The glorious Fourth and the meaning of America

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Mustang Bobby

MJWS:

We're posting this a day late -- though I did wish everyone a Happy Fourth yesterday -- but it's well worth it. I have a few things to say about my attachment to America, but it is Mustang Bobby's post, below, that is such a moving, and such a deeply personal, expression of what America means and of the love he has for his country. I encourage you to read it in full. (I also encourage you to check out Frank's July Fourth post over at his place.)
_____

Unlike Mustang Bobby, and most of our contributors here, I'm not American, at least by citizenship, though I do have a lot of American in me.

One of my grandfathers, in fact, was from Alabama, injured on the beaches of France in World War II and later a sportscaster, and back through him I can even trace my lineage, by marriage, to one Davy Crockett (specifically through his first wife, Polly Finley). And it is a direct ancestor of mine, John Finley, who encouraged one Daniel Boone to venture into Kentucky, with Boone later taking settlers through the Cumberland Gap.

Like Mustang Bobby, though, I love America "not for what it is but for what it could be." America is a great country, to be sure, but it is the promise of America that truly inspires. And it is that promise, I think, that should be the driving spirit of all those who care to work for the country's betterment. And I count myself, even as a non-citizen, as one of them.

**********

MB:

When I was a kid I was very outgoing in putting up displays for the holidays — Memorial Day, Christmas, the Fourth of July — I liked the flags, the lights, the stuff. It was cool to make a big splash. But as I grew up I grew out of it, and today I don't go much for things like that. I don't have a flag to fly on national holidays, and the most I'll do for Christmas is a wreath on the door because it has good memories and the scent of pine is rare in subtropical Florida.

I suppose it has something to do with my Quaker notions of shunning iconography — outward symbols can't show how you truly feel about something on the inside — and more often than not they are used to make up for the lack of a true belief. This is also true of patriotism: waving the flag — or wrapping yourself in it — is a poor and false measure of how you truly feel about your country.

Read more »

Behind the Ad: Barack Obama explains it all to you

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: Obama-Biden campaign.

Where: New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado.

What's going on: As the Associated Press writes, "President Barack Obama is pitching a broad economic argument to voters before next week's debate." He's looking right into the camera, talking about his economic plan that "will create 1 million manufacturing jobs, cut oil imports and hire thousands of new teachers."

In the ad, he introduces a new campaign theme: "economic patriotism."

As USA Today explains:

"During campaign season, you always hear a lot about patriotism," Obama said at an outdoor amphitheater near the Virginia coast. "Well, you know what, it's time for a new economic patriotism -- and economic patriotism rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong and thriving middle class."

I can't help but think that Mitt Romney opened the door with his 47 percent comment, and Barack Obama is walking right through it with ideals that speak to the possibility of a united country, in which caring about other people is a mark of patriotism.

Maybe we always needed Mitt Romney to show us what we didn't want in a president.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The closing door

By Carl 

Not that I believe Mitt Romney ever stood a chance of beating President Obama, for myriad reasons, but I think you can stick a fork in him right now, and we still have five weeks left:

Despite his protestations to the contrary, Mitt Romney currently appears to be losing the presidential election, and his problems are especially acute in Ohio, the state no Republican has ever won the presidency without. A new New York Times poll Wednesday put Romney a shocking 10 points behind Obama; even the most optimistic Democrats have a hard time believing the president, who won Ohio by less than 5 points in 2008, could win the state by 10 this time around. The most optimistic Republicans, for their part, do not believe any polls at all these days, since, in a highly suspicious coincidence, they are nearly unanimous in showing Romney behind.

Seeing the candidates campaign in the state back-to-back, as I did, neatly illustrated the divergent mood between the two camps -- one flailing, one on a confident roll. The Obama campaign is clicking on all cylinders, consistent, smoothly choreographed and slickly produced; Romney's appearances are a jumble, his tone of voice pleading to the point of desperation, his speech constantly improvised from a Frankenstinian array of spare messaging parts, never quite gelling into a focused whole. Obama's crowds are a Bieber-like fan-throng; Romney's are only passionately angry. A visitor from another planet who didn't speak a word of any human language could tell which one was up and which was down. 

Indeed, things are so bleak for Romney that Obama is going to test out a trope that I had hoped would be employed more forcefully earlier: it's un-American to support Romney and his off-shoring of money and jobs:

"It's time for a new economic patriotism, rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class," Obama says in conclusion. "Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney's and decide for yourself."

In a nation that is struggling to achieve even a moderate reduction in unemployment numbers, that a whole cadre of wealth remains in offshore bank accounts and investments is treasonous. Obama doesn't come out and say this, but it's in between the lines: a strong, thriving middle class doesn't have access to Bermuda hedge funds, Caymans private equity funds, or Swiss bank accounts, and a weak middle class doubly not.

