. This means the only challenge they ever really experience is during the primary when the voter turnout is extremely low. In the general election in November, there is either no Republican challenger or there is a sacrificial lamb on the ballot -- someone Republicans know will lose by 40 to 50 percentage points.
The lack of competitive races in the "black" districts also suppresses turnout in midterm elections. Because these candidates are a shoo-in for the November election, there's not much incentive for Black voters in their districts to go to the polls, as evidenced by the abysmal 10% turnout among Black voters on Nov. 2nd. There's no president on the ballot and, while there may be some statewide or local races that are interesting, these often do not receive the same level of exposure and emphasis by the media.
But this shouldn't be the case. There needs to be some new blood with some new ideas among the CBC. The lack of any genuine competition leads to a sense of stagnation as well as a sense of entitlement. After all, these seats are not thrones where elected officials can just occupy them for decades. They are offices that represent the people. Consider these facts:
- The average age of CBC members is 62, close to the age when most people retire. Twelve of them (25%) are age 70 or older.
- The average years served among CBC members is 13, but nearly 50 percent have served in Congress for more than 15 years.
- Three of the CBC members (Andre Carson, William Lacy Clay Jr., and Kendrick Meek) succeeded family members, making their tenures within their families effectively much longer than their actual years served.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Are Muslims America's New Nig------?
A Gallup poll taken in January of this year showed more than 4 in 10 Americans (43%) admit to feeling at least "a little" prejudice toward Muslims -- more than twice the number who say the same about Christians (18%), Jews (15%) and Buddhists (14%). And, since the 2008 presidential campaign, President Obama's political enemies have insisted upon insinuating that the President is himself a Muslim. This myth persists and grows, aided and abetted by elected officials in the Republican Party and right-wing talk show hosts who shamelessly enable some of their cohorts to spread this nonsense.
Indeed, Muslims have become the new nig---- in American politics. The right wing used to promote propaganda showing a violent black man (i.e., Willie Horton) who was likely to either rape white women or take a white man's job (for example, the Jesse Helms ad where the white man's hands were balling up a job rejection letter he received because a less-qualified black man took the job instead).
Now, the ads and the whisper campaign are about radical Muslims who, according to right wingers, are devising a terrorist plot around every corner in America. This campaign is craftily executed with the assistance of Hollywood producers, who promote the concept of the olive-skinned or dark-skinned Muslim terrorist in movies and on television.
The demonization process began in the late-1970s and continued throughout the 1980s with movies like "Black Sunday" and "The Delta Force" (loosely based on true events). After 9/11, Hollywood rapidly accelerated the production of movies and televisions shows about Islamic terrorists to the point where, presently, nearly every movie Hollywood produces that includes a real or imagined terrorist plot has a Muslim as the antagonist.
The word "terrorist" has now become synonymous with a Muslim to the point where on-camera personalities like co-host Brian Kilmeade on FOX News feel comfortable proclaiming: "A terrorist is a Muslim." And any mass shooting involving a Muslim is automatically considered an act of terrorism. Yet, a similar shooting -- by an aggrieved Postal worker, for example -- is simply an act carried out by a deranged citizen.
The effort to connect President Obama with Muslims and/or terrorists continues. At a recent political rally sponsored by Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa, a member of the audience said that he heard that Obama was "sneaking small quantities of Muslims into the country," and asked why can't Congress do something about it. King's response of, "You might have a point," only added fuel to the fire.
Author Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," in which he criticizes Obama for urging religious tolerance regarding the controversy to build a $100 million mosque near Ground Zero in New York, paints the President as a confused individual, haunted by the shortcomings of his Muslim father.
Emotions are running so raw that some xenophobic people see mosques and Muslims where none exist. Some fanatical citizens in Phoenix, Arizona are up in arms over a domed church that they wrongly believe to be a mosque. The large building, still under construction along a busy interstate, is actually a nondenominational Christian church. The backlash has been severe enough that the church's leaders have hung a giant banner over the dome: "IF YOU THINK DIFFERENT YOU ARE WRONG -- WE ARE BUILDING A CHRISTIAN HOUSE OF WORSHIP."
The following question arises: Will non-violent, law-abiding Muslim citizens in America and around the world tire of being stereotyped and begin to adopt the behavior and attitudes of which they are repeatedly accused?
