The Celebrity Couple Otherwise Known As McFreed

Patriotism: Does It Have to Be Worn on Your Sleeve?

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Tue, 20 May 2008 07:36:37 -0700

Sean says...

Respect for one's country is one thing, is wearing it really necessary? Does not wearing a flag pin or patriotic garb mean we are any less loving of our nation? When is symbolism too much?

I don't usually agree with CNN commentator and columnist Roland Martin but today he really hit the nail on the head. When are we as people going to let silly issues like this one go and concentrate on issues? Probably never, since we hold on to things we can understand and ignore things we don't. This is an easy issue that gets people fired up unlike poverty.. I mean some Boston Red Sox fans will never vote for a New York Yankees fan, but sometimes you have too.

But is not wearing something desecration or ambivilence? I don't think so. We all support our free will to make decisions, should we really be throwing rocks at glass houses on who is more of something? If we did that noone would get along. Is what we do to show our patriotism or any other personal feeling about our lives, loves, country, or religion anyone else's business as long as it does not harm or personally insult someone?

(CNN) -- When is the last time you watched a mindless movie that had no redeeming value for you intellectually, but all it did was make you laugh?

That perfectly describes the raging debate among voters and the rabid television and radio talk show hosts who love to yell and scream from the top of their lungs, "I'm an American, and by golly, you better show as much appreciation for this country as I do!"

But once you finish listening to these high-minded bloviators -- and yes, that includes the voters who have bought into this nonsensical issue -- ask yourself: Does it really have anything to do with anything?

I've watched this debate reach the levels of absurdity this year because journalists and commentators have raised the question to Sen. Barack Obama, "Why don't you wear a flag lapel pin?"

I really got a kick out of that one during the ABC debate last month because not one person on stage -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Obama, along with moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos -- bothered to accessorize their attire with a flag lapel pin.

Sen. John McCain has been traveling the globe as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, and this former soldier often doesn't wear a flag lapel pin.

It has become sort of like bird watching as I've surveyed elected officials on the local and national levels and looked them over like a hen-pecked mother or a foaming-at-the-mouth military drill sergeant, studying their attire and deeming them insufficiently American because of their lack of decency and respect by refusing to adorn themselves appropriately with a lapel pin.

So, after listening to radio callers and the folks that e-mail various TV shows, maybe we ought to expand this need to express our Americanism even further. Shouldn't we insist that our politicians all begin to sport red, white and blue socks in order to feel good knowing that they are walking as Americans? How about asking officeholders to sport the American colors as undergarments to show that their undying love for the country is so important, they want the flag pressed against their skin?

There have been times when the candidates -- especially McCain, who has beaten back skin cancer -- have worn hats on the campaign trail. I want to know, datgummit, why the people running for the highest office in the land didn't cover their head with an American flag baseball cap to express to the nation their love and affection for the U.S. of A.

Since it is clear that our nation is paralyzed and so not able to close our borders, feed the homeless, develop businesses in the inner cities and save people from having their homes taken by foreclosure due to ruthless mortgage companies, all because some folks don't wear a flag lapel pin, we need to lead a national movement to demand that Congress and the states make requiring officeholders to wear a flag lapel pin the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

See, if it is so important, then take it all the way. Don't make it optional. Don't leave it up to someone to choose to wear a flag lapel pin. Let's really show those politicians that nothing is more important to us than seeing them with the U.S. flag on our chest.

That's what zealots do. They take something so simple, so personal, so voluntary, and absolutely lose their mind, trying to force someone else to do as them, and everyone else be damned.

Folks, the first year I ever cast a ballot for political office was in 1988. And in the last 20 years, whether it was mayoral, school board, city council, or a statewide, congressional or presidential campaign, the thought of what was on a politician's lapel never entered into the equation as to whether they are worthy of office.

Those who will criticize me will say, "Well, Roland, if it's no big deal, then why not wear one?" And the reply is the same: "If it's no big deal, then why do you make it a big deal?"

