Most Fashionable First Ladies and Political Wives

Sonsoles Espinosa – Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero’s wife has a spunky short hairdo, an affinity for fabulous oversized jewelry, and a background as a classical singer.

Carla Bruni – What’s not to love about Bruni’s style? The singer, songwriter, and former model, is also the First Lady of France, where she is often seen beaming in head-to-toe Christian Dior.

Sandra Lee – It's little surprise that Food Network star Sandra Lee knows a thing or two about looking camera ready. The force behind the cooking concept “semi-homemade”, Lee is dating New York’s newest governor, Andrew Cuomo, and is not one to shy away from frills and embellishments


 

Svetlana Medvedeva – Russia’s First Lady, Medvedeva is a glamorous blonde well known for her strong support of the arts and for being a patron of Russian fashion.

Michelle Obama – Love or hate her style, any First Lady who has the guts to wear Moschino and Alexander McQueen, as well as up-and-coming young designers like Proenza Schouler and Jason Wu, is worthy of serious sartorial praise.

 First Lady Michelle Obama may get the bulk of the public’s attention when it comes to her fashion choices, but she’s far from being the only First Lady or political wife to think outside of the box. Here’s a round-up of nine other fashion influencers in the political realm.

Maria Shriver – If being part of the Kennedy family wasn’t enough to seal her fate on this list, Shriver, wife of former California governor and actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, has honed her style skills over years of on-camera appearances. Looking at ease in everything from a little black dress to white trousers and a camel top, Shriver has perfected the fashionable prim and proper look.

Snow Day

c/o Ari Melber

Did You Get Anything From The State of the Union Speech?

I didn't. He said what he was expected to say... but beyond that, he really didn't address any pressing issues for the non-wealthy - issues concerning me. I was invisible. Post-SOTU interviews done by NPR of St. Louis listeners reflected my view... and confirmed that it wasn't just me. I am resigned to the fact that I will continue to be invisible to this Administration.

I would have loved to hear something about a bailout for the working class....and even the middle class. I would have loved to hear about some sort of relief for college graduates who can't find meaningful work, who are drowning in student loan debt and can't afford to make payments (because of America's corrupt profit driven system of higher education that leaves students in debt for much of the rest of their lives....slaves to financial institutions before they even have a chance to start families). I heard nothing about helping Americans pay for higher education.

In terms of jobs, I really didn't hear much about a robust job creation plan and how he would make it happen. We only heard a vision and a rough outline.... not much else. The outline was fairly good.... but it is about 18 months too late. I was calling for the kind of job creation that he mentioned 2 years ago. More of the stimulus money should have been directed towards green energy projects and R&D to encourage innovation and job creation. But I guess it's better late than never.

It is clear to me that the world that he sees and the world that working people see are two different images. He thinks he is rolling out a wonderful plan....with perfect timing for the election cycle... while working people on the ground - who have been talking about jobs for at least the past year - see a man who is a good year to year & a half late in terms of recognizing the issues facing real people. It's as if he woke up one day last week and realized jobs and the economy were the real issues. Of course that's not the case, but (not surprising considering how horrible the image problem is in this Administration) that's how the President often looks to political observers like myself. It just looks like he ends up devoting quite a bit of time & energy playing catch up. How often does he go to rural & urban areas to sit down with real people? I'm not talking about staged productions and photo opportunities at auto assembly plants... but really getting in touch with people and learning about what it's like to live on incomes that don't amount to living wages.

Realizing what Americans voted for last November, and understanding that nothing of real significance is going to get done over the next two years in terms of Progress and good legislation directly benefiting ordinary folks, I found it hard to be excited or remotely hopeful about anything from this SOTU.

See commentary from around the net.

A Nation Enters the Inventive Age

As I was watching the President speak last night, I couldn't hep but think of Doug Pagitt's new book Church in the Inventive Age.  Like Doug, the President pounded home his conviction that the world has changed and we need to adapt to it.  The road ahead may be difficult to navigate, but America's history shows that we have what it takes.   The key words from last night's speech are EDUCATE and INNOVATE.  This is because the jobs of tomorrow, unlike the jobs of yesterday require education, and the only way we can compete with China and India is if we educate and innovate.  The President noted that in proportional numbers, the US has fallen to 9th in college graduates.  In terms of Internet access we're well behind a number of other countries.  There is the severe problem that 25% of HS seniors fail to graduate from HS at a time when it is next to impossible to get a job without a HS diploma at the very least. 

Now as I listened to the President last night I heard a sober analysis and a centrist solution.  He said enough to make the partisans left and right upset.  But, what I heard last night was a President who gets it.  He's not the Prime Minister, who represents a Party, he's the President who represents a nation.  He gave the the GOP a few bones, and said okay, now since we have divided government lets see what we can do to solve problems in a centrist mode.  I'll come part way, but you have to come part way.

I heard this strongly stated in the brief but important word about Health Care.  He said, you know, if there are areas that don't work, let's fix them.  But let's not redo the legislation so that a person with a pre-existing condition can't get health care coverage, let's not take away the opportunity for families to cover their children as they enter the work force or continue their education.  But, he made clear he would not let us slip backwards.

While the pundits were poking holes (along with some of my progressive friends), my sense is that the American people liked what they heard.  And, while Paul Ryan may have made a nice defense of small government in his response, is this really what the American people want? 

