Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Un-American?
"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." – Gov. Sarah Palin
"Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." – Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC)
“The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that.” – Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
This campaign season has taught us many, many lessons. Some of these lessons are those which we want to replicate, others are actions or attitudes we need to avoid. As we near the end (and thank goodness we are actually reaching the end) we get to learn another lesson.
Thanks to the remarks by the above representatives of our government, we get to see how easy it is to try to dissect America and belittle others. It seems, over the past few days, the Republicans across this nation have decided that all those people who agree with them are good Americans, patriotic Americans, and more godly Americans.
As you all know by now, I am a liberal (well, at least on social issues). I would apologize for this, but I just don’t think it’s a bad thing. Now, many of you reading this do not agree with me politically and that is perfectly fine by me. This world would be amazingly boring if everyone was in lockstep together on political beliefs.
But, does being a liberal mean I don’t believe in G_d? Given I’m a Jew, most people are not going to agree with me as a matter of religious belief. But does that actually mean that I am less religious than most. I certainly don’t believe so. I don’t think one has anything to do with the other.
Does being a liberal mean I don’t work hard or value those who do? Well, I was taught my work ethic by my parents and grandparents. I always try to give those I do a job for my extra mile of effort. Not that I’m the greatest or most intelligent person on the planet, but I always try to work hard. I also appreciate when someone goes the extra mile in their professions, and I hope I express that appreciation.
Finally, does being a liberal mean I am un-American? Wow, how do I answer that? Let me try.
I have tried to teach my boys the importance of being a good and active citizen of this country. We are blessed with many liberties, but those come with responsibility. I take those responsibilities seriously. I always vote. When called, I have never shirked jury duty. I pay taxes (we can all argue the correct amount, but I do pay). I always try to obey the laws of the land (no speeding tickets in 4 years).
So in all of that, where am I un-American….un-patriotic?
I love this country, but does that mean I must always agree with the leaders on the decisions that they make. If my reading of history is correct (and I love historical non-fiction), the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to question the ideas and process of those governing. The whole idea behind the First Amendment is to guarantee and promote the debating of our country, the wonderful idea that is representative democracy.
Why has it become acceptable to question a person’s patriotism or love of country if they do not agree with you? How can we expect our leaders to govern us to our greatest good if we are promoting the idea that their motives are against the national interest? As much as I have hated many of George W. Bush’s policies, I have never questioned that he was doing what he thought was best for our country.
So why is it OK to think the same of Barack Obama, or anyone who is not a Republican?
But that has been the message this last week. It’s open season on questioning the patriotism and the love of country of Democrats.
Is this going to help bring our country together? Is this going to help us overcome the problems which are facing us? Or is this going to continue to rip us apart as a people, as Americans? We need to stop the name-calling and hatred.
We can do better. We need to do better.
"Liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God." – Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC)
“The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they pro-America or anti-America. I think people would love to see an expose like that.” – Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
This campaign season has taught us many, many lessons. Some of these lessons are those which we want to replicate, others are actions or attitudes we need to avoid. As we near the end (and thank goodness we are actually reaching the end) we get to learn another lesson.
Thanks to the remarks by the above representatives of our government, we get to see how easy it is to try to dissect America and belittle others. It seems, over the past few days, the Republicans across this nation have decided that all those people who agree with them are good Americans, patriotic Americans, and more godly Americans.
As you all know by now, I am a liberal (well, at least on social issues). I would apologize for this, but I just don’t think it’s a bad thing. Now, many of you reading this do not agree with me politically and that is perfectly fine by me. This world would be amazingly boring if everyone was in lockstep together on political beliefs.
But, does being a liberal mean I don’t believe in G_d? Given I’m a Jew, most people are not going to agree with me as a matter of religious belief. But does that actually mean that I am less religious than most. I certainly don’t believe so. I don’t think one has anything to do with the other.
Does being a liberal mean I don’t work hard or value those who do? Well, I was taught my work ethic by my parents and grandparents. I always try to give those I do a job for my extra mile of effort. Not that I’m the greatest or most intelligent person on the planet, but I always try to work hard. I also appreciate when someone goes the extra mile in their professions, and I hope I express that appreciation.
Finally, does being a liberal mean I am un-American? Wow, how do I answer that? Let me try.
