IN THIS COUNTRY...

... it is shameful that any person be required to stand in line for eight hours to cast a ballot, yet this is happening in Florida and elsewhere.  It is shameful that election officials should be involved in efforts to make voting harder, rather than facilitate it.  That private citizens be allowed, even trained, to stand guard at polling places to intimidate their fellow citizens.  That armies of lawyers must be hired by both sides, in order to defend the rights of voters--or to challenge them.  (It is also shameful that the Supreme Court of this country should countenance the flood of money that contaminates the electoral system, but that's another story.)

Before the world, we proclaim our democratic system to be the best that mankind has ever devised.  And yet we offer to the world the spectacle of endless lines of voters frustrated in their efforts to cast a vote.  We offer the spectacle of a congress hog-tied by the refusal of its members to reach compromise, a senate that can be halted in its tracks by the obstinacy of a single senator, a president stymied in every initiative by those who do not bother to disguise their irrational hatred for him and their expressed intention to do nothing but drive him from office.

I am angered by the argument of equivalence, which I hear so often these days: that "both sides do it."  No, they don't.  It's predominantly the rightists who are working to disenfranchise voters, and rightists who are responsible for a government that is reduced to virtual inaction on all important fronts.  It is rightists who offer no compromise from outlandish positions on taxes or health care.  It is rightists who, on the basis of no evidence but their own prejudice and willful ignorance, refuse to accept what science has to teach us.  It is rightists who thump bibles and seek to impose their morality on every one of their fellow citizens.

We call ourselves, constantly, loudly, boastfully, "the greatest country in the world," and gladly preach our virtues to nations we look down upon from the lofty heights of our democracy. But our hypocrisy stands exposed by a media that broadcasts the images of these realities to a watching world.

"WORDS ARE CHEAP..

... you can say whatever you want to say in a campaign."  So said Mitt Romney in a campaign speech this morning.  He intended it as an indictment of President Obama.  But it's a perfect description of his own campaign philosophy: say whatever you want to say. Or whatever you think your audience might want to hear.  It's another reason NOT to trust a thing he says.

POLITICS AND RELIGION

In the coming days before the election, I intend to devote my daily Buddhist meditation practice to sending wishes of goodwill to American voters on both sides of the political spectrum, from far left to far right.  May they base their decisions on the principles of compassion, justice, wisdom, and a dedication to the truth.

In yesterday's, Sunday New York Times there appeared a full-page advertisement purchased by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.  In it, the Reverend Graham admonished voters "to cast their ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel."  "I urge you to vote," he continued, "for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."

I want to ask the Reverend Billy Graham which biblical principles he refers to, but I think I already know the answer.  They are the principles of the Old Testament, the principles of "thou shalt not," whose angry, vengeful God found it proper to smite the enemies of Israel--and all those who opposed his will.  I want to ask the Reverend why he advocates for those ancient principles, rather than those of the New Testament--the principles of compassion, mercy, justice for the meek and health for the sick, the principles that drove Jesus to turn over the tables of the money-lenders in the temple?  These are the principles out of which I myself would wish Americans to cast their vote.

As regards the "sanctity of life," to which the Reverend Graham refers, I'd refer readers to the excellent op-ed piece by Tom Friedman, Why I Am Pro-Life, also in yesterday's New York Times, in which he points out that, for many of Graham's evangelical persuasion,  the "sanctity of life" appears to apply solely to the period between conception and birth.  Post-partum, you're on your own to face, perhaps, a hail of bullets from a madman with an unregulated assault weapon or survive, unprotected and unaided, the ravages of poverty or disease.  In Buddhist thought, as I understand it, the principle of compassion applies not only to your fellow humans but extends to every living being--from birth to death.

I have been wondering, too, this week, how it must feel to know that you are the recipient of projections from literally billions of your fellow human beings.  The Jesus of the New Testament was the recipient of those projections: the adulation of those who found in him their need for compassion and understanding, the hatred of those who saw in him a threat to their old ways of thinking.

Where, I have been wondering--no comparison intended!--does President Obama find the strength and wisdom to deflect those billions of projections and maintain his sanity?  It must come, I suppose, from the realization that projections have more to say about the sender than the recipient: as readers of The Buddha Diaries know, I try to make it my practice, when I make a conscious effort to examine the judgments that come up, to learn what they have to teach me about myself, not the person about whom I make them.  The latter is most frequently merely a mirror for those things I dislike--or like!--about myself.

So I send metta to the American voter in the coming days, hoping that those many who hear the voices of evangelists and vote on biblical principles will vote on principles of the New Testament rather than the Old.

INTEGRITY

Integrity is as simple as saying what you mean and meaning what you say.  It’s what you’re known by and what you’re trusted for, if you are trusted; or what you are rightfully distrusted for, if you lack it.  

In my book, a man who changes what he says he believes in order to please or conform with those he’s speaking to is a man who lacks integrity.  I cannot trust what he tells me when I know that he will say something different when addressing someone else.  By the same token, a man who fails to disavow public statements made on his behalf that conflict with his own professed beliefs is a man who lacks integrity.  He does not earn my trust.

It has come down to this.  We should have known it all along.  In fact, we did know it.  From the start of his campaign, Mitt Romney has manifested a stunning absence of integrity.  If he has core beliefs, as he would have us believe, he has shown himself ready to cast them to the winds at the least contingency.  It is what he is known for.  The “etch-a-sketch” reputation is not unearned.  Watching the early Republican debates provided us with ample evidence of this propensity. 

I do no assail a man’s integrity easily.  It’s an uncomfortable thing for me to do, because a man’s integrity is his most valuable—and vulnerable—asset.  I would like to honor a man’s commitment to his religious beliefs, his uprightness, his constancy.  But in Mitt Romney’s case, all this rings hollow, it seems a sham when he fails to step forward and condemn the kind of outrageous bigotry and ignorance we have seen from his supporters and surrogates in recent days: to wit, Gov. John Sununu’s overtly racist slander of Gen. Colin Powell—a man, by the way, whose considerable integrity was mercilessly exploited by the former Republican president—following his endorsement of President Obama; and the unconscionable comments about rape from several prominent Republicans…

Even should he step forward now with forceful condemnation, we could not believe him.  We could believe it only another matter of political contingency.  It does not speak well for a man who would be president, that he sacrifices his integrity with a smile on his face, a joke, and a dismissive wave of the hand.  No last-minute pretense of compassion for the poor, of respect for women’s rights, of concern for the middle class, of peaceful global intentions rings true, when it comes from a man who makes no bones about publicly shredding his personal integrity in this way. 

Reason #38: Obama has made the world safer from the threat of Nuclear War

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #38

In contrast to Mitt Romney's sabre-rattling, President Obama has taken clear steps to make the world safer from the threat of nuclear weapons, including signing a landmark New START treaty with Russia in 2011.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/02/02/new-start-treaty-signed

Reason #39: Obama Established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #39

While the Congressional Republicans have done their best to render the President's new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau impotent, its founding lays the groudnwork for an important new set of protections for consumers against the unchecked greed of financial institutions. We can only hope that the silver lining in Elizabeth Warren's blocked appointment as the CFPB's head is her taking back Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat for Massachusetts.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/

Reason #40: Michelle Obama's Whitehouse Kitchen Garden

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #40

The First Lady's vegetable garden is the most expansive to be planted at the White House, building on a long tradition of gardening at the President's residence. The garden sets an important example for the country, illustrating the connection between access to fresh fruits and vegetables in America's kitchens and the living healither, better fed lives.