What the American people want is a strong, efficient, effective government that solves problems and protects us from threats both external and internal, that delivers services on time and keeps the roads fixed.

My story for a moment.  I'm driving down Long Lake Road, a major thoroughfare here in Troy (in what was once a rather affluent city), and I'm amazed at all the potholes.  And it's only getting worse.  Is this the America we really want to live in?  Yes, the deficit is a problem, but maybe we need to be willing to pay a bit more money for things.  Maybe here in Michigan we could pay 10 cents a gallon more so we could have good and safe roads and bridges.

So, did I like the speech last night.  Yes, I thought he did what he needed to do to reframe the debate and get us moving forward.  I think he also put himself on the right path to getting re-elected, and if he does well enough Democratic senators in states leaning right might do well as well.

So, let's go out and innovate and educate! (Oh, but one thing Mr. President, while I agree we need math and science teachers, let's not forget the humanities.  One of the big problems today is people don't know their history!) 

State of the Union: Winning The Future

Does More Civility Mean We Stop Telling the Truth?

Why Republicans Won't Really Change Their Tone

I have been annoyed by the commentary over the last few weeks regarding the tone of the political discourse in America. The mass shooting in Arizona set off a huge debate in this Country, much of it dishonest, about what was/is to blame in general when these events occur. It is true that we don't know what exactly set off Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. However, it is dishonest to say that it was just an isolated incident and the ugly political debate, especially on the right, plays no part in contributing to an atmosphere that makes it more conducive for these sorts of events to happen. This is just intellectually and morally dishonest on a grand scale.

Something else that gave me a headache was this effort by those on the right to make the false equivalence claim - that "both sides are doing this equally".... "both sides are guilty".... yada yada yada. They are attempting to whitewash the last two years, and rewrite history to fit their own narrative post-Tucson. Almost as annoying... the media is playing right along with Republicans/Conservatives who make this argument. Of course both sides say things that are inappropriate... that cross the line, etc. But this idea that all sides are somehow equal in doing so is just laughable. There is no equivalence whatsoever in terms of the number of occurrences, the level of ugliness or seriousness of threats, or the outcomes. Clearly right wing pundits and politicians are at the top in all three of those categories...by far. I have been watching in awe as the media has pretended otherwise....playing right along, as if they are being told what to say. Time and time again I have seen/heard hosts....whether on CNN, NPR, or my local AM news station KMOX - St. Louis (the defacto voice of the Right in the midwest) play along with Conservative guests when the equivalence argument is made...failing to challenge the right in any way.... no follow-up questions...nothing. Beyond ridiculous.

Let's review shall we...

This is not simply about the comments that are being made over the national airwaves, it is also about the context...or the backdrop in which the comments are made. It is the context that matters more here.

And what has been the context over the last two years? Well, this most recent political context took shape in 2008 (and you could probably go as far back as 2007) during the Presidential campaign. Over that period (2007-2009) we know of two major reports that news organizations put out regarding the changing attitudes & changing tone in the Country. One was about the Homeland Security assessment regarding the rise of Right Wing extremism in America, due to the recession and the introduction of a Black President...or Candidate who actually had a real shot. The other report came from the Secret Service, describing the fact that threats against Obama were at unprecedented levels, with 2-fold & 3-fold more threats than his white predecessors. So knowing this.... you would think that the responsible thing for politicians (regardless of Party affiliation) would be extra careful about language and tone, right? But we know that is not what happened. Politicians on the right lost their minds...and the tone got out of control. Open racism was allowed to take root at Republican rallies in Pennsylvania, Ohio & throughout the Country. Despite these reports of increased threats, Palin continued to be irresponsible throughout the campaign. Instead of challenging followers behaving inappropriately...by telling them to stop racist comments.... Palin seemed to ignore them. Instead... she whipped up Republican followers and seemed to focus on a certain part of her base by using certain buzz words that challenged not only Obama's right to run for President...but questioned his citizenship and loyalty to the Country during a time of conflict and deep social/political division. By demonizing Obama & stripping him of his right to be a "real American", taking away his Americanness, suggesting he was a traitor & a terrorist, suggesting he was a socialist, and by dehumanizing him...in a way gives the green light to any number of lone nuts. Remember the context we were (and still are) in.

Everyone is suggesting that after Tucson.... pundits and politicians (especially those on the right) are suddenly going to play nice and behave in a much more civil and respectful manner. But if history is our guide... that is probably not going to be the case. This goes back to this attempt by right wing pundits and the media to frame Tucson as an isolated incident. People are acting as if Tucson was the first incident where a nut engaged in some sort of political violence or targeted a political figure. How media pundits do this with a straight face is a mystery to me. How they get away with it is even more perplexing. Just in the last two years, the number of high profile incidents of a political/ideological/religious nature...or influenced by the national debate at some level, has been unprecedented.

Just in the last 2 years or so... we have had the following (and keep in mind...we have already established the context.... and we STILL had folks taking guns to political events, and politicians suggesting 2nd Amendment remedies... the context...the reality of how volatile the Country was didn't stop those on the right from continuing their madness.)


♦ Jim Adkisson - shot up a Unitarian church in Tennessee. Fueled by Right wing talk show pundits. The rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Raymond Hunter Geisel - threatening Obama. Republicans didn't stop. Just an isolated incident?

♦ Richard Andrew Poplawski - killed Police officers in Pittsburgh because he internalized rhetoric on the right that told Americans that Obama was coming for their guns. Just an isolated incident? Oh yeah... Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this either.

