My Day with Senator Ted Kennedy – 2-16-2008

I have worked on a variety of campaigns – from City Council races to Presidential campaigns.  Sometimes as a volunteer and sometimes as paid campaign staff.  By the time the Democratic Presidential campaign was down to Hillary and Barack, I chose Obama.  When that campaign finally came to Ohio in February of 2008, the surrogate campaign representatives came as well.  And one of those was Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy.

I helped the Obama campaign set-up shop and get organized in Euclid.  I generally attempted to assist whenever I could.  When visiting VIPs came to NE Ohio, sometimes they would ask me to support the event one way or another.

One day, I was asked by the Cleveland-based Obama team if I wanted to be one of two drivers for the Kennedy entourage.  Ummmm, I said yes.  I said yes fast.  Then I called my mother.  She told me that the first Presidential candidate that she was able to vote for was Teddy’s older brother – JFK.  Then I called Progressive and increased the amount of car insurance I was carrying (really).

Senator Kennedy was to fly into town and we were to drive him from the airport to an event in Cleveland Heights, then Youngstown, then Akron. Then back to the airport.  A whirlwind day for a man a week before his own 76^th birthday.

On Saturday, February 16, 2008, I watched from the wings.  I heard the same speech in three locations and witnessed the same response to the words and the man.  People crowded into every room and no one left feeling small.  He spoke of the hopes and struggles of prior generations and the vision and promise of America’s future days.  While Kennedy seemed slow – even fragile - in physical agility, he was always energetic on the microphone.  He usually needed to rest after his remarks, but he never gave a flat performance.   People applauded his entrance and crowded around him as he departed.

I did not interact much with the Senator.  I was able to snap a few photos but I just tried to be helpful.  I was simply there to serve him and the Obama campaign.  I had but one request for him.  I told him that my mother’s first vote for his brother.  That she was the first person to tell me what a Democrat was – and that it was her birthday. 

My favorite gift to my mother that year was a card that I had carried all day.  A card that contained a happy birthday greeting - which included his personal thanks for her support of his brother - a card penned in his own hand and signed by Senator Ted Kennedy.  Hand written history from America’s Camelot family – crossing generations and dreams - to a house of Midwest educators was a pretty cool ending to a very cool day.

RIP Senator.  And thanks for the many ways you and your family touched Americans. The smallest of gestures, when coupled with grandest of ideals, create lasting impacts.

Veteran PBS Broadcaster, Bill Moyers is one of the people that "Please God Save Us" salutes.  Well, Bill deserves another "shout-out" for an interview done two days ago (7/10/2009) with former Cigna health executive, Wendell Potter.  We have included the link to the interview at the end of this post.

We discussed health care in the opening two sections of chapter three of "Please God Save Us".  We have included those two sections for you to consider before you watch the Moyers' interview - which is about 36 minutes in length.  The video link follows the section from the book.  Again, thanks for everyone's support.




The Red Elephant Agenda – More for Me

The true priority of Red Elephant agenda is not that America remain the home of the brave or the land of the free, but rather the haven for the wealthy.  The Republican strategy is to divide the public on issues so their riches can be protected.  Think of the debates that have emerged.  They divide one race against another.  They divide union workers against the environmentalists.  They anger and isolate the church population against the huddled masses that God commanded them to serve.  They attack dissenting opinion as non-Patriotic.  They engage in smoke and mirrors tactics to keep the focus off their main mission – protecting the concentration of wealth - their wealth.

Not For All the People – Just Our People

This thinly veiled self-interest is seen in the Republican Party’s social agenda and their economic platforms.  Guess which one they like more?  The Party of Lincoln needs to re-read the final part of the famous phrase first heard at the Gettysburg Address in 1863; “of the people – by the people – for the people.”  Let’s look at the attitudes of the Red Elephant concerning the social services safety net.

US Senator (D-Ohio) Sherrod Brown was exactly right when he said the strategy that Republicans employ on social policies was to “under-fund, criticize and privatize”.   We will call this strategy the ‘More for Me’ plan.   The Republican agenda is to keep as much of their money as possible.  It is not to end poverty, heal the sick or ensure our elderly can live their golden years in respect and safety. 