American Grown: The Story of the White House Kitchen Garden and Gardens Across America
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307956024/

Reason #41: Obama believes goverment can be better

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #41

Government, to be sure, is no panacea. It can be overwrought, byzantine, inefficient, and burdensome. However, it is the only institution which can ensure that everyone gets a fare shake, that our environment is protected, that the needs of the whole country aren't eclipsed by the wants of the privledged. Obama isn't a blind champion of government, but instead a steadfast advocate for a better, more effective more efficient government. He's cut down on government waste, fraud, and excess, including: limiting lobbyists'  access, dismantling the Minerals Management Service, and freezing White House Salaries.

Reason #42: Aloha

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #42

As everybody knows — Donald Trump notwithstanding — the president was born in the United States. He has a remarkable story, but not only is he the first African American elected president, he's also the first citizen from Hawai'i to become president. Our country — our contentious, polarized nation — can use a little bit of Aloha.

Link: "Obama’s Hawaiian state of mind"

Reason #43: Obama is Steady, Determined, and Deliberate

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #43

There are plenty of quantitative policy reasons to vote for the president's reelection, but Obama also possesses a particular qualitative attribute which make him a great leader: his calm collected focus. Whether its his leadership in the pursuit of bin Laden, or his shepherding of the Affordable Care Act through congress, he has demonstrated himself as a leader who deserves our trust.

THE REAL ROMNEY

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries)

I can't help myself.  The Buddhist in me tells I should be equanimous, but I woke angry in the middle of the night and, breathe as I might, I have not been able to dispel the anger.  

The pundits were telling us, before last night's Great Debate--as they had billed it: the most important political event in living memory, if not in the entire history of the country, perhaps the world!--they were assuring us that such occasions reveal the real man.  In Romney's case, that proved disastrously true.  And the real Romney turned out to be a steroid version of the same man we have been watching all along: a man so desperate for the power of the presidential office that he will do anything, say anything to achieve that end.

They had rebooted him in aggressive mode for the debate.  We in the television audience were subjected to his (pace, Buddha!) oily smile and self-righteously confident harangue for what seemed like a great deal more than his time share.  We have become familiar with his eagerness to backtrack on any previous action, position or policy proposal to suit his present purpose, and last night was no exception.  He dodged and ducked expertly, loudly and glibly disavowing much of what he has embraced publicly in the the course of years of campaigning, denying that his words meant what he once said they did, affecting new positions to compensate for those that had provoked justified public outrage.  He transformed himself, with a heavy dose of rhetoric, into a middle-class loving, poor-embracing, deficit-cutting magician, able with a turn of phrase to reduce taxes for everyone, increase military spending, and at the same time avoid cuts in anything, it seemed, but funding for Jim Lehrer and Big Bird.

Republican pundits may gloat over his overbearing performance and promote it as a demonstration of "strength" and "leadership."  I saw a man exposing an inner character that lacks both pity or remorse, a man whose ruthlessness knows no bounds--but who cloaks that harsh inner being in unctuous expressions of empathy.  I call his performance the most breathtaking, hectoring display of political mendacity I can remember, and can only hope that the American electorate will not be fooled by the deceptions, distortions and outright lies with which we were bombarded last night.  And yes, I'm angry.

Reason #44: Obama Knows that Wealth is Created by Shared Efforts

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #44

The notion that wealth "trickles down" is widely debunked. Yet, we hear the same theory again and again as an excuse for giving the most fortunate among us advantages which the majority do not enjoy. The differences between Gov. Romney and President Obama couldn't be more clear when it comes to this basic moral framework — Obama believes that our wealth and success as a nation is measured and created by opportunity and success for all people of all means, whereas Romney would hold that the work of the majority is there to fuel the success of the few.

Reason #45: Obama supports equal access to higher education

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #45

Republicans are fond of labeling Obama, and liberals in general, as "arrogant" and "elitest." Our country's academics and university faculty come under particular criticism from the right, despite the fact that our much of our country's intellectual property is invented and developed through academic instituions. This notion that higher education is somehow an arrogant pursuit, rather than a vehicle for personal betterment and societal advance, was crystalized in Rick Santorum's claim that Obama was a "snob" for supporting the notion that higher eduction should be accessible (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/03/news/la-pn-santorum-college-remarks-20120303).

While the GOP would look at higher education as a privilege, Obama has worked to make education more accessible, by expanding the Pell Grants program, giving more low income students the opportunity to go to college, signing the GI Bill 2.0, and shoring up student loan programs, making it easier for students to refinance and qualify for student aid.

Reason #46: Obama halted the XL pipeline

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #46

While the future of the XL Pipeline remains uncertain, it's clear that if Mitt Romney is elected, that the pipeline will get fast-tracked. The only hope that environmental groups have in convincing an administration that this is the wrong direction for solving our energy challenges is to elect a president who takes the needs of the environment into consideration when formulating energy policy.

Reason #47: Obama Stands Against the Definition of Corporations as People

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #47

We've already seen the damage that Citizens United has begun to inflict on our country — unchecked and undisclosed corporate donations have created a flood of Super-PAC-created "free speech," which does nothing but buoy the interests of corporations against the public good, and drown out the ability of (actual, living, breathing) people to have their voice heard.

President Obama stands firmly in support of the reversal of Citizens United, either through new litigation or a Constitutional amendment:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/29/barack-obama-citizens-united-ruling

Reason #48: The Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #48

When conservatives say they "Support our Troops", the silent subtext of this assertion is, "and liberals don't." The repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is one of the most important ways in which President Obama has demonstrated real, substantive support of the men and women in the armed services: it supports them by acknowledging their inalienable freedom to love whomever they want to love. 

Just over a year after the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the evidence is in. Rather than harm the military, President Obama's lifting of the band has in fact helped the military. As a study from UCLA has just found, "Lifting the ban, [the researchers] found, improved the ability of the military to do its job by removing needless barriers to peer bonding, effective leadership and discipline." 

That's real support of our troops.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/study_of_don_t_ask_don_t_tell_repeal_helped_the_military_.single.html 

NYT

The op-ed pages of today's New York Times constitute a serious indictment of what the lead editorial calls Romney's shallow, cavalier campaign for the presidency.  Articles by Joe Nocera, Frank Bruni, and even conservative columnist David Brooks are a telling measure of the extent to which the Republican candidate has slipped in public esteem.

Still, Democrats cannot afford to be complacent.  President Obama needs to make a forceful case for his re-election, and here at "Vote Obama 2012" we trust that the debates will afford him the opportunity to do that.  As he reiterates on every possible occasion, there remains a great deal of work to be done.  The prospect of allowing the work thus far to be undone by a return to Republican policies is a fearful one.  It behooves us not only to support the President in his re-election bid, but to do everything we can to assure him the support he will need in Congress if we are not to be denied progress by mindless and hostile Republican opposition.

