It's not so much politics that I was raised on, but ethics. I've said before, I was possibly four years old when I was first told that Franklin Roosevelt was the savior of the United States of America. My father spoke out against McCarthy and his witch hunt, and telegraphed Edward R. Murrow his support when Murrow exposed that most un-American of senators. I was passionately against the Vietnam War, even when my father, a veteran, maintained his stand that it is right to support your country, no matter what, until he saw enough of the war on TV to realize that this is not always the case. He remembered Nixon and his dirty politics going back to his 1948 run for Congress, and I knew about that, too. He liked Gerald Ford, whom he felt was a good man, but he never trusted Ronald Reagan. ("Always remember," Jack cautioned us, "that he is an actor first.") I have recently talked about my parents' feelings about the racial divide in this country, so I won't go into that again.
That was at home. Talking about politics in public can be dangerous, like talking about religion. (Although for some reason, there are plenty of people these days who have no trouble talking about their religion, and putting it into public policy. Huh.) Talking about politics in public can cause hurt feelings, and more, and so was impolite. Nevertheless, it doesn't stop me, although it does hold me back. Sometimes I hold back here in my diary, too, although there's really no reason to do that because, as so many others before me have pointed out, you don't like what you read, that's what the little x in the box is for. (Or the little red circle, if you're on a Mac.)
I also hold back sometimes because I am extremely passionate about these things, and letting myself run free can get me very charged up. Is that good or bad? I don't know. I do feel that I've made my feelings here pretty clear, but earlier today, I wrote an entry with the title Glass Houses, Stones, and Double Standards, and I didn't explain it. So here we go.
First, I am willing to admit that my own candidate is not perfect, although at the moment, I have no specific example of that. He seems like a stand-up guy. I think some of the charges that the other side throws at him are simply absurd. For example, the idea that either Obama or Biden is an "elitist", whatever that's supposed to be. Let us remember that both McCain and Palin were raised in far more affluent circumstances than either Obama or Biden, and Palin's parents were just middle-class school teachers. Is it "elite" to be accepted into a fine university? I don't think so; isn't that what we would want our children to aspire to? And didn't McCain go to a fine university, at government expense, I might add? Who is the wealthy one in the foursome? We all know that answer, so let it go.
Here's what we need to remember: McCain's campaign is using, or trying to use, a tactic that is time-honored in the Republican party, at least going back to 2000. If they raise enough stupid and pointless issues about the other candidate, they hope it will distract voters from the real issues that are important. It's called swift-boating, remember that? Like when you claim a decorated war hero really wasn't a hero, because you don't want people to think about, oh, THE ILLEGAL WAR IN IRAQ. Right. Imagine what Nixon could have done to Kennedy with this strategy?
Anyway, glass houses. This new attack on Obama, that he hates America because he "pals around" with known terrorists could not be more insane. The known terrorist in this case is a 1960s radical who now is a professor of education in Chicago and who lives in Obama's neighborhood. As Obama has pointed out, when this individual was involved in the acts for which he was criticized, Obama was 8 years old. (And lived in Hawaii, I might add.) What reason could there be for raising such a ridiculous issue if not to distract voters from the mess of the economy -- and McCain's foolish role in it last week -- and the war?
And by the way, glass houses? Stones? What I'd like to know more about is Palin's involvement with the secessionist group in Alaska; that is, the group that wants Alaska to secede from the union. Her husband was a member, and she spoke to the group, "courted" them, said the last article I read. Led by an individual who, to this day, maintains his hatred for the United States and curses the flag. (Not that I don't think "cursing the flag" is an absurd charge against anyone, but you know, if anyone Obama ever knew did it, Palin would be all over him.) So Governor Palin, please, check your own glass walls before you start throwing your stones. You might want to think twice.
Double standard. Or maybe more than double, but this one really gets me, and it's something Bill Maher said on his show Friday night, which I shall paraphrase. Still wondering how much racism has to do with this election? Do you still think Palin is okay, but Obama "doesn't have enough experience" or is "elitist"? Well. First -- this didn't come from Bill Maher -- calling Obama "elitist" is just another way of saying that he is "uppity." It is. If you don't think so, think again.
But this was the eye-opener for me.
You may have seen that video clip of Palin in her church, a minister from Africa praying over her to drive out witches. (I couldn't find a short clip of it on Youtube, but you can find a long one.) Yes. He prayed over her -- she was right there with him -- to make sure she was free of the influence of witches. And people are okay with that. Now, let's imagine for a moment that we had a video clip of the same minister, exact same scene, but he was praying over Barack Obama to cast out witches. Would it look the same to you? (If your answer is Yes, it would have looked incredibly stupid no matter who was in the video, go to the head of the class.) But if you think that it's okay for Palin, but would have looked wrong with Obama, then guess what? That, my friends, is racism. Okay for the nice white lady, a little too jungle fever for the black man? Yes. That's what racism is, the double standard that says okay for white people, not okay for black people.
Please. Do not be distracted by race; be a better American than that. Do not be distracted by lies and half-truths; be smarter than that. If you look at any issue, look at health care. Under McCain's plan, huge numbers of Americans will lose the health care they have now, and if you get your health care from your employer, you will probably be one of them. Read about what his plan is. Look for the explanations from economists as to why it will not work, and will only make insurance companies richer and Americans poorer, or in poorer health, or both. McCain has no interest whatsoever in the average American, and Palin doesn't understand enough about anything to do anything for anybody, unless, of course, you've got a witch problem.
Please. Be thoughtful with your vote. Vote for our future. McCain and Palin are telling you that America is a leader in the world and we can do anything, but our own eyes are telling us that this is no longer true. Obama is the one who wants to restore America to its leadership role, to its true values. Someone needs to put us back on the path that Bush has taken us off of, and McCain is not the man to do it, and neither is Palin. Obama is the man. I see hope in him. Could I be wrong, of course. But I see two choices, and only one of them is a choice I can make. McCain/Palin would only continue this country down its path of disaster. I want a president who believes in the same America I do. And that president is Barack Obama.
(Thanks, Karen. You gave me the strength I needed to write this. XOXO)
WATCHING KING OF THE HILL :: ENTRY #1872
READING: Dear Senator by Essie Mae Washington-Williams