Four Words Democrats Don't Want to Hear

In a previous post, I mentioned reasons why the Democrats are anything but a lock in November. Yet, as time has gone on, I've found another reason the Left should be very scared right now.

Michigan has been a Democratic stronghold for many years, mainly due to the strong union presence there. In recent years, however, Michigan has experienced a serious economic downturn. Sean Hannity had as appropriate a description as any I've heard: a one-state recession. Instead of dealing with the economic realities the state faces, the Democratic leadership in Michigan have done...nothing good. If the economy is going to be the major issue in this campaign, the situation in Michigan should seriously worry the Democrats.

One of the ideas Republicans have tossed out there is the possibility of John McCain picking Mitt Romney as a running mate because it would put Michigan in play. This idea has merit, but I wouldn't just use Romney to turn a blue state red. The bad economy in Michigan combined with the apparent lack of concern from the Democrats in leadership there (and nationally, I might add), puts Michigan in play with or without Romney.

What it will take is a Republican brave enough to go into the Democratic strongholds in Michigan and say, "This is what the Democrats have done for you. And if Obama wins, it will be more of the same." That alone should be enough to get the working people on McCain's side and force Obama to win the state. That costs money and time that might be spent on other states and other matters. If they don't, they validate McCain and the GOP, which is something they can't afford to do. The minute McCain gets traction in Michigan, the stronger the possibility becomes that the Democrats lose Michigan.

Don't be surprised if the media, mainstream or real, turn around on this in the near future and say the four words Democrats never thought they'd hear.

"Michigan is in play."

Methinks the Laddy Doth Protest Too Much

There are times when the best thing to say is nothing. Barack Obama doesn't seem to know this yet, as he has turned a relatively small and not that widely known story into a much bigger and widely known firestorm. I'm speaking of the controversial New Yorker cover. At first, he brushed it off and was content to make what I felt was a strong stance on it.

Then, he had to go and bring it up again. On CNN's "Larry King Live", Obama was asked about the controversy and said the cover and the emails circulating questioning whether he is a Muslim were "actually an insult against Muslim Americans."

Now, let that comment sink in for a moment. The cover made no visual reference to Muslim Americans and, aside from Obama's garb and the picture of Osama Bin Laden on the wall, it made no reference to Muslims at all. The emails themselves, of which I've seen a number, also don't insult Muslim Americans; they merely raise the question of whether Obama is a Muslim. For the record, I don't care one way or the other what his religion is because I don't think he's fit to be President, and his responses about the New Yorker cover only confirm this in my mind.

Having said that, there are a number of people who will not accept Obama's explanation or proof that he's a Christian, not a Muslim. His comments on "Larry King Live" really don't quell the issue, in my opinion, and if anything keeps the fires of controversy going. Why would he say the emails and cover were "an insult to Muslim Americans" when they don't really target them?

The most obvious answer is that he was trying to turn the controversy into a campaign ad, and I found it as effective as the "satire" of the New Yorker cover. Instead, his response leaves the door open for more speculation about his religious affiliations.

And this guy wants to be President?

A New York(er) State of Mind

Unless you've been living under a rock (or posting on DemocraticUnderground, which is pretty much the same thing), you've heard about the controversial New Yorker cover featuring caricatures of Barack and Michelle Obama. Barack is featured in what looks to be Islamic garb giving a fist bump to Michelle, who has a wild Afro and is dressed like a black militant. As you might expect, the Obama campaign came out and blasted the cover. John McCain jumped into the fray and said it was disgraceful. The New Yorker defended the cover as satire, saying the intent was to poke fun at the various rumors circulating about the Obamas.

Maybe it's me, but I thought satire was supposed to be funny.

Anyway, the cover got me to thinking about a couple of things, ranging from whether it wasn't a stunt to give Obama a boost (like the recent flap involving Jesse Jackson) or if we weren't making too much out of a minor issue. But there's one possible angle that isn't being considered yet, but should be because it's just as plausible.

The New Yorker cover is the Left's first broadside against Obama.

Make no mistake, not everyone in Democrat ranks is happy that Obama is the presumptive nominee. There are a number of diehard Hillary Clinton supporters who still trash Obama, and it's a safe bet that a number of them are in the media in one medium or another. And considering Hillary's a Senator in New York State, where the New Yorker is based...