On a more humorous note, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann aired a satirical piece on Nov. 9th about Obama's "secret Muslim faith." It's hilarious and accurately portrays the outrageousness of it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZl6KOwM5pg
Indeed, Muslims have become the new nig---- in American politics. The right wing used to promote propaganda showing a violent black man (i.e., Willie Horton) who was likely to either rape white women or take a white man's job (for example, the Jesse Helms ad where the white man's hands were balling up a job rejection letter he received because a less-qualified black man took the job instead).
Now, the ads and the whisper campaign are about radical Muslims who, according to right wingers, are devising a terrorist plot around every corner in America. This campaign is craftily executed with the assistance of Hollywood producers, who promote the concept of the olive-skinned or dark-skinned Muslim terrorist in movies and on television.
The demonization process began in the late-1970s and continued throughout the 1980s with movies like "Black Sunday" and "The Delta Force" (loosely based on true events). After 9/11, Hollywood rapidly accelerated the production of movies and televisions shows about Islamic terrorists to the point where, presently, nearly every movie Hollywood produces that includes a real or imagined terrorist plot has a Muslim as the antagonist.
The word "terrorist" has now become synonymous with a Muslim to the point where on-camera personalities like co-host Brian Kilmeade on FOX News feel comfortable proclaiming: "A terrorist is a Muslim." And any mass shooting involving a Muslim is automatically considered an act of terrorism. Yet, a similar shooting -- by an aggrieved Postal worker, for example -- is simply an act carried out by a deranged citizen.
The effort to connect President Obama with Muslims and/or terrorists continues. At a recent political rally sponsored by Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa, a member of the audience said that he heard that Obama was "sneaking small quantities of Muslims into the country," and asked why can't Congress do something about it. King's response of, "You might have a point," only added fuel to the fire.
Author Dinesh D'Souza's latest book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage," in which he criticizes Obama for urging religious tolerance regarding the controversy to build a $100 million mosque near Ground Zero in New York, paints the President as a confused individual, haunted by the shortcomings of his Muslim father.
Emotions are running so raw that some xenophobic people see mosques and Muslims where none exist. Some fanatical citizens in Phoenix, Arizona are up in arms over a domed church that they wrongly believe to be a mosque. The large building, still under construction along a busy interstate, is actually a nondenominational Christian church. The backlash has been severe enough that the church's leaders have hung a giant banner over the dome: "IF YOU THINK DIFFERENT YOU ARE WRONG -- WE ARE BUILDING A CHRISTIAN HOUSE OF WORSHIP."
The following question arises: Will non-violent, law-abiding Muslim citizens in America and around the world tire of being stereotyped and begin to adopt the behavior and attitudes of which they are repeatedly accused?
On a more humorous note, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann aired a satirical piece on Nov. 9th about Obama's "secret Muslim faith." It's hilarious and accurately portrays the outrageousness of it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZl6KOwM5pg
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Career Guidance for the Next Generation
My 14-year-old daughter has a male friend who she has known since she was a toddler. He is her same age and they speak regularly about what they want to do when they grow up. Her friend says he wants to be drafted into the NBA straight from high school and, if he doesn't get drafted, he wants to be a fashion model. Therein lies the problem: Too many of today's youth have aspirations they have almost no chance of reaching because the career options are completely out of their control. These are more like pipe dreams than career goals.
Let me explain. If someone wants to aspire to be a teacher, doctor, lawyer, event planner, nurse, stock broker, etc., he/she can study hard, get good grades, go to college and actually enter that profession. They may have bumps in the road along the way and some may not reach the goal. But the pursuit is almost entirely in their control.
On the other hand, if someone aspires to be a professional athlete, model, rapper or other entertainer, these careers are completely out of their control. They have to be drafted, "discovered," or hand picked by insiders -- the powers that be -- who usually have a financial interest in the decision and make their selections accordingly. Pursuing these dreams is a one-in-a-million shot, similar to hitting the lotto, very unlikely to happen.
In the meantime, most of the young people who pursue these pipe dreams do not apply themselves in school. They skip classes, don't study, do just enough to get by. When they graduate and discover that their pipe dream was indeed an illusion, they don't have anything to fall back on because they missed out on the free education they could have had.
A report was released this week pointing to the abysmal academic achievement of black male students, with only 12% of black males in the fourth grade showing proficiency in reading, and an equal percentage of black boys in the eight grade with adequate math skills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/education/09gap.html
Unfortunately, too many parents (even ones with college degrees themselves) encourage these pipe dreams, hoping that if their son or daughter hits the big time, they'll live large too. This is shameful and parents need to do better. There are too many washed out individuals who end up using drugs or alcohol because of the dream that got away.
