Drunken Mystic

Both Democrat and Republican races are getting more nasty.

Obama and Hillary are really firing off at one another. Obama made it interesting again in South Carolina. Romney and McCain are also trying to put one another down more than point out the policy differences between each other. McCain and Hillary (and Bill) are the instigators, mainly, but the other sides, Obama and Romney, are letting themselves get sucked into it.

Obama even got the Kennedy to support him. More of the old guard are going Obama, knowing he has a better chance against the Republicans. What does that say about Hillary? At this point she is more likely to win the nomination. That could be problematic for the Democrats.

It is becoming more and more apparent that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill Clinton, and that is angering the old guard among the Democrats. They want him to just shut up and get out of the whole thing, but he won’t. If Hillary gets the nomination, the Clintons are more likely to pull a Democrat and lose a very winnable election for them. Everything Bill says is a headline while Hillary’s positions and comments receive less press. That is problematic for the Democrats.

The AJC has revealed how liberal and racist they truly are, just going to prove that liberals are more racist than conservatives ever hope to be because they always just get away with it because they attack popular targets (white, evangelical, rural) or advance liberal generalizations about minorities (they all vote Democrat, don’t you know!). The AJC, in attempting to analyze the four Republican top dogs for the nomination, actually used the phrase “NASCAR dads” as a voting group. If Fox News (not really conservative … they just don’t pander to the liberal worship of certain things) or a conservative talk show guy or any Republican candidate used a similar term to talk about any minority group in a Democratic contest, we would see the story we haven’t seen since “nappy-headed hos.”

The President gave his State of the Union the other night, and I’d like to mention a factor in the election that I haven’t heard considered. What if, despite the media universal campaign to the contrary, Bush’s approval rating improves? Unlikely, I know, but what if he makes some significant changes or something happens that gets him good press? That would make a difference for the Republicans in the next election because he could use the bully pulpit that has become rather ineffective because of his low approval rating, one of the major agendas in constant, one-sided criticism from the left and most of the media.

I’m still compiling a list of issues that I will discuss over the coming weeks. Any suggestions? I’ve got a good list now, but maybe you will bring up something I haven’t thought of.

Peace.

Wanted to put a couple thoughts together about the presidential election as a whole.

The Republicans have an opportunity to put a new face on the party and focus on their own progressive ideas, which will garner more support from the country than the ideas from the Democrats. The spectre of GW Bush will continue to haunt them in the media, but that can easily be overcome with a focus on ideas and issues. If they become too critical or hard-line, watch the media pounce.

The main uphill battle for the Republicans is eight years with a rather unpopular president and their association with him. Completely rejecting the positives of his presidency will alienate their own party more than they think, and it will hurt them if they overreact, which they might be doing with the rise of John McCain. Remember, Bush was pretty unpopular before the ’04 election, too; the American people just decided they liked Kerry even less.

The Democrats have an uphill battle of their own to fight. For the most part, their stances and positions are not popular with the majority during a presidential election. As the party as a whole has swung way liberal, they will have a hard time maintaining a moderate face. Despite Bush’s low approval rating, the Democratic Congress’ approval rating is even lower, and both front-running candidates are members of that congress. Also, the track record for Congressmen winning a presidential election is poor … we haven’t tried it yet with a Congresswoman, so let’s see how it goes.

Another thing to remember, a Democrat/liberal has not truly won a presidential election since 1976, and Jimmy Carter was such a horrible president that he doesn’t win any arguments with the American public.

What about Bill Clinton? you may ask. No, I’m not senile. I remember ’92 and ’96, but also remember there was a third candidate in both races, Ross Poroit. While Clinton won the electoral college, he didn’t win either popular votes. No one did. If we were to place Poroit on the conservative side (he was a staunch Republican until Bush, Sr. ed him off), then conservatives won both elections by popular vote. Bill Clinton may have still won those elections. We’ll never know.