♦ Scott Roeder - Killed Dr. George Tiller (nicknamed "The Baby Killer" by the right). Isolated incident? Republicans didn't stop their rhetoric after this incident either.

♦ James Von Brunn - launched terrorist attack at the Holocaust museum in Washington D.C. Isolated incident? The violent rhetoric didn't stop.

♦ Joseph Stack - out of work, anti-government activist flew plane into IRS building in Texas. Isolated incident? The rhetoric didn't stop. In fact, one GOP politician seemed to sympathize with the terrorist, who killed at least one IRS worker in the incident.

♦ Byron Williams - Was stopped by police in Northern California while enroute to attack Liberals. Fueled by Glenn Beck and others in the Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans refused to change their tone.

♦ Danny Ray Tollett - Brutally attacked Muslim convenience store workers in Louisiana. Shot 2 Muslims at close range...in cold blooded attacks. Fueled by anti-Muslim theme carried by Right wing media. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to change their tone.

♦ The Denver Plot - see specifically counts 9, 11 and 12 - White supremacists planned to harm candidate Obama. Attack foiled in planning stage. Isolated incident? Republicans continued with their rhetoric.

♦ Daniel Cowart and Paul Schlesselman - Allegedly planned to harm President. Isolated incident? Republicans failed to stop their rhetoric.

♦ Michael Enright - Stabbed NYC Cabbie in the neck because he was Muslim. Ahh what the Hell... just another isolated incident. Republicans continued on with their madness (particularly about the "Mosque at Ground Zero" which really didn't exist...but they knew that framing it that way would scare the Hell out of a lot of people...so they went with it...almost costing a father...a family man...his life).

♦ Charles Habermann - Charged just recently with threatening Rep. Jim McDermott. Just an isolated incident? Republicans carried on.

♦ Gas line intentionally cut at Congressman's home, after wrong address is posted online...with blogger encouraging followers to 'pay a visit to the victim'. Just an isolated incident? Republicans refused to stop their rhetoric that whipped followers into a frenzy over Health Care Reform.

♦ Travis Corcoran - Another right wing radical... praised the shooting of Giffords. Just an isolated event?

♦ Just in the past week, we have the backpack bomb found along the MLK commemorative parade route in Spokane Washington. Luckily...the device failed to detonate. An isolated incident?

♦ Now Conservative pundit/blogger Erick Erickson JUST THIS WEEK suggested that he may use a shotgun to threaten U.S. Census workers...gloating about it on the airwaves. An isolated incident? No condemnation by other Conservative media figures. So this is the change in tone that the goofballs on the news programs have been talking about over the past two weeks? Give me a break!

With the exception of the last three...these are incidents that took place before Tucson. So Tucson didn't happen in some vacuum... There is an abundance of context. This is what makes the behavior of those on the right so vile. And this is not even a full list.... there were threats against Pelosi....and arrests in several other cases. The list is long. Again...as I mentioned...the last two years have been unprecedented in terms of threats of political violence or actual incidents, which matches up with what the U.S. Secret Service has stated regarding their data on the increase in threats.

At what point can we stop using false equivalencies and stop suggesting these events are somehow "isolated incidents" separate from the volatile atmosphere created primarily by those in the world of right wing Conservative media?

I see nothing that would lead me to believe that some magical shift towards civility is going to take place after the tragedy in Tucson Arizona. Republican/right wing pundits are not going to stop what they have been doing for the past few years. This is their bread and butter (getting their followers riled up.... feeding them misinformation, and manipulating people). This is a key part of Republican strategy. Giffords & all the others are considered collateral damage to those on the right. Republicans can't afford to be civil because they have grown so dependent on a certain kind of volatile, ugly rhetoric to maintain media success & energize their political base. It has worked for them (unfortunately). And I see them continuing with that approach. Just this week... Rush Limbaugh... the Supreme Leader of the Republican Party & Conservative movement in America, engaged in more ugly behavior... joking about the way that the Chinese President Hu Jintao spoke during his official State visit to the U.S. Of course the media ignored this...just like it practically ignored the MLK bomb case in Spokane.

By allowing the pundits, bloggers and talk show hosts (the unofficial but true leadership of the Conservative movement) to spew the ugliest rhetoric and lies, the official political leadership and the so-called "stars" within the Republican party can get away with using the plausible deniability argument...and that's exactly what they have done here. predictably, they have used the Hell out of this argument since the Tucson attack. I have mentioned several times, including on my right wing media information page, that this is how the right operates. Of course, no one is actually suggesting that anyone on the right has given direct orders to any extremists or extremist groups.... but they have created an atmosphere conducive to violence...and in some cases, they have indirectly given a wink & nod approval for such actions (in some cases, simply by their silence when violence or threats of violence occur. Silence in this context...after they have worked so hard to rile the crazies up... equals tacit approval).

A few people on Social media (twitter to be exact) suggested that the Right has somehow been let off the hook by Obama after his call for civility. I initially wanted to agree with that. I think that the media at large may let Republicans off the hook, and networks may continue to play the false equivalence game. But I don't think Obama's speech in Tucson means that we shouldn't tell the truth. I plan to continue stating what needs to be said.

"I want our democracy to be as good as Christina imagined it."