Republican party leaders are not living in poverty so they seek to cut food assistance programs.  When they get sick, they get the best health money can buy so creating greater affordable access to health care, is unnecessary.   As their parents age and require more care and medical attention – they get it.  But the average family sees their meager savings accounts sucked dry by a health care system built on asset recovery not quality of life.  The Red Elephant education goal is not to provide kids a world-class education or make college more affordable.  They just want to get richer – there is no “for the people” emphasis in the Lincoln Party today.

"You work three jobs? Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --President Bush, to a divorced mother of three in Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/watch2.html

Because it was the beginning of the end of the Vietnam War.

When unarmed protesters and innocent (just on their way to class) students were killed at Kent State University on May 4, 1970, it broadly undercut support for the war in Vietnam.   On Monday May 4th (39 years ago) Kent State students gathered to protest their government’s escalation of a war and 4 paid for it with their lives and this nation began to question its principals and its priorities.

One of the critical dynamics of America at that time was that war protesters were despised.  Think about it.  America -- the nation -- had a past of military heroics.  Just 25 years earlier, we stopped Hitler and had saved the world.  Our US military had only fought "noble" battles.  And now they were questioning our nation.  Who are these damn kids?  After May 4^th, student protestors became sympathetic figures who were acting patriotic instead of class-cutting babies who needed a haircut and a shower.

What young America had realized was that this battle based on political ideologies on a peninsula in Southeast Asia was not worth their lives.   Remember the military draft had been reestablished just 5 months earlier (a draft that never sent Bush, Cheney & Rumsfeld across the Pacific Ocean).  And just 5 days earlier (4/30/1970), President Nixon had gone on national television to announce that the US military had begun operations in Cambodia.  The war was spreading.  The war that Nixon said he would end was growing.  A war that now had a draft and a war that Kent State students knew might demand their service.

So they gathered, their voices grew, they questioned their government as their constitution allowed them to do.  Then rifles fired and the bullets flew.  And Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandy Scheuer and William Schroeder – the oldest of which was only 20 years of age -- were shot and killed by members of the Ohio National Guard.  Nine other students were also shot but survived.

Public support for the Vietnam War began to collapse as news of Kent State shootings spread.  5 days later over 100,000 gathered in Washington DC to protest the Kent State shootings. And 39 years later, we at “Please God Save Us” are happy to join the 5^th Annual Peace and MusicFest tonight in Kent, Ohio to remember that wars should be questioned, dissent is patriotic and 20 is too young to die.

Published on Cleveland Leader (http://www.clevelandleader.com)

Renowned artists Derek Hess and Kent Smith use politics in art for new book

By Francis.Petruziello

Created 09/30/2008 - 11:39pm

Please God Save Us, the new book by Derek Hess and Kent Smith, is available in stores and online at www.strhesspress.com and www.amazon.com. The two authors have scheduled several in-store book signings. Dates are listed below.

Please God Save Us is a smart, provocative and perhaps controversial look at some of today’s most pressing societal issues. The book is full of the authors’ incendiary observations of the right wing. This debut book has been receiving attention from coast to coast. Visit www.strhesspress.com/press for a sample of Please God Save Us.

“I never really wanted to do a book like this, but after the last 8 years I feel I had to,” says Hess. “Kent and I were eating at a diner in Dayton, OH on our way to a book signing, and this guy sitting behind us was talking loud on his phone. We hear him say ‘I'd vote all kinds of Obama, he’s right on just about everything, but I'm a Roman Catholic and Obama is pro-choice, so I’m voting for McCain.’ Now THAT is what’s wrong with this country. Not religion in general, but letting an issue like abortion be the only reason to vote or not to vote for somebody. Not to say the sky is falling, but this country is in dire straits.”

Recently, the MySpace page for Hess and Smith’s book was inexplicably booted from the site, though it may stem from the book’s indictment of Fox News and its relationship to the Republican party (MySpace is owned by Fox Interactive Media). The site has since been restored.

Please God Save Us is a collaboration from Hess and Smith that features more than 50 pieces of Hess artwork and covers an array of topics, all of which are ripped from U.S. headlines. Thought provoking visuals and words address an array of important subjects including the Religious Right, Iraq War, censorship, evolution and global warming to name a few.