"REDISTRIBUTION"

What's interesting to me about the 14-year old "redistribution" tape is not some shocking revelation of Obama's supposedly Marxist agenda--as was apparently intended by its release--but rather the remarkable consistency it reveals in the president's views over the years.  As a counter-attack by the Romney campaign against the "47 percent" tape, it seems particularly lame.  The then State Senator, Barack Obama, argues much as the current President Obama might argue:

I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution--because I actually believe in some redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody's got a shot.

That's a terrible thing to say?  It's radical?  It sounds to me like a reasoned and reasonable expression the good old American values of fairness and equality of opportunity.  "Pooling resources" sounds like a sensible way to go about it.

Should government have a hand in assuring equality of opportunity?  That's where the difference in vision comes in, which everyone seems to agree is the central issue of the coming election.  Conservatives, with Rand and Romney at their head, say no.  Confirmed (enlightened!) liberals like myself say yes.  We defend the history of affirmative action and its successes.  We see a society that is less than perfect in the systems it has built to allow the less fortunate to make their way.  We see that some remain in genuine need, not because they are lazy or irresponsible but because they have lacked the kind of opportunity that has helped others along--a good education, for example.

Call it, disparagingly, redistribution, if you will.  Reduce a complex understanding of one of the vital functions of government to a single word, and load that word with prejudice.  I think the young Obama in that tape shows both understanding and restraint.  Some of his supporters wish he were more of a firebrand than he turns out to be.  I praise the President's restraint, thoughtfulness, deliberation, and considered action.

.

MESSENGER? OR MESSAGE?

Serious conservative Republicans like Peggy Noonan, here, are rapidly catching on that the Romney campaign is faltering.  Like Noonan, they are blaming the messenger; they seem not to consider the possibility that, for their message, he is the perfect messenger.  It's the message that is vapid, empty, callous, even cruel.  It's the message that doesn't square with the predicament in which we find ourselves, still less come up with plausible solutions.  It's the message that plays fast and loos with the facts.  Romney is simply the spokesman, the front man for the message.

What needs to be changed is not the candidate, no matter how often, now, they accuse him of weakness and vacillation.  What needs to be changed is the message.  The President counters with a message that does take into account the facts of our predicament, and its history.  He counters with a message that proposes real solutions to real problems.  He spoke about it last night on Letterman with an ease that contrasted poignantly with the uneasy image Romney presents, and with an astonishing command not only of the factual detail but also the language to clarify complicated issues without condescension or distortion.

Reason #49: He's dedicated to the success of America as whole

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #49

The news is awash with Mitt Romney's leaked video from a fundraiser this past spring. Of the many remarkable aspects of this unfolding spectacle — the fact that the majority of people who don't pay federal income tax live in red states; that Romney's father himself benefited from welfare; that the 47% Romney spoke of is comprised not of freeloaders, but rather groups like the elderly, students, and the working poor, many of whom also payroll taxes, in addition to deployed military personnel — one of the most edifying and refreshing aspects is President Obama's response, which demonstrates his underlying commitment to the moral imperative of the government's role in facilitating opportunity for everybody.

Speaking on David Letterman, President Obama countered Romney's unfiltered views by reiterating his basic belief in the social contract: by helping everybody to get access to basic human needs — healthcare, education, a clean environment, decent housing — we empower people to lift up themselves and their families, and, by doing so, advance the prosperity of the whole country, all 100%.

http://www.cbs.com/shows/late_show/video/2280813911/david-letterman-president-barack-obama
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/obama-on-letterman-show-responds-to-romney-comments/

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/obama-on-letterman-show-responds-to-romney-comments/

WELCOME...

... to Jason Brush, who has just started posting to Vote Obama 2012 (see below), and promises to give us 50 reasons to vote for the President in the coming days before the election.

We would welcome input from readers, either in the form of comments, or longer entries for posting on the blog.

Above all, let's get to work.  Even given the apparent implosion of the Romney campaign, we can take nothing for granted.

Reason #50 to Vote Obama: Improved Fuel Efficiency Standards

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama — Reason #50

President Obama has made improved fuel efficiency standards a reality.

One of the most effective changes we can make to reduce our dependency of foriegn oil — and petroleum in general — improve the quality of the air we breathe, and fight climate change is to improve the fuel economy of cars. President Obama has made these new standards a reality, improving them from 27 MPG today to 36.6 MPG in 2017, and 54.5 MPG in 2025.

http://goo.gl/DEcRD
http://goo.gl/Vv6dA

50 Days, 50 Reasons to Vote Obama: An Introduction

For me, like many progressives, President Obama's election four years ago was a moment to breathe a sigh of relief: the eight long, desctructive, and incredibly, unbelievebly fiscally irresponsible years of George Bush's presidency were finally over. By the end of Bush's second term in office, there were few who would still beleive Ralph Nader's spurious claim that there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore. The reality of those differences had played themselves out in ways that still scar our country: a distastrous, unwarrented war in Iraq, the tarnishing of America's ideals by the abuses in Abu Ghraib, tax cuts that still hobble our ability to pay for our basic needs and grow the economy, failure to regulate a corrupt banking system, among many misguided and often immoral policy decisions. Obama's election was a chance to turn the country back from the wayward course of the Bush years.

This fall we have another choice, not dissimilar from the choice in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush. However, instead of Ralph Nader telling us that the candidate who is best positioned to move the country forward isn't progressive enough, we have a host of voices telling us that President Obama hasn't adequately followed through on all of the many things people hoped for him. Our choice this fall isn't between the President and a spoiler — our choice is between supporting the President and inaction. The prospect of a Romney presidency and all that it would bring — including the further isolation of America in the world, the rollback of environmental regulations, failure to solve the healthcare crisis, failure to make the richest 1% pay their fair share, and on and on — will only come to pass if progressives fail to rally around President Obama in November.

While each of us likely has their own issues that we wish we the Obama admistration had made more progress on, we too regularly make the mistake of thinking that these missed opportunites mean that President Obama hasn't made real and substantive advances toward making our country a place where people all have an equal opportunity to live, in the words of Bill & Melinda Gates, "healthy, producitve lives." Over the next 50 days, leading up to the election, I'm going to be sharing my reasons for supporting President Obama. There are lots of lists like this out there — standing out in particular is "90 Days, 90 Reasons", curated by Dave Eggers – but my list is focused on the reasons I'm voting *for* the President's reelection, not on the (many, many) reasons to vote against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

If you're firmly in Obama's camp, this list should give you some reasons to vote for Obama to share with your progressive friends whose enthusasim may waning, or with cynical friends who think all politicians are ineffectual or dishonest. And if you're a conservitive, this list should help you understand what the invisible man in the Clint Eastwood's chair has accomoplished and stands for in reality.

POLITICALLY UTTERLY INCORRECT

Shame on NBC's "Today" show for having allowed Senator John McCain to gloss over Mitt Romney's egregious attack on President Obama for sympathizing with terrorists and appeasing hostile nations; and to substitute his own views on Syria and what he deems the "fecklessness" of Obama's foreign policy.  What would he do, ignite another war in the Middle East?  Romney's pitiful saber-rattling diminishes himself and his campaign.  That the "Today" show allowed McCain's remarks to go unanswered was to distort the actual political news of the previous day: that Romney stepped far out of line with his remarks, and further out of line when he repeated them without apology, earning wide and justified condemnation not only from Democrats but from those in his own party who yet possess a remnant of decency, good sense, and restraint.

