Hmmm. Why is it that we are convinced more by Michelle's spontaneous comment last February: "For the tirst time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country." (because of her husband's political success and support for "change")? What about the fact that President Bush vastly increased foreign aid to Africa, which has had a material effect on AIDS there? What about the way this country came together in the aftermath of 9/11? How we opened up our wallets in the aftermath of the huge tsunami which devastated southern Asia in late 2004? The way that Americans opened their wallets and contributed their time to helping the Hurricane Katrina victims and assisted in the rebuilding of New Orleans? How about that millions of people, not Big Government, volunteer everyday to work in hospitals, deliver meals to shut-ins, tutor students, participate in Scouts and Big Brothers and Sisters, and charity telethons and related events?
I'm proud of the America that gave my French-Canadian ancestors the chance for a better life; my grandfather an opportunity to own and operate his own business; my parents, without a college degree and limited means, see 5 of their kids graduate from college and succeed in different professions: college professor/computer consultant, registered nurse, chemical engineer, elementary school teacher/librarian, and certified public accountant.
Just as someone loves a spouse or child despite their occasional faults, I love America despite the challenges we see--the United States which has led the fight against Nazi aggression, Communist expansion, and Islamic terrorists and which has opened its doors to the persecuted. I'm proud of the country which has admitted to and addressed problems: the emancipation of slaves, environmental protection, financial institution solvency and securities fraud, organized crime, and food and drug safety.
So, Michelle Obama, you are not proud of the America which afforded you and your husband, despite growing up in middle-class families, to attend some of the best universities in the world, far beyond your families' means, namely Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard?
But you are proud of a country and a political party which would nominate someone whom has no administrative experience, no military or foreign policy experience or expertise or significant legislative accomplishments requiring unpopular compromises? You're proud of Americans whom support your husband primarily because they like the inspirational rhetoric but can't specify his positions on key issues or any legislative accomplishments?
Tell me, Michelle, are you proud of the political party which nominated your husband, the same party founded by slave owners, which opposed abolition, which for a century after emancipation voted against civil rights legislation, instituted Jim Crow laws, set up roadblocks to impede the rights of blacks to vote, and fought desegregation? That your husband in 2006 helped support Senator Byrd's reelection, despite his past membership in the Ku Klux Klan and opposition to landmark civil rights legislation? (In contrast, the GOP refused to support David Dukes in his Louisiana races.)
You know, Michelle, in your address the other night, you missed the point over the charge of "elitism". It's not an issue of whether you dined at 4-star restaurants or spent your summers in the Hamptons or Martha's Vineyard growing up or hired a surrogate to bear your own children. In part, it's the implied rejection of pre-election 2008 America and you're putting yourself in a position to pronounce judgment. It's the idea that the idea of "change" is owned by Barack Obama. The idea that first-term senator with a voting record almost identical with establishment liberals, whom was not part of the Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over judicial nominations, and whom is not identified with a single piece of relevant legislation with a single concession which is opposed by Democratic special interest groups is "change"? What "change" are you talking about? Changes from policies which ave kept America safe from a second Al Qaeda attack, drove Al Qaeda out of Iraq and on the run elsewhere?
I don't believe that the February quote is unfair or something taken out of context. I think it reflects an identification of you with the well-established concepts which were spoken by the pastor whom married Barack and you: the same Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Barack said he could no sooner deny than his own maternal grandmother, whom baptised your children, and from whom Barack stole the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope; that same Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom said "God damn America", tried to blame the terrorist victims of 9/11 for what happened to them, and advanced crackpot theories of government genocide on American blacks. Does anyone really believe that what you said is inconsistent with Reverend Wright's negative view of America? Why did you and Barack not only fail to publicly distance yourself at the time of Rev. Wright's rants, when it REALLY counted, but continued to attend services until the comments became known--and then simply pay lip service to disagreeing with Rev. Wright's more extreme statements.
You claim in your convention speech that the reason you love this country is (I have to reword it to make it more coherent) that someone like Barack Obama has the opportunity to lead this country, with all its problems and imperfections, to a better place; that the alternative is fear of change from the imperfect status quo and the result is more of the same "hopeless" America.
