ojai news at The Ojai Post :: blog, newspaper, events in Ojai, California

Rabbit Proof Fence.

Donald Trump this morning:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/25237876

Speaking on CNBC this morning, the real estate magnate said taking punitive measures against companies reaping big profits in a capitalist society is against his nature, but the energy situation is unique.

"I consider myself to be a great capitalist, but I think the oil companies have been ripping off this country and the world for a long time," Trump said. "I can see doing something against the oil companies. They're making numbers--nobody's ever seen numbers like this. They and OPEC and lots of people together are having a lot of fun."

My comment about the fence above may seem enigmatic, but I was referring to the dangers of introducing a non-native species into the environment. Rabbits were introduced to Australia and ended up over breeding to the point that the government of Australia felt the need to build a "rabbit proof fence" the width of the entire continent. I can only imagine that the dangers of introducing a totally unnatural, new species to the planet would be many times greater.

As to Donald Trump and his new found admiration for regulation, the fact of the matter is that while a large portion of the increase in gas prices can be laid at the feet of the oil giants, at least as much blame can be laid at the feet of the hedge fund speculators and the macro economic mismanagement of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush administrations that has seriously devalues our currency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit-Proof_Fence_(movie)

Excellent movie of the same title.

BTW: There's some signals coming from the Obama campaign that are deeply disappointing to progressives. He appears to be tacking to the right when he should not. I expected this, but it still sad to see.

He appears to be tacking to the right when he should not.

The guy's got an election to win. I say "By Any Means Necessary".

Is that how to win? Tacking to the right, then looking like a flapping sock in the wind when people realize he's insincere?

Recipe for failure.

All he's really got to do is say "Its morning in America. For real this time people. Ask yourself: Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"

Iraq: Straight talk. There's no winning, because we already "won." All we can do by staying the course is lose what we won. Now, we're just occupying ground. Its time to help a reasonable government get established over there. And get out. We can do that without 160,000 troops on the ground. In fact, we can do it better with less troops on the ground.

Afghanistan: George Bush lost Afghanistan. Remember, he's the guy who gave the Taliban $144 million four months before 9/11. Then he bungled every opportunity. Now, he's bombed the Pakistanis, and lost all trust over there. New leadership is critical now to keep that situation from getting worse. Under George Bush, al Qaeda has grown from less than 100 hardcore criminals to thousands of dedicated members with roots in countries all around the world. They're growing; meanwhile, we're shrinking. That's not how it should be.

Gas: George Bush and Dick Cheney have gamed the oil situation. There's no present lack of supply, and no oil producers have seen their costs go up. We have $140/barrel oil and $4 gas because that's what the current leadership wants. They want to make money for their friends. Now they want to drill more at home. Anyone see a pattern?

The economy: What we need to do is shore up the dollar, provide middle class tax breaks, support education and small business, invest in greening the economy, fix health care, balance our budget, and get out of debt. We know how to do all that.

Reasonable enough, everyone?

Anonymous: Of course what you write is reasonable (and obvious) to you and I, to most Ojai-posters, to the vast majority of the people in our party. However, Obama still needs to appeal to more than just that devoted base in order to tip the scales to win come November. And even more if you factor in the fact that the other side could somehow find a way to cheat as they've done in the past. The voting population of this country is obviously not comprised entirely of people who are as "progressive" as most progressives would like. If a more centrist tactic is necessary (and I'm sure he and his political advisors know what they're doing) then I say - do whatever the hell it takes. We CANNOT afford another loss. All one's "progressive" and purist ideals won't mean a darn thing with another Republican getting handed 8 more years to suck us further into the abyss.

Obama should tell everybody that he wants to dill here at home and start building nuclear power plants, and then once he gets in office don't do it.

Did Kerry's advisers know what they were doing? How about Gore's? Their advisers were many of the same people who are pressuring Obama to tack right. And why not. Just because it's failed every time they've tried it is no reason to abandon a perfectly good strategy--right?

Truman said it best:

"When voters are given a choice between voting for a Republican, or a Democrat who acts like a Republican, they'll vote for the Republican every time."