Let me tell you something: When I'm on the golf course and I slip my wedding ring into my golf bag, the Rev. Jacquie Hood Martin is still my wife. When we shoot hoops and I remove my Texas A&M University ring from my right hand, I still love my school. The fact that I can no longer wear my 1987 class ring from Houston's Jack Yates High School doesn't mean I don't cherish the crimson and gold. And I may not be able to fit into the shirt I pledged in, but I will be a member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. until the day I die.

I am an unapologetic Christian, but you won't see a cross dangling from my neck or a James Avery charm bracelet on my wrist. Why? Because my love of Jesus Christ is in my heart.

This debate is useless, tiresome and distracting. Why? Because if there are members of Congress who wear a flag lapel pin but refuse to shore up our borders, don't do enough to stop the flow of drugs into our neighborhoods, or don't help to eradicate the gaps between the haves and have nots, then are they truly fighting for the concerns of Americans, or playing on the emotions of people by what's on their lapel?

We're better than that. We're smarter than that. It's time that we make decisions based on substance, which is what we say we actually care about. But maybe we're just lying to ourselves about that, too.

Roland S. Martin is a nationally award-winning journalist and CNN contributor. Martin is studying to receive his master's degree in Christian communications at Louisiana Baptist University.You can read more of his columns at http://www.rolandsmartin.com/

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Florigan!: The Lawsuit

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 06:30:34 -0700

Sean reports...

Well as the Democratic Party continues to shoot itself in the foot over stupid decisions and rules, I found this story that makes a lot of sense to me but in the end may mean nothing. To me the Democrats have a point on being a private entity but when they are utilizing resources from the state doesn't taht factor into having to abide by legal statute? Enjoy!

Attorney: DNC violating Constitution

Posted: 04:45 PM ET

ATLANTA (CNN) — The Democratic National Committee is violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing only four states to hold caucuses or primaries before the first Tuesday in February, a Florida attorney argued Monday before a federal appeals court.

Attorney Michael Steinberg filed suit in August on behalf of Democratic Party activist Vincent Dimaio after the DNC said it would not seat Florida delegates at the national convention because the state party defied party rules and scheduled its primary for January 29.

A federal judge in Florida dismissed the lawsuit in October, but Dimaio appealed.

"You can't treat the citizens of some states differently than other states," Steinberg told reporters after the hearing. "What I tried to assert is that the DNC has the right to make rules … but the rules have to be the same for all the states."

According to party rules, only Iowa, South Carolina, Nevada and New Hampshire can schedule their primaries or caucuses prior to the first Tuesday in February. Steinberg argued that the 14th Amendment, which bars states from denying individuals equal protection under the law, should prohibit the DNC from creating rules that make the votes of the citizens of those four states "paramount to the rights of the voters in Florida."

Joe Sandler, attorney for the DNC, told the three-judge panel that the committee is a private entity and "is actually exercising its own constitutional right by not seating delegates."

"The point we were trying to make in court today is that it's up to the parties themselves to determine the best means of selecting delegates to the convention, and it's not really a matter for a court to resolve," he told reporters later.

Dimaio, who referred to himself as the "little guy" who speaks for Floridians, told reporters that it is unfair for only four states to be allowed to hold primaries or caucuses in January.

"If you go before February 5, you're basically screwed because you get no delegates," he said. "We've lost 210 delegates. We're the fourth largest state in the nation and we have zero delegates."

"I'm not asking for a penny, I'm not asking for a dime in this action," Dimaio said. "I'm just asking for my vote to count."

The appellate court is not expected to deliver a decision until next month. Steinberg, who is handling the case pro bono, said that if the ruling goes against Dimaio, he will appeal to the Supreme Court.

– CNN Correspondent Rusty Dornin

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The McFreeds Vote

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:14:01 -0800

Sean and Stefan announce...