Last night the President of the United States, Barack Obama, spoke to the nation as part of the Tucson Memorial Service.  In his message, which was as good a sermon as any preacher could give, he called on the nation to rise above the divisions and disagreements of the day to honor the memories of those who died in Saturday's tragic shooting, to lift up those who are recovering from wounds, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, and to honor those whose heroism that day saved lives and demonstrated all that is good in us as human beings.  He reminded us that even though we cannot always keep evil at bay, we can decide to treat each other appropriately.  It is in our power to do what is right, even if others choose not to do so.

In what was a masterful and moving speech, President Obama rose above partisanship, including the pettiness that has marked much of the "debate" in recent days, and moved our attention to the people who were most affected by this event.  He spoke both of the evil in the world and the goodness present, but while he called on us to have moral compass, he didn't lay things out in stark black and white terms, as many have sought to do.  As this President is so aware, this a world of great complexity, where easy answers are few.   What he did was simply to call us to a higher level of life in the nation:

“At a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds”

Perhaps the most moving part of the speech came near the end, as President Obama lifted up the memory of the youngest victim, Christina Green, and called on us to live up to the ideals that moved this young nine-year-old girl to go that day to meet her Congressional Representative.  He noted that Christina had yet to be affected by the "cynicism and vitriol that we as adults seem to take for granted," and then called on us to live up to her expectations of us as a country and as human beings.  I do believe that this is a calling to which we can and must embrace, even as we take up difficult issues of mental health, gun control/regulation, free speech, and more.  Christina Green has given us a new vision; let us embrace it now. 

Indeed, as the President said in closing:

If there are rain puddles in heaven, Christina is jumping in them today. And here on Earth, we place our hands over our hearts, and commit ourselves as Americans to forging a country that is forever worthy of her gentle, happy spirit.

A Better Way Forward

Earlier today while you were busy at work or taking care of yourself or your family at home, a sea change occurred in Washington, D.C. that will affect your life in a very positive way for years to come. Today, the Republican Party took control of the U.S. House of Representatives officially, and the new Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was elected.

Not only will Boehner's self-effacing, emotional, heart-on-his-sleeves style be in stark contrast to the blathering and blustering that American has suffered through over the past four years with Nancy Pelosi in the Speaker's post, but the concrete results that the country will begin to see over time will  be even more profound.

Back in November, the American voting public sent a clear message to lawmakers that the controlling Democratic Party led by Pelosi and President Barack Obama had grossly overstepped their bounds in beginning to lead the country down a path towards Socialism. No longer would irresponsible bailouts to big business, massive increases in government control of our daily lives, and repressive taxation be permitted to continue.

In taking the gavel of Congressional power today, Boehner promised to return government to the people with a renewed focus on the Constitution and the principles of transparency, honesty and accountability. Of course in actuality it was we, the people, who had returned government to ourselves
by putting Boehner into power with the landslide electoral victories of November 2010.

Speaker of the House Boehner recognized the fact of the people's expressed will when he stated in today's speech "The people voted to end business as usual, and today we begin to carry out their instructions." Those instructions include making the Bush-era tax cuts permanent for every American, rolling back the socialist Obama health-care behemoth, ending the practice of "earmarks" in legislation initiatives, and returning America to it's Constitutional roots.

The Republican Party itself has not been a very good steward of these values when it has had the opportunity in the past. In fact, there is really only one major difference in today's Democratic and Republican Party. That difference is the people who make up the two parties out here in the homeland. The majority of Republicans at the grass-roots levels want a national government that keeps taxes low, keeps spending low, promotes personal and familial responsibility, that keeps us safe here at home, and that never inhibits the faith that is at the very foundation of our nation.

Democrats, on the other hand, generally want a government that lets anyone do what they want, when they want, except when it bothers them specifically as an individual, in which case they want the government to step in with regulation and control and penalties. They want an ever-expanding nanny state that takes care of them from the cradle to the grave, and want those who have been historically hard-working, the job creators, the builders, to pay for it all.

Oh, and they want to have sex without fear of any parental consequences, and so they push for the murder of babies under the guise of a "choice" for women. Never mind that the poor little baby gets no such choice in the matter at all. Hey, mommy couldn't keep her legs closed. Hey, daddy couldn't keep it in his pants. So sorry kid, but you gotta go. (insert sucking vacuum sound here)

John Boehner and the Republicans who took office today know one thing for certain, that they are being watched. No, I'm not talking about being watched by and Dem politician or liberal media outlet. I'm not talking about being watched by some hack comedian or some self-righteous television talk show host. I'm talking about being watched by us, the very same people who elected them in November.

The elections of November 2010 are only the beginning. There are more congressional offices to take, more Senatorial offices to flip. More state houses to make a move on in the future. And then, of course, there is the big one in 2012, when it will be time to topple the faux Messiah himself.

A better way forward has been forged, not by politicians, but by the people of the Republican Party. The politicians who took office today, particularly the new Speaker of the House John Boehner because of the importance of his public position and the power that he now wields, are only our instruments. We will be listening closely to the tunes they play in the coming months and years.

Looking Back on the Past Year

Is Barack Obama a ------g Idiot, Naive, or Am I Just Imagining Things?

Rhetorical question.... I already have my opinion on this.

Book smart, eloquent, charismatic, knowledgeable about public policy and government, Ivy League educated and a technocrat... but lacks wisdom.

He has lost me.

That is all.

DADT is Dead!

