From the Cornfield

Here in the cornfield we have a problem when politcal party ruless committees and officials act as if they have the right to overturn the decisions and legislation passed and enacted by duly elected state representatives and officials. Where in the Constitution does it state that political party rules or votes can overturn and veto the decisions of the representatives of the people?

No political party is above the Constitution. No political party has the right to dictate to state legislatures what laws or acts they may or may not pass. No political party has the right to tell a state governor he can or cannot sign into law a bill passed by the state legislature.

What gives the Republican and the Democratic parties the right to disallow the process of law? Where in the Constitution does it state that political parties, not state legislatures determine how votes are cast or when voting can be done? Decisions about elections are strictly the venue of the states and the Congress. Political parties have no standing under the Constitution to tell a state when they can vote or how they can conduct an election.

Seat Florida and Michigan according to the votes cast during their primaries. These primaries were enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people and signed by the governors of those states who were elected by the people. Makes no difference if the outcome doesn't jive with who wants to sway the outcome of this primary season or not. The elected representatives of the people did what was and is their right under the Constitution.

Political parties have no right to usurp states' rights or the will of the people through their elected representatives.

At least that's the way we see it in the cornfield.

Pundits, talk show hosts, political hacks and others who set themselves out as "experts" and knowledgeable of the facts need to make sure they know what they are talking about before opening their mouths. Most notable of this was on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. One of his guests is a conservative talk show host. The talk show host decided to join in the current uproar over President George Bush's remarks to the Israeli Knesset.

The talk show host attempted to talk about "appeasement" and the dangers of "appeasement" over and over. But when pressed by Chris Matthews to define what appeasment meant and what the term which is applied to actions of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 and 1939, the host after being asked 24 times admitted he had no clue what the term or the actions of 1938 and 1939 were.

This is unacceptable from those who set themselves up to be more learned and knowledgeable than the rest of us in the general public. Here in the cornfield we are well aware and knowledgeable of appeasment.

For those who still do not know, Chamberlain in an attempt to "appease" Nazi Germany leader Adolph Hitler in 1938 and 1939 allowed Hitler to seize Czechoslovakia and later Austria. Chamberlain thought by giving Hitler free rein to take over other countries and make them part of the new German empire (reich), Hitler would be satisfied and not embark on war. Chamberlain was wrong.

It's well and good, we do it here in the cornfield, to come to the defense of others or to speak out for others or support others, but to argue without knowing what you are talking about is unacceptable and could even be dangerous.

We have too many "experts" throwing words around, making judgments, casting aspertions with little or no knowledge or understanding of the facts. You get the wrong listener, one who is not playing with a full deck, to buy into your argument based on supposition and it could lead to tragedy.

If you are going to open your mouth research first. Learn the subject.

As Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States, is credited to have once said, "It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Is it possible to have a frank, honest discussion or critique of race and its impact on politics within the United States of America without charges of racism or divisiveness? Can we look without blinders at what or rather how people of diverse races stand when casting ballots without it divulving to the lowest common denominator?

Race does have an impact within US politics. True Americans are farther down the road towards the world the late Dr. Martin Luther King envisioned where people looked at each other simply as humans rather than the color of their skin, but we are not there yet. We still have a long way to go. But we are progressing.

Here in the cornfield I wonder if the overwhelming support of the black community for Barack Obama may be having a backlash effect? Has the seeming solidarity of the black community proud to have a candidate of their race with a real shot at the White House resulting in a marginalizng affect for their candidate?

Obama has campaigned and stumped on the ideal of looking past race or ethnicity and rising beyond the politics as usual. But the question in the cornfield is has the 90% backing of the black community had the unintended consequence of painting Obama in the minds of many whites, especially those of a lower income bracket and less college educated, to the belief that Obama is not the Democratic candidate, but rather the black candidate?

If there was more diversity in the primary votes for the candidates for the Democratic nomination, would this group of voters who appear to be staunchly against Obama be more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt? If the perception was less of the black community congeling behind Obama's candidacy since he is one of their own be lessened if the black community's vote was more evenly split or not quite so lop sided?

The dream of a colorless America is still alive...but it has not made the crossover from dream to reality...yet...

Like it or not, race still has a role in US politics.

Pandering or not, here in the cornfield we need relief now. Talk of changing the system and future, long-lasting change is all well and good, but action today is needed.

The continuing crises hitting the cornfield is the high, no exorbitant, cost of fuel. Folk in the cornfield can't survive at the current price. It's not only affecting at the gas pump, it's hitting hard at the grocery store and other products.

