Obama's Patriotism Revisited

Several months ago, presidential hopeful Barack Obama was the center of controversy for, of all things, not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Down With Righty followed the story here.

Since then, the Right has changed strategy in the form of numerous attempts to smear Obama as a closet Muslim. This campaign has recently gotten some of the bottom feeders in the Right-wing media (like Bill Cunningham) into hot water with both the mainstream media and even Republican John McCain. Despite the support of virtually the entire Right-wing media machine and a grassroots email campaign, the Obama-Muslim strategy has now appeared to have lost momentum.

So it's back to the drawing board. Thanks to the recent misconstrued (and edited) comments of Michelle Obama and a widely circulated image above of Barack with his hands to his sides during the national anthem, Obama's patriotism has once again been called into question.

First, let's look at Michelle Obama's comments. On February 19th, Michelle made a speech applauding Americans for demanding more from their leaders and crediting these people with some of her husband's success on the campaign trail. In the middle of the speech, she uttered the now famous line, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country." Of course the Right-wing media blew right past the fact that Mrs. Obama was swelling with pride for her country, and instead went insane with the inevitable "Wait a minute, why wasn't she proud before now? What does she have to not be proud about?!! Traitor!!!"

Adding to the spectacle of an overblown attempt to paint the Obamas as un-American was the fact that the quotation appeared in an edited form in the mainstream media:

The poorly edited video - without the word "really" - made it into the mainstream media, where news agencies began reporting that Michelle Obama had never before been proud of her country. What's the big deal? It's just one little word that was deleted from the speech. What difference can one word make. Well, in my opinion, it can mean quite a bit. Basically, it is the difference between Michelle Obama showing an elevated level of patriotism because of the support shown to her husband, and never before having the slightest ounce of American pride. To me, that is a huge difference. Sorry, a really huge difference.

It's like that game we used to play in grade school, the one where a phrase is whispered from one kid to another in a circle until it reaches it's point of origin again, and is no doubt altered beyond any semblance of the original phrase. Well, the Right-wing bloggers took Michelle Obama's quotation and ran with it, until this is what came out:

"[S]he hasn’t had a real moment of pride in her country for the duration of her adult life." - Michellemalkin.com

"Michelle Obama Finally Proud of America After 44 Years" - urbangrounds.com

"Michelle Obama has never been proud of her country before?" - neoconnews.com

"She hasn’t been proud of America for 20+ years, apparently" - blogger Out West

"Michelle Hussein Obama Says She's Been Ashamed of the U.S. for Decades" - debbieschlussel.com

"Instead of seeing America as a place which afforded her the opportunity to create a blessed life, Mrs. Obama seems to view it as a place where some 'people' are always trying to hold her back." - The Weekly Standard

So while each blogger's commentary has strayed it's own way from the original statement, the last comment by the Weekly Standard really takes the cake. Not only is it the most derivative, but also the most telling insight into the conservative mind. I don't know what is more amusing: watching the Weekly Standard transform Mrs. Obama's "really proud" comment into some misguided indignation leveled at "The Man," or conservatives' reluctance to acknowledge that any American has ever behaved in a way that would inspire anything but the utmost pride in country. Americans owned slaves for 200 years. Americans wiped the Native Americans off the face of the earth. Americans didn't allow women to vote for 150 years. Americans have used weapons of mass destruction. Americans killed Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Americans have used steroids to cheat in the Olympic Games. Americans have set up puppet regimes in other countries. Americans have brokered illegal arms deals. Americans have started wars unprovoked. Americans have profited from these wars.

Yes, Americans have done some very wonderful things throughout the relatively short history of this country, far too many to list here. But not everything Americans do is necessarily good. That brings me to the next main point of this post: Why is unfettered patriotism a critical asset of any presidential candidate? In fact, the flag-waving, unyielding, unquestioning uber-patriotism espoused by much of the Right is in many ways a negative personality trait. It's narcissism on a national scale. Just like a person can love themselves too much, people can love their country too much as well, to the point where they develop a myopic view of their homeland, it's leaders and their actions. Where an individual must find common ground between narcissism and low self-esteem, so must a nation's citizens find a balance between blind flag-waving on one side and treason on the other. A nation, like any individual, is neither all good nor all bad. A true patriot is someone who takes the good with the bad, one who takes pride in the good and learns from the bad. The United States has, in recent history, had politicians and pundits more concerned with rationalizing the bad than learning from it, and that is how societies stagnate or even regress.