I have tried to teach my boys the importance of being a good and active citizen of this country. We are blessed with many liberties, but those come with responsibility. I take those responsibilities seriously. I always vote. When called, I have never shirked jury duty. I pay taxes (we can all argue the correct amount, but I do pay). I always try to obey the laws of the land (no speeding tickets in 4 years).
So in all of that, where am I un-American….un-patriotic?
I love this country, but does that mean I must always agree with the leaders on the decisions that they make. If my reading of history is correct (and I love historical non-fiction), the Founding Fathers wanted the citizenry to question the ideas and process of those governing. The whole idea behind the First Amendment is to guarantee and promote the debating of our country, the wonderful idea that is representative democracy.
Why has it become acceptable to question a person’s patriotism or love of country if they do not agree with you? How can we expect our leaders to govern us to our greatest good if we are promoting the idea that their motives are against the national interest? As much as I have hated many of George W. Bush’s policies, I have never questioned that he was doing what he thought was best for our country.
So why is it OK to think the same of Barack Obama, or anyone who is not a Republican?
But that has been the message this last week. It’s open season on questioning the patriotism and the love of country of Democrats.
Is this going to help bring our country together? Is this going to help us overcome the problems which are facing us? Or is this going to continue to rip us apart as a people, as Americans? We need to stop the name-calling and hatred.
We can do better. We need to do better.
Monday, October 06, 2008
Umbrella Time
"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice. If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."-- A top McCain strategist, quoted by the New York Daily News, on trying to change the subject.
“Desperation, the world’s worst fragrance”, quoted from the movie “Singles”.
How do you know when a campaign is desperate? They start slinging as much mud as they possibly can and hope something, anything, sticks. From the quote above, the McCain campaign has decided now is the time to find their mud bog and start tossing.
This weekend, the illustrious Gov. Sarah Palin started trying to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. Ayers is a 60’s radical and (maybe) reformed educational activist. Now, when this person’s name first appeared back in February I tried to track down the story. After all, why would I want to support someone who may be close to someone who was clearly nuts? But I found that the connections between Obama and Ayers were so tenuous as to be laughable.
Here’s the stories which I was able to find on the subject for the last 8 months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Fact Checker
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts
The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine." Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."
The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a left-winger with dubious support".
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the
University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the USA Today, 8/2008
How their paths crossed
When Obama was asked about Ayers in an April debate, he said, "the notion that … me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
After that debate, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley released a statement saying he doesn't condone what Ayers did in the 1960s. "It was a difficult time, but those days are long over," he said.
Ayers and Obama have moved in some of the same circles:
•In 1995, Ayers hosted a brunch for Obama, who was running for the Illinois Senate.
The ad says this meeting launched Obama's political career. Quentin Young, a physician who was there, says it was a typical Hyde Park event and to imply otherwise is "guilt by simultaneously being in the same place."
•In 1997, they were on a juvenile justice panel sponsored by the University of Chicago. They were on a 2002 panel on intellectualism that was co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.
•In 1997, the Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. Obama said he was reading Ayers' A Kind and Just Parent: the Children of Juvenile Court.
•From 1999-2002, both men were on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago foundation that makes grants to arts and civic groups. Obama left the board in 2002; Ayers remains on it.
Laura Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund board, says suggestions of close ties are "an attempt to demonize Bill as a way of damaging Barack Obama."
•Ayers gave $200 to Obama's 2001 state Senate campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX News and various media outlets have always said that there were no links between Obama and William Charles “Bill” Ayers who was an American activist in the 1960s and 1970s and is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor.
Time: Making An Issue Of Obama’s Relationship With Ayers And Dohrn Is “Absurd.” “Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama’s relationship with them is absurd.” [Time, 5/29/08 ]
Chicago Sun Times: Obama’s Connection To Ayers Is A “Phony Flap”. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, “But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County’s juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child’s chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That doesn’t make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn’t make him unpatriotic. And he’s friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn’t make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204.” [Chicago Sun-Times , 3/3/08]
Noam Scheiber Of TNR: “I Don’t See Evidence Of Any Relationship” Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, “Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don’t see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama’s state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I’m not saying they couldn’t have been casual friends; just that there isn’t much evidence for that at this point.” [The New Republic, 2/22/08 ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When America is faced with a horrible economy, a broken-down government, a healthcare system which is costing everyone more by the day, and a no-holds-barred energy crisis, we get to be entertained with John McCain and Sarah Palin doing the dance of the boogeyman.