From the cornfield, I say let the politicians pander. We need help now. Sure the proposed freeze on the gas tax is a ploy, a short-term benefit, but it's better than talk of changing the system some time in the future to provide long-term benefit. With costs the way they are we may not survive to see the long-term benefit. What good is a long-term benefit if we can't live today?

It is even harsher on those of us in the cornfield on fixed incomes. There is no chance of working a second job or getting in over time. We get paid our Social Security once a month and there is no raise for us to help compensate for the ever-rising fuel and food prices.

The critics of the gas tax freeze pooh-pooh the proposal saying it would only return about $30. Well for us in the cornfield that $30 could buy a weeks worth of groceries. The critics also say that it's not a long-term fix to the problem. We get it in the cornfield. Work on the long-term fix, but give us some relief now to let us survive until you get a long-term plan passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

I don't care if it's pandering. If it helps me out today, bring it on!

Relief is needed now - not in the future.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor of presidential hopeful Barack Obama, doesn't seem to understand the full wisdom of Ecclesiastes Chapter 3. That chapter notes there is a time and a season for everything. For Pastor Wright it is time to be silent and fade away to the back pew.

Wright has been on a crusade over the weekend and into this week to save his reputation and legacy. As some pundits have pointed out, it seems the former pastor is more interested in himself and less in the impact his statements have on others. Here in the cornfield the preacher seems to be twisting Scripture to make himself look more favorable. Here in the cornfield Wright just doesn't seem to get it.

Wright, in clintonian style reminiscent of the "right wing conspiracy", is attempting to change the dialogue and shift the vehemence and ignorance of his remarks from himself and painting the controversy as an attack on the black Christian church in the US of A. There is no attack on black Christians or on black churches. What Wright refuses to acknowledge is his own culpability and his own responsibility in the current fray.

It is not an issue with black Christians or the black faith. It is an issue of a man that appears to be eaten with bitterness. While here in the cornfield we can understand the source of the bitterness, it seems to us that the good reverend needs to pay heed to the admonishen in Hebrews Chapter 13 about not allowing bitterness to sprout and bringing about ruin. Rather than langering in the bitterness, Wright needs to free himself from the yoke that enslaves him and stand free...not attempt to disparage others and cast aspertion on those that see not through his tinted eyes.

Rev Wright it is time to quit. Take heed to Ecclesiastes. There is a time and season for everything. Now is not the time to continue fomenting racial divide by obsessing over past injustices by some and painting all those of another race with the same brush. By doing so you become just as guilty as those you accuse.

For the first time in 40 years Indiana primary voters will have a chance to make their voices heard and their votes to count...at least on the Democratic side of the aisle. The ongoing battle between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, with neither side willing to say, "Uncle", has meant that Indiana's late primary actually means something. This has not happened since 1968 when Bobby Kennedy was running for the presidency.

Of course on the Republican side, Senator John McCain has already wrapped up the nomination to vie for the most powerful job on Earth. With Indiana being an open primary state it may be interesting to see how may GOP leaning members choose to cross over and cast a ballot to help determine the outcome of the Democratic contest.

Here in the cornfield we are use to just going through the motions during a presidential primary. True there are other races, municipal, county, state and congressional which give Hoosiers a reason to exercise their franchise. But presidential primary politics have long just been an exercise...nothing more. But not this year. The Indiana primary matters...this time.

From what I am hearing, Hoosiers in the cornfield are more apt to back Hillary than Obama. This is a traditionally red state when it comes to the presidency. I doubt this is going to change. McCain will get Indiana in the fall.

One major player in the Democratic primary is Indiana's junior senator, Evan Bayh. Bayh's popularity is equal to that of the senior senator, Republican Dick Lugar. With Bayh stumping for Clinton, Barack will be hard pressed to pull off a win even though he is from next door.

While Clinton has many obvious drawbacks when compared to the questions surrounding Obama, Hoosiers tend to be more conservative and contemplative in their voting. Bayh's father, a former senator himself, was sent packing by former Vice President Dan Quayle in his bid for the Senate because the elder Bayh was considered too liberal for the cornfield. The junior Bayh learned from the mistake of his father. Evan, whom I have known personally for 20 years, was a popular governor before moving on to the Senate. Evan walks a middle road politically. Evan mirrors Indiana. A lesson and example Lugar has set...though one is Republican and the other Democrat.

So Indiana Democrats...you have a chance to make your voice loud and clear. It has been a long, dry 40 years in the wilderness. Make it count. Vote on May 6.