I came to Washington


If Obama wants to go on the attack, now is a time to do it. If he were of a mind to, he might give a speech like this...

Vote for this story at Buzzflash and at Digg

Thank you, my fellow Americans, for coming together with me here today, and taking time from your busy lives as we decide the course of our nation.

I came to Washington, because I thought that if people worked together, then America could come together and make things work. I came to Washington believing that there was no problem to large for the American people to solve, once they had resolved to fix it. I came to Washington to represent the public interest, and found, in Washington, that wasn't what they were interested in. What I found was a Congress where the worst ideas were promoted, and the best were buried in committee. Where obstruction of justice was tolerated, and obstructionism by the Republican Party became a way of life. We've gone from building bridges to a new century, to building bridges to nowhere. We've gone from all for one and one for all, to a free for all of lobbyist driven corruption.

After the September 11th attacks, Americans were more unified, more resolved, and more willing to put aside minor differences, than at any time in my life time. It was the kind of moment that Norman Rockwell would have painted. We had had our Pearl Harbor.

Now eight years later, it is clear that the good will of the American people was squandered, it is clear that our efforts have been wasted, and hope is mired in the swamps of the Potomac, the sands of Iraq, and the hills of Afghanistan. Washington decided to do what should not have been done, and do to badly what needed to be done. Corruption, waste, mismanagement, misdirection, and a sorry rabble that riots for television cameras, is all that is left of the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Barry Goldwater.

Our campaign for the White House has been based on change, and change needs to start right here, right now, in this city, and from the moment a new Congress and new President are empowered to do it.

At this moment, I don't know what John McCain stands for, he's been on every side of almost every issue. Sounding like George W. Bush one day, and Jimmy Carter the next. Ducking out of his best known piece of legislation, and promoting tax cuts that he called irresponsible. But a institutions don't have the luxury of throwing away their past, or betraying the fundamental promises.

I came to Washington because I believe in the fundamental promise of Democracy in America, that government must be of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that their government must act, doing what is right as best we know what is right. We've seen a great deal of reaction, and a great deal of speed in passing bail out after bail out, of airline, banks, the stock market, hedge funds, and now mortgage issuers, but glacial immobility in lifting up the American people from what is a growing economic crisis.

You don't need me to tell you that Americans believe our nation to be on the wrong track. You don't need me to tell you that the price of gas going up, while your home is going down, is no way to make progress on the American dream.

I came to Washington to represent the people of a great state, and of the whole nation. I came to Washington ready to work harder than I had ever worked in my life, for anything, because the right law, or the right program, in the right place, at the right time, means everything That was the Washington I hoped to find when I got here. That is the Washington Americans expect and demand. That isn't the Washington we find here now. That isn't the Washington that lurched into an ill thought out war, while leaving the mastermind of 9/11 at large. That isn't the Washington that could find billions to give to drug companies, but has to give food stamps to its soldiers.

When John McCain came to Washington, a dollar bought a gallon of gasoline, rather than a quart. When John McCain came to Washington America was on the road to recovery, not the road to ruin. When John McCain came to Washington we were trying to end a global conflict, not start a new one. When John McCain came to Washington, America's national debt was fraction of what it is now. John McCain has been in Washington too long, and it has gotten into him. Americans know that you can't take Washington out of a politician, but you have to take the politician out of Washington.

It's time for American's to reclaim our city, our heritage, our government, and take charge of how Washington spends our money. And come this election we will. But we can't wait that long. It's time for American to get moving again, and do what we can now while the old rituals of our Republic work themselves out to an inevitable change. That change begins not here, but everywhere. That is why we are going to launch, as part of our campaign, "Save America, Now." Every week, every day when we can, we will put forward things Americans can do, not next year, but now, to save America, and be ready for the change we will bring to Washington. Ways to put Washington on notice that the change is coming, and we are not waiting for it any longer.

We must act to save, America. In ways great and small, in our every day lives, and at work. Washington has forgotten that, and forgotten that Washington isn't about spending money, but investing in the future. It says a lot that John McCain's chief economic advisor managed to almost ruin two of America's great companies. It says a lot when the man who would be his Treasury Secretary, says that Americans are the problem, and not the solution. It says a lot about the man who has been here so long, that he can't seem to find his way out.