Romney had seven years, literally, to uncouple himself from those investments (or at least dump them into a blind trust) because he had to know they'd be an issue and defending by saying "you're just jealous" doesn't change the fact that mobsters and other criminals use those same facilities for the same reason: to hide money.

Add to that the very real gaffes Romney commits on a weekly basis, from the primaries all the way to this past week, and you have the makings of a real sewer hole of a campaign.

Indeed, Romney's stench is so palpable, it's even infesting apparent jokes. This is the same benchmark the McCain-Palin campaign breached when Tina Fey satired "I can see Russia from my house!" It wasn't a Palin quote, but it described the situation so accurately that it stuck.

How desperate have things become for Republicans? They've resorted to blaming the pollsters.

Oh yes. It's not that Romney has been a terrible campaigner or that Romney was just a bad choice, no, it's the pollsters who somehow have conspired to show Romney flailing like a Little Leaguer facing CC Sabathia.

Because goodness knows, there's no competition to get it right and earliest! The long term effects of this kind of conspiring would be not only tragic, it would be actionable by any shareholders.

Here we have another example of the Republican anathema to science and mathematics. For the GOP, God's poll tells them otherwise because they pray nightly for a miracle.

I'm afraid that door is closing too. About the only miracle that could possibly save Romney is during the debates, where Barack Obama unmasks as Osama bin Laden. And even then, Romney would still trail by three in Ohio.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Fox News goes all knee-jerk jingoism on America's Olympians

By Michael J.W. Stickings

No red, no white, no blue: Gabby Douglas might just be a terrorist.

You can't make this shit up. And, with Fox News on the job, you don't have to:

Gabby Douglas was the topic du jour for Olympic commentators throughout last week, but over the weekend, she became a centerpiece in another manufactured controversy at Fox News, America's top outlet for manufactured controversies. Douglas' pink leotard, Fox host Alisyn Camerota lamented, was emblematic of an Olympic "trend" (one that, Fox wants you to believe, is part of a liberal-left conspiracy to rid the world of red, white, and blue) of athletes wearing colors that don't appear on the American flag.

"Some folks have noticed that the American athletes' uniforms don't carry the stars and stripes look as much as they have in past years," Camerota complained, without any evidence of who "some folks" might be. "The famous flag-styled outfits worn in year's past replaced with yellow shirts, gray track suits, pink leotards." Radio host/Tea Partier David Webb later chimed in with a sad tome about how America has "lost over time that jingoistic feeling" because "a soft anti-American feeling that Americans can't show their exceptionalism."

Right, I've been watching a lot of the Olympics and I can report that those traitorous anti-American U.S. athletes wear neither red nor white nor blue, give the finger to the flag when they're standing on the podium, and refer to their flag, when they're not burning it, as the "Stars and Fucking Stripes," all because they hate their country and would be competing for al Qaeda if only it had its own Olympic team.

It's all true!

**********

On a more serious note, Gabby Douglas -- and I say this as someone who can't stand gymnastics as an Olympic sport (and certainly can't stand watching it) -- is an incredible athlete. Any self-respecting American should be happy she's an American competing for their country on the world's largest stage. She, nor any other Olympian, needs to be criticized by the fucking idiots who populate Fox News.

**********

Also, it's telling that "jingoism" has become a mark of pride on the right. Here's Wikipedia's description:

Jingoism is extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy. In practice, it is a country's advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what it perceives as its national interests. Colloquially, it refers to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism.

The term originated in Britain, expressing a pugnacious attitude towards Russia in the 1870s. "Jingoism" did not enter the American vernacular until near the end of the 19th century. This nationalistic belligerence was intensified by the sinking of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbour that led to the Spanish-American War of 1898.

Pride in one's country is one thing, and it's usually fine. Patriotism is also usually fine, though it's also, on occasion, "the last refuge of the scoundrel," particularly when it's "self-professed," which is what Samuel Johnson meant.

And jingoism? It's for bullying, unthinking morons with an extremist right-wing political agenda -- yes, like the fucking idiots who populate Fox News.

Patriotic Millionaires demand higher taxes on the wealthy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Very often, patriotism is indeed the last refuge of the scoundrel, as Samuel Johnson said. But sometimes it's genuine -- and sometimes these genuine patriots really do know what their country needs and how they can help.

Via Hullabaloo:

Rick Perry's ignorance about the meaning of patriotism

By Richard K. Barry

Andrew Sullivan cited a comment from Rick Perry recently that hit on one of the things I dislike most about this current crop of conservatives. It's the notion that to disagree with them politically means that one is unpatriotic, really not fit to be an American.

