Everyone knows that political attack machines (more specifically Republican attack machines, since they seem to be doing the most attacking these days) can be found on an extremely small scale. My hometown newspaper, the Rockford (IL) Register-Star, published a letter to the editor from a man from Polo, Illinois, who stated that we should "fear Barack Obama" more than Osama bin Laden. My response to the letter was generally panned by my friends and even a special writer to the publication, who said that he "was appalled that he played the race card when there was no reference to race in Mr. Gribbins letter whatsoever".
My two-month late response to this claim was written tonight.
I'm Ryan Rainey, and I remember sending that letter in several months ago. The response I received from my peers was mixed (which I expected), but I'd like to defend what I said in my letter.
Right off the bat, Mr. Gribbins said that he preferred Osama bin Laden to Barack Obama. Now, I don't want this campaign to be about race, and luckily it so far has not become an issue of race. But when I see a man take the Fox News talking points that Barack Obama is a Muslim, an argument which I believe has racial connotations because of the prominence of Black Muslims in America today, I will not tolerate such a letter. I by no means believe that the Rockford Register Star should censor letters, but I would have preferred to see a letter regarding Barack Obama that attacked his policies specifically, rather than rail against 'Tax policy, more regulation, global warming nuttiness, gay rights promotion, affirmative action expansion, more government, less free enterprise, new gun laws, cozying up to tyrants.'
The 'global warming nuttiness, gay rights promotion, affirmative action expansion' comment was what disappointed me the most. Is Mr. Gribbins suggesting that Obama is morally corrupt for his promotion of gay rights? Can he dispute the stance of thousands of highly-regarded scientists regarding Global Warming--a stance with which Sen. Obama agrees? And, going back to my racial point, is he suggesting that Barack Obama's affirmative action stance is due to his status as a member of Black Academia?
I wonder if Mr. Gribbins would be opposed to Senator Obama's proposal to include low-income white applicants in affirmative action. I also wonder if Mr. Gribbins would think that affirmative action was still wrong after he experienced the poverty of African Americans and Hispanics who live in Rockford.
I'm a senior in high school this year, which means I'm going to be applying to college. My top schools are UW Madison and Minnesota. If I am not accepted to one or both of these institutions because a black or hispanic candidate was selected because of his socio-economic status, I would not be disappointed. I've had my 18 years of life in upper-middle class America. It's someone else's turn.
So that's why I thought 'Fear Barack Obama' had racial and intolerant connotations.
http://www.ontheissues.org/...
One more thing: the overall message of that last comment was to ask why Mr. Gribbins didn't address his concerns over Obama's stances on the issues he listed, especially since he could have been detailed (something which, I admit, I was not in my letter) and explain why he disagrees with gay rights, the global warming theory, or affirmative action
I'm not sure anyone will read that, but I was disappointed to see that in some ways, my letter supporting tolerance and respect was panned, while the man who is terrified of Barack Obama was praised as someone who addressed the issues of this campaign. The truth is that his letter had many negative, borderline racial connotations.
But no letter to the editor I've seen beats this one, which seems to ignore history and instead proceeds to bash Barack Obama because he believes in Universal Healthcare and is adored by his supporters. It's from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. I'll quote the whole thing right here.
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Editor, Times-Dispatch:
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Would we?
Manuel Alvarez Jr. Sandy Hook.
Let's breifly compare Cuban and United States history.
As most people who have taken a U.S History class already know, Cuba was under American control following the Spanish-American war. In 1902, power was handed over to a new republic. But in 1940, a man named Fulgencio Batista came into power. He helped the mob in the United States, and made Havana a gambling haven. But when students began to protest his American-supported regime, Batista became more ruthless. He tightened media restrictions, and students protesting were killed by his police force.
Of course, a man named Fidel Castro was working with another man--once an innocent, polite medical student--named Ernesto Guevara. They were guerillas. They wore army fatigues (Fidel and Raúl still do so today), and they encouraged their followers into a religious-like movement that was centered on violence. El Ché once said, "I don't care if I fall as long as someone else picks up my gun and keeps on shooting". Pretty violent. Pretty inhumane. Of course, this is the kind of mentality that allows Cuba to execute political dissidents.
Since Mr. Alvarez--who otherwise seems to be a very intelligent and model United States citizen-- wants to compare Fidel and Obama, let's look at Obama's stance on the death penalty, a favorite activity of most Communists.
Obama says the death penalty "does little to deter crime" but he supports it for cases in which "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage." While a state senator, Obama pushed for reform of the Illinois capital punishment system and authored a bill to mandate the videotaping of interrogations and confessions.
I don't see anything about executing drug traffickers and political dissidents in that message. Sounds pretty un-Fidel to me.
What's John McCain think about such inhumane punishment?
McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes. As a U.S. senator from Arizona, he has voted to prohibit the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals and to ban the death penalty for minors. He has also supported legislation to allow the death penalty for acts of terrorism and has said he would consider further expansion of capital punishment laws for other crimes.
Damn.
But wait! Barack Obama wants to meet and have talks with those zealots in Iran! If he's going to recognize them, surely he must be ready to have happy-go-lucky relations with North Korea, just like Fidel, Ché, and Cuba!
In May 2005, Obama named North Korea as one of the "biggest proliferation challenges we currently face." Obama has called for the strengthening of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea "that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions."
Damn.
I could keep going. Let me just leave you with this.
There are a lot of anti-Obama letter writers out there, but it doesn't seem like there's enough credible rebuttals to these letters. I suppose you could say my letter was one of those non-credible rebuttals. But if we're going to help Obama win in red states like Virginia, we need to do something on the micropolitical level. Richard Gribbins and Manuel Alvarez may not work for John McCain's campaign, but they are helping him spread his message by making otherwise smart liberals like me look like fools. So please help me and Senator Obama, and start replying to letters like this. They may help more than we know.