We are already seeing ads being aired about Barack Obama not supporting the troops, which according to factcheck.org is at best a misrepresentation of his votes, at worst it’s an out and out lie.
We are going to see more and more stuff, and I fear that some of it will be racially-motivated. Palin already seems to be dancing awfully close to that line in her speeches.
But why not; if I’m the McCain campaign and I have an angry, relatively erratic candidate with a running mate whose qualifications all would call into question I’m probably making the same choice (OK, that’s true if I don’t have any ethics or scruples).
I mean, the policy announcements the McCain campaign has come out with over the last couple of week’s amount to either nothing or worse than nothing. Just today, the main economic advisor to McCain stated that cutting Medicare and Medicaid would be the way they would want to go in order to give tax credits for health insurance. This goes under the heading of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hence, get ready to take out the biggest umbrella you can find. Make sure it is strong enough to withstand all the crap you are about to hear and see. It will be ugly. It will be mean-spirited. It will be classless. But, don’t allow these tactics to sway you. It is too important to remember what is at stake in this election.
Vote for the future, for these tactics are very much about the past.
“Desperation, the world’s worst fragrance”, quoted from the movie “Singles”.
How do you know when a campaign is desperate? They start slinging as much mud as they possibly can and hope something, anything, sticks. From the quote above, the McCain campaign has decided now is the time to find their mud bog and start tossing.
This weekend, the illustrious Gov. Sarah Palin started trying to tie Barack Obama to Bill Ayers. Ayers is a 60’s radical and (maybe) reformed educational activist. Now, when this person’s name first appeared back in February I tried to track down the story. After all, why would I want to support someone who may be close to someone who was clearly nuts? But I found that the connections between Obama and Ayers were so tenuous as to be laughable.
Here’s the stories which I was able to find on the subject for the last 8 months.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post Fact Checker
There has been a sudden spate of blog items and newspaper articles, mainly in the British press, linking Barack Obama to a former member of the radical Weather Underground Organization that claimed responsibility for a dozen bombings between 1970 and 1974. The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."
Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.
Is there anything here that raises questions about Obama's judgment or is this just another example of guilt by association?
The Facts
The first article in the mainstream press linking Obama to Ayers appeared in the London Daily Mail on February 2. It was written by Peter Hitchens, the right-wing brother of the left-wing firebrand turned Iraq war supporter, Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens cited the Ayers connection to bolster his argument that Obama is "far more radical than he would like us to know."
The Hitchens piece was followed by a Bloomberg article last week pointing to the Ayers connection as support for Hillary Clinton's contention that Obama might not be able to withstand the "Republican attack machine." Larry Johnson, a former counterterrorism official at the CIA and the State Department, predicted that the Republicans would seize on the Ayers case, and other Chicago relationships, to "bludgeon Obama's presidential aspirations into the dust."
The London Sunday Times joined the chorus this weekend by reporting that Republicans were "out to crush Barack by painting him as a left-winger with dubious support".
The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Ayers did not respond to e-mails and telephone calls requesting clarification of the relationship. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the
University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:
Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.
In the short term, the person who has most to gain by speculation about Obama's acquaintance with a former terrorist is Hillary Clinton. The former First Lady likes to present herself as "tested and vetted" after years of exposure to Republican attacks, in contrast to Obama, a relative newcomer to hardscrabble presidential politics. Such arguments resonate with Johnson, the counterterrorism expert, who told me that he is a Clinton supporter, although not involved with the campaign.
But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one. As Newsday pointed out, Clinton has her own, also tenuous, Weatherman connection. Her husband commuted the sentences of a couple of convicted Weather Underground members, Susan Rosenberg and Linda Sue Evans, shortly before leaving office in January 2001. Which is worse: pardoning a convicted terrorist or accepting a campaign contribution from a former Weatherman who was never convicted?
Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."
"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the USA Today, 8/2008
How their paths crossed
When Obama was asked about Ayers in an April debate, he said, "the notion that … me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense."