Frank Rich offers a saner view of the events.  Also this link, from my friend Stuart.

SEPTEMBER 11

(Note: today's entry is cross-posted with The Buddha Diaries.)
Today marks the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and the failed attack on other presumed targets in DC.  Last year, the man responsible for the plot was killed by American Navy Seals on the orders of President Barack Obama, and I remain deeply conflicted as to the means and ethics of his death.  There is one vengeful part of me, frankly, that rejoices to have seen the man "brought to justice."  There is another that recoils from the use of violence to resolve the issue, the incursion into another state's territory that was required to accomplish the action, the cold brutality of it.  Such deeds were common in other eras, and in other parts of the world.  I find it sad that our species still finds such acts necessary and acceptable.  Most vile, to me, is the repeated nationalistic chants of "USA, USA!" that invariably accompany mention of Bin Laden's death.

What does the action have to say about the President?  Certainly that he has a boldness many thought he lacked; a ruthlessness, even--and I believe that this is a quality that a leader is sometimes required to dredge up from the depths of his being.  It's a quality that I have to grudgingly admire, but only when brought to bear as a last resort.  It's not one I would wish to cultivate in myself, but I am not a leader in the great tide of human events.  I feel the same about the decision to back that ruthlessness up with the use of deadly violence.  In today's world, it is required of any President of the United States.  I suppose it is not very Buddhist of me to write those words, but I'm afraid they are true to my beliefs.  Pacifism is but an aspiration in a world where violence remains prevalent.  To repeat the truism that violence begets only violence is hardly helpful, especially when it comes to self-defense--which can, and sometimes must be pre-emptive.

Obama's resort to violent means remains deeply troublesome to me personally.  The build-up of troops in Afghanistan, the use of drone strike against terrorist targets--inevitably also causing civilian deaths--are actions that instinctively revolt me.  And yet it remains true that the latter have severely weakened the power of organized terrorism in the world; they are, in that sense, effective--and more humane, in a perverse way, than conventional warfare.  The Afghan strategy remains arguable.  But the President was left with little choice, given the inheritance of that war, other than to come up with the least bad of strategies.  Walking out and leaving the country in worse shape than we found it would not, in my view, have been an ethical course of action.

Afghanistan, too, was the place where this whole mess originated.  It was the Taliban regime that welcomed and supported the gang that hatched the plot, and eventually succeeded in bringing down the towers of the World Trade Center.  It remains a complex and perplexing problem, where no easy solution offers itself.  I for one am grateful to have a president now in office who treats it as such, acknowledging that any solution is provisional and that the outcome is uncertain; and who directs his policy with watchfulness and caution.

JOBS

There's no big secret to job creation.  With Republican co-operation, it could be effected tomorrow.  Fat chance.  It's maddening--and saddening--to see Americans continue to suffer, thanks only to the Republican commitment to defeating President Obama.  See Paul Krugman, in today's New York Times.

TWO CONVENTIONS

In retrospect, comparing the two conventions seems like comparing cotton candy with meat and potatoes--or whatever more substantial fare you choose.  I'm glad to note that Obama got a far greater "bounce" than Romney out of the deal.  Now onward, to the debates...

CHEATING, LYING...

It seems that our tolerance for cheating and lying is greater than it has ever been.  I came across this disturbing article on the subject of cheating in schools and colleges in today's New York Times, one of only a number of recent similar articles which suggest that cheating is no longer unusual, nor even considered particularly reprehensible by students.  It's no longer an act of desperation, it's the way to get a leg up--or ahead.

It is now pretty much accepted, too, that politicians lie.  They lie, principally and most egregiously, in the advertisements that promote their re-election or attempt to destroy their opponents' re-election bid.  With hundreds of millions of dollars now being spent on producing slick and apparently believable lies for mass consumption, it will be a miracle if any remnant of the truth survives.  The sad truth is that the winner may simply be the better, and better financed, liar.

The argument that "both sides do it" does not wash with me.  Fact checking on the recent convention speeches revealed far more, and far more outrageous lies on one side than the other.  Those "facts" that did not check out on the Democratic side seemed more like misplaced emphases and exaggerations than some of the outright, bold-faced untruths uttered by several of their opponents, particularly in their blatantly fact-challenged "arithmetic".  "Both sides do it" is a rhetorical ploy designed to misdirect and distract.

As for cheating, it seems to have become a routine part of Republican strategy to use the subterfuge of voter fraud to enact legislation intended to do nothing other than discourage or prohibit those who might vote against them from ever reaching the voting booth. A fair election, in a democracy, would be one in which "one person" has "one vote."  This attempted rigging of elections is perfectly aligned with the rigging of the economic game to exploit the poor and the middle classes and further enrich the already rich--the game of which Elizabeth Warren is but the most outspoken and most eloquent critic.  Every American, it would seem to me, knows exactly what is going on.  The rules of the game are set by lobbyists who throw around enough money in Washington to buy whatever it is they need for their corporate clients.

Unless we come to a recognition of this decay in the values of our culture, and unless we somehow find the will to turn it around, we may soon find ourselves in the decline in which those on the right already seem to believe.  The "success" achieved by cheating and lying is built upon unsteady ground.  As we know in California, when the Big One comes, to be built on unsteady ground does note bode well for survival.

EUPHORIA... AND CAUTION

It was pleasing to see that enthusiasm for Democratic ideals was far from exhausted at the convention last night.  I thought the President gave an excellent speech, remarkably detailed and absent the fantasy that characterized many of the speeches the previous week in Tampa.  The whole Democratic convention was extraordinarily well-planned and well-paced, focusing on substance and real world solutions rather than on rhetoric and airy promises.  The rhetoric was, shall we say, reality-based.  The growing sense of euphoria in the convention hall was understandable.

But Michael Moore is right in sounding an important note of caution in his article in the current Huffington Post.  I don't go along with everything he says, and I'm inclined to allow for more of there centrist positions Obama has had to take than does Moore.  But he's right about the white vote, about the continuing plague of racism, about the cynical Republican attacks on the right to vote and the money that has enabled those attacks and, in some cases, ensured their success.

I hope that the net result of the Democratic convention is to inspire many not only to renew their suspended faith in Obama and his policies, but also to do the work that's needed to ensure his re-election.  And, as Moore points out, it's going to take an awful lot of work.

ATTACK DOG

So they trotted out the Big Dog last night to respond to the entire Republican convention--and he did it point by point with exquisite clarity and timing.  A classic Bill Clinton performance, clocking in fifteen minutes longer than his allotted time but so far as his audience was concerned, it could have gone on longer.  He succeeded in skewering every policy put forward by the Republican speakers and their plank, restoring the history of the past four years to its proper perspective, and touting the accomplishments of Obama and his administration.  He did so with a light touch, and open heart and a generous humor that entirely avoided the bitterness and anger we have heard so such from the other party.  It was a great performance.