Obama needs to be very careful about turning off his base. Behaving like a corporatist is the surest way to lose this un-loseable race, just like the last two times. The Republicans only chance is to play dirty and try to whittle down the turnout to nothing. It sure doesn't help when Obama hires a Robert Rubin/CitiBank/Chicago School, WalMart apologist as his main economic adviser.

Please don't make me vote Nader a fourth time.

SPK,

With all due respect:

Your post reflects EXACTLY what I feared about Obama’s campaign in the first place – that he would attract a following that would so worship the ground he walked on that when it came time for him to appeal to a wider base (which is necessary to win this election, despite your naïve premise that ANY candidate is a slam dunk come November) they would either become political albatrosses around his neck or would simply abandon him when he started to veer towards the center.

Obama needs to be very careful about turning off his base…Please don't make me vote Nader a fourth time.

If that “base” is so fickle that they would think of jumping ship this soon, then I say thank goodness he is savvy enough to realize he needs to appeal to a whole other set of voters – ones who will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to carry him to victory.

Because despite your 50+ year old Harry Truman quote, most of us realize that ANY incarnation of Barak Obama is a hundred times better than Four More Years of a man who will keep us in Iraq indefinitely, who would probably get us into an altercation with Iran, who might seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, who showed us during the debates that, even in 2008, he had zero comprehension of the subprime mess and how the economy of the country he seeks to govern actually works…(shall I go on?)

So how you can know all of this as well (better than most as you would have us believe) and still threaten to vote outside the party is troubling to me. At best.

Does anyone else find this whole exchange extremely ironic?

Does anyone else find this whole exchange extremely ironic?

Yes. I do, for whatever that's worth. I will never stop equating people who voted for Nader with people who could have helped defeat Bush, but chose not to because they were more concerned with how they felt about one thing or another than with making the least evil of all possible choices.

A 21-year friend of mine occasionally still tries to tell me how wrong I am in my belief, and regardless of our friendship I still have and will always have only one answer to all of his impassioned logic: "Bullshit! Your vote for Nader was one less vote for Gore. You helped Bush win." Better for him that he had never shared his mistake with me, because I stopped trusting his judgement to the same extent I once did. We're still friends, but knowing what he did I no longer care to discuss politics with him, just as I absolutely refuse to discuss politics with another acquaintance who still has a Ron Paul bumper sticker. He keeps trying to engage me via email, but as far as I'm concerned today's Libertarian is just a Republican who wants to smoke dope and hump Grover Norquist's leg.

LTOR and Phalarope, It may not always seem like it, but I respect both of you. That said...

Phalarope - I'm surprised at your political rigidity. Both because I've long been a fan of your thoughtful writing here on the post and because your assertions regarding a vote for Nader are so wrongheaded. Your seeming unwillingness to think on this issue is extremely uncharacteristic; however, I'll take you at your word that you have no intention of moderating your stance. I will say that a vote for Nader was not a tacit vote for Bush back in 2000.

If I lived in Oregon or Florida back then I would have voted for Gore, but as luck would have it I lived here where Gore was sure to win and I was free to register my dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party and its' corporatism. That said, even in those close states the votes for Nader were legitimate. The people that voted for Nader are not the property of the Democratic Party. They voted their conscience as is their right. Your condescension is beneath you. To blame them for Bush's "win" shows a deep lack of understanding of that election in particular and of US Presidential elections in general. The Democratic Party and Al Gore allowed Bush to steal that election. Plain and simple. Gore didn't even win his home state, and my assertion is that his campaign was one of the worst ever. He tacked to the right, what LTOR characterizes as the center, and turned off the majority of the Democratic base. Four years later, Kerry did the same thing and suffered the same fate, with Ohio playing the part of Florida this time. By the way, I liked the Norquist jab, is it original or did you hear it somewhere?

