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.