Here's what Perry had to say:

One of the reasons that I'm running for president is that I want to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on a uniform of the United States respects the president of the United States.

I don't think we need to doubt that Perry is saying that the man who currently holds the office doesn't deserve the respect of the men and women in uniform.

This really is unbelievable.

As Sullivan writes:

Putting the respect of troops for the commander-in-chief in question is yet another radical assault on existing traditions and institutions. There is nothing these people won't destroy for power.

No, there is nothing these people won't destroy to defend their ignorant view of the world.

There seems to be no end to the claim that we have to agree with every crackpot radical right-wing extremist about what it means to be an American or we are not, by their judgement, worthy to serve.

Speaking in Iowa on Sunday, Perry added this gem:

I think you want a president who is passionate about America - that's in love with America.

As Steve Benen commented, "Perry didn't explicitly say that the president doesn't love America, but the implication wasn't exactly subtle."

Sometimes they leave me speechless. Do they have any idea how much hatred is involved in their grand pronouncements about love of country?

Will they ever understand that wanting to make America a better place to live for everyone is the surest indication of patriotism?

Not likely on either count.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Photo of the Day: Memorial Day 2011 - Stony Point, New York

By Richard K. Barry

 

This picture appeared in The New York Times yesterday. It's a fairly ordinary shot depicting an older veteran and a young boy at a Memorial Day celebration. It could be anywhere, but it happens to be in my home town of Stony Point, New York. I grew up in the area. I still have family there, though I have lived mostly in other places for the past 30 years.

According to the Times caption, the older gentleman is Arnold Rist, who is 86 years old. The youngster is Thomas Cahill, age 3. On Monday, Mr Rist played taps, as, the caption states, he has done hundreds of times at military funerals. In April 1945, it says that he was among the soldiers who liberated the inmates of Dachau concentration camp.

My sister sent the picture and she and I were trying to figure out where it was taken. We are pretty sure it's at the Stony Point Town Hall because that's where the local parades ended when she and I marched in them as part of our high school band when we took part in the annual celebrations many, many years ago.

I mention all of this, in part, because I marvel at how the political right so aggressively claims patriotism for themselves as if those of us on the left couldn't possibly understand what pride in community and the sacrifice of others means. They like to paint all of their political opponents as radically different and therefore wrong about everything.

I do hate to disappoint people like that, but I grew up in a small town. I've worked hard to understand the history, culture, and politics of my country. I take pride in what is good and criticize passionately what needs work, which is not a bad definition of patriotism from my point of view.

If you want to disagree with me, do it on the facts and not on some bogus claim that you are more American than I am simply because you think you are, as you wrap yourself in the flag and refuse to listen to any other voice but your own.

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day and remembered to remember the sacrifices made by people like Mr. Rist and so many others.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Glorious Fourth

By Mustang Bobby.

When I was a kid I was very outgoing in putting up displays for the holidays -- Memorial Day, Christmas, the Fourth of July -- I liked the flags, the lights, the stuff. It was cool to make a big splash. But as I grew up I grew out of it, and today I don't go much for things like that. I don't have a flag to fly on national holidays, and the most I'll do for Christmas is a wreath on the door because it has good memories and the scent of pine is rare in subtropical Florida.

I suppose it has something to do with my Quaker notions of shunning iconography -- outward symbols can't show how you truly feel about something on the inside, and more often than not they are used to make up for the lack of a true belief. This is also true of patriotism: waving the flag -- or wrapping yourself in it -- is a poor and false measure of how you truly feel about your country.

There's an old saying that there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. As Benjamin Franklin noted, no country had ever been formed because of an idea. But when the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in 1776 and passed the resolution embodied in the Declaration of Independence, that was what was being done. To create a nation not based on geographical boundaries, property, tribalism, or religion, but on the idea of forming a new government to replace the present form because the rulers were incompetent, uncaring, and cruel. The American Revolution wasn't so much a rebellion as it was a cry for attention. Most of the Declaration is a punch-list, if you will, of grievances both petty and grand against the Crown, and once the revolution was over and the new government was formed, the Constitution contained many remedies to prevent the slights and injuries inflicted under colonialism: the Bill of Rights is a direct response to many of the complaints listed in the Declaration.

But the Declaration of Independence goes beyond complaints. Its preamble is a mission statement. It proclaims our goals and what we hope to achieve. No nation had ever done that before, and to this day we are still struggling to achieve life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness goes on with no sign of let-up.

That is the true glory of America. Not that we complain -- and we do -- but that we work to fix those complaints. To put them right. To make things better than they were. To give hope to people who feel that they have no voice, and to assure that regardless of who they are, where they come from, what they look like, who they love, or what they believe, there will be room for them to grow, do, and become whatever it is that they have the capacity to be. It's a simple idea, but the simplest ideas often have the most powerful impact.