Hillary Clinton

Well after Sean endorsed John Edwards a few weeks back only to have him withdraw from the Democratic Party race and Stefan being undecided up to the very end, The McFreeds finally made their selection, and voted in the Maryland primary last night. We both voted for Hillary Clinton. It was a long and tortuous decision (Sean's mom noted that this is the first time since he discovered politics as a passion that he had not selected a candidate before going into the voting booth); but in the end we voted with our minds and not our hearts.

Clinton convinced us that she is the best person to tackle the hard facts of Washington DC, not with oration, but with her sleeves rolled up ready to work on Day One. America needs a working President, not just a cheerleader. Our faith in her comes from her grit and determination in tackling mountains over her entire life, not just career. As a leader and a woman, she has overcome so many things you cannot deny her respect for figuring out how to survive and take it all - good and bad - in stride. She has made some mistakes and learned from them. But it is her commitment that can never be questioned. If elected, she will always have health care, education, and the family checkbook on her agenda. She has been consistent in that mission and in her desire to bring all Americans together to make our nation work for everyone. This is why we made the decision we did and why we hope she will eventually win the nomination.

This is not to say this that this was an easy decision. Barack Obama would make a better president than any of the the Republicans running, including the remaining foes John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Obama is an amazing speaker and personality. It is no wonder his fresh words and his very picture of change as the first truly viable African-American, or any minority for that matter, (with all do respect to Jesse Jackson and Shirley Chisholm) to have a real chance at being our nation's president. But for us, he just hasn't sealed the deal. There is substance lacking here. And if he does win the nomination, his ideas will be scrutinized in the general election harder than now. Sure the website is impressive in words. Obama's mention of gay and lesbian issues on it and in his speeches is most welcoming. Clinton's lack of mention on her website is discouraging, but her public words cancel that out. We know both of these people will do what they can for us, but it is really up to the states to make the changes we need, along with a federal cheerleader to hold the nation's hand as we make that change. But we choose a President for the whole package and this round she won with both of us.

Barack Obama

Everyone wants a John F. Kennedy this year to sweep us into the wonder of a fairy tale; but lest we forget that even Kennedy had a tough fight to his election as well because of questions about his substance. Up until 2000, the 1960 election was the last election where it was too close to call. Richard Nixon was the candidate of substance that year. The whole reason Kennedy went to Texas that faithful day in November 1963 was to start his push for the 1964 election because it was going to be a tight one. But as it worked out, Kennedy's strong vision and Lyndon Johnson's initial brilliance at working the Congressional machine gave America the progress it needed to make major changes in how we dealt with ourselves. Unfortunately it took his death, Martin Luther King Jr's death, and his brother Robert Kennedy's death as well as many other martyrs to a greater cause of equality and economic championship for this to be accomplished. But what if Kennedy lived? Would his vision have become a reality? Would he have compromised like he did in the first 2 years? We will never know. But this true look at history gives at least Sean pause when considering Obama. It is right to wonder if the emperor has new clothes when considering a President. And if anything Obama hasn't made his case in this first test to us.

Granted Obama won last night and this weekend, but whatever the media pushes does not silence the fact that it is still dead-even on delegate count. It will be on this division of opinion that the ability of our standard bearer to unify a party will make our choice either stronger or weaker when the time comes. We concede that who ever the nominee is for the Democrats will be our candidate in the general election, but our voice as well as others too should be heard to at least force Obama or Clinton to learn from why we didn't choose them the first time, not matter the size or % of the opposition. Because, if anything, we Democrats want to win in November, and we want to make sure we are united after the convention ends.