If these young people get a million-dollar contract as a result of their talents, that is wonderful. But, if they do not, which is much more likely, and they apply themselves in school, they can still go on to be successful professionals in other careers. They can take care of themselves and their families and be responsible human beings.
Parents need to get more involved with helping to steer their children toward the proper career choices. These life-altering decisions cannot be left completely up to the child, who does not have the maturity or the foresight to see down the road of their life. That's why God gave children their parents.
Let me explain. If someone wants to aspire to be a teacher, doctor, lawyer, event planner, nurse, stock broker, etc., he/she can study hard, get good grades, go to college and actually enter that profession. They may have bumps in the road along the way and some may not reach the goal. But the pursuit is almost entirely in their control.
On the other hand, if someone aspires to be a professional athlete, model, rapper or other entertainer, these careers are completely out of their control. They have to be drafted, "discovered," or hand picked by insiders -- the powers that be -- who usually have a financial interest in the decision and make their selections accordingly. Pursuing these dreams is a one-in-a-million shot, similar to hitting the lotto, very unlikely to happen.
In the meantime, most of the young people who pursue these pipe dreams do not apply themselves in school. They skip classes, don't study, do just enough to get by. When they graduate and discover that their pipe dream was indeed an illusion, they don't have anything to fall back on because they missed out on the free education they could have had.
A report was released this week pointing to the abysmal academic achievement of black male students, with only 12% of black males in the fourth grade showing proficiency in reading, and an equal percentage of black boys in the eight grade with adequate math skills.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/education/09gap.html
Unfortunately, too many parents (even ones with college degrees themselves) encourage these pipe dreams, hoping that if their son or daughter hits the big time, they'll live large too. This is shameful and parents need to do better. There are too many washed out individuals who end up using drugs or alcohol because of the dream that got away.
If these young people get a million-dollar contract as a result of their talents, that is wonderful. But, if they do not, which is much more likely, and they apply themselves in school, they can still go on to be successful professionals in other careers. They can take care of themselves and their families and be responsible human beings.
Parents need to get more involved with helping to steer their children toward the proper career choices. These life-altering decisions cannot be left completely up to the child, who does not have the maturity or the foresight to see down the road of their life. That's why God gave children their parents.
Monday, November 8, 2010
For Colored Girls Who Fell In Love With and Married Good Black Men
There has been a lot of online chatter about Tyler Perry's latest film, "For Colored Girls," an adaptation of the stage play by Ntozake Shange. I had originally intended to go see the movie but, after having read some of the comments about the overall depressing nature of the film, I may wait for the DVD. The buzz around the film reminds me of the movie "Precious," which some called groundbreaking because it delved into a previously unexplored topic -- familial sexual abuse. But others just couldn't get past the negative feeling they had after sitting through it for two hours at the theater.
One question I've heard over and over again is: Why? Why is it that Hollywood only seems to green light films which depict black men as villains and black women as their victims? Why are there so few happy black couples on the silver screen? Is art reflecting life or is life reflecting art?
I do have my theories and I don't have all of the answers. But I do believe in the Biblical principle that as a man (or woman) thinketh, so is he. As long as these negative images are repeatedly pumped into our heads, and in the psyche of other cultures, these phenomena will continue to grow.
I also believe that the powers that be in Hollywood simply do not want any positive Black images to gain traction. A group that has low self-esteem is easier to exploit and Hollywood and others in the entertainment industry make billions of dollars by exploiting the talents of African American entertainers.
To turn the tide, those of us who have married black men and have outstanding husbands need to be more vocal. What are the qualities that make them outstanding? As one of those women, I find that a lot of single women are simply focused on the wrong things when they are seeking or responding to a potential mate. They are looking at the superficial, rather than the eternal.
They should be asking these questions: Does he love God? Does he love ME? Is he a responsible man, expecting to take care of me and whatever children we produce? Does he have goals? Is he a hard worker? Is he dependable and faithful? Can we build something together?
Throw out your list about what kind of car he drives, what kind of jeans he wears, whether or not he's drop dead gorgeous, is cool or has a walk that just makes you swoon. These things don't matter when the rent needs to be paid, the kids need to be fed and when you are all alone at night because he's out doing his thing.
Women: Be strong, yet supportive. Be persuasive without being bossy. Be feminine, yet productive. Be one of the colored girls who fell in love with and married a good black man.
