Jackson Free Press

Screenwriter Sherman Yellen asks a compelling question at Alternet.org: Can a real man become president?

As one looks toward the next Presidential election, assuming that our democracy can survive this presidency, the question we often hear is "Can a woman become President?" This reflects upon the interest in Hillary Clinton and her ability to be elected in a Presidential race. A more pertinent question may be "Can a man become President?" In asking this, one is obliged to define what one means by a man, something far different from the male who currently occupies our White House. [...]

A real man should be capable of flip-flopping on any issue at any time. It is an essential element in thinking and living. There is no way to grow as a man without changing one's mind from time to time. [...]

Most of all a real man can say "I was wrong" and mean it. [...]

Previous Comments

ID

171860

Comment

Republican=the world revolves around me Republican=Man is God's gift to woman, and should always lead the country Republican=the only true religion is Christianity Republican=the natural world is one big pharmacy & lumber yard Republican=brown people are simply not as intelligent as we are Conservative=we will hide under this label while spending it ALL Evangelical Christian=if they don't accept the cross, give 'em a sword Conservative Republican E.C.=leave if you don't accept the premise that we are a Christian nation with a divine mandate to take over the world Democrat=the world is a global community of complex relationships Democrat=men and women are equal, and it's time for a female president Democrat=Democracy, and therefore America, is a pluralistic society that demands that we learn how to relate to one another effectively beyond differences and without asserting one's own religious agenda Democrat=the natural world is fragile and our survival is dependent upon the sustainability of the ecosystems Democrat=America is more than just white Liberal=liberally applying humanitarian values to all people, conserving fiscally so that there is a legacy of endowment for future generations, as well as enriching current generations via health and education. --Frank MacEowen

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-10-13T15:38:53-06:00

ID

171861

Comment

Oh, hell, I haven't crossed the Tiber in a while. It's time to play...Tom Head Defends Republicans! Republican=Man is God's gift to woman, and should always lead the country The "Condoleezza Rice '08" web banners I'm seeing around Republican web sites right now tell me that not all Republicans hold to this view. See also the high level of interest in running Liddy Dole in 2000. The issue of sexism here, like racism, is not that no specific person falling within a given group can lead; it's that they have to be one of "the good ones." It's also important to remember that the more common view is that woman is God's gift to man--literally, a gift, an item, to keep him company. Republican=the only true religion is Christianity A great surprise, no doubt, to agnostic Republicans such as Arlen Specter, and the large number of Jewish Republicans within the original Weekly Standard neocon movement (Kristol, et. al.). Republican=the natural world is one big pharmacy & lumber yard Newt Gingrich actually took on an environmentalist tone as he started heading out of office. There aren't many pro-environment Republicans, but there are some. Including a few Bush appointees, with reliable Republican records, whom he later canned when he realized their environmentalism wasn't just an act. Republican=brown people are simply not as intelligent as we are I sincerely doubt that Charles Evers or James Meredith, both registered Republicans, believe this. Conservative=we will hide under this label while spending it ALL Bush is actually getting some heat from deficit hawks within his own party, and if his approval rating continues to drop, they'll start talking about it. Evangelical Christian=if they don't accept the cross, give 'em a sword More like give 'em a headache; evangelical Christian violence is always a problem, but hardly epidemic. Social discrimination is a more widespread concern. And remember that both Afghanistan and Iraq, under the new U.S.-led coalition government, are officially Islamic states. Conservative Republican E.C.=leave if you don't accept the premise that we are a Christian nation with a divine mandate to take over the world A hell of a lot of evangelical Christian Republicans seem to believe this, yeah. (continued...)

