Trump Lies? Really?

I keep seeing posts similar to this in my FB feed:

"In my lifetime have I never seen or heard of a President being scrutinized over every word he speaks, humiliated by the public to the point of wanting to hurt someone, slander, ridicule, insulted, lied to, threatened to murder him, threatened to rape our Beautiful First Lady, and have his children also insulted and humiliated." (This is a direct quote pulled from one of the most recent posts on FB.)

Really? "In [your] lifetime"? I guess you must have died before President Obama, eh? Because most of that stuff comes up within milliseconds of a Google search for Obama. Obama was threatened with death often (remember all those effigies burned and hanged? What about those carrying signs saying he should be assassinated? What about Ted Nugent's repeated calls for Obama's death?); slandered (the whole birther movement, among others); ridiculed, lied to, and insulted (too many times and topics to even list here, and most often by the Republican leadership in Congress); Michelle was threatened with rape, death, and racist name calling on a regular basis. For the most part, most people seemed to stay away from threatening or attacking the Obama daughters, so I guess that point stands out from the above.

I get it: you are a Republican, a conservative, or simply just a fan of Trump. You want to defend him. That's fine. But why say things that are so patently untrue and so easy to prove false? Is your memory so short?

There are plenty of things you can slam Obama for that are legitimate. You may not have agreed with the choices he made or the direction he took the country. But, why do you feel the need to exaggerate, lie, or otherwise overstate how bad your candidate has it when we literally just stopped eight years of some of the worst examples of all of that?

The other issue I have is that Trump brings most of it on himself. He makes wildly false statements, and then people get upset when the news and individuals call him on it. He exaggerates things that are easily proven as exaggerations, and people get upset when he's called on it. He simply makes stuff up out of whole cloth and, when the news calls on him to provide so much as one shred of proof for these stories, people get upset. Really? But they can't remember the exact same thing happening to Obama at nearly every speech he made? How about that famous time one of the Republicans interrupted his State of the Union speech by yelling "You lie!" at the top of his lungs? Or that time that the President called the Republican leadership into the Oval Office, talked with them about the health care vote, they were shown on video both entering and leaving the White House, and yet they claimed to not go at all, let alone talk with the President that day?

I don't care which party is in the White House. When a President lies, he should be called on it. Anyone who threatens the President with harm or death should be investigated by the Secret Service and possibly incarcerated. A President's words should always be scrutinized.

Simply put: If Trump is going to lie so often, so easily, about so many easily proved things, then he gets what he deserves.

Do Your Damn Job

If you or I did not do our job regularly and with unconcealed malice our bosses would fire us. Well, guess what? The Republicans in Congress have been avoiding their jobs for almost 8 years now. When "forced" to do their jobs, they have, instead, done their best to filibuster anything that isn't theirs, or push only their agenda. Congress has the worst record of any Congress ever during Obama's presidency.

Not only that, but John Boehner actually said he was going to urge obstructionism when Obama was elected. Meaning, before Obama had even suggested a single piece of legislature, they said they were not going to do their job. They said they were going to obstruct what did get written and put up for a vote. It's the same as you being hired and vocally proclaiming you aren't going to work, and then setting about doing anything but working right in front of your boss. I'm not sure your boss would like that, and I doubt you would hang around very long.

However, the Republicans have gerrymandered districts such that it is nearly impossible for them not to get re-elected. Congress currently has a slightly above 90% incumbency winning record, meaning once someone gets into Congress, it is a virtual lock they will get re-elected year in and year out. This leads to the contentious nature of Congress's dealings these days, as there isn't the proper amount of turnover and new faces and fresh ideas.

Obama just announced his Supreme Court nominee. Since he's still President for 10 months, the Congress has a legal obligation to hear the appointee and make a decision. The Republicans continue to believe Obama shouldn't (although there are plenty of precedents that this has happened before and Congress acted accordingly), and claim that they will delay the nomination until he's out of office so the next President can nominate someone... because they assume the next President will be a Republican.

