If I were to vote for them, what would I be voting FOR?
With Obama, I could say plenty. I'm not sure I can say...anything about McCain/Palin, except perhaps anti-intellectualism (and wouldn't that be voting against intellectualism?)
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Another Conservative Bails on Palin
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/09/palin-debacle-on-cbs-evening-n.html
"Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero."
My thoughts exactly, and he's not an elitist independent like me.
"Couric's questions are straightforward and responsible. Palin is mediocre, again, regurgitating talking points mechanically, not thinking. Palin's just babbling. She makes George W. Bush sound like Cicero."
My thoughts exactly, and he's not an elitist independent like me.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Pit Bull? Hardly!
I'd like to ask again, and hope someone answers:
What kind of pit bull hides from the media like Palin has?
What kind of pit bull hides from the media like Palin has?
Meltdown-related Humor
The Financial Meltown
Unlike a lot of bloggers who comment on the state of our financial affairs, I do not pretend to be an expert on what led to our predicament.
However, as is usually the case, based on what I can glean from my better-educated friends, it seems that partisan talking points on both sides contain elements of truth.
Liberals cannot seem to accept the idea that many of the troubled mortgages that have helped lead to this crisis were the fault of the borrowers who signed on the dotted line. Everyone, regardless of their income or education level, has a responsibility to understand what they are getting themselves into. And as usual if you take the left's arguments at face value, somehow the poor were especially easy to dupe and deserve protection.
The right is just as bad, if not worse. What I find so interesting is that many on the right choose to blame government for the problem.
Blaming the government is a cop-out. That is because the biggest factor in the meltdown was the risky deals and over-borrowing made by investment banks and (I assume) hedge funds. Had bank managers acted prudently, low interest rates should not have mattered. If one is responsible for oneself, then the temptation of low interest rates would be avoided. Bad mortgages caused by government rules requiring lending to lower income folks will cause a problem, but it did not cause the constant repackaging of those mortgages into investment vehicles that helped create so many highly-leveraged deals.
A lot of people on the right like to advocate for market solutions and personal responsibility. That is why it's highly ironic that when the market fails because corporate owners do not act responsibly, so many conservatives choose to blame the government.
However, as is usually the case, based on what I can glean from my better-educated friends, it seems that partisan talking points on both sides contain elements of truth.
Liberals cannot seem to accept the idea that many of the troubled mortgages that have helped lead to this crisis were the fault of the borrowers who signed on the dotted line. Everyone, regardless of their income or education level, has a responsibility to understand what they are getting themselves into. And as usual if you take the left's arguments at face value, somehow the poor were especially easy to dupe and deserve protection.
The right is just as bad, if not worse. What I find so interesting is that many on the right choose to blame government for the problem.
Blaming the government is a cop-out. That is because the biggest factor in the meltdown was the risky deals and over-borrowing made by investment banks and (I assume) hedge funds. Had bank managers acted prudently, low interest rates should not have mattered. If one is responsible for oneself, then the temptation of low interest rates would be avoided. Bad mortgages caused by government rules requiring lending to lower income folks will cause a problem, but it did not cause the constant repackaging of those mortgages into investment vehicles that helped create so many highly-leveraged deals.
A lot of people on the right like to advocate for market solutions and personal responsibility. That is why it's highly ironic that when the market fails because corporate owners do not act responsibly, so many conservatives choose to blame the government.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Insta-blogging
One of the key things required to maintain a political blog, it seems, is that unless it's your full-time job, you need to be able to formulate an opinion on any story right away.
I wonder if other bloggers, or readers, have a problem doing that. Personally, it takes a few days' worth of digging into a story to get the details and a wide variety of opinions for me to formulate an opinion of a story, or a proposed policy.
It seems to me to be a good idea, lest I look like a fool for making a snap judgement that turns out to be wrong, a problem that seems to be common among partisan hacks.
I wonder if other bloggers, or readers, have a problem doing that. Personally, it takes a few days' worth of digging into a story to get the details and a wide variety of opinions for me to formulate an opinion of a story, or a proposed policy.
It seems to me to be a good idea, lest I look like a fool for making a snap judgement that turns out to be wrong, a problem that seems to be common among partisan hacks.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Conservatives jumping off the Palin bandwagon
Excellent post by Ross Douthat at the Atlantic:
"Yes, the questions were tougher than the ones that a Tim Kaine or Tim Pawlenty probably would have been handed, but they were all questions that a vice-presidential nominee needs to be able to answer. And there's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage."
Another way of making my point: McCain's campaign is a disappointment to those of us who are serious about good government.
"Yes, the questions were tougher than the ones that a Tim Kaine or Tim Pawlenty probably would have been handed, but they were all questions that a vice-presidential nominee needs to be able to answer. And there's no way to look at her performance as anything save supporting evidence for the non-hysterical critique of her candidacy - that it's just too much, too soon - and a splash of cold water for those of us with high hopes for her future on the national stage."