In the most innocuous cases, a leader with hyper-patriotism will often ignore other countries when it comes to advice on global issues or examples of successful domestic plans. It will cause the leader to over-emphasize matters of national security under-emphasize matters of national identity. It will cause a leader to ignore or simply be oblivious to very real problems for fear of being seen as negative toward the country. Look at Bush and the economy. He kept telling the nation that everything was great, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary, until it was too late to reverse the trend. Essentially, too much patriotism will prevent the leader from making sound, unbiased decisions. We have seen the results of a hyper-patriotic presidency with our current leader. We have also seen it in leaders of past fascist regimes and I, for one, would prefer a candidate who maintains the ability to temper his/her national pride with some good old fashioned objectivity.

But back to the issue at hand, Obama and his supposed lack of national pride. The picture in Time magazine with his hands at his sides during the national anthem? Doesn't bother me. I'm sure many a politician has been photographed without a hand over his/her heart, most not living in nearly as much scrutiny as Barack Obama. But it is this kind of thing that causes epileptic fits on the Right. There were emails circulating, claiming that Obama "refused to not only put his hand on his heart during the pledge of allegiance, but refused to say the pledge." In fact, Obama did not "refuse" to put his hand over his heart, nor was this during the pledge, nor did he refuse to say the pledge. But when you have so few issues to go to bat with (as Republicans do this election cycle), you can't let the Democrats slip when it comes to national pride. To me, the idea that someone could aspire to be the leader of his country and not have pride in that country is beyond absurdity, but as long as some people are willing to believe it, the Right will keep pushing it.

Thanks to the Time magazine photo, the comments by Mrs. Obama, and the backfiring of the "Obama-is-a-Muslim" campaign, attacking Obama's patriotism is back on the table. On the February 22nd broadcast of Real Time With Bill Maher, panelist Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) revisited the lapel pin and pledge controversy. Ironically, Kingston was not wearing a lapel pin himself during the program.

The whole thing is really a moot point. Whether Barack Obama or his wife are flag-waving patriots is of very little concern to me. Of greater concern is whether a candidate is competent, independent, loyal to his constituency, and possesses integrity beyond reproach. As I mentioned before, the uber-patriot usually does not make the best leader. And before Americans start attacking Obama's lack of patriotism, they should really start to examine their own. How many times have you taken in the national anthem with your hands down? How many times have you approached Memorial Day as just another day off? How well do you know the U.S. Constitution? Or U.S. history?

In summary, there are several reasons the attacks on Obama's patriotism are bogus:

1) Wearing lapel pins and placing your hand over your heart do not make you a good American. They are symbols and anyone who thinks symbols trump substance is severely out of touch.

2) Being supremely nationalistic is not only not a prerequisite for the presidency, it is in fact a detrimental to one's ability to perform the duties of the president in an objective manner.

"Oh Dana"

"It's okay, Dana. You're still a lot smarter than me."

I certainly don't envy the life of a White House Press Secretary. You basically get in front of a microphone everyday and spew administration propaganda and lies. It's a lot like the Rush Limbaugh show, but without the convenient physical anonymity radio provides. George W. Bush is on his fourth press secretary in 7 years. His latest, Dana Perino, is a refreshing change of pace from the quick-witted, smooth-talking styles of Ari Fleischer, Scott McClelland and Tony Snow, Bush's three previous press secretaries. No, Ms. Perino kind of just seems lost up there. Instead of simply spewing out the pre-approved administration lies, which she does frequently enough, she often appears as if she's making stuff up on the fly.

Last week, Dana Perino drew the ire of Democratic lawmakers by labeling the 110th U.S. Congress as the "Do-nothing Congress." Perino made the statement to explain President Bush's marked decline in the use of controversial signing statements in 2007. In fact, in 2007 Congress passed 11 more bills than the Republican-controlled Congress of 2006. And the Democrats were able to get all this done in spite of the fact that seven out of the eight vetoes issued during the Bush presidency were issued in 2007.

So was this moniker dropped by Perino part of a concerted effort by the GOP to smear the Democrats in Congress? Certainly Dems have been accused (unjustly) of not supporting the troops and aiding terrorists, but the "Do-nothing" comment appears to be a creation of Perino herself. And if she had done her homework, she would have realized what an inappropriate and ill-informed comment it was. Despite intense opposition from the White House, this Congress still passed more bills into law than the more aptly named "Rubber Stamp Congress" of 2006.

Of course this was not the first time Ms. Perino embarrassed herself in such a fashion.

• In a January 2008 press conference, Perino eschewed a reporter's question about the looming recession and budget crisis, claiming simply that "math is not my strong suit.”