Let's just say the conspiratorial side of me isn't convinced the cover is satire. It's a tidy explanation, given the New Yorker's reputation for satirical covers, but it's not nearly as tidy as they hope. There are some questions that can be and should be raised to determine whether there's a political angle to the cover beyond featuring the Obamas. It may be a flight of fancy on my part, but if Hillary's involved, nothing is ever too farfetched to be believed.

The Dark Side

Earlier this week, John and Patsy Ramsey were cleared of suspicion in the murder of their daughter JonBenet. After years of living under a cloud of speculative suspicion, it's good to know we've eliminated two possible suspects. Now, everything has to start all over again. Which means, invariably, more media coverage.

Maybe it's me, but I've never really gotten caught up in the JonBenet Ramsey story because I find it...well, creepy. It was bad enough that JonBenet was involved in the child beauty pageant circuit and dressed like a miniature version of Anna Nicole Smith. But when you consider that people have found this story newsworthy since JonBenet's murder in 1996, I'm beginning to wonder where our collective heads are at.

First off, the child beauty pageant circuit. Having seen some of the videos of JonBenet performing, dressed up in sequins and wearing more makeup than a little girl should be, I am disgusted by what some parents will do at these pageants. The "pageant mothers" are setting their daughters up for failure, in my opinion, by creating in them a false sense of reality and pride. It's cute now, but what happens when one of the mini pageant queens stops winning? What does that do to the girl's self-esteem? Considering young women are the hardest hit by self-doubt as they grow older, the child beauty pageant circuit is not the best place for a little girl to be.

Fortunately, not all mothers are like this and they truly have their daughters' best interests in mind. Some, on the other hand, aren't so forgiving. They are the infamous "pageant moms" that, like their male counterparts the "Little League dads," put tons of pressure on their children to succeed. I'm no psychologist, but I am a thinker, and I think the motivation behind both the pageant mom and the Little League dad is living vicariously through their children. For some reason, the parents have a self-esteem issue, so they think that they can resolve it by having their progeny be better than they were. And when the children fail (which they usually do), the parents just go off. I'm not sure that's what happened here, but I do know that I'm not a big fan of child beauty pageants because it can really screw up a child.

Then, add to that all the attention this story has received. Since 1996, the JonBenet Ramsey murder has been a fixture in our culture. It seems to have the "perfect storm" of newsworthiness in modern society: a beautiful victim, incompetent police investigators, suspicion of people close to the event, and a media willing to cover every aspect of it for years on end. Quite the cocktail.

At times, it almost seems as though people, especially media people, don't want anybody to find JonBenet's killer. The minute we get to the bottom of this whodunnit, the lifespan of the story starts to wane which means the media won't have any reason to cover it. And in the end, I don't think we've gained anything from it. It's a tragedy, yes, but does it truly warrant the amount of coverage it received year after year?

All I see from the JonBenet Ramsey murder is darkness with no possible source of light. But it's not just the darkness eminating from the event itself, but in our own souls for allowing such a situation consume so much time in our lives.

Why Democrats Should Be Nervous for November

If you've read the news in the past couple of weeks, you've seen Republicans come out and lament their chances in November's elections. Personally, I think reports of the GOP's demise in November are greatly exaggerated, and there are more than a few signs that the Democrats may be counting their victories before they're won.

- Congressional approval ratings are low. How low? According to Rasmussen, the lowest they've been since Rasmussen has been polling. We're talking single digits here (9% to be precise). Is it any wonder, considering things are getting worse under Democrat control of Congress and they're too busy playing a pathetic game of "gotcha" with the Bush White House? The Democrats may claim 3 election victories for the House, but there won't be too many more victories if they keep falling lower in the polls.

- Obama has high disapproval ratings. For a man who is supposed to be wowing people on the campaign trail, Barack Obama has high disapproval ratings. As of this writing, they are above 50% (53-56% to be precise). For a man who has been running for 1 1/2 years right now, that's not a good sign. Democrats will say that Obama's still beating McCain in the polls, but McCain still enjoys lower disapproval ratings than Obama. This is one of the reasons Obama is going out on the campaign trail showing a new side to him: because we've seen the old Obama and we don't like what we've seen.

