ProgressOhio

I agree with the post about the importance of defining change in the upcoming presidential election. If Dems aren't careful, Reps can easily re-define change into something fearful, reckless, and uncertain. Better to just keeps things the way they are than to risk a change from a naive, idealistic, inexperienced "pop star" candidate like Obama, right? Anyway, here are some ideas for owning the dialogue:

1. Changing the way we think about war. Instead of thinking of war as a "necessary evil" re-define it as the ultimate failure of leadership. Highlight the shocking decline of diplomacy in the White House. Superficially speaking, "real men" don't rush other men and women into a war without the utmost preparation and supplies. It's simply immoral.

2. Changing the thinking on torture. A Dispatch reader wrote a letter suggesting that, while torture is terrible, sometimes it has to be done. Dems need to do a reverse Willie Horton on this one. If someone is asked if they'd kill the person who raped and beat their wife in front of them, the answer should be: What I'd LIKE to do hasn't been done since the Spanish Inquisition and it's unlikely I'd find all the instruments I'd need to complete the task. Suggest the idea of public torture "events" similar to what was done in the Middle Ages to define torture as barbaric, backwards, and something a civilized society would never do.

3. Change the thinking of the Bush reign. Link the re-emergence of torture, the reliance on fossil fuels, the back-sliding on food safety, the coal-mining tragedies with what can be labeled a return to the Dark Ages. Remind people that we are indeed in the 21st century, although it certainly doesn't seem like it, from the backward policies of this administration.

4. Change the way we think of CEO's. Republicans love to stress that they are the defenders of capitalism and I really hoped Ron Paul would reveal to people what a load of crap that was/is. The problem is that we expect capitalists to be evil and greedy, so therefore, they have no incentive to act morally. Our country needs to support real capitalists who then will set the standard for others to follow. Dems can champion capitalism practiced by real capitalists versus Reps who favor the shady kind.

5. Change to dialogue on environmentalism. Point out that the original environmentalists were the farmers, hunters, and fishermen who relied on what the land and sea offered them. They are still out there, and they suffer from competition from tax-subsidized mega-farms, loss of hunting grounds, and polluted waters. There are more similarities between them and the often chastised environmentalists than is widely reported. Of course, it's in the best interests of polluting companies to keep these groups in constant battle with each other.

Anyway, just a few ideas on how change can be used to turn things around.

I was forwarded an email from a friend detailing his reasons for being "pro-life" and "pro-Obama." I certainly agree that the Republicans have perfected the art of emotional blackmail. But, maybe enough people are tired of it and want something new.

Here's the letter:
Why can a "Pro-Life" individual Support Barack Obama for President?


I am a "True Pro-life" individual. The Pro-Life word has been hijacked into meaning only anti-abortion, but it much more than that. In the way I see the word and term, it is much more encompassing and far reaching.

It is being against abortion
It is being against the death penalty, which many forgot about and are not
It is being against war, especially unjust and where diplomatic means are not exhausted. Many innocent people die and are injured as collateral damage.
It is being pro- helping the poor since without help they could perish
It is being pro-living wage, since if you work you should not be poor
It is being pro-protecting the environment since it effects how others live and life on this planet as a whole
It is being pro- safe and fair working conditions since no one should suffer through live to make a living
It is being pro-education since it allows individuals to live better lives
It is being pro-affordable healthcare since everyone deserves medical care, just not have outrageous prices
It is being pro- reduction of the gap in rich and poor since those that have so much don't need it as much as those with so little.


Barack Obama has been fighting for all the points above as his life's work and pushing in his campaign for president now except the top one. On the one issue we disagree on, he does want to fight to reduce the causes and number of them. For too long, Pro-life has only meant about abortion and neglecting the other important issues that effect life, especially the already living. He has always stated that we will not always agree 100% on everything but that he would always listen and try to work to make things better.

The Count:
Agreed points: 9 Disagreed: 1

90% agreed is a lot better than most "pro-life" candidates. He will be able to do more than most since he is willing to work together with all parties to fix the problems, while in the past if those that did not agree, the issues were blocked or stalled from ever being resolved. Many of these issues have been neglected as of late and not the issues have worsened. How many times have pro-life candidate campaigned on the "one issue" but where has that gotten us? No where, I feel we have been used to get elected. Is it not better to solve 9 issues, instead of 1? Please help me take back the "Pro-Life" word, back to its true meaning: respect for all life.


For those who are "True Pro-Life", it is not clear where individuals like us should turn to fix many of the issues we hold dear to? In my view, it is clearly Barack Obama.

Signed
Greg from Cleveland

Can this bubble get any bigger? Tonight, the remaining members of the Grateful Dead are performing a get out the vote show on iclips.net for Barack Obama. I refer to the mega pr blitz of Obama as a bubble because, as a cynical American, I believe he's being deliberately put up on an impossible pedestal. Then, the swift-boaters will crawl out from under their rocks and tear him apart and blame everything bad that happens in the entire universe on him. But, let's enjoy it while we can!

I'm going to be blunt and just state it: Dems have an opportunity to use Paul as their Nader. His fellow Rep candidates must hate having to campaign with someone who threatens to reveal the truth that they aren't out to protect that American institution, capitalism. They're out to protect the corporations that line their pockets and hire friends, familiy members, and themselves once they are freed from government jobs all in the guise of protecting capitalism. We're talking long held frames of reference that many people still cling to, especially when faced with overwhelming information. Instead of Dems arguing internally about the fine points of Paul's campaign, they should be exploiting the opportunity to expose the lies repeatedly passed on by Reps. I keep harping about the economy because it affects everyone and could be the deciding issue IF Dems decide to band together and have similar talking points. Then, they could use unaltered facts to "divide and conquer" the other party. Unfortunately, after reading other political message boards and seeing the "discussions" deteriorate into petty squabbling, I don't expect much, but what the hay, it's my two cents. (which, thanks to fed meddling, is worth even less these days!)