• Despite graduating college with a minor in political science, Perino admittedly does not know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was. On a December 2007 edition of NPR's game show, "Wait, Wait . . . Don't Tell Me," Perino retold the story of how she was flustered by a reporter's question about the historic event, saying she thought it had to do with "Cuba and missiles, or something." She later told her husband about her "deer in headlights" experience, to which he replied, "Oh, Dana." Perhaps we might not expect the President to know pertinent U.S. history, or be able to find Namibia on a map, but his official mouthpiece should be able to.

• Following the Virginia Tech school shooting in 2007, Perino was asked about the administration's stance on current gun laws. Perino said the best solution for combating gun violence is for people to just obey the existing laws:

The President believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed. And certainly bringing a gun into a school dormitory and shooting,...that would be against the law and something that someone should be held accountable for.

• Downplaying the value of the Army Field Manual (which expressly forbids waterboarding as an interrogation technique), Perino said the manual is really only appropriate for "young GIs, some so young that they’re not even able to legally get a drink in the states where they’re from." The rationale, then, is that CIA interrogators (average age of 40) shouldn't be governed by the same code as the Army, essentially a bunch of rowdy teenagers. In fact, the average age of Army soldiers is 28, and the age of Army interrogators likely much higher. So Perino believes that two U.S. intelligence outfits should be governed by different codes of ethics because of perhaps an age difference of a few years.

I mean, come on Dana. Just come out and say you want to waterboard people, and we'll have at least some respect for you. But again, this isn't just smooth-talking propaganda, but some seriously bizarre ad libbing that makes you think "Wow. If she's getting this creative with her spin, she must really be hiding something." See, the Tony Snows of the world are cool customers. Snow was like a pre-programmed robot who never really got flustered and never deviated from the administration talking points, no matter how ridiculous they might have been. Perino on the other hand, seems to want to make her case stronger by going off the page with her answers, and we've seen the results of that.

I guess I prefer the Perino approach to the Snow approach. I guess it comes down to a personal preference for honesty over competence. While Americans have gotten used to both dishonesty and incompetence since 2001, it's refreshing to see someone who is woefully unqualified giving it their all for the team. And when being a good liar is the main qualification for the job, I guess I don't mind Perino's incompetence all that much.

A Wolf in Elephant's Clothing?

Last week, a Mark Deli Siljander, a former Michigan congressman and Reagan appointee to the United Nations, was indicted on charges he helped raise funds and lobby for an organization with financial ties to Al-Qaeda.

Siljander, a Republican, served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1981 until 1987. He then served as a U.S. representative to the United Nations General Assembly for one year. In his private career, Siljander worked for a Christian Conservative Non-profit Organization, a Washington DC Lobbying Firm, and later for the Islamic American Relief Agency, the organization charged with aiding a known Al-Qaeda terrorist.

Clearly it is a shocking development when a former U.S. congressman is indicted for aiding a terrorist organization. However, if you have been paying attention to the right-wing talking heads and occasionally the mainstream media, the real surprise in this story might have been: "Shouldn't this guy have been a Democrat?"

For years, Republicans, as well as the right-wing media have been obsessed with telling the American people that the Democratic Party is the "Al-Qaeda Party." Presumably based in very reasonable Democratic objections to the Iraq War, The Patriot Act, Guantanamo, torture, domestic spying, and other questionable Republican anti-terror endeavors, right-wingers have scored political points perverting the Democrats' desire to preserve basic constitutional freedoms with some Democrat-Al-Qaeda alliance. Since Republican policies run in contrast to most Americans' best interests, the party decided after September 11th that one of the few winning issues they had left, national security, would be exploited at all costs. According to a July 2007 poll, when rating the political parties on different issues, Republicans were rated higher than Democrats on just three of 20 issues: moral values, a strong military, and national security. Even then, Republicans were viewed as stronger on national security by a mere 3 to 2 margin over Democrats, whereas Americans favored Democrats on their "strong" issues - global warming and health care - by a margin of about 5 to 1.

The point is, that Republicans will beat the drum of national security for as long as they are seen as strong in that area. As Americans became disenchanted with "staying the course" in Iraq, for example, Republicans largely stopped campaigning on that issue. To keep from losing their grip on one of their few remaining selling points, Republicans must:

A) Continually remind Americans that we are under attack from radical Islam, and

B) Make themselves appear stronger than Democrats on fighting Islamic terrorism.

One component of this strategy has been the effort to link Democrats and other liberals with radical Islam. Below are a few (actually a lot of) examples of this going on in the media:

• Just this week, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton suggested that "mullahs" in Iran are hoping for a Democratic victory in 2008 because a Democrat would allow Iran to continue it's supposed nuclear weapons program. According to Bolton, Iran is "thinking about...the Democratic nominee winning. I think they’re going try and string this thing out in hopes that they’ll find some more pliable administration in the White House." While it would certainly be to the benefit of Iran to not have a sabre-rattling lunatic that has talked openly about preemptive war, Iran halted their nuclear weapons program in 2003, so a Democrat in the White House would be irrelevent in this regard.