LTOR - Your reference to irony seems to imply that because I was an admittedly vehement critic of Clinton in this recent primary, I shouldn't also be a critic of Obama when he begins to show more corporatist leanings now that he has the nomination. I maintain that my comments are entirely consistent on this issue. I criticized Clinton for her ties to big corporations and because of her husbands policies. I'm fond of saying that Bill Clinton was the best Republican President since Teddy Roosevelt.

The Democratic Party does not own my vote and I refuse to be intimidated into voting for more of the same corporatist economic policies because of the fear of a John McCain Presidency. Yes there are differences between the two. Yes the economic policies of Bush are far worse than would have been the policies of Gore, but they are still pro-corporate, Chicago school policies that have brought this country to the brink of economic collapse.

If you are looking for irony, try looking at Bush decrying the 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court that ruled that his administration's suspension of Habeas Corpus illegal. Bush decrying a 5-4 decision! Hahahahahahahaha!

spk, if you now say you will withhold your vote from Obama for "corporatist" policies, you should have said that during the primaries. Obama hasn't changed. His policy proposals have always been identical to Clinton's. His inner circle has always included "corporatists". Now that you have succeeded, and he is the nominee, it is the height of inconsistency (at the least)to now talk about abandoning Obama for leaning "corporatist".

But: I agree with the rest of your analysis, which is that tacking right is how to lose this election. Obama needs to go very strong on the attack, so that McCain is responding to him, not the other way around. Obama would do better to follow post #7 (perhaps, with a nod to LTOR, dropping the economy stump when he's in the red states.) And then have his campaign and VP candidate throwing out massive attacks - new ones every day - on McCain's character, sanity, morals, liberalism, and everything else, aimed 100% at the red states. McCain is hugely vulnerable: liasons with lobbyists. Sneaking booze into Saudi Arabia to get drunk with disgraced senator John Tower, his "mentor". He's one of the Keating 5 for chrissakes. He's not particularly religious and has mocked born agains, before embracing the worst of them. He's a boozer. Do you want his finger on the button? At 3 am, when that red phone rings, do we want a guy so hung over he can't see straight being rolled out of bed to try to answer it? His war record consists of dropping bombs from on high, then getting shot down and being a prisoner for five years. That's a hero? As far as his success in life, he married a rich beer heiress and has lived large ever since. Good for him, but that hardly makes him a role model and is hardly the American life story that anyone, red or blue, is going to be inspired by. Obama needs to let America see a red-faced apoplectic McCain whining about unfair attacks. The Repugs will abandon him and stay home.

Obama himself should stay above the fray, with one critical exception: He needs to say bluntly that John McCain is the wrong leader for this country. That should be his mantra every time the press asks him about McCain. Make clear, without saying so, that its not just "policy differences": McCain is the "wrong guy". Let the campaign attack dogs fill in the blanks for America on exactly why that is the case.

This is what Gore and Kerry failed to do, to a hugely vulnerable Bush. And its what I'm afraid Obama may not be ready to do.

And I, SPK, of course respect you as well...

I have heard similar arguments for third-party voting for decades – I understand where you are coming from in a completely theoretical and intellectual way. However, it is my steadfast position that the stakes are simply too high this time not to realize the enormity, gravity and reality of the situation – Barak Obama will need every single vote possible to counter what is likely to come barreling down his way. Perhaps you are insulated in the progressive realm in which you blog, research, discuss, etc. but if you have any doubt about what the other side is capable of using as their trump card, just start listening to what’s coming out of the many churches and “civic” organizations in the South and other places not exactly known for their liberal bent. People who have never voted in their lives are being primed to do so – the race and religion cards being played like finely tuned malevolent instruments.

Just as the Democratic Party doesn’t own your vote, the little-over-HALF of the Party who voted for him doesn’t own Barak Obama. It is obvious to everyone that he needs to secure the votes of the other half in order to ensure a win. I’ve said it before, the last thing we need is to start imploding from within – yet again. Otherwise, let’s just hand over the Presidency to McCain, gift wrapped with a big fat bow!

I would urge you to take a look at many of the Hilary Clinton supporters who (while not exactly having to “plug our noses”) are now pragmatically and resolutely behind Obama.