It's time to tell George W. Bush, and his anointed successor, and the rest of his Washington, that change is coming, and we are that change. I came to Washington, and have found out one simple thing. A senator is one person, even the President is one person. And all an elected representative can do, is be the leading edge of the will of the people. One person can make a difference. But no one can do so by themselves. We are the ones who must do this, we are the ones who are alive at this moment, and have this cross to bear, this charge to keep, this duty to serve. We are the ones that history has selected to make this change. Because we only have one chance to do it.

It is time for us to come to Washington, and come this November election, we will. And our voice will be so loud that it will be heard, not just here, but in the capitals around the world, in the caves where Al-Qaeda hides, in the back rooms where lobbyists and bankers play dice with people's homes, and in every corner of the world, to every part where the webs of communication reaches. They will know, because we will know, that America is back, and change has arrived.

The follow up is key, have a page and part of the campaign to be about things that Americans can do now to start saving. Things like putting as many of their bills on internet pay as possible, to save mailing. Things like going to bed one hour earlier, and getting up one hour earlier. Things like walking to do one errand a week. Things like gathering all their coins and buying a savings bond. Things like cleaning their basement and recycling everything. Things like setting their air conditioning up one degree.

If he wanted to bite off a bit more, he could say that he, personally, is going to fast one meal every Friday, and use that time for "prayer and reflection". He could then invite Americans to join him in this as a personal testament of faith in America.

Some points:

Don't be afraid of the word Democrat. J. Random Democrat is beating you in polls Senator Obama. By a lot.

Take the bullshit by the bullhorns. Don't let any dog whistle to sound too long.

The way to answer a smear is to kill the messanger.

The time to define is now. You can't call McCain too old, but you can say he's been around too long. You can't call him unpatriotic, but you can call him incompetent. Let his broken record do your work for you.


Stirling Newberry August 4, 2008 - 2:10pm
( categories: Miscellany )

I'd vote for that Obama. But there is nothing in his record or his proposals that suggest that that is who he is.

Good strategy both to win and to govern. Wrong candidate.

hvd August 4, 2008 - 3:12pm

That may be true, Obama's record may not prove he is the solution to America's problems but McCain's record definitely proves he isn't.

"If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph:
The only proof he needed for the existence of God was music."
-Kurt Vonnegut, A Man Without A Country

jumpinin August 4, 2008 - 11:06pm

McCain's folks are capitalizing on his years as a POW. His handlers are using this to the point it's become irritating.

If he had taken the offer to be released, in deference to his father and political ties, he would have been court-martialed as soon as he set foot on US soil. I don't know the exact military terms or law, but it's my understanding that a commanding officer shall not leave his troops in enemy hands in order to seek his own release.

Disclaimer: I feel total gratitude and respect for those who have served, especially in times of conflict. I do resent such service being exploited.

KayseJ August 4, 2008 - 5:30pm

I love most of what you write Stirling but I just don't think that obama has enough focus; He's crumbled on FISA, he's crumbled on off shore drilling, etc... so I'd rather vote for a neocon republican that admits his affiliation. perhaps obama can focus himself enough to give us a read on his intentions and who he is but he seems like he has no courage and is ready to sell out as many times as needed.

mrmx August 4, 2008 - 7:57pm

I'd vote for a neocon republican as president. I may vote third party. I have more often than not.

If it's close this year, I'll probably vote dem, though.

Beto August 5, 2008 - 11:39am

sorta like saying "I'm voting for Lucifer 'coz I don't think Jesus did enough" --maybe a poor analogy, but I hope you see my point.

Obama's no Jesus, but he's *definitely* better than a neocon RepubliCon... I will *not* vote for 4 more years of Bush, or Bush/Cheney policies.

RepubliCons are teh Party of Bad Government/Governance--I believe Government exists to care for the citizenry and provide the tools and opportunities for them to improve themselves and their children's lives.

Government is part of the solution, not "the problem"--Regan was flat-out wrong, and RepubliCon administrations of the past 28 years proved that amply for my tastes....

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood August 5, 2008 - 12:07pm

talking to his homies, proceeding to say 'uh, uh, uh' in the mold of Foghorn Leghorn?

This guy is an empty suit. You need to write for him, Stirling, and run the effen country while you're at it.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly August 4, 2008 - 8:37pm

I wouldn't vote for me for President.