Since its launch on July 4th, Please God Save Us has received exceptional reviews. Here’s what the press is saying about the book:

“If, as Alan Moore once observed, ‘the word is the unit of currency of the left brain, and the image that of the right,’ then Derek Hess and Kent Smith have achieved a balance between the two.” -- Real Detroit Weekly

“Provocative? Definitely. Controversial? Most likely. Inflammatory? Only if you give it to your conservative relatives for Christmas (something we highly recommend).” -- Metrotimes

“Not just another addition to the mountain of anti-Bush books the last eight years have generated, Please God Save Us will stand as powerful visual commentary on the current era long after George Bush has irrevocably entered history books as America’s worst president ever.” -- Cleveland Scene

Derek Hess is an internationally known artist who launched his career creating rock-and-roll poster art. His work has graced the walls of hundreds of galleries and museums throughout the world and is part of the permanent collection of Louvre and the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Additionally, in 2003, Hess launched a clothing line called Strhess showcasing his art.

Kent Smith is an award-winning Cleveland area elected official who is also the head of the Democratic party in Euclid, Ohio. Smith is also finishing a PhD in Economic Development at Cleveland State University.

“Please God Save Us” was an effort to explore many of the significant and critical issues of our day.  Some of those issues were crystal clear – like the fallacies of the Iraq War, the strong scientific consensus on global warming and the hope and potential of stem cell research.  But a topic in the book that was often missed by critics and fans alike was the debate surrounding same sex marriage. 

Chapter Eight of the book is about the Religious Rights attacks against Santa Claus and SpongeBob Squarepants.  The SpongeBob attacks came from Rev. James Dobson of the Focus on the Family Ministry who saw the cartoon as supportive of homosexuality.  Dobson attempted to use a fictional character – based largely upon a household cleaning instrument – to justify the Religious Right’s attacks on human rights.

The Religious Right has recently won at the ballot box by banning gay marriage state by state, but they are losing among the younger generations.  And the first Republican to notice was John McCain’s campaign manager, Steve Schmidt.  And today (4-17-09), Steve Schmidt may have given the most important speech in this nation’s history on gay rights, same sex marriage and equality.

Schmidt, as a political professional, recognized that if the Republican Party does not gain future votes when it eliminates civil rights.  He is the most prominent Republican to take this position and certainly the only one to argue his points in a public forum.  Quiet frankly, it is an amazing defense of a very progressive position.  And we believe it is the most important speech on the topic to date.

While this is a definite breakthrough – it is in no way, the end of this debate.  So read Schmidt’s remarks and understand his logic.  Be prepared to engage in this debate yourself – for the next several years.  And go buy some SpongeBob gear in support of equality.

Much thanks to Air America correspondent Ana Marie Cox for reporting the story and getting the transcript of Schmidt’s remarks.  We have posted them in their entirety as a blog.  But here is the link:

http://airamerica.com/anamarie/blog/2009/apr/17/steve-schmidts-address-log-cabin-republicans-transcript

Steve Schmidt's Address to the Log Cabin Republicans (Transcript)
By Ana Marie Cox

This is the text of John McCain's campaign manager Steve Schmidt's address
to the Log Cabin Republicans today (4/17/09). During the speech he
strongly urged the GOP to support gay marriage.

Here is what he said:


Thank you for that introduction, and for your invitation to join you
today.  I haven’t done much public speaking since the election.  I haven’t
done any, in fact.  But over five months have passed since the election,
and in gratitude for your contributions to our party and out of concern
for its future success, I appreciate this opportunity to share a few
thoughts with you about the direction I hope our party takes as it seeks
to recover the support and trust of the American people.

To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow.  A review of the
exit polls and current demographic trends in the United States should make
it clear to all but the most determined optimist that our coalition is
shrinking, and losing ground with segments of the population that are
growing.  Whether it’s with suburban voters, working class voters, college
educated voters, Hispanics or left handed Albanian psychics, the
percentage voting Republican has declined.  Perhaps, the most alarming of
these various and generally worrying results of the last election is the
huge margin by which we lost voters under 30.

Having said that, it is not a foregone conclusion these are long term
trends or even trends at all.  They might just be the results of two lost
elections, although I doubt it.  And even if they do represent movement
toward a center left political realignment, unanticipated events could
arrest or begin to reverse them even in the near term.