As we approach Christmas, I couldn't help but notice the differences between this year and the last few years. Remember how we were all duped into believing that in order to be true-blue, patriotic Americans, we should spend, spend in order to support our economy? Never mind the details about whether our dollars were actually achieving that affect or not. We were/are led by people who believe that an economy can achieve growth by consumer spending! These capitalist frauds have tainted everything in our government and unfortunately, no one but Mr. Paul seems to want to address the economy seriously. Democracy may be the heart and soul of America, but capitalism is the meat and bones and as long as we ignore its problems they'll only get worse. The problem is, the candidates know that the voters can't always be counted on, but the checks from the lobbyists will always be there for them.

I admit, I was infatuated with Mr. Paul for a spell and kept wondering WHEN the Dems were going to start paying attention. Well, I'm mostly over Paul, except for his monetary beliefs which is what I believe most people are attracted to as well. For me, the fact that there has been no real serious talks about our economy (and I don't mean bailouts or band-aids) from anyone other than Paul is insulting. Yes, I am coming around to returning to the gold standard (damn those guys at The Daily Reckoning!) and I am disgusted at the lack of concern over our falling dollar. Ron Paul promises a return to monetary discipline and many people are attracted to that. I see a great opportunity here for either party to listen to what Paul is saying, and naturally, steal it. The fact is, the majority of us are as dumb as ever when it comes to money and there's plenty of evidence to support that claim: the explosion of payday lenders, the popularity of tax return loans, investment scams, etc., etc. I don't think Paul will make it to the "finals," but he is exposing some popular issues that shouldn't be ignored.

I was just wondering why the brains at the WH didn't think to go to Apple and ask for some advice on marketing the war. It seems so easy...iMac, iBook, iPhone,iTunes,iRaq. What a missed opportunity!

I just read David S. Broder's editorial on VP Cheney in the Columbus Dispatch and, as is the case most of the time these days, all I could think was "Where the hell have you been?"  But no, I would never think to talk to the man like Mr. Broder, that would be disrespectful.  And that brings me to my point about how cheny broke my heart.  I'm a fan of the Godfather movies and one of my favorite scenes is when Michael Corleon tells his brother Fredo "You broke my heart!"  That is just such a stunning and brutal statement that conveys the deep disappointment and hurt that Michael felt when someone he trusted let him down.  That's how I feel every American should feel about Cheny's behavior while serving our country:  he let us down.  He was the elder, the one people looked to when they got nervous about Bush.  And, in most cultures, people respect and admire their elders, assuming they have wisdom accrued from years of trial and error, along with the humility amassed from learning from their mistakes.  I know people like that and I am always open to learning from them.  But what I think we've learned from this new old guard in the current administration is simply how to better cover your ass.  Thanks, Dick.

Does anyone know if there is a site dedicated to investigating those fear-mongering emails that my conservative relatives keep sending me?  I know we have Snopes, but I was thinking it would be great if there was a dedicated site, or maybe this site could have something that debunks emails like the one I just got supposedly from a New Jersey housewife.  Turns out it was by, you guessed it, a Republican speech-writer doing his part to keep the propaganda machine running.  There's a lot of these so-called letters from real folks going around out there, so where's our letters to counteract them?  

When Bush took office in 2000, I joked to everyone that we all better put our money into oil and energy funds 'cause they're gonna hit the roof.  Well, I don't know how many of my friends did, but I did dip my newbie investor toe into some energy funds.  Now, looking back, I realize that I could've really scored in other areas as well.  Take the defense contractor money-maker.  We all know the names by heart, don't we?  I passed on making some hefty taxpayer subsidized profit (what a fool!)  And here's one I completely missed: educational products to go along with the No Child pr campaign/vote-grabber.  Although, it seems like there's another ugly story behind that program and the winners whose products were chosen.  Still, I bet money was there to be made and I just let it pass me by.  I mean, let's face it, we're living in an investor's economy and sometimes it seems like the best we can hope for is for the big sharks to leave us some scraps to get by.  So, next time someone complains about high gas prices, just look at them with disgust and ask them why didn't they invest all the extra money they have lying around in oil companies?  I mean, really!

Excuse me, but I'm not standing in this line so I can enjoy the neck-sweat of the guy in front of me who's holding a toddler in one hand and, yes, a cell phone next to his ear.  But, that's perfectly acceptable because the woman behind me is having a conversation with someone about a party they're going to go to later this Saturday afternoon.  No, my real attention is on the cashier who is alternating serving customers both in her line and on the phone.  And that's what got me thinking...We keep hearing complaints about everyday folks glued to their cells, but what about the marketplace that demands that their customer service professionals (CSP's) be outright rude to customers to our faces by directing their attention to the phone while (halfheartedly) "serving" us?  That got me thinking again, about how much our behavior is influenced by the current business climate.  I'm sure there are books on this, but I am of the belief that we, consumers, are at the mercy of marketing engines that operate for, and out of some of the biggest corporations in the world today.  I think we have been patronized for so long that we have started to believe the phony psycho babble that tells us that "we deserve this product" or implies to us that we are so cool that we already own said product.  So, I guess the term sheep comes to mind....