Stirling Newberry August 4, 2008 - 9:08pm

..should not under any circumstances be allowed to have the job.

geoduck August 4, 2008 - 10:01pm

:)

Tina August 4, 2008 - 10:30pm

Dubya and Tricky Dickie are cases in point. Ronnie certainly falls into the category as well.

Still, there have been a few who wanted the job who did very well in it--guess folks like FDR are the exceptions that prove the rule.

-5.75,-4.05
"God gives men a brain and a penis, and only enough blood to run one at a time." -- Robin Williams

justadood August 5, 2008 - 10:17am

I'd probably give you a chance as president, though you might actually think and know too much for the job. But, I'd certainly vote for you as speechwriter and adviser!

Eric Gen August 4, 2008 - 10:02pm

why not write an article about: "why obama would be a better than stirling newberry." I'd love to read it. since I started playing piano 21 months ago-- and became addicted, I'm imagining that you'd rather be composing something.... ;-)

mrmx August 4, 2008 - 10:39pm

4th and 5th piano trios.

Stirling Newberry August 5, 2008 - 6:27am

Quite a bit for one night. Get some sleep Stirling.

PS--The buzzflash/digg links under this article don't work.

fivespicepowder August 7, 2008 - 10:10am

we fixed the links.



Turn back to the Constitution - and
READ it.

Rick August 7, 2008 - 10:47pm

:)
OK, after he gets better.

creativelcro August 5, 2008 - 10:40am

kurt vonnegut jr. mentioned eugene debs a couple of times in his works. recently i borrowed a book on him from the library, Democracy's Prisoner, Eugene V. Debs, The Great War, And The Right To Dissent, by Ernest Freeberg, which i'm still reading. i appreciate more now why vonnegut keeps his memory alive.

mr. debs is remembered centrally as a victor in the fight for the right to dissent. he also was a memorable presidential candidate. he was a jailed convict.

thanks to his struggle, there is now the ACLU.

thanks to his struggle, free speech was more clearly defined.

re: First Amendment: The Blackstone Doctrine

http://zuma.vip.warped.com/eugene_debs-demprisoner-p124-a.jpg

http://zuma.vip.warped.com/eugene_debs-demprisoner-p125-a.jpg

Zuma August 5, 2008 - 10:56am

Irving Stone's "Adversary in the House" is a great biography of Debs done as a novel. Highly recommended. Amazing man Debs.

jonbrown August 5, 2008 - 2:09pm

i'll look for it tomorrow when at the library.

(...glad i caught your reply -i'd missed it when last on this page.)

Zuma August 8, 2008 - 11:59pm

1) Is the Democratic party as generally corrupt as the Republican party?
2) Would the Democratic party lie about their goals and methods?
3) Would the Democratic party fix the economy or put off the pain and make it worse later?
4) Would the Democratic party participate in torture?
5) Will the Democratic party continue to allow the exploitation of third world nations by corporations and the financial community?
6) Is the Democratic party serious about global warming?
7) Does the Democratic party value American workers over globalized workers?
8) Will the Democratic party fix the health care system.
9) Will the Democratic party use aggressive military action to pursue US interests over seas?
10) Will the Democratic party protect civil rights?
11) Would the Democratic party stem the creep of corporatism?
12) Does the Democratic party really respect the right of all American citizens to an education.
13) Will the Democratic party do the right thing for energy policy?

My gut says, for each of these questions, that the Democratic party answer is not very different than the Republican answer which is the wrong answer.

Joaquin August 5, 2008 - 3:55pm

Given the current Administration, not very different is probably still a significant improvement. Nader said in 2000 that they weren't very different. He may have been right. I could be wrong, but I think all of us would have been much better off with a 'not very different' All Gore than with Shrub. Though, I do like Al Gore's evolution since he lost.

Eric Gen August 5, 2008 - 7:09pm

what has Al Gore done? He added 33 solar panels to his mansion and that only reduced his electricity bill by 4%! So he still uses more electricity than 230 typical homeowners even though he implies that he's worried about the environment.

at the end of the day, Gore will probably only raise taxes on the middle class and they will be used to bail out "old monied interests" so the poor will get poorer.

regardless, he's an effective pied piper and, like the charasmatic David Cooperfield, gets people to believe in his illusions...

mrmx August 5, 2008 - 10:26pm

why anyone would compare a former Vice President with "typical homeowners" - who I doubt would be expected to entertain foreign dignitaries in a manner reflecting credit on their nation, or run globe-spanning businesses from home.