And that brings me to my reference to irony. It was based on the fact that we have “sparred” before (often) over the two candidates. I believe (if memory serves) that you made a few charges that you thought many in Hilary’s camp secretly wanted McCain to win if she couldn’t, so she would have another shot in four years. And wasn’t there something about subconscious “soft racism”? I just find it ironic that I (a huge Hilary supporter) am now the one vehemently defending Obama. Ain’t that a gas!

To put a finer point on it (because points can get lost in lengthy rants):

What Obama needs to do IMHO is stay progressive and keep on the message that's been working for his base. And he needs his campaign to tear down McCain.

That's how the Repugs have kept on winning. Its not because their policies have ever been popular. They stay on message to their base, and they tear down the other guy. Since thir policies are so bad, it means the best they do is squeak near victory. So they cheat to get over the edge. Obama won't need that, because his policies and message are popular. If his campaign tears McCain apart, and he himself stays on message, he'll carry huge majorities.

SPK:

My comment was not a general attack, and there was no condescension intended, and by that I mean that I did not try to sweeten my statement in a patronizing fashion. However, I guess that I really am rigid in my belief that Nader sucked votes away from Gore, and that Bush won because of it. (That and the fact that the Supreme Court was obviously as bent as any other paid-off and/or highly influenced collection of judges when they made their decision to cancel the recount and declare Bush the winner.) Gore is not my god, and I do not idolize him. Frankly, I idolize no one, especially politicians. They, we, I, and everyone are just people, and not gods or angels. Gore was just the lesser of all the available evils, and Nader had less than a snowball's chance in Hell and served only as a spoiler and a receptacle for a protest vote.

This is one area where we are going to agree to disagree, I think. I don't enjoy arguing with my friend about this issue anymore, and I'm not going to argue with you. I know you voted your conscience. I just wish things had turned out differently, but maybe they turned out this way for a reason. Maybe the whole country really needed to be hit in its collective head with a 2X4 before a majority of the voters finally looked up and noticed what was happening. I know that there are plenty of people with bloody & broken skulls who are still going to loudly condemn the evil liberals and vote for McCain, but I don't think that there are quite as many of those true believers as there were in 2000 and 2004.

Having a really hard time staying online -- maybe it's the heat. Anyway, peace. Back later tonight.

Obama hasn't changed. His policy proposals have always been identical to Clinton's. His inner circle has always included "corporatists". Now that you have succeeded, and he is the nominee, it is the height of inconsistency (at the least)to now talk about abandoning Obama for leaning "corporatist".

Anonymous - great point. But then you write that Obama should "stay progressive". Has his message ever been truly "progressive"?

The term has been so overused, misused, and usurped that I no longer really trust in its meaning. (And it has been my experience that many who self-label themselves “progressives” truly aren’t).

Plus, a good many of the people who became mesmerized by and then voted for Obama wouldn’t even know how to define the term. That then begs the question, should he be politically hamstrung by those perhaps further on the left than where his TRUE base really is.

I agree – he’s got a great message, great appeal and will make a great leader who will restore honor and dignity not only to the office but to the reputation of this country abroad. But let’s not get carried away trying to paint him as something he’s not – or never was.

Actually Anon and LTOR - Obama was running as a progressive during the primary. The corporatists that he has hired he hired after he secured the nomination. During the primary battle, he made sever statements directly to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He said that he was going to break up the media conglomerates, he said was going to eliminate the upper income cap on social security and he said he was going to prosecute the Bush administration for everything that they could be prosecuted for. And let's not forget the 800 lb gorilla in the room--he said he was always against the war in Iraq and that he would end the occupation.

Those were all statements designed to speak directly to the progressive audience who made up the vast majority of his much touted 1.5+ million individual donors. It is true that the similarities between Clinton's and his voting records in the Senate were greater than the differences, but one must remember that Clinton was a known quantity, a corporate lawyer with a husband who governed exactly like a moderate Republican. Obama and his campaign knew that and they deliberately wooed the progressives and won as a result.