In a historic vote a bipartisan majority voted to end a discriminatory policy that has been in place for seventeen years.  By a 65-31 vote, that included eight Republican senators, Congress has delivered a final blow to this policy that was instituted in 1993 by Congress and President Clinton -- in many ways as an interim measure.  In the past 17 years thousands of gay and lesbian service men and women have been forced to live secret lives as they have tried to serve their country.  At the same time about 13,000 service members have been discharged from the military because their sexual identity had become known.  Among that number were numerous language experts, including many of its Arabic speaking personnel. 

Yes, there is a conservative backlash brewing, but this is a policy that was on last legs anyway.  If Congress hadn't overturned it, the Courts were about to do so, and the Courts wouldn't have given the government as much leeway in implementing the change.  So, this is actually in the better interests of an orderly transition.  My hope is that the military will see this vote and suspend all pending cases against gays and lesbians, and also begin the process of preparing the troops -- most of whom I think will be quite able to adjust, even as troops had to adjust in the 1940s to integration of the military.  Besides, President Obama campaigned on this issue, promising to see it overturned.  That promise has been kept.  Later this week, then, he will sign this bill into law as a victory for justice in this land!

Back to the reason why the conservative backlash will ultimately fall flat is that a growing majority of young adults no longer see homosexuality as a deviancy.  Even a conservative Christian analysis of this trend (the Barna sponsored book UnChristian,   makes the point that one of the key reasons why young adults are rejecting the church is that they see it as anti-gay.  Well, if they're rejecting the church for that reason, do you think they'd want to join a military that continued to embrace an archaic viewpoint? 

I think that the other reason why the protests will fall flat is that our military effectiveness won't be impaired.  We'll not see troops dying or being maimed in battle, as John McCain and the Marine Commandant claim, because of this policy (this is just pure fear-mongering).  If that happens it's because the military leadership has failed to properly implement a policy that works just fine in the militaries of most of our allies!

Obama and the Democrats Still Don't Get It - Fix the PR & Messaging, and Pick the Right Battles

The Midterm (S)elections ended pretty much as expected. Confused Americans tired of gridlock in Washington DC, voted for more gridlock. This is frustrating because I know many of those white Republican voters are poor working class and middle class people. Many have been greatly impacted by the economy. I don't understand how they believe Republicans will make their lives any better. Afterall, a Republican White House was at the helm when the economy crashed. Republicans will aim to cut projects and services that many of their own constituents depend on... food stamps, medicare, unemployment insurance, S-chip, infrastructure investments, money for Police and Teachers...you name it. The next two years will be very constraining for President Obama, due to a Republican House of Representatives that will block his remaining agenda.

I have been annoyed and dejected about politics and the direction of the Country (still going in the wrong direction) over the past several weeks and have not been motivated to write anything. Voters and the Country have been disappointing more often than not over the past several years. Things started to go downhill politically in the late 1990's when Republicans and Ken Starr turned the Clinton affair into a circus. Then the U.S. made a number of foreign policy mistakes... under Clinton, which didn't help the U.S. at all...and caused more harm. That was followed up by the 2000 elections. A year later... we had the 9/11 catastrophe. The U.S. hasn't been the same since. Every major negative event that happened after 2000 and 2001 can be traced back to the major events of those two years (the Election of Bush/Cheney, and 9/11)....every major negative event. The nation is still licking its wounds from 2000 and 2001.

What annoyed me most about the Democrats, Post-election, was the fact that there didn't seem to be any effort whatsoever to understand what helped lead to the sharp losses. There was no recognition at all of Progressive/Democratic Party strategy. It was back to business as usual. The first major sign that the Democrats didn't get it was the fact that they chose Nancy Pelosi to continue as the Party's leader in the House of Representatives. This would have been a good opportunity to start fresh with a new leader. Pelosi, in my view, was never very effective as Speaker. Not only does the choice of Pelosi provide more motivation for Republicans over the next two years, but it sends the signal that Democrats are, to some extent, tone deaf. Democrats never seemed to have their finger on the collective pulse of the American public. Despite the need to focus on jobs and the economy.... Democrats chose Healthcare. That in of itself was not the fatal blow. It was the way that they went about selling Healthcare Reform that sunk them. Democrats never seemed to understand the importance of messaging and PR... how to grab and maintain the initiative in the information war. As a result, they lost the information war early on and were never able to regain control of the debate. Democrats also failed to grasp the fact that the U.S. is a centrist to center-right nation, and that governing may sometimes require a centrist approach. However, this is also a nation, as centrist as it may be, where people like populist ideas...some of which are Progressive ideas. In other words...large complicated bills that few people understand are often frowned upon due to costs and the image of too much government. But when you separate Progressive ideas into smaller slices, Americans often like them.... the populist side of the Country kicks in. Democrats failed to exploit the way that Americans understand and perceive policy. It's as if Democrats didn't bother gauging public sentiment at all to determine the best strategy for proceeding.

They were able to pass a bill....many observers, including myself, predicted that. But the cost was probably too high...politically and otherwise. A better strategy might have been passing the bill in pieces which would have been less confusing. They should have focused on passing (and branding) the popular aspects of reform....making it difficult for Republicans to confuse and misinform voters.

President Obama himself doesn't seem to get it. Not only doesn't he seem to understand the larger issues that I mentioned regarding Democrats... he also doesn't seem to understand how his position and approach as President will have to change. During his post-election press conference, the President once again extended an olive branch to Republicans and talked bipartisanship. This was after (Speaker elect) John Boehner and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, made it clear that they had no intentions on pursuing a bipartisan approach.