We are sure many of you will have opinons about our vote and our reasoning. Please be respectful as we are of your choice. Many of you showed us your passion and commitment to your choices up to this point and we are amazed at all of your dedication. Sean's friend Keith gave an impassioned plea in particular for Obama; Keith's trips to New Hampshire and South Carolina are truly something to be admired and celebrated. Stefan's brother, sister-in-law, and parents lobbied us hard on our vacation in Florida for Obama as well. Their arguments made it even harder to choose. And Sean's Mom and sister gave their own reasons for voting Hillary. We wish we could have mentioned you all that spoke including fellow bloggers (Quest and Wayward Son in particular) but the excitement about it all truly is encouraging that people are thinking and involving themselves in the right to vote in 2008.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

A true leader leaves the race...

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:41:04 -0800

Sean says sadly...

John and Elizabeth Edwards with their children

It was only 5 days ago that I announced that I would be voting for John Edwards in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Sadly, John Edwards announced his withdrawl from the race today, January 30, 2008. He returned to where it all started, New Orleans, in order to honor his commitment to a new war on poverty. All the comments I have heard both from friends and commentators alike is that he was a principled, decent guy who had great ideas. I guess respect of the mind is a great way to be remembered as you leave. What I find sad is that a man who was a leader on issues in this campaign was beaten by celebrity and oration rather than true facts and strong solutions. A bitter comment, of course; but a bitter reality of how our system works. Americans ask for change but in the end we vote for who is familiar and who is the better show horse even if that horse can't run. With that here is a clip of John Edwards saying thank you to his supporters as he departs the race, not the political scene we hope.

John Edwards says Goodbye and Thank You

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Why are we not excited and impressed yet?

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:00:00 -0800

Here is what we (Sean and Stefan) both think!

Sean says...

Well the Iowa Caucuses are over and Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee won. It's now on to the New Hampshire Primary.

Huckabee is the intimate candidate (who I usually say when talking to Stef) has the "crazy" (although some might say unconventional) ideas. He gave a great victory speech tonight that truly drew you in and made you like him. I am impressed by his delivery and his ability to communicate without seeming like the loon he truly is.

Obama gave the speech of a leader. Surrounded by adoring crowds he gave the speech from a pulpit that talked about hope, history, and change. Why did it still leave me unimpressed? I feel like I am missing something about Obama (despite MANY emails from my friend Keith as to why I should be on the Obama train). Now I won't be voting for Huckabee of course because well he believes being gay is a choice, that being homosexual is ok as long as we don't practice it, and that creationsim is a valid theory. But Obama has a shot at my vote and I am not running to jump on his band wagon for some reason. My earlier post which really dismissed his impact is proven wrong of course and that is ok because this is one contest. But with Chris Dodd and Joe Biden dropping out now and the field winnowing, what do I do to get excited about someone I am just not getting into?

I am excited that in the Democratic race alone there are viable female, African-American, and Hispanic/Latino candidates! And I think this is where a lot of people are getting excitement because truly race is being conquered as a barrier in our time in an arena where there truly was a barrier based on personal choice. However, is because the potential of historic significance a reason to vote for someone? I remember being in 7th grade and being excited about Jesse Jackson (yes I was in 7th grade now so it makes good sense since I didn't understand what was wrong with Jesse at the time) in 1984. Jesse I believe finished 3rd in Iowa that year which was truly a break through. Hillary Clinton finishing third is a break through as well since she basically has finished better than any female presidential candidate has done ever as well.

But in the end I just don't have Obama fever. I really haven't caught any one candidates fever actually. So what can anyone do, say, or argue to sway me toward the light of political hysteria for any of the Dems still standing? Is it just me? As I age am I becoming harder to impress and excite? Do I need political viagra?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stefan says...

Romney scares me because his beady-eyed stare is too Ted Bundyesque.

Huckabee frightens me because he is an eloquent, dynamic speaker, who conveys authority...whose ideas and messages are dangerous.

Richardson blew it for me during his performance at the debate on Logo a few months ago.

Obama concerns me because of his youth and inexperience, despite his charimsa and likeability.

Edwards looks the part (he is certainly shiny and handsome), but I'm still not convinced...yet.