• Conservative author and newspaper columnist Dinesh D'Souza attacked liberals in his book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. I guess the title pretty much sums it up, but yes, he claimed that 9/11 would not have happened if not for liberals.

• John Gibson, on his radio program in August of 2007, claimed that certain Democrats may have bargained with Al-Qaeda before the November 2006 elections, presumably because an Al-Qaeda attack would benefit Republicans in the election. Gibson went as far as to announce, "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda."

• Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh had this photoshopped picture of Osama Bin laden posted on his website (notice Bin laden's party affiliation):
  

• In 2006, Glenn Beck told newly-elected congressman Keith Ellison, a Democrat and practicing Muslim, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies." As outrageous as that statement might be, at least Beck called the congressman "Sir."



• A 2006 New York Post editorial regarding the Senate confirmation hearings of controversial U.N. ambassador John Bolton, claimed that, "Democrats have an obligation to demonstrate conclusively to America's enemies that they don't have allies on Capitol Hill." The editorial also claimed that terrorists "were rejoicing last week and feeling emboldened in the wake of the Dems' victory."



• Weeks before the 2006 Congressional Election, Rush Limbaugh claimed that "The key voters...in this year's election are the terrorists, the Islamofascists, the jihadists," and that increased violence in Iraq at the time meant that "the terrorists around the world, and particularly, those in Iraq, are voting Democrat today."



• In 2006, after President Bush exploited the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to drum up support for the unrelated Iraq War, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) said of those critical of the Bush speech, “I wonder if they’re more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.”



• After the death of Iraq insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) issued a statement suggesting Zarqawi was only a "mere sliver" of the Iraqi violence and that anti-U.S. violence will continue as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. Radio host Don Imus responded by suggesting Kucinich might take Zarqawi's place as leader of the anti-U.S. insurgency.



• Leading up to the 2006 Congressional Election, VP Dick Cheney suggested that voting for Iraq War critic Ned Lamont over the hawkish Joe Lieberman would embolden "the al Qaeda types" who want to "break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."



• In a posting at GOP Bloggers, contributor Jon Roth cited a disputed article in the far right Wall Street Journal opinion page in leveling serious accusations on Democrats opposed to the warrantless surveillance program. According to Roth, critics of the illegal program, who sought to hold the government and telecommunications companies accountable for violating Americans' privacy rights, were "Aiding al-Qaeda against America" and had the nerve to label any criticism of the surveillance program "treason." (An interesting side-note to this blog post. Roth later suggested that President Bush went after the leaker of Valerie Plame's identity with "gusto." Seriously. That's his word, not mine. I suppose if with "gusto" means making sure no one involved with the leak ever has to testify or spend one night in jail, while no charges are ever brought against the people who actually leaked Plame's identity, then yes, "gusto" works just fine.)



• Following the March 2004 bombings in Madrid, and subsequent regime change in Spain, media figures started suggesting that terrorists might seek to use violence to oust George W. Bush in 2004. Chris Matthews claimed this put Democratic candidate John Kerry in a pickle: "Doesn't it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?"



• Rush Limbaugh asserted that al Qaeda terrorists "want Kerry, they want the Democrats in power. They'd love that -- I mean, based simply on what they're saying and how they're reacting to what happened in Spain. I'm not guessing."



• Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said before the 2004 Presidential Election that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry."



• Ray Kraft of Family Security Matters, still undaunted by the lack of any Iraq-al Qaeda link, suggested that the Democrats' April 2007 effort to set a timetable for the withdrawl of U.S. troops in Iraq was tantamount to surrender. Kraft suggested that supporters of withdrawl were giving aid to the enemy, thus being guilty of treason. Kraft also stated that if the U.S. withdrew troops from Iraq, the world would "incrementally surrender to the religious totalitarianism of Jihad." It is unclear how the United States could surrender from a conflict we have already claimed to have won:

• And while not directly asserting any ties between the Democratic Party and al-Qaeda, no discussion of the politicization of Islamic terrorism would be complete without the infamous GOP attack ad of 2006: (video here)
  

First of all, no one is celebrating the fact that a former United States congressman has ties to al-Qaeda. I'm just waiting for the Rush Limbaugh's and Dick Cheney's of the world to apologize for all the innuendo, inference, and outright suggestion that the Democratic Party is in allegiance with al-Qaeda terrorists. I'm not getting my hopes up.