"This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles," Boehner said during an appearance on conservative Sean Hannity's radio show.

McConnell made similar statements, basically saying that his priority would be to make sure that Obama is defeated in 2012. The only way to do that is to sabotage the remaining two years of Obama's Presidency....which is exactly what they plan to do. It's the same approach that they used during his first two years in office.

The Republican plan is basically to continue the approach of obstruction...and run out the clock on Obama's time in office. They don't want to allow Obama to claim credit for anything positive. They are even reluctant to allow Obama to sign the New START Treaty. The START Treaty is part of a family of Treaties going back to the SALT Treaties under Ford and Carter. They have been the cornerstone of arms control & arms reduction between the U.S. and Russia for four decades. Senate approval of these treaties is usually a formality. All out delays, opposition, sabotage & interference is extremely unusual... not just over the past four decades, but throughout the history of the Republic.

Is Obama tone deaf? He doesn't seem to understand that Republicans have declared war on his Presidency. He also doesn't seem to understand that Democrats/Progressives are in the midst of an information war...and they are losing. I can understand his desire to remain cordial. That's the professional thing to do... but behind the scenes he has to have a two track strategy if he wants to avoid being a one term President.

There is a way that Obama could minimize Republican obstructionism and even put pressure on Republicans. I'm not very optimistic, because the Obama strategy team and the strategy approach of the Party as a whole has been so ineffective over the past two years. But he could position himself to be competitive in 2012, if (along with the Democratic Party) he takes the following approach:

1. Vastly improve the messaging and PR. This has been dismal lately. Work to establish a media infrastructure and communications network for Progressives that could rival the Republican media apparatus (which dominates TV news, and Talk Radio, and has a growing presence on the net). The Democrats and the Obama Administration also must understand the importance of branding. Also, re-establish the PR response effort that was in place during the 2007-08 campaign. Dismantling this after the election was a huge mistake. Put the PR war room back in place.
Without making strides in the information war... Obama's re-election could be in doubt. You can have the best ideas in the world.... but if you have no way to get your message out... no way to compete on the airwaves, no way to combat and prevent distortions... then it doesn't really matter.

2. Keep making efforts to work with Republicans, but behind the scenes, rely on a two track approach. The real approach should be to cut out Congress altogether when necessary.... earlier than usual. Instead, talk directly to the American people about proposals. Talk to Americans during prime time (yes... interrupt them) once or twice a month to provide regular status updates. Tell them what legislation you want/and that the nation needs and point out when Republicans are blocking those efforts. Focus on popular pieces of legislation at least initially. This could work to basically turn the tables on Republicans and force them to govern ...and make tough decisions. Call their bluff on debt issues... make them explain the painful cuts to programs that people depend on. Make them explain why tax cuts for the rich were more important than a poor family's unemployment benefits or food stamps... down to earth, real world programs that people depend on to keep food on the table. Programs that people are depending on more than ever now...ironically due to an economic collapse that took place under a Republican President. Some of those people that will be impacted by Republican cuts are going to be white, working class Republicans. If Republicans block everything (even popular, sensible legislation)...the hope is that American voters will notice and at the very least give Obama another four years. Not that i'm a huge Obama fan (never was)....although I am proud. The reality is... there is no alternative. The idea of a President Romney, Gingrich, Barbour or the ultimate nightmare Sarah Palin, scares the daylights out of me.

3. Obama has to bring in a more effective, more creative strategy team. It's almost a full month after the elections and I see no improvement on the media/PR front.

4. Democrats have to choose their battles more carefully...concentrating on issues that the American people are most concerned with, keeping their fingers on the collective pulse of the nation, and choosing battles that would give them a chance to be effective and to win. Once a battle is chosen... stand up and fight for the Democratic/Progressive position....but be open to compromise when practical and sensible, and when the other side is acting in good faith (which is almost never). But the hope is...by choosing populist positions, the public will be on the side of Progressives, making Republican obstructionism much more difficult. This is why it is important to explain proposals in terms of how they would make life better for average Americans.... how a proposal would create jobs...etc. Speak in terms that middle America can understand.

5. Democrats/Progressives should invest heavily in a public/voter education initiative, both through public school curriculum's and through not-for-profit groups. Such a campaign should be a sustained long term effort, lasting years.

Why Did Americans Jump on the Republican Bandwagon?

1. Republicans are much more effective when it comes to PR and branding. Republican marketing/PR is so strong that they could sell just about anything. It's all in the packaging. Republican strategists understand how to use information or misinformation to change, and control public opinion. Yes, it's manipulative....but it works for them. They were basically able to convince enough voters that the economic pain that they were feeling was somehow the fault of President Obama (not because of the jackasses who came before, who were asleep at the wheel for 8 years). Yes, the Party controlling the White House typically loses seats in Congress after Midterm elections, however, the losses this year were made worse by deliberate efforts by the GOP (and its allies) to confuse and misinform voters.

2. Well I will let Pollster founder Charles Franklin say it. Sadly he's right. He basically says what I have been pointing out for years. I don't bring this up as a way to make fun of voters. Quite the contrary. I don't believe it's necessarily their fault. It's easy to fall victim to misinformation, especially in the digital/internet age. It's that much easier to fall victim when you may not have all the tools to navigate through the nonsense and lies, and to determine what good information is vs. bad information. Public School systems and colleges don't put enough emphasis on basic civics, government, political science, history, geography, and cultural instruction. This is why voter education has to be a fundamental part of the Democratic Party's strategy.