The point is that independents tend to vote more conservative in presidential elections and liberal in local ones, which partially explains the Democratic takeover of both houses in ’06 (only partially … there was a lot of media-fed backlash of the Republicans as well). This will be an advantage to any Republican candidate and a disadvantage to the Democrats.

This is why Obama would be strong in a general election against most of the Republicans. He’s consistently preaching the same message, and the media will endorse that message of working for real change, giving the Democrats an advantage with the independents.

Another thing to remember: elections are not won by those who we WOULD vote for, but the ones we actually do. It matters more who actually takes the time to vote than any public perception or poll, as we saw in the Democratic primary in Nevada.

For both parties to still have no consistent front runner (except for possibly Hillary for the Democrats) is a disadvantage to them both. A party needs time to unify itself after the chaotic mess that the primary system can be. I feel that this will be another close one in the presidential race.

An important thing to keep watch over is who controls the House and Senate. It is completely possible that we could have a Democratic president and a Republican Congress, which would be interesting.

Peace.

Growing up, I would say that my knowledge of Martin Luther King, Jr. was fairly basic. He had a cool speech, he had a dream, and now African Americans aren’t segregated throughout the South.

My history education through high school was fairly white, American, and major event related. Not criticizing it, but once I got into my major at Georgia State in social studies, I purposefully took classes I had little to no prior knowledge of. I learned more detail about other countries and cultures and saw history from their perspective. It was fun.

One of those many classes was African American History. Since the teacher was actually there during many of the major events, she concentrated more on the Civil Rights Movement from the early ’50′s to the ’70′s. This was when I first saw the series, Eyes on the Prize, which was produced by PBS but is no longer in circulation because of stupid copyright considerations. Long but incredibly informative and honest, Eyes on the Prize taught me things and ideas I never knew.

If I had heroes, depending on your definition of them, Martin Luther King, Jr. is easily one of them. And this is why I have a problem with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.

Reading much of what he said, did, and thought, I fully believe that a holiday to the man is valid and important. But we aren’t actually honoring him. Let me explain.

First of all, he is touted as a figurehead of all black issues, but many of the things fought for and defended by most of the modern black leadership had little to do with what he stood and ultimately died for then. This division was very pronounced by the mid-60′s. Dr. King had become marginalized by many in the Civil Rights Movement. They were unwilling to love their enemies enough to be non-violent, believing instead that minds and hearts couldn’t be changed. Dr. King clearly wanted to move towards a type of American brotherhood that crossed racial and even religious lines. The Civil Rights Movement began to split because of these things, and the new, youth oriented groups were more exclusive and willing to resort to violence.

So many are still ignorant of what King actually stood for. Oh, we get the sugar coated “I Have a Dream” concept but ignore the background of his non-violent ideas, his opposition to exclusion of white liberals and Christians who wanted to support the movement, and why he was opposed to the Vietnam War.

Second, because of the ignorance of what he actually stood for, many black leaders manipulate the legend of Dr. King to give validity to their own ideas. Almost to a man, these leaders were highly critical of King during his lifetime and actively opposed him, responsible for the very division I discussed earlier. To now try to unify support throwing by his name around doesn’t seem to have too much integrity, especially on issues that he stood against in his own lifetime. It is dishonest and only shows the weakness of their argument to use MLK’s name in their propaganda.

I’m not saying that if you disagreed with King at some point you don’t get to mention him or discuss his legacy. But it is intellectually dishonest that some people get a “free pass” once they mention his name, primarily current black leaders and white Democrats, many of whom were tied to extremely racist positions in the past.

Martin Luther King, Jr. was a great man who put a mirror to the face of a nation at a time when it was desperately needed. He was strictly pacifist, deeply spiritual, and an amazing writer. He struggled for economic and political equality. He achieved much in his short life to help resolve a divided national conscience. He did not believe his work was done at the end of his life, however, and was even campaigning for worker’s rights in Memphis when he was killed.

But we have no clue what he would have stood for beyond that forty or fifty years later. It is unfair to his legacy to even try. Honor him for who he was, honestly, and the revolutionary power he exhibited. That should be enough.

Peace.