As was the passionate speech from Elizabeth Warren, who understands so clearly how the economic game is rigged against all but the already wealthy and successful.  I trust that her convention speech will give her the boost she needs in her own campaign for election to the US Senate.  We need more smart, articulate, outspoken people to stand up for the liberal principles of the democratic party.

Best of all is the audience at this convention.  Their enthusiasm is unmistakable.  The genuine warmth of their compassion is infectious.  By comparison with the small-minded, jeering crowd at the gathering in Tampa last week, whose main interest seemed to be to make the President look bad and whose single avowed purpose was to "fire" him, these people seemed authentically good-hearted, caring of others, looking for the best, most reasonable solutions to the country's continuing challenges.  Is this just my bias showing?  I like to think I try to understand and respect views other than my own.  But the truth is there are some I can simply neither understand nor respect.

I won't be around to hear Obama live this evening, but I will record his acceptance speech and listen to it before bed.  I'm hoping that he will manage to give voice to his old mojo, and top even the speeches by Bill Clinton and Michelle.

THE SAME MAN

There was a good deal of punditry following Michelle Obama's speech at the Democratic convention last night--the vast majority of it praising the First Lady's powerful presentation.  Much of it, though, missed what I thought to be the speech's central point: this is the same man you elected four years ago.  The message was a subtle one, and it addressed those famously "disappointed" voters whose enthusiasm has waned--but is much needed in the final weeks of the campaign.  Given the vast financial resources available to Mitt Romney, it is only the contagious enthusiasm of the work force that will make the difference come election day.

I think the progression of speeches in last night's opening salvo was remarkably well planned--and remarkably successful in building toward this goal.  There was little Romney-bashing, little mockery of the easily-mocked Republican convention of the previous week.  Instead, speaker after speaker stressed the achievements of the past four years, in circumstances that made any achievement difficult, at times impossible.  And speaker after speaker stressed the interconnectedness of our contemporary world, the fact that we do not, cannot succeed alone; that we depend much upon the support that others give along the way.

If I were to compare the speeches at the two conventions, I would draw attention to the inclusiveness and compassion that were evident in last night's--and the angrily accusatory tone of the Republican speeches.  I have my bias: I'm a leftie, a liberal, an old-school socialist.  I hear things differently from those on the other side of the political fence.  Perhaps the participants in the Republican conference were hearing true compassion and concern for the poor, the sick, the needy in those speeches.  I did not.

I have disagreements with friends who express that disappointment with what Obama has been able to achieve.  They came to believe that he was not the man they thought they were voting for.  It's my belief that what we saw in that man is the same man who we see today.  His commitment to the struggle for those less fortunate than himself is unchanged.  He still stands out among politicians as a man of integrity and clarity of vision--and Michelle, I thought, was a fine witness to his perseverance.

WHY TRY

A while ago I posted "WHY OCCUPY"  as a guest entry in my other blog,The Buddha Diaries by a singer-songwriter friend, Azalia Snail.  Here's a follow-up that belongs, I think, in Vote Obama 2012.  It expresses a younger view than my own, and I'm grateful to have that perspective:

WHY TRY? 

by Azalia Snail  

I was born without a blessing or a curse. 

 I wrote that line many years ago when I was going to start writing my autobiography at the tender age of, oh, say 19.  I only wrote a few pages, suddenly realizing I needed to live my life first before I wrote about it.  Decent realization, wasn't it?   

  I've lived some years now, and I know exactly why I wanted to start my autobio with that line.  My parents raised me to choose my own beliefs, be very independent, and speak freely about those beliefs.  So here goes, Part 2 of "Why Occupy" updated here and now re-titled "Why Try."

  Some months back I wrote on The Buddha Diaries about why I was excited by the Occupy movement.  It was inspiring to see people finally want to rise above the miasma that is our current state of government affairs.  Some very devoted (very brave) people decided enough was enough (too much, really) and parked their bodies and a few belongings in a pretty little park at the South end of Manhattan, where the richyrich do a lot of their business, the bankers plot their crusty, untrusty moves, and where the profiteers buy expensive views overlooking the peons that are merely pawns in their game.

  I was thrilled to see the movement start up in Los Angeles.  I posted a lot of photos on Facebook, sharing my vital if limited adventures down to Los Angeles' City Hall to discover exactly what was going on with the local Occupiers i.e., the 99%'ers.  I felt very strong, defiant, and proud of my fellow Americans for taking a stance on what they believe, TRYING to make a difference in a very apathetic city and--dare I say--an apathetic generation.  I don't blame the kids of today.  It's so tempting to simply ignore the BS, text about trivial matters, and concentrate on the "me" factor.  After all, it gets tougher every year to "make it" unless you are born into a financially gifted family.  That, of course, has its own set of weary consequences.  I know some trust funders who are spiritually searching, having never had to fight for their right to, ahem, party--whether that be a blessing or a curse unto itself.  But that's a whole other can of gold nuggets to open and explore. Few "friends" commented on my posts.  Some of them even dropped me.  I assume that they assumed that I became some sort of radical revolutionary, and they didn't want to be bothered!  Just show me what you had for dinner last night, a nice sunset, or some cuddly animals playing. Never mind the uprising!  Save that for nostalgia re: the 60s, a war torn country, or the hardcore political wannabes.

Change, a willingness to talk about change, and the hope that change may come, is never easy to talk about. It takes a big heartfelt gulp of courage, a punkrockfuckyou attitude, and the willingness to lose a helluva lotta Facebook friends.

And even though my latest music project is called LoveyDove, whereby my guy Dan West and I are steadfastly spreading a melodic dose of L-O-V-E, I still remain adamant that I will do what I can to call out the Akins, the Ryan/Romneys, and many of the conservative Republican practitioners, they know who they are.  And though you are welcome to read my page and react for or against my beliefs, just please don't ignore me. I want to see you rise above, too, to help me and all of us try to make sense of a disparaging, hateful "backward bully" mentality.   And then call it out, protest it, prevent it from ruining future believers of freedom and fairness.

I was raised to speak my mind, and it took me a long time to have the gusto and the gumption to rage against the bullies, so here I go.  It feels so fine, it feels so free. I urge all of you to do the same.  

And here is a link to a recent song by Azalia Snail called Backward Bully (You Call That A Prayer?).

FINGERS CROSSED...

... for a strong show at the Democratic convention.  I am hoping for an avoidance of hot air.  The Republicans left the door open for a lot of substantive discussion of real and pressing issues.  Dare we believe that the country is ready, not only for some powerful rebuttal but also for the presentation of clear, forward-looking, practicable policies.  We'll be watching, listening... Don't let us down!

Meantime, for those "disappointed" ones, here's a link to an astonishingly long list of President Obama's accomplishments.  I hear complaints from Democrats and accusations from Republican about his failure to make good on campaign promises.  This list is a tally of how he has made good, with links to factual evidence.  Check it out.  It's impressive.

LABOR DAY

How much thought, I wonder, do most of us who celebrate Labor Day with a trip to the beach, a late summer barbecue in the park, a hike in the mountains--how much thought do we give to the actual reason for the holiday: to celebrate the contribution of the American worker?