Clinton has the intellect and the experience, but I worry about her electability (of course, that's a little bit like a run on a bank, isn't it?)

Who is left? Well, as long as they are left, and not right... :-) 381 more days until Dubya is outta there! http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

The 2008 Presidential Campaign Officially Begins!

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 08:45:53 -0800

Sean says...

My political past has me all in a tizzy today about the 2008 Presidential Campaign beginning in Iowa today, but it also finds me still wondering who is worth my vote. Obviously, Stefan and I will be voting Democratic. Stefan's parents would only expect that choice with only my (Sean) dad questioning where I went wrong. But who should we choose?

A few friends keep pointing me toward Barack Obama, but I feel as luke warm to him as I did when he got started last year. As a political junkie, I am one of those who continuously look up the candidates online and follow those political shows once and a while. But I find myself feeling famished after Obama speaks. Sure he is very articulate and an exciting orator. But having been in the "business," he leaves me unimpressed.

2008 Democratic Candidates

Hillary Clinton is an admirable person. She has worked hard and taken her lumps. I believe she wants to help the world, the question is can she lead it? I like her point that the president cannot be a neophyte to the "game" that is Washington. Being that I work next to the White House and am aware of the "game" in town, she has a point and knowing how to go through the minefield is much more valuable than saying the easy line of Washington needing to be "taken back." Bureaucracy is better tamed than challenged in my experience and the strategy to take it on is picking your battles and bunching small victories together strategically in order to force true change. And I think this is where Hillary is going; her vision is one I can agree with. The question though is "she the one to lead the change and can she?" That is what I am uneasy about and that is why I am not on her bandwagon yet.

John Edwards is one I thought I wouldn't fall behind but according to this Washington Post Questionnaire he should be my man... in the presidential race that is. Edwards has something the others are not truly exhibiting now, a man with humility willing to show strength of conviction as well as his thought process on things he is not sure of. Gay rights and marriage is my "clever" issue this year (for good reason - and Bill Richardson felt it squarely on his head back this summer after saying being gay is a choice); and Edwards has shown great growth and strength of character in how he has shown his journey in understanding it. That is the kind of president who will help the nation truly become comfortable with this group of issues rather than an outright supporter. The best way to phrase it is by saying Richard Nixon was the right one to open China to the West. Elizabeth Edwards ceratinly is on "our" side, and showing his comfort with working with a diverse set of opinions and allowing them to be voiced certainly gives me hope of moving passed the stubborn, one-mindedness of our current failure.

But what is truly rallying me to Edwards cause is his ideas on economic diversity. Hillary and he have it right, a piecemeal approach is the right course of action. But Edwards has a terrific focus on poverty which is reminiscent of Bobby Kennedy, my personal political hero. And in fact that comparison has hit me time and again with Edwards since 2004. Kennedy was a skeptic who with exposure evolved and became a stronger visionary because he embraced humility as well as honed his vision of a better world. Now Edwards isn't all the way there yet but he is moving that direction. But yet I am still not sold because of some of his strident comments and criticisms about others. "Can he get people to work with him even if he disagrees with them?" is my question for him.

Lastly, Joe Biden has impressed me with his brilliant mind. However, as a leader I do not know if he can inspire and truly show the way. He knows what he is talking about but his manner and temper just turn you the wrong way. He would be a truly wonk president but I see a potential Jimmy Carter malaise speech coming out of him in a cardigan sweater some night in October.

Well we will see who breaks out of the pack tonight and then see who stays in to fight on. In the end its strategy, money, and on the ground success that will truly pull our next president through to the end. I hope we just pick a good one, we are totally due.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Bill Richardson on Logo/HRC Debate

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:03:22 -0700

Sean says...

