Sunday, June 14, 2009

Did Red Staters Prevail in Iran, or Did the Vote Counters?

With Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claiming victory in a disputed election, one has to wonder if enough Red Staters came out lead him to victory, like they apparently did in 2004 for George Bush, or was the vote fixed as many wonder about in 2004 and 2000 in the U.S.

In 2004, despite months of preparations in Ohio by Republican forces, the vote in that pivital state came down to a relatively same number. And while there didn't seem to be a single area of questionable voting, across the state, bit by bit, the numbers didn't seem to add up, leading Robert F. Kennedy and others to question Bush's election.

Apparently they learned in Iran to not make it close, as Ahmadinejad is claiming victory with more than 60 percent of the vote. Taking a page Dick Cheney or Antonin Scalia, Ahmadinejad declared the election protests "not important from my point of view."

Perhaps Scalia could happily volunteer to go over to Iran on a tour telling voters to "get over it," afterall the Red State candidate "won." Isn't that how elections are supposed to come out?

When George Bush was occupying the White House the United States had no moral authority to question elections in other countries. After Florida, who could take our comments seriously?

Today, although still burdened by 2000 and 2004, at least the U.S. can blame those elections on a different time, just as we can blame segregation on a different era.

With the election of President Obama we can show the world the importance of an free and fair election, and perhaps many Iranians thought they had progressed as we had. Unfortunately it may be a few years before they catch up.

Dashed hopes are difficult to deal with. In 2004 American voters took to the internet to apologize to the world for being unable to oust Bush, allowing him to nearly destroy the American economy. Iranians have taken to the street, rioting, as they feel they have no hope.

Americans were able to regroup and throw the GOPHers out of power, starting with the House and Senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008. With hardliners aging in Iran it may take time but one can hope they eventually oust their Bush.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Will Red State Voters Prevail in Iran?

Iranian voters go to the polls today and it will be curious if Irannian Red State voters will keep President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in office.

Iranian Red State voters put him in office in 2005 and while many people wouldn't think of him and George W. Bush as similar in reality they both won by getting voters to value fear and resentment over intellect.

The best Bush defenders can say in that Ahmadinejad is closer to Dick Cheney in terms of promoting hard line policies that harm their countries in the world's view.

The question is whether Iranian voters are willing to do in 2009 what American voters were unwilling to do in 2004, throw out an unsuccessful president who has caused great harm to the country economically and politically. (Although some question if the voters were counted correctly in Ohio in 2004 the outcome would have been different.)

Early reports show that voter turnout is high in Iran but because there are several major candidates, no one candidate might reach 50% and that could result in a runoff election.

Reading voter comments in the New York Times one can feel the impact of Red Staters in Iran and the difficulty in achieving change.

We don’t want our country to be trapped in a no-hijab situation, with no discipline,” one woman said . “We will only accept Ahmadinejad.”

However, there have been massive rallies over the past few weeks, leading one to wonder if the desire for change that swept the U.S. in 2008 is also sweeping Iran. So will Ahmadinejad and his policies join Bush/Cheney as rejects by voters and a desire for a more thoughtful and enlightened dealings with other countries?

Tuesday, June 02, 2009

The Importance of Rewriting Sotomayor

One of the biggest areas of controversy regarding Sonia Sotomayor's appointment to the Supreme Court has been her 2001 comment on a wise Latina woman making better decisions. Some on the right, such as Newt Gingrich, have called her a racist for the comment, others have said it was poorly worded.

In reality it wasn't poorly worded, just poorly interpreted. Any one who reads the comment and thinks about it can question it but hardly use it as a basis for calling some a racist. Any doubts? Just look at what she actually said.

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” she said in a 2001 speech.

The first thing that jumps out at a person reading the comment with an open mind is the use of the word HOPE. She doesn't say DOES, just hope. Also she said "more often than not" meaning more than 50% but not always reach a better. Finally she says "a" wise Latina woman. Was she referring to herself or Latina women in general? One can argue the point but in her discussion she was talking about generalities among judges so it would be easy to argue she wasn"t.

How can the idea that someone with a fuller life experiences will come to a better decision be regarded by anything than logical?

Some on the right have tried to rewrite the quote to fit their needs. Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post rewrote the quote to say Sotomayor said "she believes her Latina physiology, culture and background" make her a better judge. Tucker Carlson in a Washington Post rewrote her quote and claimed "She said that her "physiology" as a Latina gave her wisdom superior to that of the average white man."

The sad thing is this is what the mainstream conservatives are saying. Just think about what the extremists are saying. What the conservatives have figured out that if you don't like what someone says, just rewrite it to make it what you want. Accuracy is unimportant.