Since Ronald Reagan faced down the air traffic controllers in 1981, it has been downhill all the way for unions in this country.  Republican governors like Scott Walker of Wisconsin feel free to use their powers to disempower the unions that champion the rights of teachers and other public workers, and the corporate powers-that-be wage a vigorous war against unions with everything in their arsenal, including their formidable army of lobbyists, their purchase of legislators through contributions to campaign funds and their "super pacs."  The result is a weakening of the unions that contributed significantly in the last century to the creation of the great American middle class, and diminishment of the middle class itself.

With the disempowerment of the unions, the American worker is deprived of the most basic tool to seek that upward mobility of which the country has long been justifiably proud.  Along with continually increasing cuts in state and federal education budgets, this assures the creation of a permanent, and to many inescapable underclass and the further enrichment of those who profit from their plight.

We have little to celebrate this Labor Day, unless it be a rededication to the struggle of equality of opportunity and workers' rights.  If the Republicans prevail, we shall have even less to celebrate next year.  It's hard to envision anything more inimical to the workers of America, the under-privileged, the under-paid and the unemployed, than the Republican platform and the Romney/Rand economic plans.

INVISIBLE OBAMA

OK, I'll weigh in on Eastwood.  I have remained silent throughout the Republican convention because I chose, a few days ago, to take some time off to finish my new book--convention be damned.  But here's something I have not heard elsewhere with regard to Clint Eastwood's grotesque performance: aside from its inanity and impropriety, his characterization of Barack Obama was so far off base as to be pitiably inept.  Nothing the president has ever said or implied would suggest that he'd stoop to the kind of crass, unadulterated rudeness the movie start attributed to him.  Eastwood was talking to himself in that empty chair, not the president.  It was pathetic.

Pathetic too, in my view, are the accusations of bitterness, anger and envy that have become a daily part of the Republican arsenal against him.  If anything, the president has erred on the side of kindness, old-fashioned courtesy, a willingness to listen and, yes, compromise.  To a fault.  And in plain view of anyone who might have taken the trouble to watch and listen to what he has had to say.

The attribution of words, thoughts, feelings and intentions to one's opponent is a well-worn rhetorical device.  I hear a lot of it from the Republican side: this is what Obama thinks--when he has said and done nothing to indicate that he thinks anything of the sort.  Eastwood's performance unintentionally revealed both the frequency and the crassness of the strategy. Cite his words, yes, by all means.  His own words.  And cite them in context, please, unlike the "you didn't build that" quote out of which the convention created such a ridiculous straw house.

Fortunately, there have been plenty of Big Bad Wolves around to huff and puff and blow that straw house down.  No further help needed from me.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Once again today, I recommend reading Richard (RJ) Eskow's column about the influence of the monied on the current election.  He says it far better than I could...

ONE TERM MORE

Here's a fine video, sent to me by a good friend.  It's called One Term More.

Have fun!

"LEGITIMATE RAPE"

I note that the Republican Party is now up in arms against one of their own, whose crime was to say out loud what many of them believe.  The mainstream of this far-right party agree on legislation to outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.  They have proposed as much, and have confirmed their position in votes in the House of Representatives.  Their current outrage rings hollow.  It is pure political posturing, and has nothing to do with the substance of the issue.  I'll withdraw the comment if and when more Republicans renounce their previously-embraced position on abortion, not when they merely denounce a fellow Republican for presuming to draw attention to that position by giving it voice.

THE RYAN TACTIC

Once again, I'll let Richard (RJ) Eskow speak for me.  Almost.  I don't go quite as far as he does along his line of argument, but he presents a frighteningly plausible scenario for what he calls "corporate statism"--and I call oligarchy.  Please read his screed.  And do what you can to assure the re-election of Barack Obama.  Giving money helps...

Oh, and here's Robert Reich, on the Romney/Ryan economic plan.

A LETTER TO THE TIMES

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries.)

Here's a letter I wrote this morning to the New York Times, with a link to the op-ed piece that it responds to:

The examples that Ross Douthat ("Romney's Mormon Story," Sunday, 8/12/12) offers of Mitt Romney's generosity reinforce the image of a man willing to help those in his immediate circle: he "shut down his business to hunt for a colleague's missing daughter," "helped build a memorial park when a friend's son died of cystic fibrosis," and "lent money to renters to help them buy a house he owned."  Without wishing to deprecate the Republican candidate's generosity or his religious faith, I find these examples unconvincing evidence of a broadly humanitarian vision that cares deeply about the vast numbers of today's vulnerable and defenseless, both in this country and abroad.  They are evidence, rather, of a narrow, even self-serving view that fails the test of the all-encompassing concern for humanity that is needed in a President of the United States today, in view of the huge challenges that our nation and our planet must imminently address.  The economic vision they exemplify is equally parochial in its implications.  Does Douthat envision a shining Salt Lake City on the hill?  

Given the volume of mail the newspaper receives, I suppose it's doubtful that my letter will see print.  Still, worth writing, if only to clarify the thought for myself.  

The basic question I would like to ask candidates and voters alike is this: Do you have plans for those less fortunate than yourself?  If so, please specify.  

REASONS...

This arrived yesterday as one of the many political emails I receive every day.  I thought it expressed things pretty well...

Thanks for reading.  Please join me... think about posting your own reasons to support this president in his reelection bid.  The country has a lot riding on his success!

HIGH MARKS...

... to President Obama for his handling of international affairs.  I sympathize with those on the left who criticize him for his use of drone strikes to take out Al Qaeda leaders and their gang of terrorists; I too shudder at the use of deadly force.  But then I am not the president, and I do not have the responsibility of protecting the lives of the innocent people these miscreants plan to attack.  I believe that in this world we humans have created, our leaders are constrained to undertake actions we civilians would eschew, and certainly disapprove.  I wish it were otherwise.

But reading and hearing what his opponent had to say in Israel yesterday, for the benefit of the right-wingers there and in this country, I am reminded what a good job this president has done.  His calm, thoughtful response to challenging, potentially destabilizing, sometimes chaotic events in other parts of the world has done much to restore this country's image as a strong center amidst the storms.  What Governor Romney seems to promise is a return to Bush-like bellicosity--the last thing the world needs.  His vision of America's place in the world is in stark contrast to the president's, and blithely ignores the realities of a new century in which co-operation is sorely needed in the place of enmity.

We should, by now, have left the twentieth century behind us.  Obama, in my view, has done that.  As in so many other matters, Romney appears to be stuck there.  On his "world tour," he looks like a dinosaur trampling clumsily through the morass.

A QUESTION...

... for Governor Romney.  A Buddhist question, really.  What are your plans for addressing the needs of the poor, the sick, and the aged?  

It's a serious question.  I’m pretty much clear about the answer I’d get from Obama and the Democrats: it’s a civilized society’s responsibility to provide help for those unable to help themselves. They support long-standing programs like Social Security and Medicare, along with all those government programs that provide needed help for the disabled and the poor.  They believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to assure educational opportunity for all. 

With Romney and the Republicans, I remain bewildered.  I know that they oppose “big government” in virtually all its functions except the military.  I understand that they wish to make huge cuts in the programs that the poor, the sick, and the aged have come to rely on for their security and well-being.  But I have yet to hear from any of them any clear statement on how, having made their cuts, they plan to address those needs. 