Stef and I intently watched the historic debate last night where nearly all the Democratic candidates for President attended. All your majors were there: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel. Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden did not attend. Each addressed questions separately by moderator Margaret Carlson, Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Joe Solmonese, Washington Post editorial page writer Jonathan Capehart, and musician/activist Melissa Etheridge (waits for the double take on this choice... tick tick tick...check out link to editorial about her inclusion). Although not strong questions, it was GREAT to see candidates take on gay and lesbian issues directly. ALL the Republican candidates were invited but did not attend.

Stef and my initial take was the following in terms in who did the best to satisfy us:

1. Edwards

2. Clinton

3. Kucinich/Obama

The LARGEST disappointment was Bill Richardson. When asked by panelist (yes you read right) Melissa E. the question "Do you believe homosexuality to be a choice?" he answered the following way (courtesy YouTube) which was followed by the biggest GASP by gay people I think ever recorded on TV that wasn't a planned acting event:

Bill Richardson flubs in debate, says gayness is a "choice"

Really disappointing! Bill Richardson had a lot of things going for him in my mind and this comment despite the explanation on his website just really deflated at least my balloon. This man is overqualified for the job with a resume that includes congressman (minority whip), Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, and Governor of New Mexico. But his interviews and debate appearances have truly disappointed me in the last 2 months. The man is great at getting things done apparantly in the past but he can't verbalize why his vision is the best. Ted Kennedy had the same issue when he was deciding to challenge Jimmy Carter in 1980 - "Why I want to be president?" And now one of the big issues on my political checklist (and Stef's too) has a bad mark for him.

You be your own judge here on this and tell us what you think.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Electoral College Proposal in CA

nobody@vox.com(Sean & Stefan) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:02:50 -0700

Sean says...

I actually agree with this proposal...what do you all think? The electoral college should really be tied to the result of each district in terms of pluralism. Regardless of whether Democrats like it or not, this is truly the responsible way in determining our President and forcing competition in all areas of our country and not just a few districts. Maine I believe already does this. Point or counterpoint?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/31/california-could-sway-2008-race/

July 31, 2007

PROPOSAL COULD BREAK DEM'S CONTROL OF CALIFORNIA

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Republican-backed ballot proposal could split left-leaning California between the Democratic and GOP nominees, tilting the 2008 presidential election in favor of the Republicans.

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections — the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes.

The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state’s congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

California has voted Democratic in the last four presidential elections. But the change — if it qualifies for one of two primary ballots next year and is approved by voters — would mean that a Republican would be positioned the following November to snatch 20 or more electoral votes in GOP-leaning districts.

That’s a number equal to winning Ohio.

The so-called Presidential Election Reform Act is being pushed by Thomas Hiltachk, a lawyer in a Sacramento firm that represents the California Republican Party and has worked with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He did not return phone messages left Monday at his office.

A Schwarzenegger spokeswoman said the governor is not involved with the proposed initiative, and party officials said they have no connection to it.

Democratic consultant Chris Lehane called the plan “an effort to rig the system in order to fix the election.”

“If this change is made, it will virtually guarantee that a Republican wins the White House in 2008,” Lehane said in an e-mail.

Nineteen of the state’s 53 congressional districts are represented by Republicans. President Bush carried 22 districts in 2004, while losing the statewide vote by double digits.

Only Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes by congressional district.

A draft of the proposed initiative says nixing the winner-take-all system would give presidential candidates “an incentive to campaign in California. … Many of the geographic
areas of the state would be as important to a candidate’s chance for victory as many of the smaller states.”

“We’ll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot,” state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.

If it does qualify, Democrats probably would have to spend millions of dollars to defeat it, which could drain money from other races. And there are expected to be additional ballot
proposals on abortion and other social issues that could drive up GOP turnout.

The state already moved its presidential primary to Feb. 5 in an attempt to increase its clout in national politics.

In that primary, Republicans will award delegates only to the top vote-getter in each congressional district. A Democrat can qualify for a delegate by winning at least 15 percent of the vote in a district.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend