The WRONG Way to Pass Legislation
October 2, 2008
The Senate broke my heart by passing the bailout Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (note the re-framing) overwhelmingly.
What’s really eating at me though is the way that it passed. In an attempt to make the bill more palatable to members of Republicans in the House, they packed the bill with pork. Sure, this is how business gets done in Washington, but in this case it’s really, really, really sick. See some examples of the garbage in this bill here.
With all of the quasi-economic-populist rhetoric going on as this election draws nearer, why not throw in substantive measures to make this bill more palatable to homeowners, consumers, and everyday citizens? Isn’t that what economic populism is all about?
We need a change in Washington. Yes, I agree that we need a new President, and I think that new President should be Barack Obama. But what we really need is a change in how Washington works. This bill passed the way most bills pass in Washington: too quickly, without enough scrutiny, packed with “sweeteners” for politicians instead of people.
I wish my candidate & his VP (and, frankly, their opponent) hadn’t supported this. When a Democratic Senator who’s name is not on this list tells you they put regular people first, do a double-take.
Democratic Senators that Voted ‘No’ on the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act
- Maria Cantwell (WA)
- Byron Dorgan (ND)
- Russ Feingold (WI)
- Tim Johnson (SD)
- Mary Landrieu (LA)
- Bill Nelson (FL)
- Bernie Sanders (VT)
- Debbie Stabenow (MI)
- John Tester (MT)
- Ron Wyden (OR)
One Love. One II.
P.S. When was the last time that opposing candidates voted the same way on a such controversial legislation this close to an election?
5 Reasons Why Barack Lost the 1st Debate
September 29, 2008
I co-hosted a Debate Party on Friday night that doubled as a Fundraiser for Barack Obama. The party was fun, the food was delicious, and the people I watched the debate with, including the Bus Chick & people from YES! Magazine and Reclaim the Media, couldn’t have been cooler.
What could have been better was my candidate’s performance. Here’s why this debate was a lost opportunity:
- Too much agreement
- Posturing on Pakistan & Afghanistan
- Nuclear Iran only posing a threat to Israel
- Iran’s army is a terrorist organization
- Venezuela is a rogue nation
(All the references I make here can be seen in the Debate Transcript, courtesy of the New York Times.)
When People Lie, People Die: A Frank Lesson from 9/11
September 11, 2008
7 years ago today the world stood still in the face of tragedy as Americans, Black, white, and everyone else stared in pure horror as we saw real planes crash into real buildings with living, breathing people inside them in real time. Then, few saw it as a teaching moment: a moment that we could learn from. Since then, the majority of us have activated our analytical minds and searched for understanding regarding the events that took place on that day and the series of happenings that led to that disaster.
As we remember that day, those who were injured and killed, those who demonstrated the apex of human bravery, and those who have since perished in events related to 9/11, I ask that we contemplate a basic truth exemplified on that day:
When People Lie, People Die
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in one of his many non-”I Have A Dream”-speeches, said this about what I’ll call the Continuum of Lying:
Jesus realized something basic: that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down on one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, “Nicodemus, you must be born again.” In other words, “Your whole structure must be changed.”
In other words, many big, huge, terrible, evil things start off itty bitty lies. Lies that went unchallenged. Fallacies that were presented and accepted. Falsehoods that are seen then ignored.
Enough!
Barack Obama said this plainly during his Acceptance Speech at the DNC in Denver. It bears repeating and applying here when talking about how we need to stop accepting the lies that politicians tell. (…cough…John McCain…cough…Sarah Palin…cough…)
I don’t like being lied to, and frankly, you shouldn’t either. It’s insulting and disrespectful, and it leads to people getting harmed, hurt, and killed.
So in rememberance of 9/11, its victims, and its survivors, let’s reject lying in our homes, lying in our workplaces, and lying in our politics. Who knows how many lives we can save by just doing that.
One Love. One II.
Reactions to Sarah Palin
September 4, 2008
It’s taking me much longer than I anticipated to wrap my head around the DNC. Nevertheless, life, and politics, go on.
Now that the Republicans have a Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, a good friend of mine and of The SuperSpade’s has some reactions to her selection and her speech.
Below are links to Clarence Wardell III’s Giant Steps blog, which has two posts on Palin & much more great content.