Of course, these claims are so utterly ridiculous for one main reason: When it comes to who they want to kill, Islamic Jihadists do not differentiate between Republicans and Democrats.

Jihadists have said for years that they will kill any and all Americans. Osama Bin Laden himself addressed the American people in a tape released before the 2004 election, saying, "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands." The idea that al-Qaeda would be "rooting" for Democrats or that Democrats seek to give "aid and comfort" to the terrorists is so ludicrous that it's amazing the notion has persisted as long as it has.


The real irony of this alleged Democrat-al-Qaeda partnership is that during the few times Islamic terrorists have discussed U.S. political parties, it has been the Republicans they have sided with. Remember the Madrid bombings? The group widely thought to be responsible for the attacks "endorsed" Bush in 2004:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you [Bush] to be elected."

But because Democrats seek to preserve constitutional freedoms and global credibility, as well protect the lives of U.S. soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, they are seen as being in league with al-Qaeda, when the goals of the two organizations could not be more disparate. Yet you continue to hear these connections made among the right-wing media and some of the mainstream media as well. In reality, 9/11 occurred under a Republican President and a Republican Congress. Osama Bin Laden, supposed public enemy number one and poster boy for the GOP's "Get Tough On Terror" campaign, has not been captured in over six years since the 9/11 attacks. Compared to the relatively easy capture of Saddam Hussein, Bush's failure to apprehend the founder of al-Qaeda with a $50 million bounty on his head is almost beyond comprehension.

The only real link you ever hear between al-Qaeda and the Republican Party is among 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and while these theories are probably inaccurate, the movement has been branded by the mainstream media as complete folly.

If there is a silver lining in the Mark Deli Siljander saga, it is this: One would hope that the next time a politician, pundit, or member of the mainstream media alleges some link between Islamic terrorism and the Democratic Party, he/she stops and remembers that Mark Deli Siljander was a Republican.

Bush and the U.S. Economy: The End of a Delusion

2008 has been especially rough for the United States economy, culminating this week with another poor showing on Wall Street. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, for example, is already down 9% in just two weeks of trading in 2008. It seems that everywhere you turn, people are talking about a recession. President Bush has given the state of the economy numerous "thumbs up" in recent years and has largely ignored the many warning signs of an economic slowdown.

This week, Bush finally acknowledged that, in fact, the United States economy is not as rosy as he has been telling us. He met with Congress January 17th to discuss a $150 billion economic stimulus package, aimed at kick-starting the sagging U.S. economy.

Many of us have seen a recession on the horizon for a while now. I'm certainly no economist, but I understand that what economic situations are good indicators of recession, and that the simultaneous existence of many of these these factors is a bad sign. To anyone paying attention, A) the bursting real estate bubble, B) the foreclosure crisis, C) record national debt, D) record levels of personal consumer debt, E) reckless military spending, F) the evisceration of the middle class, G) rising inflation, H) stagnant incomes, I) rising energy costs, J) the Social Security crisis, K) a weak U.S. dollar and L) more and more jobs being shipped overseas, all pointed in the direction of a recession.

But that is part of Bush's appeal, apparently: the ability to look at a dire situation and see the complete opposite. We're winning the Iraq War, remember.

Bush's 2007 State of the Economy is essentially a feel-good story of a nation without an economic care in the world. The report's cherry-picked economic data belie the very real financial issues Americans are facing.

So why has it taken Bush so long to grasp the gravity of this situation? Presumeably it is because he believes that the only components making up the national economy are i) job growth and ii) corporate earnings. I'll admit that I don't quite get "job growth." It seems as if everywhere you look, major U.S. companies are laying off employees by the thousands, yet job growth remains strong according to the Bush Administration. I mean, in just the last couple of years alone, we have seen layoffs from:

Ford: 30,000 jobs
Hewlett-Packard: 20,000 jobs
General Motors: 30,000 jobs
Dell: 8,000 jobs
Citigroup: 20,000 jobs
Chrysler: 13,000 jobs
Bank of America: 3,000 jobs
Verizon: 7,000 jobs
Oracle: 5,000 jobs
Proctor & Gamble: 6,000 jobs
American Home Mortgage: 6,250 jobs
Countrywide Home Loans: 12,000 jobs

We know jobs are being cut. But where are all these supposed new jobs coming from? Jobs are cut either because of corporate mergers, because they are moved someplace cheaper, or because a company is failing. These are jobs that aren't coming back. I understand that new jobs are created due to company growth, and that companies like to announce layoffs because they make the value of their stock increase. I just don't see how job growth is steady in this country. Chalk this one up to ignorance, I guess.