The needs, we can be sure, will not simply go away.  People will continue to get sick and grow old.  People will continue to struggle with poverty.  So my question for Governor Romney is a genuine one: what are your plans for addressing the needs of the poor, the sick, and the aged?  And I want to hear specific answers, not generalities.  The poor, the sick and the aged cannot survive on generalities. 

I would love nothing better than to enter into serious dialogue with those who do not share my point of view—those who would call me “liberal” and consider themselves “conservative.”  And serious dialogue, as I understand it, means coming up with alternative proposals for the real problems that we face.  I am familiar with all the negative arguments.  I’d like to talk about positive solutions. 

ROMNEY

When I thought about starting this "Vote Obama 2012" blog, I promised myself that it would concentrate only on the good and useful things that the president has accomplished, or tried to accomplish, during his time in office; and on what I saw to be his fair-minded approach to the country's problems, as well his substantial character and intellect.  I have reached the point in my own thinking where a less "fair and balanced" approach is called for.  With the Republicans working insidiously to stack the deck by manipulating the vote and exploiting the money advantage assured by their plutocratic supporters (now unleashed from any public accountability by Citizens United) it's becoming clear to me that a different approach is needed.  We need to talk not only about Obama's strengths, but also about his opponent's all-too evident weaknesses.

Do you think, for example, that Romney's current "world tour" will score points?  London, Israel, Poland.  Not sure why Poland--given his propensity for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, he may come up with a light bulb joke or two, I suppose.  But seriously, after his dubious performance in the UK, he has a ways to go in establishing his international diplomatic credentials.  He also has work to do in improving the image he projects on the television screen, where he seems to me insufferably smug.  But perhaps that's just me.

He was at pains, on NBC this morning, to distinguish his campaign--all about "the issues facing this great country"--with that of Obama, who descends, he says, to personal invective.  I have heard some uncomplimentary references from Obama's lips, directed at his Republican opponent; but they seem, frankly, rather mild and generally justified when compared with some of the insults sent his way.  The Romney campaign resorts indiscriminately to words like "complete failure" to describe his presidency, his handling of the economic crisis, of social issues, of international affairs (the latter, incidentally, the issue where the polls give him the greatest credit.)  There's a sustained and unrelenting attempt to cast a blanket of failure over everything the president has done, without mention of the fact that he has been stymied at every significant corner by a determined and implacable opposition to his smallest effort to move ahead.

From Romney, contrary to his protestations, I hear nothing by generalizations, unproven assertions and vague claims that he'll do a better job.  From Obama I hear concrete plans, specific proposals, hard facts and reasoned arguments.

In a rather cowardly manner, I thought, Romney distanced himself in the NBC interview from his wife's Olympic aspirations for her horse in the dressage contest--this despite the fact that he has apparently used the animal to provide himself with a substantial tax deduction.  I'm guessing that he prefers to downplay this association with an upscale, elitist, rather dandyish sport.  It would be a different story, I'm sure, if she was entering a car in a NASCAR speedway race.

Is this all relevant?  Is it fair game to point out the man's deficiencies?  My own feeling is that it all goes to character, and that Romney has some serious gaps to bridge to demonstrate his qualifications for the Oval Office.

WAR ON DEMOCRACY?

(Cross-posted to The Buddha Diaries)

I share the view expressed in today's lead editorial in the New York Times:

When Gov. Scott Walker moved to strip Wisconsin public employees of their collective-bargaining rights last year, a few weeks after taking office, it was clear that he wasn’t doing it to save the state money. If that had been the case, he would have accepted the unions’ agreement to pay far more in health care and pension costs. His real goal was political: to break the unions by demonizing their “bosses,” ending their ability even to collect dues and removing them as a source of money and energy for Democrats.

Am I a conspiracist--or simply a realist--for believing that the monied interests in this country have been working for years to acquire a stranglehold on the political system?  Or that there is, as Hillary Clinton once famously asserted, a "vast right-wing conspiracy"?  She was widely ridiculed, of course, for that incautious statement.  But I have always believed she spoke the truth.  The recent public television special on her husband, former President Bill Clinton was an alarming reminder of the similarities between the difficulties of his presidency and that of Barack Obama.  He was the target of the same legislative obstinate non-cooperation, the same hatred, the same personal attacks.  His legitimacy was questioned.  From his first day in office, as with Obama, the main objective of the Republicans was to get rid of him as fast as possible, or at the very least to disempower him until they could re-empower themselves.

I wrote yesterday about the role of money in the Wisconsin election.  I am not alone, I know, in my fear that money has already purchased our legislative process--and, indeed, the very highest level of our judicial system.  Citizens United is only one on a series of decisions that raise doubts--since Bush v. Gore!--about the impartiality of the Supreme Court.  The disempowerment of the unions as a political force has been the goal of the wealth-driven right wing for years.  In tandem with nation-wide state legislative actions to cull electoral roles and gerrymander political districts, the effort has clearly proved effective.  Not effective enough as yet, it seems, for the corporate powers, who continue to pour vast sums of money into contests like Wisconsin's in order to achieve their goal.

The preeminently white male right wing establishment is determined to fight back against the rising surge of power shifting into the hands of women and "minority" voters.  The poor are easy for them to keep in line.  It's my hope that their attempt to stem the demographic tide of rising consciousness among those who do not think like them and wish to challenge their power will eventually prove as vain as King Canute's.  My fear is that their defeat will come too late, only after their assault on democracy itself has damaged this nation beyond repair.  They risk bringing about the irreversible decline of the very nation they loudly claim to honor and protect.

NAUSEATING

No question but that Newark Mayor Cory Booker mis-spoke on that Sunday morning news show, when he used strong, passionate language to assail the use of personal attack ads, which he described as "nauseating."  Fair enough.  But he misspoke in suggesting a comparison between the Obama campaign ads about Bain capital and the Republican reversion to the old Rev. Wright assault on Obama.  As many commentators have already pointed out, Romney is running hard on his record as a successful "job-creator" as a businessman, which makes that record a legitimate subject for investigation and criticism.  Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could Obama be accused of sharing the rabid anti-American views expressed on one occasion long ago by the Rev. Wright.

Still, the Republicans leap in with both feet when they see an opening, and they found one here.  Romney now openly accuses Obama of scurrilous personal attacks and self-righteously proclaims his own intention to run a spotlessly clean campaign.  It's amazing to watch the truth being turned so smoothly on its head--and being echoed by the multitude of right-wing zealots.  Booker himself has forcefully rejected his co-option into the Romney campaign, but that does not prevent the machinery of politics from turning his remarks into sausage for their breakfast.  I have no doubt we'll be seeing Booker's face in many a television commercial.

Obama's response to the press was, as always, measured.  I have not heard him stoop to a single personal attack on Romney.  Not so his opponent, who glibly "stands by" his comments, "whatever they were," in which he unambiguously accused Obama of wanting to turn this country into a "less Christian nation."  I personally would applaud such an effort, but the president has given no indication of attempting such a laudable goal.  But the remark allowed Romney to signal insidious support to those who persist in believing Obama to be a Muslim, bent on converting the entire country to Islam and introducing sharia law; and he stands by it, whatever it was.