If we're going to have comparisons, let's have meaningful ones - what's Hillary's energy bill? McCain's? Cheney's? Romney's? Ahnuld's?

I doubt we even know. We just look at a bill and we think "wow, that looks real high!" and never stop to ask "compared to what exactly?".


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch August 5, 2008 - 10:49pm

on Gore's energy use. It is not all what it seems.

Tina August 5, 2008 - 11:24pm

"Gore's home uses more than 20 times the national average" somehow morphs into "he still uses more electricity than 230 typical homeowners." Sheesh, only about an order of magnitude of exaggeration there.

I can't wait for him to cut power consumption by half so that the headlines can instantly change to "Al Gore's Cheapness While Entertaining Dignitaries A Humiliation For America?". It'll be a refreshing change of manufactured outrages.

Speaking of which - nobody has energy bills for the others I mentioned so we can make meaningful comparisons?

Here's a comparison that actually contains a shred of meaning - Gore's house to Bush's ranch. And to give Bush his due, his ranch is run very creditably.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch August 6, 2008 - 1:13am

deliberate misgovernance as institutionalized policy is by both parties hand in hand, to keep th profits privatized and the risks socialized. it's not undoable or wanted, they're just stuck with it. so to me, all or most of your questions stem from that and are likewise answered by that.

change, like everything else, is 'off the table'.

Zuma August 5, 2008 - 8:54pm

on political parties. It hasn't occurred to me to *trust* a political party of any stripe in decades. I *assume* they will trend instantly towards corruption if not checked and immediately favor their own interests over the public's if not monitored. This I consider to be a universal, a fundamental human frailty.

So I'm uninterested in the absolute merits of the Dems over the Republicans. The real issue is that America let a radicalized party - let's call it Party A - into power and it immediately began consolidating its hold; by dismissing the competent - even those of their own party - with hyperpartisan loyalists; by establishing a wall of dense secrecy; by treating the citizenry as the enemy to be deceived; by refusing to use email systems historians could audit; by gutting systems of checks and balances; contaminating the military chain of command; contaminating the intelligence establishment; and generally wiping their asses on the guest towels.

So now it's not a question of choosing "Party A" or "Party B"; that ship has sailed, it's over. You forget about distracting and irrelevant comparisons of which scumbags are the scumbaggiest, you vote in the opposition for the simple reason that it's in the opposition's self-interest, and only the opposition's, to dismantle those structures and restore the systems of checks and balances.

And happily for America, that which the opposition will do in their partisan self-interest largely coincides with the public's interest.

Comparisons have nothing to do with it whatsoever. You vote in the opposition and pray they'll try in their own self-interest to undo some of the damage, or you lose your republic.


"The best-informed man is not necessarily the wisest. Indeed there is a danger that precisely in the multiplicity of his knowledge he will lose sight of what is essential."

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Escher Sketch August 5, 2008 - 9:05pm

The two parties have branded themselves with different voices. You have the one party branded the American Kick's Ass Party of God with a voice that sounds serious, tough, and a bit righteous. Most but not all Americans listen to that voice and feel pretty good especially when it came out of Ronald Reagan. You have the other party, the American Little Guy party, with a voice that speaks comfort to the "little guy". The little guy party is kinda of seen as a looser party by those who prefer the Kick Ass Party. The kick ass party is seen as arrogant by the Little Guy Party. Both parties receive financing from pretty much the same large corporations who know how to segment their customers and speak to them with the appropriate voice.

Now you are free to pick from one of those two parties and only of those two parties because American democracy simply does not support political pluralism. The Soviet Union had the one political party but we in America have two; but there is really no difference. The two parties are exactly the same other than a brand affinity play. Kind of like some people like Chevy and others like Ford. It is an illusion of a two party system.

Now you could say that the brand's voice seems a little wiser coming from the Little Guy Party. You can find Little Guy Party members shopping at Whole Foods or driving a Prius because those are their prefered brands.