If they do this, I feel President Obama should go on a very public TV campaign and tell the American people directly that Congress, and in particular the Republicans, are not doing their job. He should tell the American public to fire their representatives and hire new ones who will do their job. People who bring those fresh faces and fresh ideas to Congress as a whole.

The American public seems to have forgotten that Congress serves at the public's behest. The public can vote them out and change the entire course of the country by doing so. Right now, Congress (on both sides of the aisle, frankly) think they are safe and secure. That they have the public under their thumb and neutered. All it takes is voting to change this. All it takes is picking any new name, anyone who hasn't been to Congress before, and voting them into office. That's it. It's entirely in our hands.

The other thing we can do is force Congress to create and pass term limits on Senators and Representatives. I strongly suggest no more than 2 full terms plus the conclusion of another person's term (in the case of someone being forced out or dying while in office). This would get the turnover going that we need in Congress. This would make those in Congress to have to work with new people, to vote based on conscience and the people's will, rather than on party politics.

It's in our hands. Let's do something about it.

Presidential Debate

As I now live outside of the country, I have easier access to non-American news media and outlets. All this week, the BBC and CBC have had reports talking about how one of ISIS's goals is to compel America into attacking them, returning to the region with "boots on the ground," because they know how bad that will look to radical Islamists and jihadists in the region (and around the world) and will give legitimacy to the group's goals, swelling their membership and funding to allow more terrorism.

The non-American media is praising the American administration for its restraint in handling this current regional crisis; by staying mostly out of it, we are not inciting the terrorists and swelling their ranks and coffers. Food drops to the dispossessed and the occasional drone strike aren't enough for ISIS to wave its flag and gather support.

What I find incongruent is switching to and watching some American news media. Fox News, of course, is continuing its never-ending crusade to lambast the President. The talking heads, both the pundits and their interviews, were talking about how "weak" the President is for his handling of the situation, about how America needs to go right back in there and "take care of business," and about how we should have no fixed timetable so we can "get the job done right." How is it that other news agencies in the world see America's "non-action" in the region as a triumph and the right move, and yet Fox News labels it weak and improper?

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the same thing happened; Fox News lambasted our "weak" President for his lack of action in the region. The CBC, BBC, and other non-American media had Russian experts on who cautioned to stay out of it, as it was a desperate ploy by Putin to stay in power; a weakening leader trying to shore up his far right allies with what would look like a strong move but really was simply an appeasement. Putin's people are now hungry, a lot of their money is devalued or unavailable, and unrest appears to be growing quickly due to the economic sanctions other nations, including the US, put in place to protest his actions. Yet Fox News continues to claim the American President is a weak and ineffectual leader in the world arena. They exemplify what Putin did as showing strength and leadership.

There is a great line within a great speech in the movie The American President: "He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections." This, in a nutshell is what both the American media and American politicians in this election cycle are trying to do: It is the President's fault the world is the way it is; it is his fault you don't have a job; it is his fault for X, Y, and Z. Facts be damned!

Guess what, folks? No, it's not. I'm not trying to claim that President Obama is a great or even good President. However, I can tell you fairly confidently that he is not a bad President. I think history will look back on this era and, similar to Jimmy Carter, realize there were challenges that no President could have successfully navigated. His biggest failure, perhaps, is his inability to get the Republicans to buy in to the direction he has set and the goals and tasks he sees as important. However, those same Republicans also said from day one that they were going to block everything this President proposed, so THEY never gave HIM a chance to succeed. Hell, reports now indicate a small but growing number of Republicans in Congress want to help, want to work on bipartisan efforts, and agree with some of what Obama has proposed. They simply fear the backlash from actually voting their conscience and doing their job.

Until I was exposed to a broader swath of media, I did not realize quite how biased the American news media was, or how contentious the politics had become. Now, seeing reports about what goes on inside (and outside) America from a news media with no real dog in the fight, I get a less biased view of the situation, see experts who are not paid to sway viewers/voters in a particular direction, and see just how politically motivated much of what I was given before actually is.

