![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
A Challenge Obama Should AcceptPosted on Jun 11, 2008By Joe Conason To his credit, John McCain has invited Barack Obama to join him in a national “town hall” tour over the coming months, without the unneeded intrusion of celebrity journalists, network extravaganzas and all of their irrelevant impertinence. The Arizona Republican insists that he wants a serious debate over the competing ideas and visions of the two parties, rather than the usual petty focus on process issues and gotcha questions. After so many election cycles dominated by race-baiting, panty-raiding and Swift-boating, voters might feel reassured by serious discussion of real issues. On no issue is such frank partisan discussion more urgent than the economy, as the numbers plunge downward along with national and world confidence. Despite McCain’s widely quoted confession that he doesn’t know much about economics, the conceit of his party has long been that only conservatives understand how the world works—and that only cutting taxes on the wealthy and removing regulations from business can encourage growth, especially in recessionary periods. Many American voters used to accept those simplistic nostrums as received truth, but perhaps it is time to reexamine them in the light of past history and present failures. When it is Obama’s turn to speak in the coming debates, he may wish to point out that the record of past economic performance by Republican politicians compares quite poorly with that of their Democratic rivals. Take Phil Gramm, the former Texas senator whose proud authorship of the Reagan tax cuts in 1981 was immediately followed by severe recession and then by the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. Among Gramm’s final speeches in the Senate was an impassioned rant warning that the Clinton economic program would lead to unemployment, inflation and higher deficits. He could not have been more wrong, of course—an embarrassing historical footnote that is significant only because he now serves as chief economic counselor to the McCain campaign. Working alongside Gramm in the McCain policy shop is Douglas Holtz-Eakin, an economist who claims with a straight face that President Reagan “cut taxes within the context of budget discipline and controls on spending.” That happy memory is utterly false. Moreover, the economy was still in deep trouble when Bill Clinton entered the White House after more than a decade of Republican rule. Rather than merely score easy debating points off McCain and his ill-chosen advisers, however, Obama could speak more broadly about the stagnation and waste that have resulted from Republican economic policy. He could explain how unfair policies hinder growth. And he shouldn’t hesitate to pillory conservative policymakers for incompetence and irresponsibility. But what Obama ought to emphasize, consistent with his positive and uplifting appeal, is the excellent economic record of his Democratic forebears during the past century or so. As stewards of the economy, they have consistently bested the Republicans on every important measure, from stock market performance to gross domestic product to job creation to disposable income. Democrats have always been better at reducing poverty and increasing wages, which may not surprise anyone. But they have also proved superior at keeping inflation low, reducing budget deficits and restraining federal spending. After the scandalous budgeting of the Republican Congress and the Bush administration, perhaps nobody will find those statistics surprising, either. The Obama advisers reflect the long-standing Democratic consensus, with their commitment to universal health care, Social Security and fiscal stimulus balanced by budgetary responsibility and tax equity. They understand that fairness is the fastest path to renewed and sustainable growth. As for McCain, who dissented from GOP orthodoxy by voting against the Bush tax cuts in 2001, he recants that heresy almost every day. He once understood that we cannot entrust our financial system to the unregulated avarice of predators like his old pal Charles Keating, symbol of the savings-and-loan debacle. Yet now he parrots the free-market fundamentalism that led to the S&L crisis back then, and to the subprime mortgage disaster today. He proposes the same panaceas he used to deride. So yes, let’s have a freewheeling debate about how to revitalize the economy and the nation. Let’s hear McCain defend the discredited conventional wisdom of the right, and Obama extol the achievements of the liberal past and the promise of the progressive future. It is hard to imagine a clearer choice. Joe Conason writes for The New York Observer. © 2008 Creators Syndicate Inc. TAGS:
|
By cyrena, June 14, 2008 at 6:04 pm #
Re: response to JBlack part 1 of 3
First to Cyrena….I am a black man that hears the word whitey more times in a month than you hear in 5 years. You dont need to explain to me how unfortunate that is. That was exactly my the point. You failed, once again, to see the point I was making.
Theres an irony here JBlack, because I was being a bit sardonic (maybe even a bit sarcastic) in my response to you, (about the whitey term) which you obviously didnt pick up. So yeah, I picked up on your point. You made a comment almost verbatim to one that Ron Paul made several years ago regarding the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. He said it was just another Hate Whitey Day. In other words JBlack, he thinks, (as do you apparently, based on your previous posts) that black folks in America (except for you of course) are just a bunch of whining sniveling folks that are lazy and stupid, and blame either white folks or the system for all of their own personal problems and/or shortcomings, or unfortunate lots in life.