After that debate, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley released a statement saying he doesn't condone what Ayers did in the 1960s. "It was a difficult time, but those days are long over," he said.
Ayers and Obama have moved in some of the same circles:
•In 1995, Ayers hosted a brunch for Obama, who was running for the Illinois Senate.
The ad says this meeting launched Obama's political career. Quentin Young, a physician who was there, says it was a typical Hyde Park event and to imply otherwise is "guilt by simultaneously being in the same place."
•In 1997, they were on a juvenile justice panel sponsored by the University of Chicago. They were on a 2002 panel on intellectualism that was co-sponsored by the Chicago Public Library.
•In 1997, the Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. Obama said he was reading Ayers' A Kind and Just Parent: the Children of Juvenile Court.
•From 1999-2002, both men were on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago foundation that makes grants to arts and civic groups. Obama left the board in 2002; Ayers remains on it.
Laura Washington, chairwoman of the Woods Fund board, says suggestions of close ties are "an attempt to demonize Bill as a way of damaging Barack Obama."
•Ayers gave $200 to Obama's 2001 state Senate campaign.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOX News and various media outlets have always said that there were no links between Obama and William Charles “Bill” Ayers who was an American activist in the 1960s and 1970s and is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor.
Time: Making An Issue Of Obama’s Relationship With Ayers And Dohrn Is “Absurd.” “Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama’s relationship with them is absurd.” [Time, 5/29/08 ]
Chicago Sun Times: Obama’s Connection To Ayers Is A “Phony Flap”. The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, “But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County’s juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child’s chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That doesn’t make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn’t make him unpatriotic. And he’s friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn’t make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204.” [Chicago Sun-Times , 3/3/08]
Noam Scheiber Of TNR: “I Don’t See Evidence Of Any Relationship” Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, “Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don’t see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama’s state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I’m not saying they couldn’t have been casual friends; just that there isn’t much evidence for that at this point.” [The New Republic, 2/22/08 ]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When America is faced with a horrible economy, a broken-down government, a healthcare system which is costing everyone more by the day, and a no-holds-barred energy crisis, we get to be entertained with John McCain and Sarah Palin doing the dance of the boogeyman.
We are already seeing ads being aired about Barack Obama not supporting the troops, which according to factcheck.org is at best a misrepresentation of his votes, at worst it’s an out and out lie.
We are going to see more and more stuff, and I fear that some of it will be racially-motivated. Palin already seems to be dancing awfully close to that line in her speeches.
But why not; if I’m the McCain campaign and I have an angry, relatively erratic candidate with a running mate whose qualifications all would call into question I’m probably making the same choice (OK, that’s true if I don’t have any ethics or scruples).
I mean, the policy announcements the McCain campaign has come out with over the last couple of week’s amount to either nothing or worse than nothing. Just today, the main economic advisor to McCain stated that cutting Medicare and Medicaid would be the way they would want to go in order to give tax credits for health insurance. This goes under the heading of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Hence, get ready to take out the biggest umbrella you can find. Make sure it is strong enough to withstand all the crap you are about to hear and see. It will be ugly. It will be mean-spirited. It will be classless. But, don’t allow these tactics to sway you. It is too important to remember what is at stake in this election.
Vote for the future, for these tactics are very much about the past.
Friday, October 03, 2008
A Difference In Leadership
I am a nerd. I am a political junkie. I can't help myself.
So, I've discovered this website, www.fivethirtyeight.com. It is non-partisan, and filled with every polling number a person could ever want to see. I love it.
But the guys behind the site wanted to do a little political trip to see the ground games of the presidential campaigns. Below you will see a copy of their latest report. The differences are stark.
After reading this, I come to a conclusion which I have always believed. Leadership begets comparable action.
John McCain's campaign has been marked by negativity, whining and instability. Barack Obama's campaign has been the model of discipline, of message and of action.
So is it any surprise that those who volunteer for their campaigns would copy the leadership they are receiving? Is it any surprise that Obama's campaign has no qualms about reporters (or others) coming in and looking around, whereas McCain's campaign is at war with anyone who is not familiar to them?
If we, as American's, are serious about changing the way we work our politics, then we need a leader who sees the value in leading us in a respectful way.
It is so obvious to me, Barack Obama is that leader.