In the end, I think that historians will improve President Obama's rating as we get more time between his presidency and current issues, especially if current Republicans get their wish and make world matters worse with their overly militant stance. I think that those same historians will downgrade this Congress even more harshly over time. And, if sanity is to be restored, I think the American people need to vote OUT every elected official who has been in office more than two terms. Lastly, I think that Congress needs term limits to stop this sort of partisan infighting and gridlock in the future.

(As an aside: I once proudly was a member of the Republican party. But, even as a youth voting for the first time, I voted my conscience and not party if I felt a different leader more closely aligned with my needs. I still feel I lean mostly Conservative on most issues, but I find that I rarely align with the Republican party's goals or stated objectives. I think that is true of many Republicans today; I think you will see the ranks of a third party, possibly the Libertarians, who more closely align with conservative but not Republican views, swell in ranks in the coming years. And I shudder to think what state America would be in today if current Republicans were in complete power -- many of the issues I outlined above would probably have led to military conflict, another Cold War with Russia (or maybe even a hot war, in Ukraine), and an unending presence in the Middle East, leading to further acts of terrorism.)

Talking Out of Both Sides

The Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths, and they think the American public is too dumb to notice or too stupid to look up the facts. From one side of their mouths they say that they long for the days of Reagan's Republicans and conservative agenda. They point to history and say how Reagan led America out of an economic downturn and back to prosperity. They cite his great works and his Reagan-onomics.

From the other side of their mouths, they decry what Mr. Obama is doing as President and they dismiss his objectives. They call him a socialist (they should look up the term before wrongly using it). They claim that spending money and bigger government never solved any problems for the middle class. They claim that prosperity will somehow just magically appear if we take all the restriction and government away.

But the truth is, and I have mentioned this in multiple posts in the past, that Mr. Obama is following the Reagan playbook almost step-by-step. Reagan spent more to help the middle class, and it worked. He spent more to get people working on the infrastructure, and it worked. He made government bigger and put in place regulations in various areas that helped reign in a runaway economy and inflation, and then eased those restrictions in his second term. He taxed the richest among us to help the poorest and the middle. Does any of this sound familiar??

In Mr. Obama's speech last night, he mentioned that he wants to do some things that the Republicans, over the last 18 months or so, have strongly espoused, like closing the tax loopholes. Not every idea he presented was original to him, yet those that were first brought up by Republicans and strongly espoused by them during the debates and the election cycle, they refused to clap for, to stand for, and said would not work in their rebuttal. Er, what? The plans you pushed for for almost two years you now think is flawed? You can't have it both ways -- you can't simply say this is the way America will solve its debt crisis and help get middle-class Americans more money and then claim, when a Democrat uses the exact same idea and even gives you credit for it, that it is now flawed and without merit. Which is it? There are a number of areas where similar ideas were cherry-picked from the Republicans agenda that they are now claiming are flawed or bad.

If Ronald Reagan were alive today and espousing the exact same policies and procedures that today's Republicans keep pointing to as their guiding light, he would be considered a Democrat, and a fairly liberal one at that. Today's Republicans have moved so far to the conservative right that they do not even recognize one of their great leader's more moderate, bipartisan stances, nor do they see how he built bridges to the Democrats of the time to solve problems, something that these Republicans seem unwilling to do.

There are issues with some of what Mr. Obama has proposed. Much of it requires the Republicans to buy-in (not going to happen) and work with Democrats (equally unappealing to them) in order to get the balanced approach he discussed. Also, he doesn't actually write the policy. He sets the framework and the vision, and it is up to the Nancy Pelosi's of Congress to write the laws and try to get them passed. However, Ms. Pelosi has proven utterly incompetent at doing that, ignoring her President's directives to work with Republicans, not to raise taxes or spending (at least without offsetting it with cuts elsewhere), and pushing for bigger government and pork when her President expressly said not to. It is no wonder the Republican leadership doesn't want to help or work in a bipartisan fashion.

However, I have listened to every one of Mr. Obama's State of the Union speeches. In every single one of them he has asked for bipartisanship, he has asked for the Republicans to weigh-in on plans and make sure they have support. He has a weekly meeting with John Boehner and other Republican leaders. And, for most of his career as President, they have said one thing and then turned around and done either nothing or the opposite of what they have said. The President asks for their help and their buy-in, and then they poo-poo all over the idea and claim that the President doesn't want bipartisan help or Republican input.

