Lately an email has been circulating which is a reprint of a column in the N.Y. Sun by Kenneth Blackwell, which you are welcome to read here.
Here I examine the contents of the email. My explanations follow actual quotes from the email. I left out links, but if you want documentation on any of my points, please contact me:
Some Background:
Ken Blackwell and the New York Sun
First off, The NY Sun is hardly a respected paper in N.Y. Founded by Conrad Black (now serving time in a federal penitentiary for mail fraud and obstruction of justice), the paper was founded as “a conservative alternative in a town populated overwhelmingly by liberals”, and has been described by Kofi Annan’s chief of staff (at the United Nations) as “a pimple on the backside of American journalism.”
The Sun claims a circulation of 150,000, although they admit that only 10 percent of those are actually sold and the rest are given away free. (The N.Y. Daily News has a ‘sold’ circulation of 700,000).
Ken Blackwell himself was a failed politician with plenty of controversy in his past.
He was 2004 Chief Elections officer for the State of Ohio, simultaneously being Ohio chairman of the Bush Re-election Campaign. As such he was a party to more than 15 election related lawsuits, most of which ruled against him. Though there were no criminal charges against him, The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in ruling against Blackwell, said that Ohio’s rules violated the First Amendment and had “a negative impact … on minor parties and on political activity as a whole in Ohio.”
He was also involved in election controversy regarding voting machines. Blackwell ordered Diebold touch screen voting machines for Ohio, reversing a decision by the state to use optical scan machines (which, unlike the touch screen models, would leave a paper trail for ‘recount’ purposes). He then refused to disqualify the machines after security problems were discovered in their software. When an Ohio paper uncovered his ownership of stock in the company, he was forced to sell it (at a loss) and blamed it on a mistake by his broker.
He is a huge proponent of gun rights, and has advocated legalization of military and assault weapons. In the movie “Swing State,” he is seen ripping a car to shreds with a machine gun in front of gun toting, cheering children (Some may find nothing wrong with that).
There may even be some resentment or jealousy towards Obama: In 2006 Blackwell ran as a Republican for Governor of Ohio. One national religious leader supporting Blackwell was quoted as saying that Blackwell could “potentially be president of the United States someday, and the first black president at that.” He was soundly defeated (by almost double) by his Democratic opponent.
The Claims:
On Pakistan:
Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons
It is a stretch to say he talked about ‘invading Pakistan.’ This claim was first made by John McCain, who said: “Will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who suggested invading our ally, Pakistan?”
This exaggeration stems from a speech in August 2007, in which Obama said he would use military force against Al Qaeda operatives hiding in tribal areas of Pakistan if that nation did not move more aggressively against them first:
“I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges,” Obama said. “But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again…If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.”
John McCain, the Bush administration, and right wing radio hosts ridiculed him, saying that such an aggressive position was unrealistic and proved his inexperience in foreign policy. White House spokesman Tony Snow defended this position:
“We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation.”
But events since then seem to have vindicated Obama – Ironically, The Bush administration has now adopted exactly the plan Obama espoused, with 100 percent success. In 2008 they adopted a new policy of using missile strikes on terrorist leaders in Pakistan without the knowledge or blessing of the Musharraf regime. According to the Washington Post:
“Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek the government’s formal permission beforehand. It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year…”
“The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.”
On meeting with Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il:
…meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people…
Obama simply said that he would be ‘willing to meet’ with these world leaders, adding afterwards that he would be willing to do so after lower level diplomatic efforts. He said:
“And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them, which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.”
“…Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries…In the same way that Nixon met with Mao and that past presidents met with people that we don’t like.”
Last week (April 2) William Odom, Army General and former director of the National Security Administration) testified to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, condemning the policy which has been urged by this administration:
“No quick reconciliation between the US and Iran is likely, but US steps to make Iran feel more secure make it far more conceivable than a policy calculated to increase its insecurity. The president’s policy has reinforced Iran’s determination to acquire nuclear weapons, the very thing he purports to be trying to prevent.”
Whether or not you agree with this position, I will say that claims about Ahmadinejad are exaggerated by those willing to wage another unprovoked war. For instance, he has never ‘vowed’ to create another Holocaust (though his position is that the Holocaust has been greatly exaggerated for Israel’s benefit - a position, by the way, held by most arab countries in the Middle East, including our ‘allies-with-oil’ Saudi Arabia).
On the Nuclear option:
…emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s…
It’s true that no president has taken Nuclear weapons off the table (though the terrorist threat is fairly recent). But Nuclear weapons are usable only against cities, regions, or countries. Terrorists are individuals, and the aspect that makes terrorism so elusive is simply that these are individuals or groups that are independent of states.
One irony is that this discussion only arose in the context of attacking terrorist leaders in the remote areas of Pakistan, the same issue Obama was attacked about for being too naïve and inexperienced (see above). So the same guy accusing him of being too aggressive about attacking Pakistan is (several sentences later) accusing him, in a sense, of being too ‘soft.’
On Foreign Policy and National Security:
Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who oversaw the arming of the Afghan Mujahaddeen and was our National Security Advisor during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, endorsed Obama with these words:
“He has a sense of what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world…There is a need for a fundamental rethinking of how we conduct world affairs,” he added “And Obama seems to me to have both the guts and the intelligence to address that issue and to change the nature of America’s relationship with the world.”
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, explicitly stressed Obama’s ability to handle National Security in his endorsement of Obama.
His backers include generals, admirals, and former members of both Bush administrations and the Reagan administration. Clifford Alexander, Jr., former Secretary of the US Army, Richard Danzig, former Secretary of the US Navy, and F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the U.S. Air Force are all endorsing Obama, as is Richard Clarke, former counter-terrorism advisor to Clinton and George Bush.
