Party like it's 1829

I am pretty sure Obama's inauguration as President of the United States is going to be an affair the likes of which hasn't been seen since Andrew Jackson's inauguration.

Nearly 200 years earlier, the first territorial governor of Florida, Andrew Jackson, had his own mind for change:

Jackson resigned from the Senate in October 1825, but continued his quest for the Presidency. The Tennessee legislature again nominated Jackson for President. Jackson attracted Vice President John C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, and Thomas Ritchie into his camp (the latter two previous supporters of Crawford). Van Buren, with help from his friends in Philadelphia and Richmond, revived the old Republican Party, gave it a new name as the Democratic Party, "restored party rivalries", and forged a national organization of durability.[16] The Jackson coalition handily defeated Adams in 1828.

During the election, Jackson's opponents referred to him as a "jackass." Jackson liked the name and used the jackass as a symbol for a while, but it died out. However, it later became the symbol for the Democratic Party when cartoonist Thomas Nast popularized it.[17]

The campaign was very much a personal one. Although neither candidate personally campaigned, their political followers organized many campaign events. Both candidates were rhetorically attacked in the press, which reached a low point when the press accused Jackson's wife Rachel of bigamy. Though the accusation was true, as were most personal attacks leveled against him during the campaign, it was based on events that occurred many years prior (1791 to 1794). Jackson said he would forgive those who insulted him, but he would never forgive the ones who attacked his wife. Rachel died suddenly on December 22, 1828, prior to his inauguration, and was buried on Christmas Eve.

Jackson was the first President to invite the public to attend the White House ball honoring his first inauguration. Many poor people came to the inaugural ball in their homemade clothes. The crowd became so large that Jackson's guards could not hold them out of the White House. The White House became so crowded with people that dishes and decorative pieces in the White House began to break. Some people stood on good chairs in muddied boots just to get a look at the President. The crowd had become so wild that the attendants poured punch in tubs and put it on the White House lawn to lure people out of the White House. Jackson’s raucous populism earned him the nickname King Mob.

From, Wikipedia.

Of course, as many of us know Andrew Jackson went on to commit some of the most horrible atrocities against human life, tantamount to the Holocaust: he is the one responsible for banishing Native Americans living in Georgia to their death, on what came to be known as the Trail of Tears. I'm pretty sure Obama is far more even-keeled a personality than that ... but one never knows. The future is rich with potential; hopefully that future is in good hands with Obama, but only time will tell ...

Party like it's 1829

I am pretty sure Obama's inauguration as President of the United States is going to be an affair the likes of which hasn't been seen since Andrew Jackson's inauguration.

Nearly 200 years earlier in 1829, the first territorial governor of Florida, Andrew Jackson, had his own mind for change:

Jackson was the first President to invite the public to attend the White House ball honoring his first inauguration. Many poor people came to the inaugural ball in their homemade clothes. The crowd became so large that Jackson's guards could not hold them out of the White House. The White House became so crowded with people that dishes and decorative pieces in the White House began to break. Some people stood on good chairs in muddied boots just to get a look at the President. The crowd had become so wild that the attendants poured punch in tubs and put it on the White House lawn to lure people out of the White House. Jackson’s raucous populism earned him the nickname King Mob.

From, Wikipedia.

Of course, as many of us know Andrew Jackson went on to commit some of the most horrible atrocities against human life, tantamount to the Holocaust: he is the one responsible for banishing Native Americans living in Georgia to their death, on what came to be known as the Trail of Tears. I'm pretty sure Obama is far more even-keeled a personality than that ... but one never knows. The future is rich with potential; hopefully that future is in good hands with Obama, but only time will tell ...

12 Days to Election!

I haven't made a post in a while. I've been very busy at home and at work. I don't want to make a meaningless post just to make the date stay recent. I'm still leaning heavily towards Nader.

I was thinking about how I had been contacted by the Nader '08 campaign to take on a leadership position for his campaign here in Florida. I never returned that call. Oh how I regret that now, not that I would have been able to do anything about it; but I could have at least returned the call to say how honored I was to have been contacted.

First impressions are lasting.

About Ralph Nader

I can write about him, right? I mean he stands side-by-side with the Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney. But I couldn't help noticing how he drastically outpaces both Ms. McKinney and Bob Barr in fundraising ... and upon closer inspection of his website, not to mention the latest Newsweek article on his presence in Florida, well ... it's pretty hard to just overlook him. I mean, heh, this is Ralph Nader we're talking about.

My earliest memory of Ralph Nader dates back to the early days of Carty Finkbeiner, Mayor of Toledo. Let's just say Mr. Nader wasn't exactly a fan. Okay, the truth is whenever Nader was in town it was guaranteed to be a great day in the news industry because when Nader and Finkbeiner got together sparks would fly tantamount to the Fourth of July. But then Carty has that effect on just about anyone he deals with. The biggest point of contention as I recall was the now-defunct Jeep plant. Something about eminent domain, I think. I can't find it exactly, and my mom would know better than me.

But I digress.