I think Mr. Obama's win in the last election was a sign that the American people are tired of the lies. The Republicans can only get away with outright lying for so long before it all catches up to them. At some point, they will be left holding the bag and will be voted out of office. The last election was the start of that and, unless they wise up and start working for the good of the American people, more and more of them will find themselves looking for work in the next election cycle, too.

Running Out of Excuses

The House Republicans are running out of options and excuses. Their Plan B, which, contrary to what Mr. Boehner and his cronies were saying, would have lowered taxes on those making between $200k and $1 million, raised them for everyone else (with those making less than $30k hit the hardest), and moved a bunch of cuts even deeper into social programs, was soundly defeated last night.

Apparently, when the American people spoke and elected Mr. Obama to a second term, the House Republicans figured that was just a ruse of some sort. They didn't really want to follow the President's plan to get the economy on track and to avoid the so-called Fiscal Cliff. Of course, the defections in the Republican party seem to indicate that even some of the Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall and realize they have to actually debate in good faith and that nothing can be marked as off the table. I think Mr. Boehner's time in office is nearing an end, unless he becomes a lot more cooperative.

I've shown in previous posts that raising taxes is a necessity. I've spoken about cutting where cuts should be made. I'm all in favor of military spending cuts, one of the largest areas of waste, duplication of effort, unused buildings and land, and unneeded expenses -- and I'm a military brat who is gung-ho behind our troops and their efforts.

I am not saying that the President is 100% right or that the Republicans should just capitulate. However, saying that no cuts in military and raising taxes on the richest 20% is off the table is not going to get it done and just gets you in deeper. These two things need and have to happen. Matter of fact, raising taxes on the richest 20% and cutting spending on the military are the two places where we can make up the deficit in the easiest, least painful, and most expedient way. Oh, and cutting into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Not smart when the largest voting segment is senior citizens, many of whom rely on those three plans. Not smart at all.

My guess is that a silent majority of 80% of the people, regardless of political standing, can see that the Republicans are doing nothing, and trying to keep things at the same status quo that has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Most of their positions on these financial items are unsupportable, both historically and logically.

It is frustrating to see them continue to try everything but bowing to the will of the American people and doing what is best for them and America in general. Just look at the New Deal, look at what Reagan did in the 1980s, and look at what Mr. Obama is trying to do now; it worked the last two times that Republicans initiated these types of plans, there is no reason to believe that it will not work this time, even though a... *shudder*... Democrat is espousing the idea. Get on board, vote for it, and let's get this DONE. NOW.

Oh, and while we're at it, let's put in term limits in both the House and Senate. It is obvious that we need more turn-over and to get rid of career politicians who simply become more and more ingrained in ideology and less and less in tune with America and its people.

Much Better

The reviews are in and most fact-checking sites I'm seeing are giving Obama's speech pretty good reviews.

Obama

I've linked to only one because it seemed representative of the ones I looked at. So, at least, Obama did a pretty good job of telling truths, especially when you compare them to the outright untruths his opponents used. This right here will sway me, as an independent, non-party affiliated voter toward Obama at this state of the campaign, because I feel strongly that campaigners should not be allowed to lie in speeches. So far, that is all I've received from the Republican side.

This is NOT to say I'm thrilled with my choices. I would vote for a strong third-party candidate today if one came up with an actual PLAN for how to do all of the (very similar) things that both Romney and Obama are claiming they will do to turn America around. Neither of these two candidates have actually stated a plan nor the steps they will take to actual enact those plans. Instead, they have simply stated (fairly ephemeral) goals for what they hope to accomplish. A blogger I read often has summarized it nicely, using her past employment as an example.