Anon is exactly right about what Obama's strategy should be. He needs to attack McSame and the Bush torture Administration while being a progressive. DO NOT TACK RIGHT. I agree LTOR that we need to win, and the only way to win is to point out what is wrong and what needs to be done to fix the economic situation in this country that is a direct result of 30 years of the Chicago school of economics, corporatist thinking. If he does these things, we will have the largest turnout in a Presidential election ever. People who do not and who never have voted because they look at the national political situation and see two sides of the same coin will turn out in droves if they really believe CHANGE is coming. The progressives will happily be his shock troops and get out the vote and fund the entire election. But contrary to pundit stereotypes, these people, well over half of the electorate in this country, are not so easily fooled. Obama cannot afford to cozy up to the corporatists.

Just because Truman said it 50 years ago doesn't make it any less true.

Just because Truman said it 50 years ago doesn't make it any less true.

Agreed. But:

a) Just because Truman said it doesn’t make it true.

b) He never lived through an era of Un-American-on-most-accounts, criminal, mass murdering Presidential activity.

c) Please, SPK, please do not try to use fast “ talking” and internet quotes to try to shift the blame here. READ MY LIPS – if we lose this election, if we blow the best opportunity the Democratic Party has seen in 8 years, if we squander the gift from God that is Barak Obama…it will NOT be because Hilary supporters or others in our party went to the dark side (a few may be, but please – not enough to tip the scales). It will be because of what many of us feared right from the beginning and what you seem to be referencing now - that voters who brought him this far will either drop out or vote third party. And if (God forbid!) that happens, do you honestly think people both here and abroad will applaud your "stand". Sorry, but my gut tells me history will view you as the selfish, whining, couldn’t see the forest for the trees, self-congratulating, fair weather “progressives” who threw over Barak Obama and paved the way for John McCain. And most people I know will say this for decades: F-Y’ALL!!!

Look, let’s get real here. We are NOT going to ENTIRELY eradicate corporate culture – either here or abroad. Just not gonna happen. Struggle to minimize, mitigate, regulate, soften the impact on vulnerable components of society, agitate to influence Obama and future leaders to stay true to their left-of-center ideals, etc…Yes,yes, yes! But make it all go away – no.

SPK, you have made many…some will say, “ageist” comments. Let me just tell you that I completely understand where your head is at right now. 25 years ago, I was out on the streets of LA protesting the big bad Multi-Nationals and the coffee wars and our immoral involvement in the affairs in South America. I was involved with the Sanctuary Movement helping to find refuge for political refugees who were fleeing US bullets in Central America. I participated in Walk-a-thons walking from Santa Barbara to Mexico to help raise money to feed the “children of the slums” in Tijuana. I became a vegetarian because of the moral hypocrisy of growing food and using land to feed cows to eat when people in Africa were starving. I could go on and on and on and I know others here on the post my age and older (many of us Hilary-supporters) who could give you far more and better examples. (Maybe some of them will share!)

Your generation maybe better at blogging, surfing the internet, dissing others and pulling quotes from fancy political books - but make no mistake: You do not own the market on hatred of corporate culture, moral integrity, compassion for your fellow human beings and political activism. Perhaps we in this other generation know that hard, cold pragmatism and a willingness to accept a few “stinky” things in order to achieve the ultimate goal is the only way out of this mess. We know that Obama is involved in a dirty, nasty fight and he better learn how to play the game if he wants to win.

You obviously have a right to do what you want, and ultimately you have to do what you feel is best, but I would implore you and others who are starting to feel let down right now not to jump on the Ralph Nader bandwagon (if it comes – and I am just starting to fear it might) – you just may live to regret it when you get to be (gasp!) my age. :)

Wow. Amen, LTOR.

If you're stuck in a desolate place, you either drink the dubious & stinking green water when you finally find it and hope that it doesn't kill you and that it will sustain you long enough to reach a clear pool, or you rail at the frequent unfairness and stupidity of existence, maintain your carefully crafted high standards, and die while chasing a mirage and dreaming of Hawaiian waterfalls.

Aw, thanks Phalarope. And a big, huge Right-Back-At-Ya, my friend!!