The Democratic and Republican Conventions

Can the yet uncompleted plans for the Democratic and Republican conventions help the American voter determined ideological differences between the parties??

Many Americans believe the Democratic and Republican parties have very different priorities and objectives that focus on completely different segments of society. For instance, the Democratic Party message has often been geared toward the middle-class blue-collar working person with a family to raise and a mortgage to pay. It’s said the Democratic Party has often favored unions that helped protect workers rights and working conditions on the job. The Democratic Party is also seen as the party less interested in money and more interested in civil rights protections for minority segments of our society.

On the other hand, many believe the Republican Party message seems directed toward the bigger business and multi-million dollar corporations. The Republican Party has often claimed it is small as well as large businesses that make our standard of living possible. Many republicans believe that such things as tax breaks for investors and corporations will encourage more business and thereby give more American their slice of the “American Pie”. For these and other reasons the Republican Party is, therefore, seen as being more interested in big money and less interested in the middle class worker.

It would appear that preparations for the political conventions back up these the assumptions many Americans have of the two major parties. So far the Denver, Colorado, based Democratic Party Convention committee has “struggled to top $25 million” and so it is about $15 million short of the $40.6 million that is needed. As the article goes on to point out part of the reason for this shortfall is, “We’ve got to deal with the fact that there is belt-tightening all across corporate America,” Mr. Lopez said. “They are reducing spending, and that has had a big impact. We are no different than others trying to raise money in this environment. Everyone is facing it.” So the Democratic Party seems to be short on money but is definitely not hurting for convention volunteers. It seems, “As many as 25,000” have registered to volunteer during the August Convention. The article goes on to inform people that “As a result of the large volunteer base, some early decisions have been made: Most volunteers will be assigned to work a maximum of four hours during the convention.” It seems that for average Americans money may not be readily available but giving of their time is something they can and are willing to do.

The Republican Party seems to have approached the planning of their party convention with very different priorities. Republicans have had no problems convincing the party loyal to open their check books to the tune of $31 million to cover the costs of their convention that will be held in St. Paul, Minnesota, in September. So paying the bills at the republican convention will apparently not be an issue. What does seem to be an issue for republicans though is convincing people to volunteer to work as airport greeters, direction givers and other essential posts. The article goes on to point out that republicans have only “…recruited 4,000 of the 10,000 volunteers they need for a fully staffed convention. The differences in the major political party philosophy seems apparent in the statement, "We focused on raising the money first and getting the volunteers second and that's a good thing," Rybak said. It’s apparent that one major party initially concentrated on people and their volunteer efforts in accomplishing a common goal. Now, that same party must play catch up in reaching their financial goal with the same level of success. The other major party began by concentrating on raising the money they needed. That party must now try to convince people to volunteer in rolling out the red carpet for an effort not many seem to have a passion for. Could these different approaches to the same goal of a political party convention tell the American voter something they should be aware about these two parties?? If there is a lesson in all of this let’s hope the American voter realizes the object of that lesson before November?? Our collective future depends of Americans being informed voters.

Obama and Hillary in Unity

Anyone who objectively watched Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama share the stage in Unity, New Hampshire, were no doubt struck by a couple of things that seemed out of place with the “we’re fast friends” speeches.

If I had listened to both speeches in Unity, New Hampshire, without watching it at the same time I would have been convinced that the Democratic Party was well on the way to being united under the leadership of a candidate who respected and truly welcomed his opponent’s supporters. Most of Barack Obama’s words certainly gave the impression of a united and respectful front. The problem with this angelic scene is that words are one thing but body language is quite another matter. Barack Obama’s body language by no means marched the unity atmosphere of togetherness.

Barack Obama showed his disrespect for his companion in a couple of ways. First, Barack Obama did not wear a buttoned suit jacket or sport coat. There is a time and place for casual dress but when you are trying to win over a previous opponent’s supporters that is probably not a good time for anything but your best business attire. Obama could have easily unbuttoned his suit coat when Hillary Clinton’s speech was over, which would have communicated a desire for less formal dress. To not wear a suit jacket for the entire performance simply did not back up his words of unity with the actions those words needed.