I am also swayed toward Obama by my health issues, which are covered and cannot be taken away from me by Obama's health care mandates (some of the most important aspects for me come into play in 2013 and 2014). Voting for Romney would (most likely) repeal "Obamacare" and he would create... what exactly? I've been to Mitt's website and listened to his speeches and he has not mentioned what he would replace it with. Which is par for the course, as Obama repeatedly asked for Republican input in creating Obamacare and they refused but never offered an alternative plan or put their ideas out for the American people to review. It may not be great, and there are tweaks and changes that need to be made, but I'll take the bird in the hand over the (so far) non-existent birds in the bush on this one, as it directly affects me.

Lastly, I can't help but think if we had kept the Constitution's original way of electing a President and Vice-President we wouldn't be in this bi-partisan mess we are today. As I have commented before in detail, originally everyone ran for one office: President. The person with the most votes was elected and the person with the second-most votes became vice-president. I believe this was an inherent check and balance as it forced people with differing opinions to work together for the good of the country. It also allowed there to be more parties and diversity in Congress. Looking at it today, there would almost have to be less partisanship if the President and Vice-President were of different parties but working toward the same agendas. And it would also allow the two to go to Congress with a more united front on what needed to be done and why. Congress (and America in general) would likely have more parties and campaigners would have to convince individuals of their plans and goals rather than swaying enough of the other party to vote them into office.

I am, so far, both less than thrilled and less hopeful about this election. At least one party decided not to lie, so I'm not totally without hope at this early stage. Now, let the mud start slinging.

Fiscally Conservative

The Repubicans today are constantly referring back to the glory days of Ronald Reagan's presidency and trying to convince Americans that we need to go that route in order to recover from the current economic disaster that started in 2008. What is interesting is how they are going about it. For example, the current Congress, and all of the Republican candidates for president, are insisting that tax cuts are needed. John Boehner believes this so strongly he has led multiple Republican sallies against any action by President Obama to raise taxes. He said repeatedly they will have zero tolerance for any bill that attempts to raise taxes.

Now, let's look at their hero, Ronald Reagan. During Reagan's eight years in office, he raised taxes 11 times. He raised them every year except his first. His advisors recognized that raising taxes, bringing more money in to pay for what the government needed to do, was the only way to cover the government's spending at the time. The money was also used to fuel the recovery options they put in place, such as job creation, military spending, space research, and infrastructure. All things that Obama wants or has tried to do.

In addition, Reagan and Obama both inherited nearly identically high unemployment figures from the previous administration (7.6% and rising). Reagan's ballooned to a high of 10.8% in 24 months before his policies stemmed the tide. Once in place and functioning, his policies reduced it to 9.6% within 30 months of taking office. Compare that with Obama's inherited unemployment ballooning to a high of 10.1% within 10 months, and then his policies reducing it to the same 9.6% rate within 21 months of taking office. It took Reagan an addition 10 months (40 months total from taking office) to get unemployment back to 7.6%. How long will it take Obama? It remains to be seen. But without money to enact his job creation plans, it may take longer.

Basically, today's Republicans are attacking Obama at every chance they get, without offering a plan of their own. Yet, by every measure, Obama is actually following a similar plan and path to their hero, Reagan, with similar success. Obama's plans are more fiscally conservative than he's being given credit for and he has turned around a bad economy faster than Reagan did (so far). Yet the Republicans in office (or that seek the presidency) continue to vilify him at every opportunity.

After looking at some important numbers, it sure looks like we HAVE gone back to the glory days of Reagan and ARE following his economic plans to solve the economic crisis. So why are they continuing to block virtually everything the President sends to them?

It makes me wonder if any Republican today would actually follow Reagan's economic plan if he were President today. My guess is no; Reagan, that bastion of right-wing politics, would likely be considered too Liberal for today's Republican.

Building a Road Map

The President of the United States cannot really make any laws. Executive Orders are pretty limited in scope and use. Therefore, the President must challenge Congress and the people by being the "big picture" guy and leave the details to those who can write laws.

In last night's State of the Union address, the President laid out what I thought were generally fairly bipartisan challenges and asked Congress to get busy writing the laws that would do what he recommended so that he could sign them into law. During a surprising number of those challenges and "big picture" blueprints, both Republicans and Democrats cheered, stood up, and/or clapped. Yet, when it came time for the Republican responses to the President's address, they pretty much toed the same line they have been for the last 18 months: we are not going to do anything to help this President get reelected.