Take a look at Nader's website, votenader.org. Pretty impressive not to mention easy to navigate compared to votetruth08.com. Also, I wouldn't put a big ol' picture of Roseanne Barr on the front page either. I'm not even sure I would bury a benign text comment about how she supports me either. Not in a bid for the ultimate expression of American patriotism: the Presidency of the most powerful country in the free world. And I like Roseanne! But I wouldn't use her as the celebrity vehicle to promote me for President. That's just dumb. (I've made sure not to point people to that website for that reason.)

After reading the latest Newsweek article on Mr. Nader, I can honestly say I'm rethinking my vote. The point for me is not to vote for who's most likely to win - the point for me is to vote for who is most likely to effect change. Mr. Nader seems to have chosen a very strong running mate in Matt Gonzalez, too. Matt Gonzalez was elected president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 2003. This was significant because he ran as a Green Party member at the time.

So I urge you dear reader to give Ralph Nader a closer look, as I am doing. He has a proven track record. He has more ballot access than Ms. McKinney, and I don't mean to knock McKinney's run for the Presidency. But I still believe my vote counts, and Ralph Nader feels the same way I do about all the issues that are important to me. I want there to be effective change - I don't want to just be sweet-talked about it, like I feel Obama is doing. And although I don't dislike McCain, he's been making some stupid mistakes. And don't get me started on Sarah Palin. I just don't know about her. Part of me likes her, part of me is really scared of what she would do to women's rights if she got anywhere near a leadership position in the White House. I think I would rather be sweet-talked about change, quite frankly.

Moreover, I think Ms. McKinney and Ms. Clemente stand a better chance of having their voices piped through Washington if Nader became President.

SarahSoda.net

What is this website about? The Presidential Election 2008, specifically the third party candidates who have been blacked-, whited-, yellowed-, and just generally edged out, and especially The Green Party whom I've thrown my support behind 100%. I'm even registered with the Green Party in the state of Florida.

Normally this is where I would air my views, opinions, stories about my day, etc., but now I'm turning it into what I hope becomes a springboard for discussion and research into the candidates and issues that we'll be voting on come November 4th. My main message is this: there are more than 2 choices for President in nearly all 50 states of this fine country. You don't hear about anything other than Democrats and Republicans on your news because the Democrats and Republicans have reaped so much power and persuasion in recent years, in Washington, the media, corporate interests (yes, they're both guilty of it) that they have reached a level where they can dictate who goes to the debates, who gets the advertising time and dollars and ultimately who gets the votes. Corruption is running amok in our government, and the immediate solution is to get everyone to vote for a third party - ANY third party - although I personally prefer the Green Party and I am registered with the Green Party in the battleground state of Florida.

So to read a couple posts I've made, go here. And click here to find a whole bunch of websites I've come across through my research that I'd like to share with everybody, most notably at the top of the list a documentary I think every red-blooded American, every American who has to pay taxes should see: it's called, Split: A Divided America, and it's an unbiased view of bipartisan politics in present-day America in light of this particular Election year.

Red + Blue = Purple

I just finished watching a documentary that confirmed many of my suspicions, and echoed a few of my sentiments about politics in America today. I wish everyone who is old enough to vote could watch it before they go to the polls on Election Day - it's called, Split: A Divided America. I saw it on the Independent Film Channel, so I don't know if cable subscribers get that channel.



What made this documentary so compelling were the questions they asked, although the people interviewed were about as diverse a group of people as you could hope to find in America: from experts to regular people, old to young, from the Rust Belt to the Bible Belt, conservatives, liberals, and many people in-between. Noam Chomsky was interviewed; Tucker Carlson (former host of Crossfire on CNN) was interviewed, former heads of both Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns of years past.

They worked behind the scenes and offered their insight.

And the truth is the political campaigns, especially today, are deliberately negative (as a way of keeping voter turnout down - isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that the ONLY people who are bothering to put people in the White House only represent 30% of our country? Are you comfortable with that??), and are run by the same people who promote ... toothpaste.

Tucker Carlson called the political advertising "narrowcasting" because of how it narrows the viewpoints on any given subject. I forget what his exact words were, which is a shame because he really hit the nail on the head.

One other expert (I forget who just now) wanted to know why some housewife in Iowa is more bothered by the idea of an Islamic radical killing her and her family, than she is about her husband's job security, or the fact that they don't have health insurance for their family, or the quality of education her children are getting. His point was, this woman is going to cast her vote based on something that ultimately, is very unlikely to happen, rather than being focused on issues that are very real to her (read: all of us) on a daily basis. In other words, what is the likelihood that she will have to pick up a gun to defend herself (in Iowa, mind you) from Osama bin Laden - or Al Qaida period - than she would have to take her kids to the doctor?

Anyway, the documentary did a GREAT job of telling the story of what's really going on inside the political arena of today's America going into Election 2008, and they didn't just interview experts. They interviewed Citizen Joes and Janes, and they discovered that for all the differences the media chooses to paint our country in, the fact is the majority of us actually agree more than we disagree.

If you watch the political ads and you really care about what direction our country is headed ... I highly recommend you watch this documentary. It doesn't make a case for any political party, so there is no particular endorsement to be found there.