Women have been the subject of condescending comments by men for all too many years and so they jump out at us when we hear yet another one. Barack Obama made this tragic and probably unconscious mistake today when he was supposedly praising Hillary Clinton. At one point in his speech Obama said in reference to Clinton’s accomplishments, “She proved women can do anything the boys can do and do it better, and do it in heels. I still don’t know how she does it in heels”

Please allow me to pick those two sentences apart from a woman’s point of view. In the first sentence Barack Obama mentioned, “…women can do anything the boys can do…”. Men often consciously or subconsciously try to diminish a female’s accomplishments by comparing a grown woman’s endeavors to a “boy’s” accomplishments. Why couldn’t Barack Obama have said something like, “Hillary Clinton proved women can do anything men can do?” The second very condescending comment Barack Obama made was when he said, “…and do it in heels”. From a woman’s point of view, that gives the impression that Barack Obama thinks women’s heels somehow adversely affects their mental capabilities. Hmmmmmmm!! Now that I think about this, there is that little issue of men wearing a long piece of cloth wrapped around their necks and knotted tightly in the front. Could it be those ties have an adverse affect on men’s abilities to think critically and clearly?? That issue is for a completely different blog though. The last thing that Barack Obama said that was extremely condescending was, “I don’t know how she does it in heels.” Hillary Clinton chuckled at the right moment so as not to draw attention to the fact that Obama had just committed a major faux pa. From a woman’s point of view, what do our heels, pantsuits, dresses, or any other type of attire have to do with a woman’s ability to think and perform as good or better than any man??

If Barack Obama wants to win over Hillary Clinton supporters he might want to think about hiring an etiquette coach before giving another speech that references or addresses women. At this point I “just say no deal".

What We Didn’t Learn from History

This is no doubt going to age me but I remember the 60’s quite well. When some people think of the 60’s right away they are mentally carried away to the “Love In’s”, the “Flower Child”, pot smoking young people, and of course “Woodstock”. Oh, but there was so much more to the 60’s than just tie-dye, “free love”, and out of control young people.

I especially remember how acceptable it was to speak out against the US Government. Oh, it did not happen overnight by any means because for all too long there was an endless line of “Kiss-Ups” in society. The media was in no hurry to stick its neck out and so questioning “the fuzz” or demanding answers from “The Man” was just not in vogue. In fact the media at the time was pro-government for the most part and didn’t want to be seen as a “fink”. Sound familiar?? Anyone who opposed the government on anything was seen as a “hippie” or Anti-American. Of course the word “hippie” was to be used as a cuss word to the point that parent’s cringed if they had a “hippie”, a socially aware young person, or “flower-child” in their family.

As time went on and more abuses by the Nixon and Johnson Administrations became better known, dissent became increasingly more acceptable. This dissent wasn’t an overnight sensation, as “Watergate” will always stand testament to. The issue of dissent started out as barely a whimper and eventually grew into a young person’s deafening roar. Eventually there were demonstrations almost every day and usually involved the ongoing Vietnam War or the latest example of government abuse. In fact, when the information leading up to Watergate finally came out Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein and especially The Washington Post received death threats and were continuously vilified in hopes of keeping them quiet. So it wasn’t easy, and plenty of people ended up in jail for daring to question the government, but persistence paid off and everyone became more comfortable with the issue of questioning everything. In other words, it was only through hard work and persistence that 60’s young people found their voice and were willing to use it for whatever cause they associated themselves with.

Fast forward 40 years and we discover our society did not learn very much from history. Our government has run amok and “We The People” has allowed it to happen with barely a whimper in protest. So what steps did we a take and what decisions were made that Americans overlooked or ignored that now makes Senator J, William Fulbright’s warning, "Our government will soon become what it is already a long way toward becoming, an elective dictatorship" appear to be a reality?

What changed so much in 40 years that today squashes protests from everyone but a very small minority? The answer actually involves a number of issues and opportunities that went unnoticed by everyone but a few. First; there is PNAC Project for the New American that convinced an aging 60’s generation, who were now busy raising families, there was behind the scenes activity they had no control over. Americans may not have liked everything about PNAC but rebuilding America’s military certainly seemed like a good idea. So the majority decided to take the good with the bad and keep quiet. Second; came September 11, 2001 when America was attacked and as in the past Americans put their differences behind them and banded together as one.