Here's the story from www.fivethirtyeight.com:
The meat of this post is below the slideshow, and it’s about the McCain ground game. It's probably going to make a little stir.
Our apologies in advance to the Obama organizers and volunteers who aren’t going to get the full justice they deserve in this post. They believe Missouri is going blue this year, and they’re working their bodies into the ground to make that happen.
We’re getting used to this relentless Obama operation: organizers trained in both tactics and campaign culture, working so hard they have trouble remembering what happened 48 hours ago – it’s too distant – and convinced that if they stay in their lane and trust the structure it’ll pay off in the end.
Obama has 40 offices now open in Missouri, and Justin Hamilton, Obama’s Press Secretary for Missouri, told us that while he couldn’t confirm below or above the published reports of 150 organizers (it didn’t come from the campaign), the campaign is only adding to its ground force. Organizers have now recruited 2500 neighborhood team leaders statewide, folks who do the far more effective work than any 30-second ad or yard signs, actual face-to-face contact and persuasion of their neighbors.
For a Democrat to win Missouri, he or she has to follow the Claire McCaskill map, which is win the blue urban centers in Kansas City and St. Louis city by wide margins, hold down the losses in outstate Missouri (McCaskill spent huge time in and around Springfield, and got to 42% there while Kerry only managed 37%), and then win highly populated St. Louis County (20% of Missouri’s overall vote) by enough votes to hold on for a win. McCaskill won St. Louis County by 12, Kerry only won it by 9. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the County, 63% to 36%.
Something interesting is happening with John McCain’s campaign. Up until now, we’ve had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we “shouldn’t or don’t need to be talking to.” (McCain’s Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that’s not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we’d probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we’re regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I’d hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
Here on out, our skepticism is going to be higher. We truly respect organizers on both sides, because it is grindingly hard work for minimal pay. It’s powered by a belief in doing what’s right. We do not quote them or get them in trouble. Moreover, we truly respect direct action by volunteers – who do exist on the McCain side, just as a tiny, tiny fraction of the Obama side – but if the attitude continues on this unhelpful and obstructive turn, we’re going to spend less time making excuses for what we observe. Less benefit of the doubt. Show us real work and we'll cover it. We want to.
We'll be up in Chicago tonight making Nate pound RCP shooters. Then, Indiana. There's a huge story unfolding in Indiana.
-- Sean Quinn at 2:20 PM
So, I've discovered this website, www.fivethirtyeight.com. It is non-partisan, and filled with every polling number a person could ever want to see. I love it.
But the guys behind the site wanted to do a little political trip to see the ground games of the presidential campaigns. Below you will see a copy of their latest report. The differences are stark.
After reading this, I come to a conclusion which I have always believed. Leadership begets comparable action.
John McCain's campaign has been marked by negativity, whining and instability. Barack Obama's campaign has been the model of discipline, of message and of action.
So is it any surprise that those who volunteer for their campaigns would copy the leadership they are receiving? Is it any surprise that Obama's campaign has no qualms about reporters (or others) coming in and looking around, whereas McCain's campaign is at war with anyone who is not familiar to them?
If we, as American's, are serious about changing the way we work our politics, then we need a leader who sees the value in leading us in a respectful way.
It is so obvious to me, Barack Obama is that leader.
Here's the story from www.fivethirtyeight.com:
The meat of this post is below the slideshow, and it’s about the McCain ground game. It's probably going to make a little stir.
Our apologies in advance to the Obama organizers and volunteers who aren’t going to get the full justice they deserve in this post. They believe Missouri is going blue this year, and they’re working their bodies into the ground to make that happen.
We’re getting used to this relentless Obama operation: organizers trained in both tactics and campaign culture, working so hard they have trouble remembering what happened 48 hours ago – it’s too distant – and convinced that if they stay in their lane and trust the structure it’ll pay off in the end.
Obama has 40 offices now open in Missouri, and Justin Hamilton, Obama’s Press Secretary for Missouri, told us that while he couldn’t confirm below or above the published reports of 150 organizers (it didn’t come from the campaign), the campaign is only adding to its ground force. Organizers have now recruited 2500 neighborhood team leaders statewide, folks who do the far more effective work than any 30-second ad or yard signs, actual face-to-face contact and persuasion of their neighbors.