As for corporate earnings, Bush's economic policies of deregulation, corporate welfare and capital gains tax cuts have certainly benefited investors and the super rich. That cannot be disputed. For years, Bush was hidden behind a strong Wall Street to avoid discussing the real economic problems facing the middle and lower classes. Not only have Bush's economic policies benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, but they have actually created the smoke and mirrors with which to obscure the looming recession and eroding middle class.

So instead of telling us how great the economy has been over the last 7 years and exclusively looking at the "half glass full" scenarios, President Bush would have been better served to heed the economic indicators and do something before it became too late. Many economists believe we are already in a recession. It remains to be seen if Bush's plan to throw money at the problem will work. Personally, I'm skeptical. The proposed tax relief plan of $150 billion, divided evenly among every American would would amount to roughly $500 per individual. Don't get me wrong, George. I'll take the money. But for many Americans, that's just about enough money to pay their credit card bills this month. I don't think that will pull the United States out of a recession any time soon. I hope I'm wrong, but judging by Bush's economic track record, I'm not getting my hopes up. While President Bush has had one thumb up in praise of the U.S. economy, the other thumb has apparently been somewhere else.

Kerry Joins Obama: Is that a good thing?

This week, 2004 presidential runner-up John Kerry formally endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination in 2008. That makes Democrats wonder, "Is that a good thing?"

Let's remember that John Kerry managed to lose to George W. Bush, one of the worst presidents in the history of the United States. Currently, Bush enjoys a roughly 30% approval rating, and since the 2004 election, Republican have lost control of both houses of congress. Kerry has been criticized (and rightfully so) for not responding to the Swift Boat Veterans' smear campaign and not challenging very questionable election day discrepancies and Republican-led voter suppression.

I'll admit, I voted for the guy, but I worry that he carries with him a "loser's persona." I think Obama is a great candidate, and I hope he or John Edwards wins the Democratic nomination. But above all else, the Democrats must take control of the White House, and I'm concerned that if Obama wins the nomination, Kerry will not necessarily help his cause.

I could be wrong, and I hope I am, but no one likes to back a loser, especially in America. Whether it's fair or not, Kerry lost in 2004, and did very little to fight for what was likely stolen from him. I just hope he lends his support "behind the scenes" and lets Obama bear the brunt of the campaigning. And I hope this year Kerry will refrain from attempting any "jokes" while on the campaign trail.

I put together this montage to commemorate the failed Kerry presidential bid. Enjoy.

Election '08: The tireless Right-wing effort to convince America that Barack Obama is a Muslim

Tell me that isn't a mosque in the background

Yesterday, 2008 Presidential hopeful Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses, taking 38% of the vote to John Edwards' 30% and Hillary Clinton's 29%. The results solidified Obama as a real contender to win the Democratic nomination and eventually the General Election. Many on the Right, however, have realized the Obama threat a while ago, and haven't waited until the General Election to start smearing him. His supposed inexperience, his position on Pakistan, his sex education policy, even his choice of fashion accessories. But a somewhat more subtle, and in my opinion irrelevant, tactic has been to question Obama's religion. While some have chosen to attack Obama's church, essentially lumping the Trinity United Church of Christ in with Jim Jones, David Koresh, the Reverend Moon and Tom Cruise, others have taken a different approach: prove to the world that Barack Obama is a Muslim.

• Conservative website Insightmag.com peddled a since-debunked story that Obama was educated at a Madrassa, a Muslim seminary school, and attributed the false story to the Hillary Clinton campaign.


• In a December, 2007 interview with Good Morning America, Right-wing pundit Glenn Beck "mistakenly" referred to Obama as "Osama" before correcting himself. "Unfortunate name," was Beck's excuse for the supposed flub.


• Conservative Frontpagemag.com published an article on December 26, 2007, using discredited accounts of a childhood acquaintance to answer that age-old question, "Was Obama Ever a Muslim?"


• Debbie Schlussel has devoted at least three blog posts to cracking the case of Obama's secret Muslim identity. In Schlussel's view, we should apply Islamic law:

  In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you.
  And once a Muslim, always a Muslim.

• Schlussel later outdid herself, posing the question of whether Barack Obama was a "man we want as President when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam? Where will his loyalties be?"
  
• Bernard McGuirk, former executive producer of Imus in the Morning, criticized Obama for having a "Jew-hating name." Really.


• Radical right-wing website Freedomsenemies.com, states that Obama has been "a Muslim for 31 years."


• CNN Correspondent Jeff Greenfield suggested that Obama and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad somehow have similar tastes in fashion, adding:
  

  Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the Axis of Evil?

• In an apparent slip of the tongue, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney committed the common mistake of confusing Obama with Osama bin Laden:
  
  

  Actually, just look at what Osam—Barack Obama—said just yesterday. Barack Obama, calling on radicals, jihadists of all different types, to come together in Iraq.