On the Palin Pick
By picking Palin, McCain has made himself out to be a hypocrite and liar. The immediate instinct is to react as Obama’s communication’s director did, and talk about how much Palin is unqualified, but that is not the winning attack line, and Democrats would be wise to stay away from this as much as possible. Based on Obama’s response to the Palin nomination on Friday, he gets it, which isn’t surprising at all. One thing we’vecome to find out about Obama is that he’s much more politically savvy than people tend to give him credit for being. By attacking on the front of Palin’s inexperience the Obama campaign opens themselves up to the response that she’s qualified as Obama (which is not true). The central line of attack must be that it was not Obama who thought he lacked experience, but McCain who thought Obama lacked experience. With this pick McCain has shown that either:
- He’s a liar and Obama does have the appropriate experience, or that
- Palin is inexperienced too, and he just picked someone who is not the most qualified.
However, he can’t have it both ways.
Read more of the “On the Palin Pick” post.
Reactions to Palin’s Speech
Some have commented that this speech was on par with the Obama speech of 2004. I have to laugh at this, because for one the speech that Sarah Palin read was clearly written by someone for her, packed with about 30 minutes of lines pulled straight out of the McCain commercials we’ve seen for the past month. Obama’s speech was written by him, and then tweaked by others. Palin’s was a speech predicated on division, while Obama’s was a salvo for unity. For all the energy put into the conservative base by the Palin pick, I can only imagine that her speech tonight did the same for the liberal base.
Read more of the “Reactions to Palin’s Speech” post.
One Love. One II.
John McCain talks Black? - Black on Black Thought
July 31, 2008
This is part of the bi-weekly Black on Black Thought feature.
I’m excited to do The SuperSpade’s first author interview today. Cliff Schecter, a friend and former Brave New Films colleague, is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him, Why Independents Shouldn’t, which was released this past May. The book is an insightful look into the political psyche of the Republican Presidential candidate.
I asked Cliff to talk with me about John McCain’s record on issues of relevance to Black voters. With all of the talk in the news over the past couple of days about race in this election, his answers are interesting to say the least.
The Interview
The SuperSpade: In your view, what’s been the most instructive example of John McCain’s ideology to civil rights?
Cliff Schecter: First Garlin, thanks so much for providing these questions. And now onto business.
When it comes to Civil Rights, it’s an easy one. While he has hired a white supremacist to work on his campaign, employed the man who created the racist ads against Harold Ford Jr. in 2006 and voted against MLK day, the one that sticks out is the Confederate Flag. And here is why: McCain has even admitted himself that he threw African Americans under the bus for political reasons in South Carolina in 2000. McCain blatantly changed his position on the Confederate Flag when he thought it would help get him votes–to appear more racist.
In January 2000, McCain said that “The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It’s a symbol of racism and slavery.” Yet, three days later, after talking to consultants and deciding that winning was more important than civil rights, he changed his tune to “personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage.” When the campaign was over, he admitted that if he had “answered honestly” he feared that he “could not win the South Carolina primary.” So winning is what mattered. Not as important an issue in this country as the ongoing inequality and racism that African Americans are forced to endure.
McCain feels disrespected by NYT - Black on Black Thought
July 23, 2008
This is part of the bi-weekly Black on Black Thought feature
What’s up fam, this week James Dickson ripped into The New York Times (NYT) for their not publishing an article on the conflict in Iraq penned by Senator John McCain. For context, McCain’s piece was a defense of his supporting the conflict in Iraq and it was a response to an article written by Senator Barack Obama that was published the week before.
James said,
Rather than the nation ignoring McCain’s piece, as it almost certainly would have, the NYT has made it the first must-read political tract of 2008. Rather than bypass the piece when it would’ve run in the NYT, I instead read the piece — which, admittedly, was the typical “BUT THE DEMOCRATS ARE WORSE!!!1″ Republican attack line — on CNN.com, a site that, if it has lower circulation than NYT, isn’t by much.
I actually disagree that McCain’s piece is now a must-read political tract. This type of analogy is is akin to people buying NWA’s music solely because it was banned. And not for nothing, Obama is a really good writer and it is painfully obvious that he wrote his article while it appears that McCain’s article was written by the Communications staff and quite frankly, it read like it went through the campaign filter about ten times before they sent it to the NYT.
James himself admitted that McCain’s piece was lackluster which begs the question, why does the NYT editors have to publish bad journalism? Regardless, James went on to point out that decisions like the one made by NYT serve to highlight the growing prominence of the blogosphere and the decline of mainstream media. I think this claim is a bit overblown because the vast majority of political blogs react to articles in the mainstream media via commentary/analysis. (like we are doing right now)
The larger issue is that McCain is losing in the marketplace of ideas and by that I mean that his ability to paint an inspiring vision of a better America is similar to the article he submitted to the NYT; lackluster. And while the notion of fair and balanced news analysis is seductive, it is fleeting, which is why you can get more in-depth analysis by reading Black on Black Thought.
Stay up fam,
Brandon Q.
