I've decided to give up on TV news reports (except for Chris Matthews). Obviously I can't listen to FOX (unless I want to laugh my ass off or swear every five minutes at my TV) and though I love CNN, I don't think they cover enough in their broadcast.
Where does this leave me?
With the New York Times and other papers.
So when I googled "Latest events of Saturday, June 7, 2008," I came up with this fascinating article by Star Parker...
STAR PARKER: Obama's Life Story Is a Republican One
What's this?
The words we're hearing most during this presidential campaign are "historic" and "change." But what I see is "paradox."
Take our new Democratic Party nominee, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
This is a man, to be sure, of extraordinary talent and ambition. But what a gap between the reality he manifests and the reality he talks about.
No one could have predicted, even a year and half ago, that today Obama would stand as leader of his party, running for president of the United States. It's the possibility of this type of surprise — allowing for the inconceivable and the unpredictable — that makes freedom so powerful and speaks to the sham and pretense of government and political planning.
Who can question that the success and prosperity of this country — with its vast cast of individuals who have changed the world through creativity and innovation, with our long list of Nobel Prize winners — is due to freedom?
And yet, Obama's prescription for the many challenges we face today, whether it is health care, education, or global competition, is increased government planning and control. Here is a man who now stands where no "expert" could have predicted, yet wants to tether our nation's future to the mind games of the same kinds of "experts", rather than letting what truly drives America's unique success — free individuals and free markets — work. A paradox.
Also paradoxical is the liberal message we hear from this man whose own life is the picture of conservatism. Who is greater proof of the conservative message that anyone in today's United States, willing to pay the price in grit, hard work, and determination, can achieve any success that his or her talent justifies, than Obama?
He loves and is devoted to his wife and daughters, who he sends to private school. The family portrait is traditional in every sense. If we measured Obama by the test of "do as I do and not as I say" this first black presidential nominee would be a Republican and not a Democrat.
And what about New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton?
We're hearing testimonials to what her run for president has done for American women. I am an American woman and I'm hard pressed to see a thing that Clinton's campaign has contributed to my life or the realities and challenges that I face.
It's a certain kind of narcissism that drives liberal feminists to think they are representing the interests of "women."
A number of years ago I was invited by Newsweek to attend a luncheon of prominent women in New York. I think I was the only conservative in the place.
At my lunch table, I listened to successful women talk about their pride in keeping their maiden name in their marriage. Amidst the banter, I thought about what the destruction of family has done to inner city black communities and about young black single mothers who only wish there was a responsible man in their life, a husband, whose name they would gladly carry.
How is it that Clinton, whose accomplishments directly derive from those of her husband and her willingness to stay years in a flagrantly abusive marriage, is feminism's poster woman? How does Clinton, who sat by untroubled as millions of unborn children were destroyed while she was first lady of Arkansas, and then of the United States, represent women's potential? Or who thinks that the young women damaged by the barbarism of abortion do it as free agents exercising rights, rather than out of confusion and ignorance.
On the other side, we have the paradoxical Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
McCain somehow thinks that this campaign will be about contrasting visions without seeming to appreciate that being a maverick is not a vision. He's going to have difficulty winning this election by simply branding Obama a liberal when his own conservatism is so amorphous.
No wonder Americans are feeling confused these days. We're not hearing much that makes a lot of sense.
In a year when it looks like rhetoric and style will trump substance, McCain has got his work cut out. He might consider a weekend off with a Bible, a copy of the Constitution, and some old Ronald Reagan speeches.Everything in that post belongs to Star Parker and KitSap Sun; this represents her views and her views alone. I do not claim authorship or ownership of this work Um...does this make sense to anyone?
First, I'd like to address the fact that she believes that the Republican message of "grit, determination, and hard work" is ONLY the Republican message. I think it's been acknowledged by both parties that this isn't only the REPUBLICAN MESSAGE, but in fact a central AMERICAN belief. It's one of the principles that our country is founded on. Also, if this is true, that his life story is a Republican one, then why is he a Democrat? And why aren't more Republicans voting for him? A little contradictory if you ask me...
If it were honestly true that Obama wanted to tether America to expert minds rather than free markets and free people, we'd be living under a Communist regime starting in January, 2009, and the book 1980 by George Orwell would become a reality. Obama got where he is today from the principles that our Fathers set forth- liberty, democracy, justice, the pursuit of happyness [sic] and others. Why would he want to "tether" our country? And to whom would it be tethered? Regardless of which candidate wins office, our country will be headed in a new direction, lead there by a President, his cabinet, and Congress- all of whom are the "expert minds" to whom I believe Ms. Parker is referring. I guess it depends on who the expert is to her.
"He loves his wife...sends his daughters to private school...The family portrait is traditional in every sense" I was actually extremely offended by this statement. Does Ms. Parker believe that Democratic men do not love their wives and do not send their daughters to private school? I am (proudly) the daughter of two Democrats, and I'm proud to say that the love is strong and I attend private school. However, I am certain that there are many families- both Republican and Democratic- who are not fortunate enough to be in the same situation. Being a member of a certain party does not ensure amicable or loving matrimony, just as it does not ensure a private school education.
As for Ms. Parkers' attacks on Sen. Clinton...first may I point out that the decision of whether or not to take on a husbands name is an extremely personal one and does not necessarily mean that the woman is a feminist or not. For some women, it is a good career move, for others, they may like their last names. Or perhaps the combination of two names simply sounds so horrendous that they couldn't dream of taking on a different name.
I am not disagreeing with her statement regarding women who would be more than happy to take on a husbands name, especially in a lower class society where they have kids and need that support. I am also sure that there would be many women who would love that security. What I do have a problem with is the automatic assumption of "African-American women" when there are many Caucasian women, Hispanic women, and numerous other women from numerous other ethnicities in our country who are in the same situation. The destruction of family is a problem for every different ethnicity, not just African-Americans, and the Democratic party and feminism cannot be held accountable for this. Men are also responsible for the destruction of families; I have seen men leaving situations where there presence would be welcomed multiple times, leaving women to fend for themselves.
Hillary is feminism poster woman because of her strength. I'm not entirely sure where Ms. Parker got the abusive portion of her statement since I don't recall ever hearing about potential abuse between Hillary and Bill- adultery, for sure, but not abuse. Hillary was an accomplished woman before she married Bill. It is no small feat to have graduated from Wellesley College with a degree in Political Science, and a 92 page senior thesis that is kept under lock and key at that very same school. One of the key parts of feminism is the ability for women to make their own choices- Hillary has upheld that right in regard to abortion because she believes that it is the woman's choice, and I agree. It is a personal decision for a woman to make and a very difficult one. I don't believe Ms. Parker understands the difficult choice that these women face; it is not easy to get an abortion. It's a very difficult and life-altering decision and experience. No one takes them lightly. I'd also like to remind Ms. Parker that Hillary's slogan on abortion is "Safe, Legal, and Rare."
It was comforting to me, surprisingly, to read that a conservative believes that McCain's conservatism is "amorphous" and that she is not entirely sold to him. However, her following comment that he should take "a weekend off with a Bible, a copy of the Constitution, and some old Ronald Reagan speeches" frightened me. Does Ms. Parker not realize exactly what Reganomics has done to our country?
Finally, in regard to the idea that "rhetoric and style" will win this election, I'd like to point out that it isn't a crime to have a style and ideas. Barack Obama will lead this country into a better future. I believe that America will speak in November, 2008, for a better and more trustworthy- as well as non-paradoxical presidency.