I question the wisdom of people who listen to the voice of the Little Guy Party. Look at their choices, Whole Foods imports foreign food just like Walmart, think of the energy costs of importing organic grapes from Chile, and driving a Prius is supposed to have some unspecified positive green impact. If you want to save money and have a lower impact on the environment, buy a beater car for $1500 bucks, drive it a year and buy another one; use the money you save to pay for gas; at least you are recycling without the energy cost of melting down and recycling the material costs far less energy than goes into making a Prius and mitigates the Prius better mileage.

For a similar reason I question the wisdom of voting for the Little Guy Party since they provide the same kind of illusion in their brand voice. "You the little guy are important". You deserve a "living wage". No, I the voter demand to know the truth about what is going on. I demand equal access to an education. I demand a fair playing field in my work and entrepreneurial opportunities. I demand that my health care system does not bankrupt me just because they can. I demand health services that reward doctors who provide the best level of service.

So what will the Little Guy Party do for America that the Kick Ass Party won't? Nothing that doesn't increase profits for their patrons.

Joaquin August 5, 2008 - 9:56pm

I guess I was trying to bait people away from the "market segmentation" issues like abortion, prayer in schools, guns and whatever because those are brand identity voices for each of the parties. The idea is for us all to see through that and to root of the problem. The right things for guns and abortion will come out of solving the real issue which I think I hear you saying is corruption.

Joaquin August 5, 2008 - 9:09pm

The continuing dissatisfaction with two-party politics in the U.S. is an interesting development, from several angles.

A parliamentary democracy, even if it devolves into an effective two-party system, keeps alive third and fourth Parties, relieving some of this tension. A British Party can gain a dominant majority in Parliament with 40% of the vote; in the U.S., 40% of the vote is the absolute and exceptional floor, approached in victory only by Lincoln (who, tellingly, competed in a 4 Party election, although, contrary to popular belief, did not depend on Party fragmentation to achieve his electoral college majority), Woodrow Wilson thanks to Teddy, and more recently, by Clinton, thanks to Perot.

Lots of people, as is apparent from this thread, are uncomfortable with the way in which two-party politics allows for only a turn in the course of the ship of state, of a few degrees to the right or left. In this election the pressure from the body politic for a turn to the left is so overwhelming, that the turn has begun, even before the actual vote.

I don't know whether electing Obama and a Democratic Congress will really leave the Plutocracy unmolested. I know that is a common fear, distinct from the dissatisfaction with marginal, incremental reforms from Parties struggling to hug the imagined Center. I share it, seeing in Obama's cautious embrace of middlist positions, crafted to avoid frightening the Plutocrats, just how difficult it will be to navigate democracy past the Cerebus of Plutocracy Triumphant. (Clinton, just as realistic, was doing exactly the same thing; Obama and Clinton seemed to compete to reassure the corporate Plutocrats that they were "safe" Democrats, with whom one "could do business". It's a theme of this election.)

But, I hold some optimism in reserve. The reality of actual power, in the lee of the election, will tempt politicians to step-by-step change. Even the New Deal was a multi-step march. There was the burst of creating new institutions in the 100 day, many of which did not long survive. There was another burst of legislation, after the Supreme Court was cowed, and the Southerners returned to their reactionary roots in response -- legislation, which would have seemed impossibly radical from the perspective of 1932, but which seemed almost conservative in 1938. WWII, like WWI, covered huge, engineered change in the political economy.

The sense of being at the end of an Era -- of being at the end of tearing the New Deal apart, of being at the end of American Imperialism, at the end of the Era of Oil, and on and on, is an overwhelming pressure and opportunity for change. The movement putting Obama forward seems remarkably unambitious and unimaginative, given the significance and extent of the challenge. Maybe, that is because, the Plutocracy will not yield, and cannot be made to yield; maybe, it is just the entering wedge of the politics of the possible, a turn of a few degrees, which carry us to a far different place.

brucew07 August 6, 2008 - 3:46pm

The American people have been dumb'd down to the intelligence of a herd of sheep and at the same time brainwashed to think they are millionaires when in fact they are loaded up in debt to their ears and on the cusp of becoming nothing more than indentured servants to international corporations. Something drastic has to hit the American people to wake them up.

Joaquin August 7, 2008 - 11:18am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.