• Rush Limbaugh referred to the Senator as "Obama Osama" no less than seven times during the June 11, 2005 edition of his radio program.
  

In addition to these concerted efforts to link Obama with Islam, the somewhat more innocent practice of using Obama's full name, Barack Hussein Obama, has become part of the right-wing canon. While I'm sure Obama appreciates the courtesy, the fact that these conservatives fail to refer to other politicians by their full names makes it clear that the real, not so innocent, intent is to make Obama appear more Muslim. The following pundits have all used this tactic:

• Ed Rogers, former advisor to Bush, Sr.
• Ann Coulter
• Richard "Bo" Dietl, frequent Fox News "analyst"
• Rush Limbaugh
• Chris Matthews
• Bill Bennett
• Bill Cunningham, conservative radio talk show host (actually falsely added "Mohammed" to Obama's name to give it some extra Muslim flair)

While the attacks by the "professional media" have been petty enough, those lobbed at Obama by Joe Righty have been truly idiotic:

• "There's no way that anyone with the middle name 'Hussein' could rise to that level of power in the United States without being the devil, in my opinion." - caller on The John Gibson Show


• "He's not open about being a practicing Muslim." - poster validuscustodiae on redstate.com


• "Hussein Obama is a dangerous covert muslism." - poster huckabeefan on redstate.com


• An email circulating in 2006 claimed that Obama's father was a "radical Muslim" and that Obama swore his oath of office on the Koran, both outrageously false.


• Conservative "blog," (to put it nicely) http://barack-hussein-obama.blogspot.com/, claimed that "Barack Obama is a MUSLIM. No ifs ands or buts," and placed this tasteful picture of Obama in front of the burning World Trade Center on the website:

Why is this a big deal? Well, it shouldn't be. A candidate's religious background means almost as little to me as his or her middle name. But as I'm beginning to discover, I'm not always like most Americans. A Pew research survey conducted in 2007 found that 45% of Americans would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is a Muslim.

So clearly, religion does matter. (Interestingly enough, and in spite of the anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. after 9/11, Americans would still prefer a Muslim president to an atheist.) But even without the anti-Muslim hostility, the United States is still overwhelmingly a Christian nation, and candidates who appear to have more in common with the average American are traditionally seen to have an advantage. That is where I believe this effort to Muslimize Barack Obama stems from. I have to give the average American some credit. Despite the Arab name and Muslim stepfather, and even though 9/11 is still very fresh in people's minds, I don't think people are going to believe Obama is the Trojan Horse of radical Islam. But as many analysts expect another tight election in 2008, every vote counts, especially among independents. Evangelicals are not going to vote for Barack Obama, but your average, moderate Christian might, which is why conservatives are trying so hard to make Obama's "Musliminess" a wedge with which the GOP can create distance between Obama and independent voters. If Obama retains the momentum garnered from his victory in Iowa and wins the nomination, expect this sort of nonsense to increase exponentially. Because, while it is not okay in this country to attack a candidate for being black or being a female, sadly it's still okay to attack them for being Muslim.

Let's [not] Talk About Sex

"Condoms? Never heard of 'em."

While it is not known whether or not Jamie Lynn Spears is aware of contraceptive devices, once thing is certain: She did not learn about them in school. That is because the pregnant 16-year old actress attends school in Mississippi, one of 36 states that receives federal funding for abstinence-only sexual education. The program, known as Title V, was implemented in 1996 and has since allocated over $1.5 billion to promoting abstinence as the only sex education alternative available to teens. For states to receive funding, Title V requires that a state meet very specific sex education standards. Since it's inception, 14 states have opted not to receive federal funding, and Congress may eventually cut the program altogether.

In a modest step in the right direction, Congress this week passed a budget without an increase in abstinence-only funding. Funding for the programs had increased virtually every year since George W. Bush took office

So why would the government want to eliminate this program? Why would states turn down federal money? Intuitively, abstinence education makes sense, right? After all, you can't get pregnant or contract an STD if you don't have sex. The problem with abstinence-only education, however, is the "only" part. These programs, as opposed to comprehensive sex education, eliminate all discussion of contraception, except when noting the failure rates of the various contraceptive methods. This leaves teenagers woefully unprepared for sexual activity and this ignorance leaves them potentially more vulnerable to pregnancy and STD's.

I know what you're thinking. "But why do kids need to know about contraceptives if they are not having sex?" The answer to that question is simple: They're having sex.