- Democrats are having trouble raising funds. After the 2006 Elections, 2008 was all but a lock for the Left. All they had to do was show up. Then, they started running into trouble raising funds for their convention in Denver. That tells me there's more than a little dissent within Democrat ranks that could spell danger later on in the campaign. This also has an impact on Congressional races, since the DNC can divert funds to candidates' war chests. If the funds aren't there, candidates will either have to do more independent fundraising or they will lose the elections.

- Democrats facing challenges...from other Democrats! In previous election years, Democrats in safe districts would rarely, if ever, face a challenge when going for their party's nomination. This year, though, Democrats are facing challenges from within in a number of races. Take Cindy Sheehan, for example. She's running against Nancy Pelosi as an Independent, which could sway that race if enough Democrats and Leftists stay home or split their votes. Even my local Congressman, Leonard Boswell, had to run against a fellow Democrat in spite of being a fixture within the District for years. This doesn't bode well for Democrats if there are hard feelings or withheld votes for the Democrat who wins.

- The Fringe Left isn't happy. Now that Obama has pretty much secured the nomination (barring some weird situation at the convention), he has to try to attract more middle-of-the-road Democrats and Independents. This will not sit well with the Fringe Left, like the DailyKosmonauts, MoveOutOfOurParentsBasements, and the Soros Sock Puppets, who have a very immature approach to politics. See how they went after Joe Lieberman in 2006, and how they still attack him if you need proof of that. Now that Obama's moving right on them, don't be surprised if the Fringe Left starts going after Obama and hard.

- Obama isn't ahead by much. Obama may be ahead in the polls, but most of the time, it's not by much. Media polls usually run around a 3-5% margin of error, meaning the numbers could be off by the margin of error. Right now, Obama's lead in the polls is a little more than the margin of error. For as much as the media say Obama is drawing major crowds and is an agent for change, the numbers aren't reflecting it. I think if McCain stays within striking distance of Obama or even pulls ahead shortly after the conventions, he will win the general election.

And finally...

- The media are pushing Obama a bit too much. It's no secret that the media are so far in Obama's back pocket they're getting stitch marks on their bodies. But they've been putting Obama is a near-divine light since the beginning. Part of that, in my opinion, is because they're reading their own polls and realizing that Obama is vastly underperforming what they've said he's capable of doing. And their love-fest with Obama has embarassed them more than a few times with stories they missed, but other news sources (i.e. the New Media) didn't. So, instead of adjusting their coverage to give a more realistic view of the man, the Old Media are treating him even more like a rock star in the hopes that the McCain voters will get frustrated and think Obama is a fait accompli for the White House.

So, my Republican and conservative friends, fear not. The Democrats aren't nearly as invulnerable as they think they (and some Republicans who will remain nameless to protect the innocent and the wussy) think they are.

A Fireworks Display

In case you didn't see it, a columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer named Chris Satullo wrote a piece titled "A Not-So-Glorious Fourth" where he took America to task for "crimes" committed by the Bush Administration ranging from having the world hate us to condoning torture. If you want to read the original piece, here's the URL for it:

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/20080701_Chris_Satullo__A_not-so-glorious_Fourth.html

After reading it, I was inspired to write the following. Feel free to pass it along to anyone who thinks America's worth fighting for.

An Open Letter to Chris Satullo
By Thomas Lindaman

Dear Mr. Satullo,

Your column of July 1 was…interesting to say the least. It worked a lot better than a hot cup of coffee to awaken me, that’s for sure. But, I do have to take issue with a few things you said in your column about how Americans don’t deserve a Fourth of July celebration this year because of the “atrocities” you say we’ve committed.

First, it’s not just the Fourth of July. The alternate, and in my opinion the more accurate and appropriate, name is Independence Day. Regardless of what you think we’ve done or even what we’ve done, calling it “America’s birthday” and, to a lesser extent, the “Fourth of July” diminishes the significance of the day. Without the Founding Fathers being willing to sacrifice everything for independence, “America’s birthday” wouldn’t be much of a celebration, wouldn’t you say?

I couldn’t help but notice that you took issue with how the current Administration has waged the war on terrorism. Without going into the fearmongering you’re probably predicting I’d utilize to defend the Administration’s actions, I’m sure we can agree that countries run by Islamic extremists aren’t exactly the freest countries in the world.