Political scientists and campaign consultants tend not to account for
contingency when they are busy predicting the future. The McCain campaign,
for instance, initially thought our most difficult problem would be the
war in Iraq, an assumption we made based on exit polls from the 2006 mid
term elections.  Obviously, we guessed wrong, thanks in part,
paradoxically, to Senator McCain’s statesmanship as an early advocate of
the surge.

We had many environmental challenges that made our campaign an uphill
struggle from start to finish.  In addition to the President’s
unpopularity and two wars the country had tired of, we had historic wrong
track numbers, record high gas prices, an unprecedented resource
disadvantage, and a disparity in press coverage.  While we worried about
these and many other challenges in 2007 and early 2008, we never believed
the election was unwinnable, and had by early September managed to fight
our way to a rough tie, and even a very small lead.  None of us, however,
expected a global financial crisis to be one of them.  I’m pretty
confident, President Obama’s campaign didn’t anticipate one either.  It
was the last obstacle imposed on a very challenged campaign.  It proved to
be insurmountable.  And no one had really seen it coming.

Should the recession grow deeper or linger longer; should President
Obama’s hugely expensive domestic policies begin to worry swing voters
more than they are reassured by his skill at promoting them; should some
national security disaster happen or any number of other contingencies
occur, the advances made by Democrats in the last two elections might be
short-lived.

But no one should take comfort from knowing our Party’s success could come
at the expense of the country or must rely on blunders by the
Administration and the Democratic Congress.  Moreover, while I think
projections of a political re-alignment are premature based on the results
of two elections, I would rather be in the Democrats’ shoes than ours.
Their coalition is expanding.  Ours is shrinking.  Their vote share is
increasing among voter segments that are growing.  Ours is not.  The rapid
growth of the Hispanic-American population, for instance, could soon cost
Republicans the entire Southwest if we don’t recover our previous share of
their vote.  Had Senator McCain not been the Republican nominee in 2008,
I’m convinced we would have lost Arizona.  It’s very hard to see how we
put together 270 electoral votes without the Southwest.

As a percentage of the total vote, younger voters didn’t really increase
in the last election.  But the Democrats’ margin with those voters
certainly did.  In short, we were crushed by the Obama campaign with
voters under 30.  President Obama was a uniquely attractive candidate to
younger voters, in matters of style as much as substance.  And maybe as
those voters grow older and acquire greater responsibilities they will
develop a better appreciation for Republican values of limited government,
fiscal discipline, low taxes and a strong defense.  That has happened in
the past.

But even if they do, I doubt they will abandon social attributes that
distinguish them from older voters; among them, a greater acceptance of
people who find happiness in relationships with members of the same sex.
And I believe Republicans should re-examine the extent to which we are
being defined by positions on issues that I don’t believe are among our
core values, and that put us at odds with what I expect will become over
time, if not a consensus view, then the view of a substantial majority of
voters.

Of course, a party cannot grow if it subtracts while it tries to add.
Social conservatives remain an indispensable part of the Republican
coalition.  I don’t subscribe to the notion that social conservatives are
a monolithic bloc of close minded people who would tread on the rights of
Americans who disagree with them. Nor do I think conservatism will or
should abandon its reluctance to change or abandon social conventions that
are important to the strength and stability of our society.

The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations
to its definitions shouldn’t be lightly undertaken.  It has always been
defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it’s understandable
that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to
so profoundly an important institution.  But it is a tradition, not a
creed, or, at least, not a national creed.  It is not how we define
ourselves as Americans.  And while we shouldn’t carelessly dismiss the
importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do
change over time in every society.  And as long as those changes do not
conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and
inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as
inequitable.

Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for
the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs
are.  It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to
certain self-evident truths.  All are created equal and endowed by their
Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.  Americans’ fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of
slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the
universal rights America was founded in blood to protect.  Women were
constitutionally disenfranchised.  But in time that injustice was
rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our
national creed.

The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it
holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the
life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected.
The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional
definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite
sex.

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the
legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex
unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered
society.  It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of
religious belief, which I respect.  But it cannot be argued that marriage
between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of
others.  On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting
adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected
and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural
rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence –
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  That, I believe, gives the
argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.