The problem with this philosophy is that they also are not helping the people they are supposed to serve. Independent polls consistently show approval ratings of Congress at single to very small double digits; otherwise known as the worst in history. Independent polls also show that people want a lot of what the President proposed during his address. The only quibble among the people is on how it gets done, not what needs to be done. Yet the Republicans don't seem to care about this; their agenda is simply to block the President, make him look weak and ineffectual, and to get him out of office.

I used to proudly be a member of the Republican party and voted party often. Bush 2 ("W") changed all that. His politics, in my opinion, were so biased, were so based on helping the few and damning the many, and, in some very specific instances, so illegal and unconstitutional, that I changed my political stance to Refuse to State. Bush was warned about the housing bubble and chose to do nothing. He was warned about Wall Street and chose to remove even more regulations instead of policing the situation. He had a clear objective to go after terrorists and then, by all evidence both at the time and now, manufactured a reason to go into Iraq and get us into a war we couldn't really afford and for which we had no clear plan, strategy, or exit.

I didn't join the Democrat party because I didn't see much better from them. They blindly voted with W for war, without doing their due-diligence or questioning it. They ignored or passed many of the bills that helped W loosen regulations and damage the economy long-term. When I felt W had gone so far as to be provably doing things illegal, I even contact each representative and asked them to start Impeachment proceedings. My reasoning was that the Repubs impeached Clinton for lying, but not really breaking the law. Bush actually broke the law, in my estimation, with his unconstitutional practices toward Muslims in America and detainees everywhere, and he lied to get us into a war, Impeachment proceedings should have started immediately, as this, and the end result of thousands of Americans dead and many more Iraqis killed was much worse than Clinton lying about an affair with an intern. Yet they all wrote back with very weak excuses as to why they didn't feel impeachment was the right choice for that time. Hunh?

America needs help right now. Party politics are at an all-time low, infighting, backstabbing, and rhetoric are at an all-time high. The President consistently has asked for bipartisan cooperation in Congress and he consistently hasn't received it. We, the people, need to start demanding it of our representatives and kick them out of office when they don't perform up to those expectations. We need to be emailing, mailing, phoning, telegraming our representatives with our opinions. I strongly believe that the vast, quiet majority of people can come to a compromise that works for them, regardless of party politics, and get things moving. We just have to push, prod, pull, browbeat, and force our representatives to work toward that same goal.

Americans seem to be in a feedback loop where all they watch, hear, or read are items that share and reinforce their existing opinions. They don't seem to be seeking out antithetical opinions or challenging their thought processes. They don't seem to be questioning their leaders, regardless of party affiliation, and insisting on accountability. We all need to step up and start doing this and make our voices heard. The politicians will come into line or get kicked out of office.

Obama is the Next Carter?

Many Presidential scholars consider Jimmy Carter one of the smartest people to have ever been in the office of the President for our country. He is praised for his compassion and the way he handled monumental tasks and problems that occurred just prior to and during his Presidency. Yet he is considered a "failure" for the most part by the majority of Americans and was only given one term due to those perceived "failures."

Carter was a little-known Democratic candidate when he decided to run for office. His position as an "outsider" and an agent of change helped to push him quickly to the top of the polls for the Democrats and to the eventual win over Ford for the office.

The scholars point out that many of Carter's initiatives and plans started bearing fruit at the very tail end of his Presidency and into Reagan's first term in office, but it is Reagan who gets the credit for those successes. They mention that NO one who was in office during those four years likely could have done a better job handling the oil/energy crisis, the recession and inflation, the conflict in the Middle East, and the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.

Sound familiar?