For a Democrat to win Missouri, he or she has to follow the Claire McCaskill map, which is win the blue urban centers in Kansas City and St. Louis city by wide margins, hold down the losses in outstate Missouri (McCaskill spent huge time in and around Springfield, and got to 42% there while Kerry only managed 37%), and then win highly populated St. Louis County (20% of Missouri’s overall vote) by enough votes to hold on for a win. McCaskill won St. Louis County by 12, Kerry only won it by 9. Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the County, 63% to 36%.
Something interesting is happening with John McCain’s campaign. Up until now, we’ve had no trouble gaining access to field offices and volunteers. Here in St. Louis, we were told by Tina Hervey, Missouri Republican State Party Press Secretary, that she had never heard of FiveThirtyEight, and while they trusted Politico, we were people who they had to decide whether we “shouldn’t or don’t need to be talking to.” (McCain’s Missouri press secretary actually works out of Iowa, and did not return calls or email.) I told Tina that’s not a story we wanted to write, that this was our first Republican resistance, and that while she may not have heard of us, we’d probably go over 2.5 million site visits this week, now that we’re regularly past 400,000 per weekday. I told her I’d hold off writing her flat refusal and give her the opportunity to change her mind.
No budging. We were told that we’d be asked to leave public field offices we now attempted to visit. We did not get any promised follow-up helping get access to the post-debate Palin rally last night, and we were locked out. Hmm.
Let’s be clear. We've observed no comparison between these ground campaigns. To begin with, there’s a 4-1 ratio of offices in most states. We walk into McCain offices to find them closed, empty, one person, two people, sometimes three people making calls. Many times one person is calling while the other small clutch of volunteers are chatting amongst themselves. In one state, McCain’s state field director sat in one of these offices and, sotto voce, complained to us that only one man was making calls while the others were talking to each other about how much they didn't like Obama, which was true. But the field director made no effort to change this. This was the state field director.
Only for the first time the other day did we see a McCain organizer make a single phone call. So we've now seen that once. The McCain organizers seem to operate as maître Ds. Let me escort you to your phone, sir. Pick any one of this sea of empty chairs. I'll be sitting over here if you need any assistance.
Given a choice between taking embarrassing photos of empty phone banks, we give McCain’s people the chance to pose for photos to show us the action for what they continually claim we “just missed.” No more. We stop into offices at all open hours of the day, but generally more in the afternoon and evening. “Call time,” for both campaigns, is all day, but the time when folks over 65 are generally targeted begins in late afternoon and goes til 8 or 9pm. Universally, McCain’s people stop earlier. Even when we show up at 6:15pm, we’re told we just missed the big phone bank, or to come back in 30 minutes. If we show up an hour later, we “just missed it” again.
The McCain offices are also calm, sedate. Little movement. No hustle. In the Obama offices, it's a whirlwind. People move. It's a dynamic bustle. You can feel it in our photos.
Up to this point, we’ve been giving McCain's ground campaign a lot of benefit of the doubt. We can’t stop convincing ourselves that there must – must – be a warehouse full of 1,000 McCain volunteers somewhere in a national, central location just dialing away. This can’t be all they’re doing. Because even in a place like Colorado Springs, McCain’s ground campaign is getting blown away by the Obama efforts. It doesn't mean Obama will win Colorado Springs, but it means Obama's campaign will not look itself in the mirror afterward and ask, "what more could we have done?"
You could take every McCain volunteer we’ve seen doing actual work in the entire trip, over six states, and it would add up to the same as Obama’s single Thornton, CO office. Or his single Durango, CO office. These ground campaigns bear no relationship to each other.
Here on out, our skepticism is going to be higher. We truly respect organizers on both sides, because it is grindingly hard work for minimal pay. It’s powered by a belief in doing what’s right. We do not quote them or get them in trouble. Moreover, we truly respect direct action by volunteers – who do exist on the McCain side, just as a tiny, tiny fraction of the Obama side – but if the attitude continues on this unhelpful and obstructive turn, we’re going to spend less time making excuses for what we observe. Less benefit of the doubt. Show us real work and we'll cover it. We want to.
We'll be up in Chicago tonight making Nate pound RCP shooters. Then, Indiana. There's a huge story unfolding in Indiana.
-- Sean Quinn at 2:20 PM