The world was willing to come to our aid and also join us in an attempt to battle terrorism with those famous words 'Today we are all Americans' - NATO allies pledge support. For just a moment in time we had the chance to unite the entire world in the common goal of irradiating terrorism and George Bush’s words of “You are either with us or against us”seemed promising. It was not to be though because America did not stand up and demand that Bush and Cheney choose the path best for future generations and us. Instead, the chance of a lifetime was thrown to the trash heap of history and America went down another path.

For the last seven and a half years we’ve had an administration headed by Vice-President Cheney who learned very well from history. Richard Cheney took lessons in the Nixon and Ford administrations as well as secretary of defense under the first President Bush. He learned well to push the bounders of “executive privilege” especially when dealing with a stubborn Congress. We’ve seen many examples over the past seven and a half years of Cheney’s ability to learn well and apply those lessons from the 1960’s that Arthur Schlesinger called the “imperial presidency” In fact, with a title of Vice-President, Dick Cheney asserted he is part of the Legislative Branch and not part of the Executive Branch and so not required to cooperate with the National Archives office to oversee the handling of classified data since 2003.

It’s obvious that this Administration will get away with breaking the law and thanks to Nancy Pelosie will not have to worry about meeting Nixon’s fate. Had the residents of California seen the issues and candidates a little differently “…challenger promises Bush impeachment” life might be much different today. Even Ralph Nader: "Impeach Bush & Cheney!" who took campaign money from the Republicans in 2000 claimed that Bush and Cheney should be impeached.

We used to have laws that even the President and Vice-President had to abide by. That is not to say past administrations have not broken the law and gotten away with it. Far from it, every administration for the last 200+ years have broken the law in one way or another but through the years there have not been many impeachment proceedings. Meaning of course that Americans are a very forgiving people, a people who after voting expect someone else to attend to the details, or we are a very ignorant lazy people who don’t care. Hopefully, America will wake up soon. In the end though history will be the judge of what kind of a society America is and I fear that final determination will not be a kind one.

Hello Everyone

Hello Everyone,

I hope that as time goes on everyone will have find something of interest on this blog. I will no doubt be dealing with a wide variety of subjects and issues that I consider pertinent, depending on what is going on in the world at the time. It is my hope that by visiting my blog and spending a moment or two looking around you will each find something to take with you. Maybe it will an interesting saying to ponder the meaning of, or a bit of information to apply to your life, or possibly just a realization that you aren’t alone in the feelings or opinions you have. Better yet, I hope as time goes on, we each realize that we are only one cog in the wheel of life and that by working together we can and will improve this world we call home.

Please don’t expect a professional writer on this blog because I’m most definitely not. I’m simply one person out there in Middle America with thoughts and feelings you may find familiar or you may find to be the exact opposite of your own. At all times I will welcome comments and criticisms concerning anything I write or refer to. I ask and demand only a few things from those who care to share their thoughts and comments. Number one; keep it pertinent to the issue at hand. If you’d like me to tackle a different subject you are welcome to suggest it. Or just check back because as time goes on I will no doubt get around to dealing with a wide variety of issues. Number two; I will not tolerate foul language or disrespect to myself or anyone else. If you have not figured out how to get your point across without using the “f” word or the “b” word or any other such foul language then this is definitely not the place for you. Remember, foul language is NOT a sign of maturity. Number three; always be considerate of others who choose to post here. It doesn’t matter whether their feelings and opinions match your own or not. What does matter is consideration and manners for your fellow human being. Beyond that I can be pretty open minded and will try to see the wisdom in everyone’s feelings and opinions regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

The issues I’ll be dealing with, as time goes on, will be as wide and varied as the world around us. One major topic I will no doubt spend a good portion of time on is the United States and our government. As a committed Independent I will no doubt rail on both major parties on a regular basis. Anyone who is a far left Democrat or a neo-conservative Republican will no doubt find me to be a festering thorn in their side. It’s obvious the Republican Party is on massive doses of Viagra and the Democratic Party desperately needs some. That makes both parties power hunger for their own reasons and care little if anything for their constituents so they will no doubt provide me with plenty of fodder.

With all this having been said, set back and take a breather, share some of your own thoughts, and enjoy the ride.