Now, we have Obama in office. Like Carter, he comes in with an oil/energy crisis to deal with, a recession and the possibility of run-away inflation, a conflict in the Middle East, and armed conflict in Afghanistan. He is working hard to make sure inflation doesn't kill the already bad economy by artificially keeping interest rates low and creating work projects. He is trying to improve the economy by regulating banking and convincing Americans to spend money on Americans. He is trying to curb American oil dependence on the Middle East and encourage more research on alternative energy sources. He is trying to figure out a more peaceful solution to the Middle East. He is left with Americans being engaged in an unpopular war in a foreign land and having to clean up the mess of an armed conflict in Afghanistan.

So, basically, we have Obama nearly exactly reliving Carter's Presidency. And I'm getting the not-so-subtle feeling that, like Carter, Obama's changes won't really bear fruit for another year or so but, by then, it will be too late and the people will want anyone else in the office, regardless of party. Whomever wins the next election will then take credit for the improved economy (even though it started to improve before he was elected) and other initiatives that Obama has and will put in place, and will be seen as a savior and a great leader by Americans.

I hope I'm wrong. But history is suggesting I'm not. With luck, our next President will be as smart and successful as Reagan was at a) not touching his predecessor's plans so they keep working, b) implementing new plans that keep the old ball rolling for a good long time, c) making Americans believe in themselves and the country again, and d) improving the country's standing among the world's leaders once again.

If this all comes to pass, I hope that Obama can go on to be as successful as Carter outside the office. Carter's humanitarian efforts are considered some of the best post-Presidency work of any person to hold the office. Some would argue he is the most successful former President to ever hold the office.

Er... What?

A cartoonist recently drew a political cartoon making reference to two high-profile news items, the escape and rampage of a chimpanzee from a zoo and the fact that the stimulus plan was poorly written. The cartoon showed two policemen (or game wardens) shooting a chimpanzee and one of them saying, "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

My first thought when seeing this cartoon had a couple of components:

1. Good tie together of recent news.
2. Funny reference to the fact that many politicians act like monkeys.
3. Slight reference to the old adage that if you put a million monkeys in a room with a million typewriters, sooner or later one of them will write Shakespeare.

However, someone, somewhere, decided this was a racially pointed attack on President Obama. Someone decided that the cartoonist was referencing the fact that blacks were often compared to monkeys and apes by those who wanted the continued segregation of the races. Someone decided that the cartoonist was using imagery from early film and TV (especially black and white cartoons) where blacks were often portrayed looking very chimp-like.

Now, of course, many blacks (and quite a few whites) have jumped on this bandwagon. Having been shown something that they did not see at first, and apparently strongly persuaded to agree with that position, the NAACP, among other groups and a strong minority of voices, are calling for the termination of employment of the cartoonist. the NY Post has issued an apology after initially defending the cartoon and the cartoonist.

I find it reprehensible that people can take this so out of context, be so uneducated as to not get the references, turn this into something racial when that was not the intent, and, finally, push a newspaper around to the point where it apologizes.

This reminds me a lot of the supposed "gaffe" that President Obama made during the campaign trailer when he used an extremely common phrase, "put lipstick on a pig," to mean even if you dress up something it remains what it is at its core. A phrase that was shown to have been used by McCain just a few weeks prior, and yet did not promote outrage.

Here we have a case of a vocal minority of people being offended by something that they simply misunderstood. However, because this minority of people misunderstood it and decided it was racist, it has become national news. And, frankly, whenever Rev. Al Sharpton gets involved, doesn't that show how stupid it is? When was the last time he was relevant? He only makes the news if he shouts "Racism!" so that is what he does-- regardless of the content, meaning, or implications. All he has in his toolbox is the hammer named "racism," so the only solution he sees are nails named "the man," "whitey," and "oppression." He and those who follow him have done more harm to race relations in this country in the past 30 years than any other group or person.

My hope is that someone in the black community, preferably President Obama, will come out and say something on this cartoon that shows that he/she understood the intent, didn't find it racist at all, and tells this vocal minority to shut up and go home. Political cartoons are supposed to invoke thought, and even controversy. However, in this case, the controversy was about the chimpanzees who work in government, regardless of race, who can't understand what it will take to improve the economic situation in America (and the world). It was not motivated by racism and those who say it was must have their own agenda for saying so.