The claim of loving this country is convoluted and seems contrived. The reason you love this country is it can be a better country? Do you say you love your daughter because she can be a better daughter? You love your child unconditionally because he or she is your child. This is not that you do not correct your child's misbehavior.
Human endeavors are imperfect, reflecting the limitations of men and women. If you think somehow Barack Obama's policies will result in some utopian America, you are going to be disappointed.
But, Michelle, what do you say when I tell you, as Jesus did (John 12:8), "for you always have the poor with you". Does this mean we do nothing? No, for as Deuteronomy (15:11) says, "Therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land."
No, Michelle, if John McCain disagrees with Barack's agenda, it's not because John McCain doesn't believe that America doesn't have challenges and doesn't believe in changing things. Rather, John McCain points out, Big Government, trying to prescribe solution best left to the private sector, can make things worse, such as the fact that inefficient corn ethanol has had an adverse effect on food inflation, which is an implicit regressive tax.
John McCain understands the universal hope that parents want their children to have the same or better opportunities they have had for a better life. He understands that in order for our government to be more effective, leaders have to reach across the aisle to get things done. Compromise means having to accept things that are opposed by your base or colleagues. John McCain has worked with a number of Democrats on major initiatives including campaign reform, immigration, and climate change; he led the Gang of 14, which defused a Senate crisis over judicial nominees.
When I look at Michelle's speech, I find a great deal presumptuous. John McCain doesn't need to be lectured to about the needs of the US military and veterans from someone whom never put on a uniform for his country. She speaks of the need to end the war in Iraq responsibly; but Barack Obama opposed the troop surge, which turned the tide and made withdrawal with honor possible. She talks about the high gas prices people pay, but Barack Obama has opposed offshore drilling and a summer gas tax holiday. She mentions making health insurance available, but Barack Obama refuses to deregulate the marketing of health plans across states and rejects John McCain's fairness principle whereby all Americans have a tax-advantaged bases for paying health care costs, not just the fortunate employees of companies offering relevant plans. She speaks of new spending on social problems, but ignores the failures of government at all levels, including the Louisiana Democratic mayor and governor, in handling the Hurricane Katrina disaster. And since when does John McCain need a lecture on cutting taxes for the middle class or getting people off welfare and into jobs? Republican tax cuts supported by John McCain have taken millions of lower-income Americans out of paying any federal tax beyond payroll (social security and Medicare), and he supported welfare reform in the 1990's while Clinton played flip-flop with the issue.
It always amazes me how Democrats like the Obamas can talk about identifying with the little guy when the average household earns about $50,000 a year. The Obamas can speak all they want over identifying with the needs of the underprivileges and their having worked with community service--but the bottom line is that Michelle Obama is on leave from a job paying over $300,000 a year, Barack has a multi-million dollar book contract and earns over $160K as a senator, and they live in a $1.65M mansion in an upscale neighborhood, not exactly where the underprivileged of Chicago live. As lawyers, the Obamas had other choices--e.g., that of a public defender of poor blacks whom don't have the resources to hire Harvard-trained lawyers. But then, it's not the first time we've seen rhetoric over performance, such as the Clintons' support for poor quality public education while sending their daughter to private schools. Now, I realize that there are other issues involved (e.g., the Obamas needing to pay off large college loans), but the Republicans can't be accused of hypocrisy.
But John McCain doesn't need a lecture about sacrifice, despite of how many properties his wife Cindy may own (he himself doesn't own any, and Cindy has a prenuptial agreement). He has two sons whom are serving in the military, including one whom has been to Iraq; to the best of my knowledge, they haven't appeared in any campaign spot, aren't on Access Hollywood, or in cute segments calling out, "Hey, Dad!" John McCain still bears the consequences of injuries suffered in Vietnam, unable to raise his arms above his chest; he had to undergo physical therapy on his return. Yet he turned down an opportunity to go home early (because of the fact his dad and grandfather were admirals), even though that mean more of the same physical abuse.
If McCain could spend years in a Vietnamese prison camp (and no, Jimmy Carter, he isn't trying to politically exploit his war hero status; he's trying to explain the sacrifice, hard decisions and other qualities it takes in putting America first), he has the character it takes to make the tough decisions, even at the expense of his own political popularity as last year showed when he was a high-profile supporter of immigration and the surge and his Presidential campaign went down the tubes.
