I can't stop reading blogs and watching news coverage of the presidential campaign. I realize that I am partisan, but I also hope that I am not partisan to the point of labeling my side as good and the other side as evil. I'm finding that this is really hard not to do. Its so easy to fall into the trap of making everything an argument about personality. I could easily say "Sarah Palin is just like George W. Bush. She's never traveled abroad and uses her religion to justify her personal opinions." There is so much there to attack, that it's hard not to focus on those things. But then the republicans win because Americans vote for the person they'd most like to have a beer with instead of the person with the positions that will most benefit their lives in the next 4 years. So, I can say that what McCain/Palin are calling change is essentially a continuation of the Bush years. And I can say that McCain chose her as a tool to energize the religious right (which so far has been successful). But that doesn't tell you why Obama would be a good president.

Speaking of the religious right... It bugs the hell out of me that they've gotten so excited about Palin before really knowing anything about her. She's Pro-life/Anti-gay/Evangelical therefore she'll be a great potential president. Do they not remember that they are voting for John McCain, for whom James Dobson said he would not vote under any circumstances. She says the right evangelical key-words so conservative Christians love her. But morality encompasses more than just a couple of issues. What about lying? She and John McCain have been putting out so many dishonest claims. Do any of them care how honest their Christian candidate is?

Of course, none of what I have said above will change any minds. For most people, the line is drawn and their heels are dug in. Palin could maul a baby like the pit-bull she claims to be, and they would find a way to justify it. I do understand that voters on both sides are this way but my personal view is that one side is putting out a lot more lies than the other. So, I'm including 3 videos. The first one is all about facts. It comes from the nonpartison factcheck.org. The next two are from The Daily Show. I still don't understand why John Stewart does such a better job at pointing out political bullshit than real news outlets do.







If you are still undecided, there is no excuse. Do a little research. Think about how you want this country to look in 4 years. Do you want things to be the same? Or should we take a chance on a change in policy? And remember: Abortion is legal and that won't likely change no matter who the president is. And, thankfully, gay marriage will be here in a few years whether you like it or not. So why make a decision based on these two wedge issues? If you do, then you are letting yourself be a puppet of a political tactic perfected by a man who isn't even a believer himself (think Karl Rove).

Anonymous –   – (September 15, 2008 at 11:12 AM)  

Do political ads fascinate you as much as they do me?

Anderson  – (September 15, 2008 at 2:39 PM)  

Here's the thing: To me the issue you are arguing is a parody of itself. Not that it isn't appropriate or intelligent; It is. It's just that if we aren't arguing over abortion, gay rights, etc we are arguing over the fact that we are arguing over these kinds of subjects. I work in a book store. The books that come out on these media created candidates say nothing of the government they will run. Sometimes the book isn't just a simple bio of a minority pulling himself up by his bootstraps or the "maverick" that stood up under torture. Sometimes they suppose fairy tale policies. The latest is Obama's "Bottom up economics" a "replacement" for "Trickle down economics." These suggestions are ridiculous, and I believe personally that they are propaganda. The same way Henson and Lewis used literal puppets to drive home points, the government/corporate media empire use the same kind of thing in a more figurative way. What issues need to be discussed? Health care? Recession? Troops in other countries? Now what happens each time one of these things is brought up? I have the guy on NPR saying something to me about it, then Obama or McCain might say something really general about one of these issues, suddenly that general concept is abracadabraed into a comment about the polarizing choice of a vice president or the question of experience being too little or too late. It's all a cover up, Amigo! The FED is buying out all these major banks, families are losing homes, I can't afford to fill up my gas tank to get to work and I work 65 hours a week. I'm 25 and I honestly have no idea how unions work, even though I did see that "Hoffa" movie with Jack Nicholson thanks to the infamous five dollar wal-mart bin.
Your former next door neighbor is voting on a third party candidate and hoping that campaigns like the Kucinich and Paul camps continue to grow stronger in the future and that eventually we as a country stop voting on presidents the way we vote off contestants on American Idol.

Anonymous –   – (September 15, 2008 at 6:12 PM)  

Wow, talk about chewing up the liberal left talking points and spewing them right back out for us. I agree, though, it would be nice if we could all get focused on the real issues of the campaign and stop all the annoying back-and-forth crap. I'd rather hear Obama and McCain both tell me honestly why I should vote for each of them than hear them tell me why I shouldn't vote for the other, as if I can't make up my own mind.

Kevin  – (September 15, 2008 at 7:52 PM)  

A talking point isn't a bad thing when its true.

Anonymous –   – (September 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM)  

I didn't say a talking point was a bad thing... I was simply trying to say that you kind of sound like a parrot. So I guess I'll be a puppet and you can be a parrot. ; )

Kevin  – (September 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM)  
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin  – (September 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM)  

Yeah, but what do you think about the premise of the Christians being used by the republican party? Or the fact that Palin knowingly distorts the truth?

Anonymous –   – (September 18, 2008 at 8:16 PM)  

I think everyone should be careful not to vote just based on party. I prefer to classify myself as an independent voter for the simple fact that I don't want either party to think they have my vote in their pocket and don't need to worry about catering to my needs or wants in any way. I want to vote for the person who I think will be best for the country, who will stand up for the things I think are important, and, yes, who will be aligned most closely with my moral standards. I think this is an important point to vote on. Others may not, but that's their prerogative, and I'm sure we all have different issues we find most important to vote for. So I don't think we should denigrate the reasons that people may have for why they choose whom they choose. I just think it's important to know why... too many people just blindly go with whoever is most popular, or whoever sounds the best, or whoever has the best war record. We should take the vote more seriously in this country and find out who we're voting for and be able to tell people why. As far as Palin knowingly distorting truth, I don't really know what you are referencing but you can feel free to enlighten me.

Post a Comment