The Emerging Evangelicals -- Sightings

Trying to define the true nature of evangelicalism has never been easy.  Consider that in the 18th century both Whitefield and the Wesley's were called evangelicals, but despite similar methodologies, their theologies were quite different.  One was Calvinist and the other Arminian.  In Germany Evangelical means Protestant.  And so, when pundits and critics of the Religious Right equate evangelism with either Fundamentalism or the Religious Right they're only getting part of the description correct.  There are many different varieties of evangelicalism, something that Donald Dayton has been proclaiming for several decades.   Being a product of Fuller Seminary, I knew quite clearly that there was a difference between the kind of evangelicalism that was present there and that found to the south at Talbot Seminary. 

In this edition of Sightings Jenny Rae Armstrong suggests that there is a movement underway in evangelicalism that has embraced not just salvation in the next world, but a commitment to social justice and systemic transformation in this world.  She calls them Emerging Evangelicals, though as many can attest, even that term is subject to controversy.  Nonetheless, her analysis of the current political climate and the changes that are going on within the evangelical movement are worth considering.  The point being -- not all evangelicals are Republicans, and that is especially true in the under 40 set!

*********************************


Sightings 11/18/2010

The Emerging Evangelicals

- Jenny Rae Armstrong

The recent GOP rebound has been regarded by many as a victory belonging to rifle-toting, SUV driving, born-again Christians. But to oversimplify evangelicals in this manner is to ignore a growing rift within their ranks. Few mainstream evangelicals have attempted to link laissez-faire capitalism with the teachings of Jesus. Even though some claim to base their vote on issues such as abortion, single-issue voting doesn’t seem to be enough to keep younger evangelicals within the Republican fold.

Dubbed “The Joshua Generation” by the Obama campaigners who courted them vigorously, the voting practices of younger evangelicals have been shifting steadily to the left. One third of white evangelicals between the ages of 18 and 29 supported Obama in the 2008 elections, compared to the 16 percent who voted for John Kerry four years earlier, according to a Newsweek article published on January 17, 2009. Increased evangelical concern for social justice, coupled with growing discomfort with the “anti-gay, anti-poor, and anti-environment” stance of the religious right described by progressive Christian leader Tony Campolo, spurred many of them to vote for a democrat for the first time in their lives. Jim Wallis, editor of Sojourners magazine and author of the book God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It, expressed the growing discontent among his fellow evangelicals: “Many of us feel that our faith has been stolen (by the religious right), and it’s time to get it back… How did the faith of Jesus come to be known as pro-rich, pro-war, and pro-American?”

Self-described “Red Letter Christians” (social activists who take Jesus’s teachings on poverty, mercy, and justice literally) such as Campolo and Wallis have been making an impact, not just on evangelicals’ voting habits, but on their very self-image. A decade ago, if you asked an evangelical to sum up her faith, she likely would have quoted Romans 10:9: “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” Nowadays, if you ask the same question, you would be more likely to hear Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”

This cultural shift is well-illustrated by the recent publication of the book Radical: Taking Back your Faith from the American Dream by David Platt. Social justice manifestos penned from the fringes of evangelicalism are hardly new fare for the Christian publishing industry (think Shane Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution), but Platt is pastor of a Southern Baptist mega-church in Birmingham, Alabama. As unappealing as his hellfire-and-brimstone views may be to the less “radical,” it is difficult for even the most conservative Christians to brush off his equally fiery insistence on “taking up the cross” of sacrificial living and concern for the poor as bleeding-heart liberalism. Social justice has become a centerpiece of mainstream evangelicalism.

Ironically, the high-profile rise of economically-focused groups such as the Tea Party could drive an even greater wedge between the GOP and evangelicals, who were drawn to the Republican Party more as a reaction against legalized abortion than an affinity for libertarianism. In fact, evangelicals have always expressed concern for the less fortunate, and are among America’s most generous givers, with almost 24 percent of them donating at least 10 percent of their income to charity, according to the Barna Group. But a growing number of young evangelicals are coming to the conclusion that it is going to take more than a carefully calculated tithe dropped into an offering plate to effect real, positive change for the poor and oppressed, and are willing to think, act, and vote accordingly.

References

Tony Dokoupil, “Faith Beyond His Father’s,” Newsweek, January 17,2009. 

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/01/16/faith-beyond-his-father-s.html

Barna Group, “Americans Donate Billions to Charity, but Giving to Churches has Declined,” April 25, 2005.

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/180-americans-donate-billions-to-charity-but-giving-to-churches-has-declined

David Platt, Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream (Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Multnomah, 2010).

Jim Wallis, God’s Politics: How the Right Gets it Wrong, and the Left Doesn’t Get It (San Francisco: HarperOne, 2005).

 

Jenny Rae Armstrong is a freelance writer who writes about faith and social justice for a variety of evangelical publications.

 

----------

Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

President Obama's Post Election Press Conference

And he's still talking about bipartisanship. I'm not quite sure that he gets it.

Election Day is Near at Hand

A week from now, we'll all wake up and be able to enjoy watching TV without having to endure the constant drone of political ads that seem to multiply exponentially each year.  We will know whether the GOP has been able to wrest control of one or more houses of Congress.  We'll have a better sense of the short term impact of the so-called Tea Party.  And we'll get on with life.  Indeed, we likely will see the stock market soar. 