One question I've heard over and over again is: Why? Why is it that Hollywood only seems to green light films which depict black men as villains and black women as their victims? Why are there so few happy black couples on the silver screen? Is art reflecting life or is life reflecting art?
I do have my theories and I don't have all of the answers. But I do believe in the Biblical principle that as a man (or woman) thinketh, so is he. As long as these negative images are repeatedly pumped into our heads, and in the psyche of other cultures, these phenomena will continue to grow.
I also believe that the powers that be in Hollywood simply do not want any positive Black images to gain traction. A group that has low self-esteem is easier to exploit and Hollywood and others in the entertainment industry make billions of dollars by exploiting the talents of African American entertainers.
To turn the tide, those of us who have married black men and have outstanding husbands need to be more vocal. What are the qualities that make them outstanding? As one of those women, I find that a lot of single women are simply focused on the wrong things when they are seeking or responding to a potential mate. They are looking at the superficial, rather than the eternal.
They should be asking these questions: Does he love God? Does he love ME? Is he a responsible man, expecting to take care of me and whatever children we produce? Does he have goals? Is he a hard worker? Is he dependable and faithful? Can we build something together?
Throw out your list about what kind of car he drives, what kind of jeans he wears, whether or not he's drop dead gorgeous, is cool or has a walk that just makes you swoon. These things don't matter when the rent needs to be paid, the kids need to be fed and when you are all alone at night because he's out doing his thing.
Women: Be strong, yet supportive. Be persuasive without being bossy. Be feminine, yet productive. Be one of the colored girls who fell in love with and married a good black man.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Conservatives' Big Lie About Wanting Smaller Government
For years, we've been hearing conservatives talk about wanting smaller government and returning to the kind of country the Founding Fathers envisioned. Let's put aside the fact that the world the Founding Fathers envisioned was one where blacks were three-fifths of a human being and women did not have the right to vote. But if conservatives really wanted smaller government, the budget would decrease when they have control of the Congress and the White House. Instead, because of tax cuts for the rich and drastic increases to the defense budget because of no-bid contracts and military engagements (i.e., wars), the expenses always increase. What conservatives really mean is that they don't want government payments to go to "those people" -- blacks, browns and low-income people -- who they consider to be undeserving.
That's why when they are asked what items they would cut from the budget, conservatives never have a good answer. They first take the largest chunks of the budget off the table -- Social Security, Medicare, defense spending and entitlements. This leaves only about 15% of the budget, which they call "discretionary spending." Then they make wild, irresponsible statements saying that they would eliminate entire departments, such as the Education Department or the Energy Department. They know this is simply not going to happen, but they really don't want anything to happen anyway. Their whole objective is to create a strawman, a phantom, a villain, a culprit who is responsible for the runaway spending. Of course, they are not the culprits, even though, again, the runaway spending happens under their watch as well as the Democrats.
I am continually amazed that the Republicans take no responsibility for what goes on in the government, even when they are in power. They blame everything on the Democrats and the Dems have, at best, a tepid response.
I guess the GOP uses this tactic because it works for them. Their beloved constituency of "working class whites" doesn't seem to have a problem with low wages and high unemployment in their communities, as long as blacks and browns aren't benefiting from any government programs. Once they perceive that there could be (not IS, but could be) any benefit to blacks or browns, they cry for smaller government.
It's the height of hypocrisy, but this attitude is leading to an increasing polarization of our politics to the point where I don't know if the government will be able to solve any genuine problems in the future. The underlying conundrum of race continues to haunt us.
That's why when they are asked what items they would cut from the budget, conservatives never have a good answer. They first take the largest chunks of the budget off the table -- Social Security, Medicare, defense spending and entitlements. This leaves only about 15% of the budget, which they call "discretionary spending." Then they make wild, irresponsible statements saying that they would eliminate entire departments, such as the Education Department or the Energy Department. They know this is simply not going to happen, but they really don't want anything to happen anyway. Their whole objective is to create a strawman, a phantom, a villain, a culprit who is responsible for the runaway spending. Of course, they are not the culprits, even though, again, the runaway spending happens under their watch as well as the Democrats.
I am continually amazed that the Republicans take no responsibility for what goes on in the government, even when they are in power. They blame everything on the Democrats and the Dems have, at best, a tepid response.