Am I pretty much in the ball park there Mr. JBlack? And so you look upon them (your fellow citizens of color) with the very same distain. I mean after all, if they would just get themselves together, and get in line with the program, and say the appropriate yes sirs and yes mams, and keep their heads down, and their noses clean, and show the proper respect for the bones that their superiors might occasionally throw their way, then they would get along a lot better. They should be more grateful of course. Right? I mean, how DARE they have the audacity to think that they are just as worthy of respect and opportunity as anyone else! Right?
And isnt so disgusting how theyre all just so stupid, and so superficial and easily fooled, that they see a black man come along who says You know, you really CAN do something with your life. You really CAN get a job, or get some education, and be responsible for your own maintenance and well being, instead of having to depend on handouts from the white folks for the rest of your life. And they believe it. And it gives them hope, that maybe this really is possible, even though theyve never seen any such thing in their lives before.
And you say Oh, youre just stupid and nauseating, and hes just a scamming slickster, whose just trying to take advantage of you, and get over on you, so HE can have some power, and blah, blah, blah. Just another pimp hoodlum with an education, eh? How am I doing so far JBlack? And then you continue with, you stupid simpletons are just voting for him because hes black!
Im not interested at all in labeling you or anyone else, (as you repeatedly reduce others to another enormous irony) but I DO pick up on your social psychology profile (for lack of a better terminology) just because it comes kind of natural to me. Im not a youngster Mr. Black, and my own experience and careers have put me in various environments over the course of my life, with all different sorts of people. Ive run into people like YOU multiple times, and even have a few as family members. (though most have passed on by now thank God, since Im sure He loves them, cause I sure didnt.) I could even go further and speculate that youre from the south, and probably a mostly (depressed) African-American community, obviously conservative, and probably a repuglican. How am I doing?
(please be advised that these are rhetorical questions, since I dont expect you to answer, and I dont really wanna know
Report thisBy cyrena, June 14, 2008 at 6:03 pm #
Response to JBlack, part 2 of 3
So, somebody like Barack Obama comes along, and you just resent the hell out of him. Why? Well, you should know that better than anyone else, so I wont reveal you here. You claim that he will make it harder for any other black politicians. What a crock of shit.
Then, because you are so exceedingly poisoned by your own hate and envy of the man, YOU label yourself, by calling him the exact opposite of what he is, and labeling him with what YOU see, (from your very perverted and twisted mentality) as gaffes which are in fact the opposite! Here is an example. You say he very arrogantly says stuff like this:
We have not exhausted our nonmilitary options in confronting the Iranian threat; in many ways, we have yet to try them, Sen. Barack Obama says on his Web site.
This one statement is an excellent example of his brilliance and judgment, and for such a young man. Because Mr. Black, its TRUE! The US regime currently in charge has not only refused to TRY standard and non-combative diplomacy through dialog, theyve done NOTHING but rattle their sabers at Iran for the past 6 years, beginning with Georges warning to the Iranian people about bad choices, and designating them as part of an Axis of Evil! Now THAT Mr. Black, is a fucking GAFFE if Ive ever heard one! That is NOT how true Statesmen/woman engage with the rest of the world, or even their immediate neighbors.
And this thuggish war mongering cabal has been pissing people off, all over the globe, since they highjacked our government, because the real ARROGANCE is theirs! But *you* wouldnt get that, because of your own. Because you apparently continue to support this thuggish regime led by Dick Bush, in some sort of a perverted idea that YOU actually gain something from an association with these types, even if its only in your own mind.
The reality is that the US should have talked to Iran years ago, if they had these concerns. Even at that, these concerns about Irans program have been a figure of their imagination, and conjured up to present Iran as the demon of the globe, DESPITE the fact that Iran is perfectly within the legal parameters of the NPT, in developing a civilian nuclear energy program. Maybe you should actually READ the thing.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
The irony here, (as usual of course) is that it is the USA that is in gross violation of the treaty, and Israel gets a free pass on their millions of nukes, because they refuse to join the treaty!
So Barack Obama is the first politician to come along and suggest that we actually TALK to the Iranians, in terms of what the treaty outlines. He is not the first person to offer *incentives* for Iran to suspend their activity, and in fact Iran did exactly that, for over 3 years, as part of an agreement with the British and the French, to establish some sort of good faith precedent. HOWEVER, it is still a violation of their rights under the treaty, and there was no end point to the arrangement. So it was like, Ok you Iranians, you all have this bad rep because there was a period 20 or so years ago, when you didnt file any paperwork, (declarations) and then there was this rumor (spread by Iranian dissidents) that you somehow gained some sort of secrets from A Khan. So, were gonna punish you, and not allow you to do what the treaty gives you the right to do. And then, if youre really good, and you behave yourselves, then maybe one day well let you have your rights back.