I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don’t honestly
expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same
sex marriage.  Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of
the general public.  And, I do believe that such a highly charged
political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed
will of the people, and not by the courts.  That doesn’t relieve advocates
of the responsibility to make their case urgently.  I understand how tired
many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they
believe is an injustice.  But I’m confident American public opinion will
continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or
later the Republican Party will catch up to it.  And I believe the
nation’s acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a
far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly
important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.

If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay
couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by
protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities
to another person.  Whether you are for or against same sex marriages,
every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal
decisions for themselves.  As former Vice President Cheney observed,
freedom means freedom for everybody.  And I think Republicans should
always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.

I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality.
It is not a choice.  It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when
gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the
government’s protection of their rights.  And the Republican Party should
give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of
another person.  It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this
nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly
un-American prejudice.  Moreover, if you believe we are born with our
sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that
exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and
people of another are not.

Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must
respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over
it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question
that the party might be in the wrong on the question.  We should publicly
affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we
accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment
and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual
relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and
privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded
married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for
one another.

There’s nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex
marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society.  Some
people believe strongly that it would.  I argue that it wouldn’t.  But
that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all
parties involved.  Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change
would undermine marriage and other social institutions.  I think the
institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are
genuinely committed to each other.  But even if you believe marriage would
be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I’m not sure it’s a
compelling argument for their exclusion.  We don’t forbid divorce, a more
proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.

As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay
couples on religious grounds.  I may disagree, but if you sincerely
believe God’s revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable
to oppose it.  But those are not the grounds on which a political party
should take or argue a position.  If you put public policy issues to a
religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country,
a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as
sectarian.

Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an
advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both.  They wrote that
Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and
civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states
recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations
that do not want to recognize same sex unions.

I think that idea makes a lot sense.  While it might not satisfy either
side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a
long way to correct the existing inequality.

Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party
necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of
whether the party should become more moderate or conservative.  I think
that’s a false choice.  We need to grow our coalition, but as I said,
that’s hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.

There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I
believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with
responsibilities.  No other exercise of one’s liberty comes with greater
responsibilities than marriage.  In a marriage, two people are completely
responsible to and for each other.  If you are not willing to accept and
faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn’t enter the state
of matrimony, and it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re
straight or gay.  It is a responsibility like no other, which can and
should make marriage an association between two human beings more
fulfilling than any other.

Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than
unmarried people.  Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow
from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it
is.  Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions.  It is
a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just
society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater
incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the
happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of
others depends on it.  Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that
strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the
measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy.  It seems to me a terrible
inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the
emotional enrichment it can provide.  And I cannot in good conscience
exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of
such happiness.

In closing, I’ll return to our national creed, what Lincoln called the
inestimable jewel of American history, and offer my respect for and urge
my fellow Republicans to respect every human being’s rights to liberty and
the pursuit of happiness as much as they cherish their own.

Customs change.  Societies change.  People change.  But that creed must
never change.  It is the foundation upon which the success of not just of
our party, but our country rests.  If you do not impede my pursuit of
happiness, I must not impede yours, but stand with you, as fellow
Americans, lovers of liberty, to defend your natural right to seek
happiness in life and love according to dictates of your heart and your
heart alone.

Thank you, again, for your welcome here and for your many, valuable
contributions to our party and our country.

Back in November, the book was written up on the San Francisco Weekly on-line blog.  Derek's Obama poster is mentioned in the article.  Just so everyone is clear, we have run out of the poster.

Thanks for everyone's continued support.  The link to the posting is after the article.

Derek Hess Giving Away Free Obama Poster with Purchase of His New Book

Artist Derek Hess is best known for his striking, physical cover art for numerous punk and metal albums, but lately he's started infusing politics into his pictures. His new book, Please God Save Us, features lots of disturbing drawings, paintings, and collages that lambaste right-wing hypocrisy; in case you don't get the point from the artwork alone, writer/politician/"community organizer" Kent Smith adds essays that correspond with the art's themes of religion, war, environmental exploitation, and so on. Trust me, it's rad (i.e., "radical" in all meanings of the word). As if that weren't enough, Hess is also giving away copies of his limited edition Obama poster (as seen here) with every copy of Please God Save Us sold. That is, until the supply runs out. Visit Hess' website for info. — J. Graham
 
 
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/shookdown/2008/11/derek_hess_giving_away_free_ob.php