I guess the GOP uses this tactic because it works for them. Their beloved constituency of "working class whites" doesn't seem to have a problem with low wages and high unemployment in their communities, as long as blacks and browns aren't benefiting from any government programs. Once they perceive that there could be (not IS, but could be) any benefit to blacks or browns, they cry for smaller government.
It's the height of hypocrisy, but this attitude is leading to an increasing polarization of our politics to the point where I don't know if the government will be able to solve any genuine problems in the future. The underlying conundrum of race continues to haunt us.
Friday, November 5, 2010
No "Magic Bullet" To Success
I spoke with an author and life coach a few days who was excited about being quoted in an upcoming issue of Ebony magazine. I congratulated her and told her that I, too, had been featured in Ebony magazine exactly 10 years ago. She then asked me if it made a difference. My response to her was that yes, a few people mentioned that they saw it. But that one article didn't propel me to riches (an event I am still awaiting). Rather it is the accumulation of exposure over time that builds upon itself and leads to success.
I cannot count the number of times I have acquired business from people who told me they had observed my husband and I, as well as our business, for years. Yet, it might be 5 to 10 years before they actually needed our services. Because we had built a solid reputation, when they were ready, they called us.
Many times we will see the success of an individual and believe it occurred overnight, just because we are just hearing about it. In fact, that person probably labored in the vineyards unnoticed for years, scraping by on a meager existence to chase a dream that continually seemed to be elusive. After years of sacrifice, doing without, possible bankruptcy and failures large and small, they finally got their "big break."
But the so-called "big break" is like a miracle -- one has no control over it, no idea when it will manifest nor what form it will be in once it does materialize. That's why individuals who want to be successful must constantly be at work because there is no "magic bullet" to success, no get-rich-quick scheme.
Proverbs 13:11 says: Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
The road to success is traveled with many tiny steps. Get started and keep going!
I cannot count the number of times I have acquired business from people who told me they had observed my husband and I, as well as our business, for years. Yet, it might be 5 to 10 years before they actually needed our services. Because we had built a solid reputation, when they were ready, they called us.
Many times we will see the success of an individual and believe it occurred overnight, just because we are just hearing about it. In fact, that person probably labored in the vineyards unnoticed for years, scraping by on a meager existence to chase a dream that continually seemed to be elusive. After years of sacrifice, doing without, possible bankruptcy and failures large and small, they finally got their "big break."
But the so-called "big break" is like a miracle -- one has no control over it, no idea when it will manifest nor what form it will be in once it does materialize. That's why individuals who want to be successful must constantly be at work because there is no "magic bullet" to success, no get-rich-quick scheme.
Proverbs 13:11 says: Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers little by little will increase it.
The road to success is traveled with many tiny steps. Get started and keep going!
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Things Democrats Do Very, Very Poorly
Yesterday, I blogged about things Republicans do very, very well. As an Independent voter, I'm not wedded to either major political party and I like to take a step back and look at them both critically. I strongly support President Obama (I realize what the brother is up against) and I've been voting for Democrats lately, but there are some things they do very, very poorly when compared with the GOP. Most are the mirror opposite of Republican strengths.
- Messaging. The American public knew what the Republican message was, even though it was completely false: President Obama and the Democrats have taken over your lives, have run up the deficit and have usurped government control. They have a radical agenda and it's their fault that there are no jobs. Again, this was a complete fabrication. Yet what was the Democratic message? They were all over the place -- there was no cohesive slogan. The Republicans and their policies got us into this mess but the GOP was successful at taking absolutely no responsibility for the shape our country is in -- and the Democrats let them get away with it!
- Unity. The Democrats had a clear majority in the House and the Senate for two years and were afraid to act on it. Rather than working together with a united front, they formed a circular firing squad and pulled the trigger. In the final stretch of the campaign, when President Obama needed them most, a lot of them ran for cover. Thankfully, the majority of these weasles were defeated on Tuesday. But now there are a few rumblings on the political left about a potential challenge to Obama in 2012. Are they just plain crazy or do they have a death wish?
- Appealing to emotional triggers. Even though the Republicans are rich and have no empathy whatsoever for the lower or middle class, they are able to appeal to their fears and get them to vote. Democrats. . .well, sometimes they just don't get it. For the last six months, they should have been talking about the economy and jobs. They could have done a visual campaign showing what would have happened if the Republicans had had their way. The GOP didn't want to do the bank bailouts, but if not for them the economy would have completely collapsed. They didn't want to fund the stimulus, but if not for that, state governments would have massive layoffs and the middle class wouldn't have gotten its tax cut. They didn't want to bailout GM and Ford, but if not for that, more than 1 million jobs would have been lost. Instead, both companies have retooled, are now at profitability and on the way up again. Are the Democrats too intellectual or too high minded to figure out that winning is everything in politics? If you lose, you can't help anybody.