Being the informed individual you are, I’m sure you’re aware of the actions of Iranian President Mahmood Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and how they shut down newspapers critical of how they are ruling their respective countries. In many Muslim countries, women aren’t allowed to go out in public without being almost completely covered and a male escort. Rapes in Muslim countries are automatically considered to be the fault of the woman, even if she did nothing to deserve the treatment.

This, Mr. Satullo, is who we’re fighting in the war on terrorism.

I won’t cast aspersions on your commitment to human rights as some already have. I have no reason to believe you to be anything but an opinionated man who wants the best for America, warts and all. But, let me point out that you do no one a service by undercutting the current Administration, Congress, and the American people merely because we didn’t act in a manner you felt was timely or correct. You have fallen into the trap of so many anti-war folks: you assume that anyone who disagrees with you is fundamentally flawed and, thus, not worthy of your consideration.

If this were your only transgression, I would be willing to cut you some slack. However, it was not, so I cannot. Reading your column over and over again as I have, I noticed there was an inordinate amount of time spent lambasting the Bush Administration, not by name, but by deed. It should be pointed out that many of the actions you’ve pinned on the Bush Administration were practiced and condoned by previous Administrations. It doesn’t make it right, but it also doesn’t mean Bush alone is responsible. The singular focus of your outrage does not serve your argument well. If you are truly against torture and the other “crimes” you’ve attributed to the Bush Administration, then be against those “crimes” under all circumstances and treat those who condoned them with the same condemnation you’ve given to President Bush. Otherwise, you give your critics more than enough ammunition by which to tear down your rhetorical constructs.

I also noted the frequent use of anti-war and anti-Bush canards, as noted in the following passages:

“In our name, innocents were jailed, humans tortured, our Constitution mangled.”

“Heroes in uniform, judges in robes, they opposed the perverse logic of an administration drenched in fear, drunk on power.”

“We’ve shamed the memory of Jefferson, Adams and Franklin. All for a scam. The waterboarding, the snarling dogs, the theft of sleep – all the diabolical tricks haven’t made us safer. They may have averted this plot or that. But they’ve spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears.”

All of these are examples of partisan hyperbole without much basis in fact. The war against terrorism isn’t a video game where there are rules and you can restart a level if you don’t get past it. We are dealing with people who have no qualms about using our freedoms against us to serve their ends. They have no rules of engagement, no battleground honor, not even a sliver of remorse. They hate us and everything about us, and they have for far longer than George W. Bush has been President.

I urge you to think about what you’ve written. You’ve served no one, not even yourself, with your column.

And don’t worry. I’ll enjoy Independence Day enough for the both of us.

Sincerely,

Thomas Lindaman
Des Moines, Iowa

Patriotism "Redefined"

Barack Obama gave a speech in Independence, Missouri, yesterday where he talked about patriotism. During his speech, he made it a point to mention he wouldn't question anyone's patriotism and would defend against anyone who questioned his, but one thing stuck out in my mind: he wanted to change the definition of patriotism.

This got me to thinking whether the definition of patriotism needed to be changed. Since it's my blog, we'll use the definition I use as a baseline. To me, patriotism is simply love of country. This isn't a "America-Love-It-Or-Leave-It" sentiment by any stretch of the imagination. I love my country enough to be honest about its flaws and to strive to overcome them.

Is my definition perfect? Not in the least. Is it workable? I think so. Would it fly with Obama?

That's the big question. Obama really didn't offer specifics as to what his definition of patriotism entailed, so we're left speculating. Even so, there are elements in Obama's past and the pasts of people close to him (his wife, Michelle and his former spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright, to name two) that can point us in a certain direction.

And let me tell ya, it doesn't look that good for Obama.

Patriotism isn't about wearing a flag lapel pin or holding your hand over your heart when the Star Spangled Banner is played. Those are outward expressions that may or may not reflect a love for one's country. A true sense of patriotism comes from within. How one feels when the Star Spangled Banner is played. Whether a sense of pride wells up when you see an American flag waving in the wind. Outward trappings mean nothing to the inner patriot.

And so far, all I've seen from Obama has been outward trappings.

Maybe that's why Obama wants to change the definition of patriotism. He can't live up to the actual one.