This nation has achieved many great things. We've inspired other nations and drawn millions to our shores not to just escape their own country but to participate in what we're doing. And we've made mistakes. We've blundered and fumbled and bullied and injured. We've treated some of our own citizens with contempt, and shown the same kind of disregard for the rights of others that we enumerated in our own Declaration of Independence. We have been guilty of arrogance and hypocrisy. But these are all human traits, and we are, after all, human. The goal of government is to rise above humanity, and the goal of humanity is to strive for perfection. So if we stumble on the road to that goal, it is only because we are moving forward.

I love this country not for what it is but for what it could be. In my own way I show my patriotism not by waving a flag from my front porch but by working to make things work in our system and by adding to the discussion that will bring forth ideas to improve our lives and call into question the ideas of others. It is all a part of what makes the simple idea of life, liberty, and that elusive happiness so compelling and so inspiring, and what makes me very proud to be a part of this grand experiment.

Go forth!

(Originally posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof on July 4, 2005.)

The young people poll

By Jim Arkedis

Jim Arkedis runs the All Our Might blog at the Progressive Policy Institute.

Democracy Corps conducted a poll of 606 voters between the ages of 18-29 -- in other words, the voters who will determine attitudes and election results for the next several decades. As pertains to foreign policy and national security issues, there is an undeniable trend towards the Democratic Party.

A few sample numbers:

Q: Is the Republican Party patriotic?
63 yes / 27 no

Q: Is the Democratic Party patriotic?
67 yes / 22 no

Q: Who is better in the "war on terrorism"?
D: 42/ R: 35

Q: Are you "warm" or "cool" on the war in Iraq?
Warm: 19/ Cool: 64

Q: Are you "warm" or "cool" on the war in Afghanistan?
Warm: 24/ Cool: 55

I'll briefly focus in on the "patriotic" question, because the Republican Party has done a great job strangling this issue for all it's worth. According to a CBS News story from 2007:

According to the Roper Center iPoll database at the University of Connecticut, pollsters have rarely asked Americans whether specific candidates or individuals were patriotic. But when they do, Republicans have the upper hand. In early 2004, according to a Gallup/CNN/USA Today poll, more Americans said being patriotic applied more to Republican George W. Bush than to Democrat John Kerry. In 1988, more voters thought the current President's father George Bush was very patriotic than thought Democrat Michael Dukakis was. Twenty years ago, in the middle of the Iran-Contra scandal, 73 percent of Americans agreed that Oliver North was a "real patriot."

That this issue is now trending Democratic among young voters can't be emphasized enough. In my mind, there's a correlation (though not exactly a direct one) between the public's perception of the parties' "patriotism" and the president's connections to the military and willingness to use force.

Obama has done a better job of passing this "Commander-in-Chief test" during his short time in office than Bill Clinton did in eight years. (Clinton tried, but was thrown off initially by "gays in the military" and then Monica Lewinsky.) Obama has coupled his objections to the Iraq War's premise with a desire to withdraw while keeping America's national security interests intact. At the same time, he has emphasized Afghanistan's importance and shown no hesitation in deploying more American troops. Obama has supported measures to care for America's uniformed personnel in ways the Bush administration objected to (GI Bill; PTSD). And, finally, his steady resolve has been expressly or tacitly endorsed by the likes of Colin Powell, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Gen. David Petraeus.

Since America's youth aren't tied to older perceptions/portrayals of weak-kneed Democrats trying to show muscle (ahem, Dukakis in the tank), they are giving credit where it's due. You might say Democracts have Bush's legacy to thank for such a good showing.

(Cross-posted from All Our Might.)

It would be so nice if you weren't here

By Carl

I'm going to avoid the whole "whatever happened to supporting the President no matter what?" theme that Blogtopia has been bandying about in reaction to the latest pathetic whining from the right:

So, President Obama phoned the Senate GOP sellouts Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter and praised them Friday night for showing their "patriotism" by cutting a trillion-dollar, backroom deal to mortgage our children and grandchildren’s future.

If that is "patriotism," then I'm proud to be an unpatriot.

I should point out that Michelle Malkin is an American citizen through a loophole in the Constitution that allowed her mother to fly here, give birth, and have her daughter declared a "natural-born citizen." This is also known as having an "anchor baby," and allowed her parents, here on student visas, entry to American citizenship without going through the usual processes.

I'm sort of hoping she was a C-section, so that we could claim she wasn't born naturally, but a surgically delivered abomination and therefore deportable.

Which in no way should be construed as deprecating any other C-section births, of course. But I digress...