- Standing up to the opposition. The Democrats are too easily spooked by the GOP. If Republicans say "boo," Democrats "turn tail and run" (as the old folks used to say). They need to get some gumption, some spine, they all need to grow a pair and man up (even the women). They need to start throwing some punches instead of taking them in the gut and they need to go on the offensive, rather than having to defend all the time. Offense wins football games and elections.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Is Obama On the Ropes? History Has Clues
Some political pundits are predicting Obama's demise, implying that the mid-term elections weakened him to the point where he cannot recover for 2012. However, they are just blowing smoke. Nearly every president for the last 30 years has suffered losses in Congress at the mid-way point of his first term. Let's look at the facts.
"We're a very impatient society," Brinkley says. "People want problems solved quickly. It's a bit of a curse that the art of winning the presidency is to talk with grand rhetorical flourishes. But the act of being a president is to deliver on those promises. We are finding out that it's often tougher than candidates think."
Obama and the Democrats can regroup and do well in 2012. They need to start planning and acting NOW.
- A national poll taken shortly before this year's mid-term elections showed that 47% of respondents want Obama to seek re-election in 2012 -- back before the 1982 midterms, Gallup reported that only 36% wanted Reagan to run for re-election. Yet, two years later, Reagan won re-election winning 49 of the 50 states.
- In 1994, mid-way through Bill Clinton's first term, Republicans took control of the House for the first time in 40 years, when Democrats lost 54 seats. Yet, Clinton sailed to victory in 1996.
"We're a very impatient society," Brinkley says. "People want problems solved quickly. It's a bit of a curse that the art of winning the presidency is to talk with grand rhetorical flourishes. But the act of being a president is to deliver on those promises. We are finding out that it's often tougher than candidates think."
Obama and the Democrats can regroup and do well in 2012. They need to start planning and acting NOW.
Things Republicans Do Very, Very Well
I've been as critical as anyone about the GOP's use of right-wing tactics and its members' utter disrespect of President Obama. But with yesterday's election results and the Republicans taking control of the House of Representatives, one has to give them credit for the political things they do very, very well. They are simply better than the Democrats with some of the tactics they utilize.
Granted, I find some of these Republican tactics disgusting, but they are extremely efffective. Will Democrats learn anything from the shellacking they took in yesterday's election? That remains to be seen. But it is clear that the advantages they had in the 2008 election have evaporated. They'll need to go back to the drawing board if they expect to retain the White House and Senate in 2012, or have a prayer of regaining a majority in the House.
- Messaging: Republicans are good at sending a coherent, easy to understand message and repeating it over and over again. Their messages rarely have anything to do with the truth or the facts -- often they are completely false. But they get a message and stick with it. Their message this time was that President Obama and the Democrats have taken over people's lives with a massive increase in government control. They know most of the electorate, particularly their constitutents, don't read the details; they only read the headlines. In other words, facts don't matter.
- Unity. Republicans stick together. Unlike the Democrats, they don't throw each other under the bus or abandon their leaders when times get tough. They all sing from the same page of the same hymn book and they stick to the script.
- Appealing to emotional triggers. Republicans understand their constituents. They know that people are frightened by what has happened with the economy. They know that many people don't like the idea of having President Obama in the White House (and, yes, much of this is racial). They know that many people in the majority (that means white people) are nervous about what is happening in the country: Their percentage is dwindling and the percentage of blacks, browns and other minorities is growing. They don't realize that when Republicans talk about "cutting government spending," some of the programs they actually like are going to be affected (like Social Security, Medicare, defense spending, etc.). Republicans know that the solutions they offer -- tax cuts for the rich and letting the free market run amok -- will not solve any of these problems. But they know that an appeal to the emotions is more likely to get people to the polls than a cerebral, intellectual argument.
Granted, I find some of these Republican tactics disgusting, but they are extremely efffective. Will Democrats learn anything from the shellacking they took in yesterday's election? That remains to be seen. But it is clear that the advantages they had in the 2008 election have evaporated. They'll need to go back to the drawing board if they expect to retain the White House and Senate in 2012, or have a prayer of regaining a majority in the House.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)