Report thisBy cyrena, June 14, 2008 at 6:02 pm #
Response to JBlack,
Well after 3 or so years of that, the Iranians said, Ya know, you people (US & Israel) just wanna keep us barefoot and pregnant, like some demonized stepchild, and prevent us from accessing the same technology that the rest of the world has, even though we have every right to it. So, they started enriching their uranium again, per the rules, under the watchful eye of the IAEA, and submitting all of their paperwork, with all *Is* dotted, and all *Ts* crossed.
And thats not all. Their own ministers, and the Mullahs, and all of the others that have power in the Iranian regime, have actually made tentative offers do exactly what the US has been demanding, (suspend the enrichment) if they could make it a good faith agreement. But the US has rejected each and every offer, including the one brokered by the Swiss.
Maybe you should check out the excellent interview with Larry Wilkerson on these issues, right here at TD
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080610_chene ys_goal_regime_change_across_the_middle_east/
So no JBlack, that wasnt a gaffe by Obama, but rather the opposite. The opposite of the imperial and bullying arrogance that the current regime has displayed to the rest of the world for the past 8 years. Its called DIPLOMACY. Its called treating equals as equals in the terms of the world order as dictated by the UN Charter. That document that was created in the aftermath of WWII, for the purposes of avoiding the world wide destruction brought about by wars for the future. THATS what it is JBlack, though I dont think you have the slightest notion of what mutual respect is, because you dont even have it for yourself!
And that same thuggist regime doesnt want to talk to Iran, because they want to CONTROL Iran, which has always been the PNAC plan. First the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, and now they hold that country hostage after destroying it. And they wanna do the same thing to Iran.
So Obamas suggestion couldnt be more of a lifesaver, and the Iranians know that for now, the best thing they can do is wait on Obama. Even then, the intimidation is on them constantly, because everybody knows that Dick is determined to attack them, and time is running out.
So let me tell you the same thing that I recommended to ScootK. You can claim that Im labeling you if you want, but as Ive said, you label yourself, because I know your type. This is why I compared you to Clarence Thomas long ago, and from my perspective, you could be him writing under another name.
Youre a hateful, bitter, spiteful and vindictive black man; angry at the world, and blaming it on the wrong folks. I am an African-American as well, though my blood line may not be pure. (very few of us are in American goes with the history). But Im not so fooled as you assume others to be, in believing that all other black folks are decent or even inclined to support their own. People like you and Clarence Thomas make that abundantly clear. Rather, you are like the worst sort of nightmare for other people of color. Theres a name for you, and Im sure you know what it is.
I understand perfectly why you so despise Barack Obama. The fortunate thing is that your voices are few and tiny. It wont stop progress for the collective good of ALL Americans.
You picked the WRONG person in me to harass or otherwise try to tyrannize with authoritarian arrogance JBlack. So take a hint and back off. Quit while youre ahead. Dont direct any other comments to me, JBlack.
Good day.
Report thisBy truckie, June 14, 2008 at 5:05 pm #
This article is wrong in so many ways. Go back to Carter and you see what tax increases can do. It leads to the severe recession that Reagan was able to get us out of. The economy does not turn around immediately as this article leads people to believe. This article also forgets to mention the JFK tax cuts. Seems not all Dem presidents felt that increasing taxes was a good thing. This alone destroys your idea that Obama should tout previous presidents. Which one should he tout and which should he forget about?
Report thisClinton had no real economic policy which of couse led to the recession that began in Feb 2000 and of course the Bush tax cuts help to relieve. He was lucky to have the internet boom therwise the recession would have been worse. Why does this article no mention the Clinton recession?
These are just a few examples of this article revising history.
By beccajo, June 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm #
I was delighted to see Gen. Wesley Clark on MSNBC this week, discussing how Sen. McCain’s captivity did not make him an authority on warfare. I have said this many times before. First, he was in the Navy, not the Army or Marines. So far as I know, we are not engaged in naval warfare. McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals…Sen. McCain was not. So far as I have read, he had no experience as an officer that would have made him an expert in battle planning. His 5 years plus, made him an expert on prisoners of war, but did not make him an expert on planning battles or strategy in warfare.
Report thisHe has no experience that would make him superior in keeping the United States safe from terrorists…no more than Barack Obama or anyone else. He actually brags that he graduated 5th from the bottom at the Naval academy. He was a hotshop pilot who crashed 3 planes before the 4th was shot down. He was not a faithful husband to his first wife…he walked away from her and their children. I admire his courage during his captivity…this is the only thing I can admire about his life thus far, and the reports of his viscious temper scare me to death. We do not need him in the White House with all the power of the President.