Health Care:
For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world
Wow. Where do I start?
One medical researcher described our system as: “pretty good if you have access. But if you don’t, I think that’s the main problem, isn’t it?” In the largest economy in the world, out of 300 million people, 47 million have no health insurance of any kind.
In January 2008, a respected medical journal released a study focusing on levels of preventable deaths due to treatable conditions in 19 leading industrialized nations. While France and Japan were at the top of the list, the U.S. was ranked dead last, having slipped from 15th to 19th since the same study ten years ago.
Free Trade Agreements:
free trade agreements… have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago
Plenty has been written about free trade agreements (the largest one, by far, being NAFTA), but I have never heard this argument before. Sure, more goods are affordable to consumers through these arrangements, but there are even graver pitfalls on the ‘producing’ side.
NAFTA was sold to all sides (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico) on the premise that it would increase trade (and therefore increase jobs for all three countries). The World Bank has reported that while trade increased dramatically since NAFTA between the three nations, there was an almost exact increase of trade between non-NAFTA nations. NAFTA has not reduced poverty rates as promised. While being good for business owners in all three countries, poverty rates have increased and it has contributed to rising levels of inequality in both Mexico and the U.S.
Here at home, NAFTA had negative impacts on workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Although the U.S. total civilian employment rate grew by almost 15 million in between 1993 and 2001, manufacturing jobs only increased by 476,000 during that time. Furthermore, from 2001 to 2007, net manufacturing employment declined by over 3 million.
Taxation & The economy:
Obama promises to raise taxes on ‘the rich.’
and
Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Unfortunately, our nation has embarked on a path of borrowing and passing along the debt to future generations (this debt has increased more than 50 percent under President Bush). Just the interest on our debt is a big proportion of the taxes we all pay – and this growing expense is robbing us of the ability to invest in infrastructure, national security, health, and education. Most Americans don’t understand how serious this is – it is exactly the same as running up personal credit card debt, to the point where you cannot afford to get out from your obligations - And who are we borrowing from? Countries like China and Japan and our friends in the Middle East. Welcome to reality.
Obama has indeed attacked tax breaks for the wealthy (which will cost the nation over 2.3 trillion by the time they expire in 2009). He has pledged to protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, while reversing most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.
He has demanded an end to subsidies for oil and gas companies that are enjoying record profits, and special-interest loopholes and tax breaks. He has pledged to give the Treasury Department the tools it needs to stop the abuse of tax shelters and offshore tax havens and help close the $350 billion tax gap between taxes owed and taxes paid.
Partial Birth Abortion:
He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional.
It’s true that Obama has voted against banning partial birth abortions, but to paint him as ‘pro’ partial birth abortions is simplifying and ‘spinning’ the issue. In explaining this belief, he said:
“I feared a ban on abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country…
“The broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions?
“…I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don’t make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.”
While he is adamant that this is the woman’s choice, he emphasizes a more preventative strategy:
“Can we move past some of the debates around which we disagree and can we start talking about the things we do agree on?: Reducing teen pregnancy; making it less likely for women to find themselves in these circumstances…”
In that light, he voted to increase funding and access to family planning services, to require equitable prescription coverage for contraceptives under health plans, and to fund, create and expand teen pregnancy prevention programs and education programs concerning emergency contraceptives.
He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing.
This is just so whacked and distorted it is not worth spending much time on…
Do you know who Margaret Sanger is? I doubt most Americans do.
Issues about abortion and a woman’s right to choose are one of the most challenging and enduring debates of our time - depending on your stance on the issue you would either agree or disagree with Margaret Sanger.
American Values:
His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.
These values are more mainstream than Mr. Blackwell realizes. In a 2006 poll on faith and values, Americans were asked to name “the most serious moral crisis in America today.” The top answers were “kids not raised with the right values” and “corruption in government,” while only 4 percent cited “abortion and homosexuality.”
Another poll (by conservative group The Family Research Council) concluded:
“Social issues such as abortion and gay marriage rank last in importance to the vast majority of Americans…An overwhelming majority of Americans, including at least three-quarters of every major religious tradition, say issues like poverty and health care are more important than hot-button social issues.”
“…Americans overwhelmingly agree that too many religious leaders focus on abortion and gay rights without addressing more important issues such as loving our neighbors and caring for the poor.”
On gun control, there’s no doubt that most Americans (usually about 70-75%) agree on the right to own arms. A majority (although less) also agree this includes handguns. However, In response to a March 2008 Washington Post poll, 59% said “yes” to the following question: “Would you support a law in your state that bans private handgun ownership and requires that rifles and shotguns kept in private homes be unloaded or have a trigger lock?”
Opinions about gun control change over time and in response to recent events. I think that the above response may be more ‘anti-handgun’ than normal because it came not long after several school/mall shootings. But in any case (despite large scale agreement on the right to own arms), roughly 2/3 of Americans consistently agree that handgun laws need to be stricter.
And Finally:
My point is simply that blanket statements (such as “these are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values”), should not be accepted as fact just because they are printed somewhere or spouted on television or radio.
I am not asking you to endorse Obama or to otherwise agree with any opinions or beliefs. I am simply suggesting that you don’t accept just one source for information (in this case, a source which makes no effort to hide it’s biases). There are many sources of information out there – if you truly care about this country or our future, the best thing you can do is to seek out additional information, or to at least absorb information from a variety of sources – some of which, hopefully, will be less biased than Ken Blackwell and the New York Sun.