Mayor Booker erred, in my view, in seeming to equate the strategies of the two campaigns.  I myself work hard to dissociate my personal opinions of Romney-which are not too high--from my critical understanding of the policies with which he proposes to lead the country.  I am not always successful.  But I can still be appalled by the cognitive dissonance purposefully exploited by the other side, where simple, self-evident truths get twisted into lies, and self-evident lies are presented insistently as truths.

GIVING CREDIT...

... where's it's due.

My friend and frequent Buddha Diaries reader Gary dropped me a line to remind me to take note of the arrival of Chen Guangcheng in New York.  It is, as he suggests, both a tribute to the deliberate and unflappable approach of Obama--and of course his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton--to the management of international affairs, and a rebuke to those who would go off half-cocked in response to the kind of crisis the blind lawyer's dramatic run for freedom might provoke.

I admire the quality of restraint.  Obama's refusal to act in haste attracts the ire of those to the left of him as well as of those to the right.  But he's right.  Two recent examples come to mind.  The first is the thoughtful--and to many, much too slow--process of self examination that brought him to his expression of support for same-sex marriage.  He stands accused from both sides of acting out of political contingency; I see it differently.  His statement, though likely precipitated by his Vice-President's remarks a few days earlier, emphasized the personal nature of his "evolution" to a new position, describing it as the result of internal debate, of discussions with friends and family, and of seeing things through the eyes of others--notably his children.  No doubt there were also political considerations but the man is, after all, a politician and must, of necessity, concern himself with the political repercussions of his actions.  They are a part of the debate.

The second example comes from my reading of this article by David E. Sanger in today's New York Times, describing in detail the process by which he reached his current position on the war in Afghanistan--a process that began in 2009 and reached its conclusion only recently.  I have no doubt but that the president was mindful of the conflicting political winds that swirled about him: those on the left dismayed, if not outraged by his failure to bring it to a swift conclusion; and those on the right demanding more aggressive action.  There were the voices, too, of his civilian advisors, and those of the military brass--not to mention those of NATO allies, of the internally warring Afghans and the neighboring nations, especially Pakistan.  Sanger's article describes a thorough, thoughtful, patient process, a willingness to listen and hold back until his own path became clear to him.  I have every confidence that he will pursue that path with the same patience and refusal to be swayed by those on all sides less patient than himself.

The President is given little credit for this quiet deliberation.  It does not lend itself to wild applause, and  mostly goes overlooked and under appreciated.  I myself am grateful for his steadiness of purpose.  It is infinitely preferable to the shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness of his predecessor, which needlessly cost many human lives and hastened economic debacle.  It's time, I'd say, to give credit where it's due.

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries.)

GAY MARRIAGE, REVISITED

Well, so much for my thoughts of this morning!  This afternoon, it's all different.  I admire the president's courage, and I hope very much that my fears prove unfounded, and that his decision will work to his advantage.  Not sure if this has defused the issue, or fused another one...

GAY MARRIAGE

It's not so simple.  Whichever way you look at it, it's a dilemma.  Here was this friend of mine at the gym this morning, gay, pleading with the president: Please, do NOT come out in support of gay marriage--at least until after the election.  And many others are doing everything they can to force his hand.

I myself do not for one moment believe that Obama is opposed to gay marriage.  He made clear his opposition to the North Carolina Amendment 1, which voters (shamefully, in my view) approved yesterday.  He has said his thinking on the matter is "evolving."  Okay.  I don't actually believe that, either.  He stands charged by many liberal-minded people, I think justly, with equivocation.  Those on the left are quick to blame him for timidity on an issue of importance to them.  They fault him for an absence of leadership.

I don't agree that it's a matter of timidity, I think it's rather a matter of judgment, a matter of patience and political discernment.  Obama is cautious.  And why not?  I happen to think that's an asset rather than a deficit.  The same people who blame Obama for his caution are those who readily blamed his predecessor for a lack of it.  Leadership is not a matter of blurting out every thought or dashing into action on the slimmest of evidence: this led us into war.

And there is, here, an overriding concern.  The November election promises to be a very tight one.  I would not want the president to do or say one single thing that could jeopardize his return to office.  The alternative is simply too appalling--and at this point it's about more than the issues: Gov. Romney's mendacity and weakness become more apparent by the day.  So I'm with today's letter-writer on the editorial page of the New York Times who wrote the following: "I suspect that, like me and like Mr. Biden, [the president] has absolutely no problem with gay marriage--but it is in the overwhelming interest of all of us that he be re-elected."

As is so often the case, it is those with the best intentions who are capable of doing the most harm.  

RAGE, PASSION... AND DISPASSION

(Cross-posted from The Buddha Diaries.)

I’ve been thinking about the difference between passion and rage.  Both, it would seem to me, have their origin in the fire at the pit of the belly.  But one is bent primarily on destruction, the other on creation.  One consumes, the other constructs.  Passion, I think, is entirely consonant with its opposite, dispassion.  Rage is at odds with everything, especially its opposite: calm.  Passion inspires.  Rage eats at the gut and leaves its host hollowed out and exhausted.

I heard former Senator Bill Bradley say this morning (on the CBS Morning Show) that government action is determined by money.  (My paraphrase, I hope it's accurate.)  I presume that those who possess the money use it dispassionately, and usually with the purpose of making more—though I’m not taking philanthropy into account here.  A successful democracy would depend, too, upon the dispassionate exercise of reason, even though opinions may be passionately held.  What’s happening at the moment in America is that the interests of wealth are being furthered by the dispassionate, rational manipulation righteous of rage—rage on the left as well as on the right. 

Those who rage on the right are being persuaded by the astute use of vast sums of money to agitate and vote against their own interests, so that others may profit from their passion.  The rage of those on the left is more subtly manipulated: the strategy is to subvert their goals with the passion of their own ideals.  The attachment to their ideals is so passionate that they are readily seduced into believing that they are betrayed by any deviation from idealistic principles or goals. 

My own belief is that it is possible to be both passionate and dispassionate at one and the same time.  This is what I mean when I say that passion is entirely consonant with its opposite.  I myself share the ideals of those on the left, and passionately so.  But I recognize the need to acknowledge that the outcomes I wish for are not all practically attainable—at least not with the speed and ease that I would wish in the face of bitter, intractable opposition. 

So, for my fellow lefties, I wish the quality of dispassion.  They will personally suffer less, and they will contribute more to their cause by tempering their passion with patience and the exercise of reason than by exercising it in the form of rage.  I refuse to have my passion used to destroy what I believe in.  I refuse to succumb to the subliminal sales pitch with which corporate power and money seeks to suborn me.

These people are clever.  They can easily persuade those in their sway that strength is weakness, that success is failure, that courage is cowardice, that ignorance is more estimable than knowledge, that science is myth, that vengeance is justice, or that war is the path to peace.  Money, they know, can buy belief and loyalty.  It can buy certitude as well as servitude.  Caveat emptor.  We on the left must acknowledge the success of these strategies when we allow ourselves to be governed solely by our rage.  Our passion, we need.  Our rage is purchased and put to use by our opponents.  It serves their purposes, not ours.