By cyrena, June 12, 2008 at 7:26 pm #
Sang Ze writes:
”.. However, they should take place AFTER the party conventions, not before, as McCain suggests, so that party platforms would be in place. To debate before then would only promote more mindless pseudo-journalistic circuses like those which plagued the Democratic primary season…”
I’m inclined to agree with you on this. The problem is that the conventions are scheduled so close to the election, as to leave little time to cover this stuff. That might be something to consider about convention timing, next time around.
Then again, since Americans seem to have such short attention spans, that might not be such a good idea either.
At this point though, I don’t think Obama can afford to turn down such an ‘offer’, since it’s an opportunity to make the extrememly important points that Joe brings up here.
OTOH, that has everything to do with were these town hall meetings are conducted. I say that because Barack Obama is no stranger to this town hall format. He’s done quite a bit of it. And a large part of the ‘feedback’ was negative in the terms of his ‘detail’. In other words, the audiences found him too ‘professor-torial’ in his explanations. They weren’t interested in the ‘hows’ the ‘why’s’ or the interconnectedness of the issues. They just wanted to know if their taxes were gonna go up or down, and whatever else would affect THEIR bottom lines, and the sanctity of THEIR individualized (and very private) life styles. Repuglicans are very good at taking care of each other, and so they don’t hear any details about how the balance of the WHOLE eventually affects them as well.
Unfortunately, the thing that generally comes from these ‘town hall’ meetings revolves around single issue stuff, and that’s the opposite track from where the debates need to center.
I have no doubts that Obama could dance rings of arguments around brain dead McCain, but I don’t know that it would provide the information that voters need, since a bunch of them are equally brain dead. (note the comment from Mary B below - trolls remain in our midst, and they aren’t particularly smart. But, they do vote..go figure)
Report thisBy Mary B, June 12, 2008 at 2:34 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
obama needs his teleprompter to debate…look how he was with Hillary….had to repeat everything she said…that was the big joke at the time…..he will stuttering again…er ah uh er uh uh
Report thisBy MattKline, June 12, 2008 at 11:04 am #
In some ways I feel sorry for McCain. I had a lot of respect for his Straight Talk campaign back in 2000. But now it’s painful to watch him talk, or worse to crack a joke. Every time he tries to smile I think he’s going to break a hip.
MK
Report thishttp://www.militaryintelligenceandyou.com
By EnoughzEnough, June 12, 2008 at 10:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Free-market “gospel” hooks in deeply to something primal in the American psyche. We all want to think of ourselves as self-relient and able to take care of ourselves. That is what makes the republican propaganda such an easy sell If there is one core commandment in the Free-market gospel it is “thou shalt be self relient”. What really needs to be pointed out is how much the corporations have been breaking that all important commandment by living off the corporate welfare state. That realization is what made me jump off the republican bandwagon for good. “Forgive me father for I have sinned it has been 1 days since my last tax break.”
Report thisBy Purple Girl, June 12, 2008 at 10:01 am #
Mac does a great job of revealing the ‘True McCoy’ behind his Facade when allowed to ‘wing it’. He also is able to show his mental infirmities- no doubt related to the effects of aging on those Brain injuries caused by being Torture as a POW.
Report thisLoved his Freudian Slip regarding how americnas are ‘Clinging to God and the Constitution’ soemthing eating at your conscience Mac? something that is nagging You but you just can’t remember what it is?Something you fear my come back to Bite you in the Ass for your complicity?
Oh and By the Way- WE are concerned aobut when our Troops come home, You have overextended them to the point of Breaking down the entire system of our National efense with extended tours and Repeated deployments. Such actions not only are a grave diservice to those who are sacrificing (troops and their Families) But also a Grave diseervice to US! You are placing US in Danger by assuring a lack of ‘Readiness’.
You may get an applause for you dedication while being a POW but it does not excuse the following 40 yrs in which you have Failed to do Your Duty.Take the Tassels off your Rearview mirror they mean nothing if you plunder everything after that Acheivement.
Keep Talking Mac You are only making our Case Stronger and giving US annunition to defeat the Corrupt and the Fool hearty.
By Sang Ze, June 12, 2008 at 9:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, there should be several serious debates between the candidates on all issues conducted by the Women’s League of Voters or a similar group. However, they should take place AFTER the party conventions, not before, as McCain suggests, so that party platforms would be in place. To debate before then would only promote more mindless pseudo-journalistic circuses like those which plagued the Democratic primary season.
Report this