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-13T16:34:44-06:00

ID

171862

Comment

(...from last post) Democrat=the world is a global community of complex relationships Tell that to Ronnie Shows, who ran against Chip Pickering (and lost) on a disgusting "the Mexicans are stealing our jobs" platform. Democrat=men and women are equal, and it's time for a female president Unfortunately, the only female candidate on the D side--Hillary Clinton--is so far to the right that she's polling horribly among her base. Democrat=Democracy, and therefore America, is a pluralistic society that demands that we learn how to relate to one another effectively beyond differences and without asserting one's own religious agenda Tell that to Ronnie Musgrove, who put "In God We Trust" in our public school classroom and enthusiastically offered to install Roy Moore's Ten Commandments monument in the state capitol building. Or to Ronnie Shows, who ran on the aforementioned xenophobic platform--and was the first congressman of either party to propose a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (This was pre-Massachusetts, so it never found a single Senate co-sponsor; it died in committee.) Democrat=the natural world is fragile and our survival is dependent upon the sustainability of the ecosystems This is what we believe in theory. In practice, Clinton opposed the Kyoto accords. Democrat=America is more than just white We're a hell of a lot more diverse than the Republicans, that's for sure. But why aren't we fielding a single viable non-white candidate for president in 2008? (Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun don't really count, since neither were able to raise funds or support.) Liberal=liberally applying humanitarian values to all people, conserving fiscally so that there is a legacy of endowment for future generations, Until the Reagan administration, the Republicans were considered the deficit-hawk fiscal conservatives. Reagan changed that, leaving neither party in the deficit-hawk role. Then Ross Perot came along in '92 with his charts and Bill Clinton took on the deficit-hawk label, balancing the budget--with a Republican Congress, we should probably add. Now Democrats are the deficit hawks and Republicans are the big spenders. I'll give you that one, with the caveat that there are exceptions on both counts in both parties. as well as enriching current generations via health and education. We tend to be more about that, yeah. But when we had the chance to put out universal healthcare, what did we do with it? The Democratic Party has been so brutally incompetent over the past 20 years in spreading its message, in having a message, and we're paying for that now. We need to be a real opposition party, but sometimes we fall short of that. Way short. Remember that Mississippi has had only two Republican governors since Reconstruction: Fordice and Barbour. And all this time we've had a majority Democratic legislature. So if Republicans really stood for all that, and Democrats really stood for all that, why doesn't our state government do things that make more sense? Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-13T16:35:22-06:00

ID

171863

Comment

All points well taken, tom. The variety of contradictions reminds me of a recent poem of mine (below)....I know about the contradictions you speak of, most especially in Mississippi, and I'm in large agreement with you about the Democratic party not having a resolute and unified message to present....The above list came out of a conversation with a friend around "owning projections"...The above list are my own. I wonder what projections Republicans would "own" regarding Democrats. I don't always do a good job of owning my own projections, and I also know that my own views are probably equally as entrenched as many Republicans. Makes me wonder what come about if both sides could sit in a forum that did away with ego-entrenchment and invoked authentic fluidity. Would it lead to, perhaps, the "Middle Party"? What would look like? Until then...I suppose more contradictions, and more entrenchment. "Through A Fierce Veil" (c)2005/Frank MacEowen I try to speak, but suddenly one-hundred and forty-two years catch in my throat, cinch tight around my neck like a hot bristling rope. Today, many people race around here seeking to travel higher, trying to be heard or seen, incessantly hoping to make their mark; but the spinning karmic wheel has me diving into layers under all of that, to the places where voices were silenced, and all manner of unseen marks still sting the skin, despite the passing of years. But, forget everything youíve ever heard about ìdown here.î Itís just not simple. Everything encountered in these fierce layers contain at least one mirror image, and one pulsing contradiction. And, after a while, the same will become true of you. ___________________________________ from Kensho: Poems, Dreams, Lives (c)2005/Frank MacEowen http://sacredmarkings.blogspot.com

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-10-13T16:56:40-06:00

ID

171864

Comment

I am in dire need of a grammar and spell checker on here....

Author

whateveryouwant

Date

2005-10-13T16:58:47-06:00

ID

171865

Comment

Your grammar and spelling are fine, dude. And good job with the poem. I'm not sure I'd want to see a moderate party; I'd much rather see a situation like that of Canada, where liberalism is dominant and conservatism has an advise-and-consent role but does not have enough popular support to carry the day. I want to see universal health care, an end to poverty, a public education system that can serve everyone's needs, completely equal rights for men and women and gays and straights, a real commitment to ending institutional racism in all of its forms, a reluctance to wage war, and so on. Which is not to say that Republicans don't have some good ideas--one of the great debates of the '90s was "Do we need all this money for intelligence funding now that the Cold War is over?," and the Republicans by and large said yes, and the Democrats by and large said no, and history has favored the Republicans on that--but they're ideas that liberals can be brought around to believing in. And I'd like to think that conservatives can also be brought around to believing in the above ideas as well. That's less of a moderate party than it is a party that would happen to agree with me on every detail. As the song goes, everybody wants to rule the world. Cheers, TH

Author

Tom Head

Date

2005-10-13T21:55:45-06:00