It would be easy to poke fun at these "sunshine patriots," as Thomas Paine put it. After anally-raping Uncle Sam for the past eight years in support of a President who couldn't spell "mandate" much less claim one, they now turn their backs on a country that so thoroughly repudiated them that their losing candidate, John McCain, couldn't claim as much voter support as the least palatable Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis, John Kerry in 2004.

They are saying, as Eric Cartman would say, "Screw you guys, I'm going home!"

America, love it or leave it. One is tempted to say that to a group so ugly, brutish, and vile that they contribute nothing to the national dialogue beyond foam and bluster.

And one might be wrong. I'm a liberal, so I guess that makes me tolerant. Here's what I think is happening:

The groundbreaking psychiatrist Elizabeth Kubler-Ross devised the now famous "stages of grief" Kubler-Ross model in 1969. We can celebrate that accomplishment by analyzing the right-wing reactions to November 4, 2008.

As the event approached, and the death of conservative became apparent, there was an awful lot of denial going on. Remember how Barack Obama was "clearly not an American citizen"? The outlandish extent to which conservatives attempted to prove his illegitimacy is called "denial," and was Kubler-Ross' first stage.

Indeed, this stage kept going right up to the final electoral college vote on December 12. Some people didn't get out of denial until the Inauguration. And some, bless their stubborn little hearts, to this day claim he's illegitimate and not their president! How cute!

Anger, which is the next stage, is still pretty obvious, as any trip to any website where more than one conservaroach is infesting shows. Malkin's post about being an "unpatriot" makes that abundantly clear. Some have moved beyond this point, however, so let's continue.

Bargaining: We've seen this in the Senate this week. I don't think it's a coincidence that the folks who have the most progressive outlook in the Republican party have begun to negotiate the waters of an Obama administration and an economic meltdown. If you've read carefully the statements politicians have put out this week, you've read words along the lines of "if only..."

"If only the stimulus bill had more tax cuts. If only the stimulus bill didn't cost so much."

That, my friends, is bargaining.

Next comes depression. We're going to start seeing that as the Obama stimulus bill begins to revive the economy. Make no mistake. It will. Even if President Obama opened a window and threw $800 billion onto Pennsylvania Avenue, some stimulus would occur. Obama knows this. The smart Republicans do, too. They just don't like that it's a Democrat who, once again, gets to save the nation from the folly of the GOP.

And finally, acceptance. Now, I don't think we will ever see an en masse admission by Republicans that Barack Obama has done a fine job in turning the nation around. But it will be there in the dark shadows of the Republican psyche, a grudging acceptance that the nation chose wisely, as it sometimes is wont to do, particularly when the chips are down and we need the right man in office.

Until that day, thought, you can expect more of this.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Taxes and patriotism

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On ABC's Good Morning America today, Joe Biden said this: "It's time to be patriotic... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut." What he was referring to was taxes. "We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people." In other words, wealthier people should pay more than they do now, particularly after Bush's plutocratic tax cuts.

In response to the Obama-Biden proposal to lower taxes on the middle class, and to restore fiscal sanity post-Bush, McCain and others on the right are once more trotting out the old "Democrats want to tax you to death" smear. "McCain released a television ad [today] charging that Obama would increase the size of the federal government amid an economic crisis. Contending that 'a big government casts a big shadow on us all,' the ad features the image of a shadow slowly covering a sleeping baby as a narrator misstates the reach of the Obama tax proposal." [emphasis added -- full credit to the AP for getting it right and reporting the truth]

Ah, fearmongering -- trying to scare the shit out of low-information voters. The Republicans do it so well, don't they? And, in this case, it's all just a blatant lie.

And it's even coming from my friend Ed Morrissey, one of the right's brighter lights, who titles his post, "Biden: Low taxes are unpatriotic."

Really? But that's not what Biden said -- and Ed knows that (he quotes him). What Biden said was that paying less than your fair share is unpatriotic, and that the wealthy are currently doing just that. It's called a progressive tax code: the wealthy pay a little more so that those below them, particularly in the ever-more-squeezed middle, can have their tax burden lessened -- and so that there can be fiscal sanity again.

What the right doesn't understand, although I'm sure Ed does, is that there's more to patriotism than wearing a flag lapel pin and chanting "USA! USA!" at every opportunity. The Republicans this year are all about "Country First," but of course that's all a facade, a riff off the myth of McCain. What they're really all about is flag-waving to score political points and to distract voters' attention away from the issues, on which they lag well behind the Democrats.

Actually, though, as the McCain-Palin campaign is proving, what they're really all about is lying to the American people.

Stars and swipes

By J. Kingston Pierce

Republican’t U.S. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma isn’t exactly renowned for his logical statements. After the media reported in 2004 on the abuse of inmates at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, kicking up a storm of protest and charges that the Bush administration had sacrificed U.S. credibility on the anti-torture front, the ultra-conservative Inhofe said with a straight face that he was “more outraged by the outrage than ... by the treatment” of those prisoners. This same out-of-touch right-winger has criticized the Red Cross for being “a bleeding heart” and declared that he was “really proud to say that in the recorded history of our family, we’ve never had a divorce or any kind of homosexual relationship.”

Now this great sage of nonsense is attacking Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama as someone who doesn’t love his country. He tells the Tulsa World:

Regardless of what polls show, Inhofe said, voters will have to ask themselves a question once they get behind the curtain in the voting booth on Election Day.

“Do you really want to have a guy as commander in chief of this country when you can question whether or not he really loves his country?” he asked.

“That’s the big question.”

Shannon Gilson, spokeswoman for Obama, said Friday that he has a plan to strengthen the economy and offer immediate relief to working families, while Republican nominee John McCain and his Washington friends such as Inhofe are offering four more years of President Bush's failed economic policies.

“Sen. Obama won’t let anyone question his love of this country,” Gilson said.

“Challenging your opponent’s patriotism to win an election is the type of cynical partisan politics Americans are tired of--and won’t bring the change we need in Washington,” Gilson said.

After he was asked for an explanation on why voters should question Obama’s love for his country, Inhofe issued a written statement on Friday to clarify his earlier comments.

“Let me be clear,” he said.

“I am not questioning Sen. Obama’s patriotism, but you have to question why at times he seems so obviously opposed to public displays of patriotism and national pride, like wearing an American flag lapel pin.”

Inhofe’s statements are stupid, on their face. And there’s of course a great deal more to consider in choosing a president than whether or not that person demonstrates rabid patriotism. Furthermore, Obama has demonstrated no less honest patriotism than George W. Bush disciple John “100 Years War” McCain.

And if Inhofe really believes that failing to wear a tiny American flag pin on one’s lapel demonstrates significant lack of patriotism, then he can be expected to vote for somebody other than McCain in November. In case Inhofe didn’t notice, the cranky 72-year-old Washington insider wasn’t wearing a flag pin when he accepted the Republican’t Party’s nomination for president on Thursday.

Proof is in the photo at the top of this post.

(Cross-posted at Limbo.)

Capture the flag

By Capt. Fogg

Paul Slansky makes a modest proposal today at The Huffington Post. He suggests that we fight them on their own lapels so that we don't have to fight them here. Quoting the popular political philosopher, Doctor Suess, Slansky suggests that we all begin to wear lapel pins, thus castrating one of their favorite shibboleths.

"We're exactly like you! You can't tell us apart.

We're all just the same, now, you snooty old smarties!

And now we can go to your frankfurter parties."

Coincidentally, that's just what I did last night at my annual yacht club barbecue; a tawdry, rhinestone studded lapel pin at that. And it worked. No one had and doubts that I would snicker right along with the Michelle slurs, the hand on heart nonsense, the Wesley Clark gambit or any of the other wilful suspensions of honesty that characterize the political commentary of the reflexive Right. I wore red, white and blue clothing and I would have run "old glory" up the mast save for the violent thunderstorm. Some were quite surprised by my replies.

It's time we took back what was once a proud symbol of secular democracy, justice and the inalienability of certain human rights - amongst other things. The flag that flies today on the Moon somehow, during the same period, became the symbol of support for our war inViet Nam and the Nixonian contempt for law and loyal dissent. It has been a Republican symbol of militarism and right wing politics ever since.

As Slansky says, the lapel may be the only remaining venue in which they have that home field advantage, but it would be easy and cheap to take it away from them. Wear the pin.

"The right is reeling, they can't find a single thing to point to that's better than it was before Bush, so while they're busy dealing with issues of basic survival, let's just slip in there and take back the damn flag. Take it back from the war criminals and their apologists and enablers that have wrapped themselves in it even as they've been methodically destroying the republic for which it stands."

Let's run it up the flagpole. It's an idea I can salute.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

A patriot regardless

By Creature

Via ThinkProgress we learn that Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry referred to one of our soldiers serving in Iraq as a "two-bit security guard." As Steve Benen points out, if this representative was a Democrat right-wing talking heads would be exploding across the country right now. However, what Steve forgets in this little "what if a Dem had said it" game, is that Rep. Patrick McHenry wears a flag lapel pin, and has a yellow ribbon on his SUV, so all is forgiven.

Update: It turns out our "two bit security guard" solider was actually a "two bit security guard" contractor. However, the point remains the same and the Dems would have been blasted either way.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Tin Pin Patriotism

By Capt. Fogg

Sigmund Freud talked about the narcissism of small differences; the tendency toward making the biggest fuss over people who are most nearly identical to us. It calls to mind the Clinton/Obama Celebrity Death Match the media are promoting for their own ends. They're the most nearly alike politically candidates we've seen in a long time, in my opinion, but that's not good for the 24/7 yackathon that the nattering nabobs need to maintain to keep ratings up.

You'd think nothing was happening on planet Earth other than bitter debates about lapel pins, and every manufactured nuance of expression is chewed to a disgusting mess like a rawhide dog toy. I don't wear a lapel pin and I won't as long as the people who made my country into a quasi-fascist imperialist plutocracy are in power. I don't trust anyone who wears one and I have not since the darkest days of the Viet Nam War when it was a symbol of support for that fraudulent, mismanaged and vicious enterprise.

I don't trust people who make an issue of a candidate not wearing a toy flag and it's obvious that many people who do are dishonest, because I and others like Crooks and Liars have noticed that John McCain is often seen without his Taiwanese Token of gumball machine patriotism too. Toe tapping Larry Craig, as T Rex points out, wore one for his police mug shot and if the hero of stall three wears one, you know it means something.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

More flags, fewer facts

By Capt. Fogg

I've been wondering when the swift boats would put to sea, but perhaps we will have to wait until the Democrats have chosen a candidate so that it doesn't become apparent that anyone and everyone opposing God's Own Party will be attacked. Until then we'll likely have an endless supply of cheap shots lobbed over the fence, like the viral picture of Obama in front of an obscenely large flag without his hand on his heart and the cynical outrage at Hillary Clinton's failure to leave a tip at a Toledo, Iowa diner that inspired a cartoon in today's New York Times. Meanwhile very few of us will have any idea of exactly what their health care proposals contain or what their economic policies would be like.

It's not clear whether a tip was actually left -- the Clinton staff said there was a $100 tip left -- and the photo of Obama was of course taken out of context from a a video that shows the Pledge of Allegiance was not being regurgitated when it was taken, but little by little, the sleaze brokers are going to chip away at the candidates' images, misinterpreting remarks, photoshopping images, and rearranging stories so as to make Democratic candidates seem unpatriotic, disdainful of the common man, and just plain un-American.

Of course, the attempt to remake Barack Obama as a closet Islamic radical didn't work for most of us and his failure to wear the requisite flag pin at every moment didn't really convert anyone to support of the Republican pandaemon and the stories about Hillary hiring hit men to go after an opponent's cat are less that credible, but each new piece of dung flung from their cage does work a slow erosion, a slow character assassination and an insidious diversion away from what America needs to save itself.

I care little where a president puts his hands unless it's into my pocket or onto the red button and I quite frankly don't give a damn about the illegal coercion in pledging allegiance to someone else's God or about flags or cheap jewelry or people who worship them while treating the constitution and our laws and our property with snickering disdain.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Independence at risk

By Carol Gee

Cross-posted originally at South by Southwest in 2006. I originally wrote this post last July 4. This year I updated and share it with Reaction readers. The only major change this year is this: I substituted "entrenched" for "Republican" at "Legislative leaders."

The Fourth of July is America's celebration; its "Independence Day." On my "gratitude list" today I remain grateful that Democrats control the U.S. Congress, though yesterday I was really mad at them. My wish for them on this holiday is an infusion of committment to public service.

Oligarchy (Webster's) "a government in which a small group exercises control esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes"

Independent (Webster's) "(1) not subject to control by others (2) self-governing, (3) not affiliated with a larger controlling unit, (4) not looking to others for one's opinions or guidance in conduct, (5) showing a desire for freedom.

Who in the oligarchy jeopardizes the independence of the people of the United States? Which small group or groups are exercising too much control, governance or guidance over our independence? Which of these groups is selfish or corrupt?

• Corporations: oil & gas, banking, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, news media
• Special interests: neocons, right-wing evangelicals, political parties
• Lobbyists: ex-governmental officials, corporate representatives, 527s
• Think tanks: right-wing intellectuals, ex-governmental officials
• Legislative leaders: U.S. House and Senate's entrenched old leadership
• Wealthy individuals: 16% of the aggregate income in the U.S. went to the top one percent of the people. New England is the fastest growing area for rich people.

Today is Independence Day. On this day - 231 years ago in 1776 - colonists declared their independence from England. Which group or groups today appear to be selfish or corrupt? From whom will you declare independence? Can you be more self-governing? From whence can you get independent opinion and guidance? Think about it and decide.