I'd like to make a few comments about the political forecast.

• Third party ads  that are financed by unknown groups and corporations are impacting this election cycle -- though we don't know in what way to this point  (there could be a backlash against candidates backed by shadowy groups that are financed by corporations protecting their own interests)
• Restating the first point, the recent Supreme Court ruling, allowing Corporations to spend whatever they wish on elections is having in my mind a negative impact on the elections.
• Concern about the anti-intellectualism present in this cycle.  In its populist backlash against so-called "elitism" we're seeing a lot of rhetoric that is anti-science and simply anti-education.  It's a "don't trust egg-head" mentality.
• Although politics can corrupt, political experience is helpful.  Lobbyists prey on rookies.  One of the reasons why California is in such bad shape is that the legislature no longer has experienced legislators, and so lobbyists have run amok.
• The Obama team has not done a good enough job selling its accomplishments.  Here in Michigan ads are being run against the incumbent freshman Democrat, who has won the endorsement of all the local papers, suggesting that he voted for a failed stimulus plan that has cost Michigan jobs.  Last I knew, the Obama administration had provided considerable support to two important industries in this district -- including Chrysler, which has its headquarters in Auburn Hills. And people are buying the rhetoric.
•  Closer to home, I'm really dismayed by the politicized nature of judicial elections in the state of Michigan.  I'm used to a very different system in California, where the governor appoints judges and they are then later confirmed by the voters in non-partisan elections.  Here there are as many ads for the Supreme Court candidates as the governor, and not only that but they are nastier and more politicized than the ones for the gubernatorial candidates. 

I'll leave it at that.  My word of encouragement here is to go vote on Tuesday.  I believe that this is an important election, one that may have a lot to do with the future of the country.  We have a Republican Party leadership that has one thing on its mind -- making sure that President Obama is a one-term President.  In other words, it's not the good of the country that is foremost in their mind, but regaining the White House, and with it power. 

I will admit to being a left of center Democrat.  I'm still a strong supporter of Barack Obama.  I believe that the Health Care Reform that was passed this last year is an important building block to providing access to health care for all Americans.  Did it go far enough?  No.  Does it need to be tweaked? Yes!  Should it be repealed?  I'm a pastor, so I shan't use the word I want to us, but no it shouldn't.  In fact the majority of Americans don't want to see it repealed, they want to see it strengthened.  As for financial regulatory reform so that we don't have a repeat of the Great Recession that we're still clawing our way out of, well it's not a perfect bill.  It doesn't go far enough, and yet once again it is a good beginning.  As for the Stimulus, is it a failure?  Well, as I remember it, not long after the last election the experts were saying that we would hit around 15% national unemployment.  We never did.  While unemployment is stuck at 9.6%, the economy is growing and things never got as bad as predicted.  So, just maybe it did work, its just that the hole was so deep it's taking us a lot longer to dig out from it.  And as for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- don't think that a McCain administration would have exited them earlier than an Obama one.  McCain's platform called for going in deeper and staying longer.  So, while I'm not "satisfied," by the progress of the last two years, I surely do not want to go back to what was. 

Finally, I want to say I'm disappointed by the way the media has painted this election.  It has from the very beginning, because of all the Tea Party ruckus, chanted the mantra about an enthusiasm gap.  I believe it is a gap that the media has contributed to by its continued message that the Republicans will win and the Democrats will lose.  Sometimes that message can have the effect of suppressing voter confidence.  So, to the media -- shame on you!

Pondering

President Barack Obama waits in the Green Room before being introduced at the White House Summit on Community Colleges, Oct. 5, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Excellent Commentary on state of American Politics

A must read, courtesy of John Cole at Balloon Juice -- You Are Blind as a Bat, And I Have Sight

Birthers Won't Go Away - Now They Want DNA

There seems to be no end to the crazy.

Cracks Already Forming in Healthcare Reform Law

I didn't think this would be happening so soon.

Tavis Smiley & Dr. Cornel West Talk Politics on New Show

Tavis Smiley & Dr. Cornel West launched a new radio program this weekend branded as "Smiley & West". I actually enjoyed the commentary. It was interesting to hear Dr. West on the other side of the microphone.

Tavis Smiley fell out of favor with me over the past couple of years. His rantings and attacks against President Obama regarding a "Black agenda" represented the last straw. I thought then, and still believe, that his position was somewhat misguided, especially considering the existing political realities. I think we need a class discussion rather than a discussion that is framed in terms of race. If you always make race the issue....you lose the nations attention. Five decades ago MLK understood that the next battle would be economic justice and that it had to be framed in the context of class. This was why he pushed his poor peoples campaign.... it was not just a "Black peoples campaign" (although Blacks were a main focus)...but a poor peoples campaign. MLK's vision was so great that it allowed him to be far ahead of his time when it came to issues like poverty and economic justice. How Tavis Smiley and Cornel West so easily miss this point is a mystery to me.

But in the radio program, it sounded as if Smiley was reluctantly beginning to recognize his mistake. I still don't care much for his style or his political approach... but he is still an excellent interviewer. I see the new show being useful.... as long as he doesn't allow his personal views to pollute the program.

Listen to the first show: (5 minute interlude...program picks up again @ 6 min. mark).