-In a 2007 report commissioned by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that abstinence-only education programs do not have any net effect on a teen's likelihood of engaging in premarital sex. In fact, students who had taken part in an abstinence program began sexual activity at the same age and had the same number of sexual partners as the control group. Of course abstinence is the most effective way to prevent pregnancy and STD's. The study found, however, that abstinence education programs do not actually result in promoting abstinence.

-Aside from being ineffective, a 2004 report released by the US House of Representatives concluded that these programs also contained false or misleading information about contraceptives, STD's and other sexual health issues.

-While abstinence-only programs do not work, comprehensive sex education programs, which emphasize abstinence along with contraceptive methods, have produced more desired results. A study released by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, stated that comprehensive programs were effective in "delaying the initiation of sex, reducing the frequency of sex, reducing the number of sexual partners and increasing condom or contraceptive use."

-Studies of teens who have taken a "virginity pledge," a promise to abstain from sex until marriage, had a rate of STD infection equal that of non-pledgers.

The debate about abstinence education is relevant again, and not just because of Jamie Lynn Spears. In 2006, teen pregnancies increased for the first time in 15 years, as did the rate of unmarried women giving birth. In addition, the 2008 presidential election, and the GOP's desire to pander to socially conservative voters, has put the abstinence-only debate back on the map. Mike Huckabee has said, "I do not believe in teaching about sex or contraception in public schools." Mitt Romney proudly displays his devotion to the abstinence education cause on his campaign website. John McCain has spoken about his pro-abstinence record in South Carolina.

So why are all these Republicans so proud of a program that had failed so miserably? There are three equally compelling explanations.

1) Americans are easily confused. Teaching abstinence and teaching abstinence ONLY are two entirely different issues. Conservative groups like to tout polls that find parents overwhelmingly support abstinence being taught in schools. Of course, this is no big surprise. Parents generally want their children to avoid sexual activity as long as possible because of the risks involved. Conservatives conveniently omit the fact that the same Zogby poll found that 75% of parents favor teaching teens about abstinence and contraception. Simply put, teaching kids about the importance of abstinence and allocating taxpayer funds to teach abstinence-only education are vastly different concepts, and Republicans are exploiting the average American's inability to distinguish between the two.

2) Republicans need the "Values Voters" to win elections. Like abortion bans, gay marriage amendments and the like, issues like abstinence education appeal to the "moral majority," and are essential to any Republican's chance of winning in 2008. Despite poll after poll suggesting these values issues are of low importance to voters, the Republican primaries have become a competition to see who can appear more socially conservative. One need look no further than the rapid decline of Rudy Giuliani's presidential dreams to observe the fallout of being a socially moderate Republican in 2008.

3) Republicans must paint Democrats as very socially liberal. Appealing to moderates and independents will likely determine which party wins the White House in 2008. Despite a multitude of Republican sex scandals in recent years, Republicans are already on the offensive when it comes to making the Democratic Party out to be the party of loose sexual morals. Barack Obama has caught flack from Republicans who misrepresented his comprehensive sex education policy. Also expect the unsubstantiated claims of Hillary Clinton's lesbianism and her support of NAMBLA to be ramped up if she wins the Democratic nomination.

So, with the 2008 election approaching, teen pregnancy on the rise, multiple studies undermining the program's efficacy, states opting out of the abstinence education funding, and Congress likely to cut funding altogether in the future, the "values" crowd is scrambling to pick up the pieces. In December of 2007, the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) had the following reaction to the news that teen pregnancy had increased in 2006:

"The alarming news today that U.S. teen birth rates are on the rise brings additional credence to the call for Congress to invest in abstinence education for America's teens."

So, in the opinion of the NAEA, when a program that has been proven ineffective becomes even more ineffective, the logical solution is to sink more money into the program.

This week, Fox News aired a report on abstinence-only education that featured Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright had this to say about those who oppose abstinence-only education:

In fact, they want to encourage [kids to choose to have sex] because they benefit when kids end up having sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancies and then they lead them into having abortions, so you have to look at the financial motives behind those who are promoting comprehensive sex ed.

As for those "financial motives," one can infer that Ms. Wright is referring primarily to Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization that primarily provides pregnancy prevention services. That someone would claim that groups are encouraging teen sex is absurd, and the fact that Fox News would present this as if were somehow a sensible argument is appalling.

But alas, at least people are talking about it. Ever since the Republican Congress of the mid-1990's created the abstinence-only education program, funding has increased even as evidence of the program's ineffectiveness has mounted. So even if the Jamie Lynn Spears pregnancy is seen as an indictment of the U.S. sexual education system, at least she has people talking about it. Hopefully the government can address this colossal waste of taxpayer money before the War on Teen Sex becomes the next War on Drugs.