Loyalty gone wild

By Carol Gee

There is a kind of theme I detected in several recent posts at The Reaction. Several have alluded to loyalty or disloyalty in one way or another. Is there such a thing as too much loyalty? Of course there is! (Perhaps I could be accused of same for "pimping" these posts, when I am so new to the group of co-bloggers.) But I do not think so. I and all other avid blog readers love a clever turn of phrase or an elegant skewering, particularly when it is at Republican expense. And these are what I'd like to point out with the following exerpts:

Whom to serve, the people or the boss?
Capt Fogg's "Special Pleadings" was about the sentencing of Scooter Libby from the questionable perspective of William Otis of the Washington Post. To quote, "In addition he thought he [Libby ]was serving his country by putting loyalty to the Bush administration above loyalty to the people and constitution of the United States."

Protecting their own syncophants -
Michael J.W. Stickings gets right to the heart of Bush admnistration loyalty at its worst, "No Confidence in Alberto Gonzales," with this great summary:

"He will survive today's vote only because it is non-binding, because Republicans will close ranks to protect one of their own, even one whose conduct has been as reprehensible as Gonzales's, and because he still enjoys the support of the president -- likely because Bush loves to surround himself with sycophants, of which Gonzales is one of the more repugnant, and because he hates to give in to pressure from his critics, that is, because he is stubborn.

Bush can't always count on loyalty -
Creature in an earlier post, "The grand conservative compromise" opened with this wonderfully wrought sentence, "Loyal Libby apologist Bill Kristol, who just last week eviscerated the president for being a disloyal coward undeserving of respect, now predicts that his "fallen soldier" buddy, I. Scooter Libby, will get the commuted sentence Paris Hilton could only dream of."

Who's the friend, who's the enemy?
Later Creature posted a piece exploring our new "alliance" with Iraqi Sunnis. Who is the enemy of whose enemy in that incredibly convoluted tapestry of ephemeral Iraqi loyalties?

Havoc wrought through loyalty -
J. Kingston Pierce looks at former Secretary of State Colin "Powell - born-again maverick" who, to quote, ". . . effectively destroyed any chance he had of a future career in elective politics by providing George W. Bush with cover he needed to invade Iraq in 2003." Our blogger continues with a quote from Powell indicating that he might not necessarily vote GOP in 2008, and then this great conclusion,

As Joe Sudbay of AMERICAblog points out, such coyness about party choice is “just not done in GOP world. Loyalty comes first.” Apparently, Powell didn’t get the memo. Or maybe he’s just seen what havoc can be wrought through loyalty.

Democrats have little sympathy for Republicans who let blind loyalty get in the way of decent public service. And we,of course, know the pain of what it feels like when someone we trust becomes disloyal. The thing to remember, however, is that United States citizens paid the salaries of these people. The transgressors never had permission to act as if their salaries were personally paid by the boss. Because we pay his, too!

Loyalty and dissent

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In much of the world, today is May Day -- or Labour Day, or International Workers' Day.

In the U.S., which doesn't much go in for socialism, it's Loyalty Day.

Yes, Loyalty Day. (It used to be Americanization Day, which sounds even worse.) And Bush proclaimed it so.

To be fair, some of Bush's platitudinous proclamation was fine: "We believe deeply in freedom and self-government..." That Bush is requesting loyalty at a time when America, under his "leadership," is embroiled in a disastrous foreign war -- and that he is requesting it on the fourth anniversary of his "Mission Accomplished" speech -- is not fine. Not at all.

In fact, it's all quite sickening. (Bob Geiger explains.)

And, I must say, I find the whole idea of state-ordered (or even state-suggested) loyalty distressingly unpleasant. It's all rather -- how shall I put it? -- Khmer Rougish.

After all, what does it mean to be loyal?

Bush referred to "reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation," but even that is vague and collectivist. So is just about flying the flag? Not for Bush, who connects it to the military. So is it about "the patriotic service of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform with honor and decency". To a point, but is it also about supporting what those men and women are doing in uniform? Beyond that, is it about supporting those who sent those men and women off to war? Is it about supporting the state, or the leader?

Which is my point -- where does loyalty stop and 1984-ish love for Big Brother begin? It seems to me that Bush and many of those on his side of the political divide demand the sort of allegiance that pushes genuine patriotism into the dangerous gray area between conscious loyalty and unconscious devotion.

When it's beaten into you, even in speech, you may have no choice but to acquiesce, to love that which has destroyed you.

Sameness is celebrated, difference is abhorred. If you're not with us, you're against us.

Which is profoundly un-American, I would contend, unless this is precisely what America, under Bush, has become.

Born in revolution, an ongoing experiment, a fusion of ancient and modern thought, a nation of noble ideals sustained by liberal and progressive ideas, America was never meant to be something to which one would be unconsciously devoted.

So on this Loyalty Day, with the country at war, with the Constitution under threat, with the noble ideals of the Declaration of Independence receding ever further into oblivion, I say this:

Be an American. Dissent.