Another way of making my point: McCain's campaign is a disappointment to those of us who are serious about good government.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
McCain on his campaign's tone
Tonight on the CNN Candidate Forum on National Service, when questioned why his campaign's tone towards Obama's experience as a Community Organizer:
"The tone of this campaign would have been different if Sen. Obama had agreed to my request for town hall meetings..."
Let me get this straight: Obama saying "no" to your request for town hall debates gave you license to come up with crap like Lipstick-gate?
This is why partisan politics is such b.s.
"The tone of this campaign would have been different if Sen. Obama had agreed to my request for town hall meetings..."
Let me get this straight: Obama saying "no" to your request for town hall debates gave you license to come up with crap like Lipstick-gate?
This is why partisan politics is such b.s.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
On Partisanship
"All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They (political parties) serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. "
-George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
Evidence of Washington's wisdom is on full display today: Partisan hacks are seeking to make a scandal out of a cliche. A cliche used infinitely, by so many politicians, by John McCain himself, and by Barack Obama well before Palin was even chosen as a running mate.
We are in the stretch run of an election for Chief Executive Officer of the world's most powerful nation, and one of the candidates has taken the advice of his partisans to make a cliche an issue of major importance.
Does anyone even remember when the McCain campaign was about issues? I know it has not been since the Convention, where the major speeches were completely devoid of any policy positions. Instead, the McCain campaign simply adopted a new slogan, chose a running mate that allowed them to shift to identity politics (any criticism of Palin = misogyny), and made a run for a faction just large enough to win an election.
The hypocrisy of this is stunning. Just weeks ago, before the Dem convention, the McCain campaign focused, with much merit, on Obama's lack of specifics and reliance on star power. What a difference a dew weeks makes: today it is identity polics, factionalism, the "change" slogan, and no specifics whatsoever.
As I've mentioned on Rick Esenberg's blog, hypocrisy is the mothers' milk of partisan politics - it requires the constant justification by your side of that which you'd pillory on the other.
...
Much more than hypocrisy, partisanship is a shortcut to thinking. Plaisted is somewhat right but mostly wrong when he complains constantly about talking-points based arguments from the right. Partisanship dictates, for those who allow it, people's opinions on any given issue. Therefore if a politician with the wrong letter after his or her name uses a cliche that can be stretched (to a mind-boggling extent) to be an attack, then it was an attack. If that politician has the right letter, then it is to be justified as just a cliche, or a remark taken out of context, or whatever else works.
This shortcut to partisanship, more than rank hypocrisy, is the biggest problem. Too many people are willing to tune out the ideas, and the small to large nuggets of truth in arguments made by people simply because of the letter after their name.
-George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796
Evidence of Washington's wisdom is on full display today: Partisan hacks are seeking to make a scandal out of a cliche. A cliche used infinitely, by so many politicians, by John McCain himself, and by Barack Obama well before Palin was even chosen as a running mate.
We are in the stretch run of an election for Chief Executive Officer of the world's most powerful nation, and one of the candidates has taken the advice of his partisans to make a cliche an issue of major importance.
Does anyone even remember when the McCain campaign was about issues? I know it has not been since the Convention, where the major speeches were completely devoid of any policy positions. Instead, the McCain campaign simply adopted a new slogan, chose a running mate that allowed them to shift to identity politics (any criticism of Palin = misogyny), and made a run for a faction just large enough to win an election.
The hypocrisy of this is stunning. Just weeks ago, before the Dem convention, the McCain campaign focused, with much merit, on Obama's lack of specifics and reliance on star power. What a difference a dew weeks makes: today it is identity polics, factionalism, the "change" slogan, and no specifics whatsoever.
As I've mentioned on Rick Esenberg's blog, hypocrisy is the mothers' milk of partisan politics - it requires the constant justification by your side of that which you'd pillory on the other.
...
Much more than hypocrisy, partisanship is a shortcut to thinking. Plaisted is somewhat right but mostly wrong when he complains constantly about talking-points based arguments from the right. Partisanship dictates, for those who allow it, people's opinions on any given issue. Therefore if a politician with the wrong letter after his or her name uses a cliche that can be stretched (to a mind-boggling extent) to be an attack, then it was an attack. If that politician has the right letter, then it is to be justified as just a cliche, or a remark taken out of context, or whatever else works.
This shortcut to partisanship, more than rank hypocrisy, is the biggest problem. Too many people are willing to tune out the ideas, and the small to large nuggets of truth in arguments made by people simply because of the letter after their name.
Pigs and Lipstick - the topic that finally got me blogging
I have put off creating my own blog mainly because of time constraints and because I am afraid I lack the originality required; choosing instead to take the quick and easy way out by commenting on others' posts.
However, I've gotten a couple of requests to expand on my thoughts and today marked an occasion worth blogging about: I made up my mind that I will not support John McCain for President this year.
Despite my criticisms of McCain on other blogs, this is not an easy decision. I was a big McCain fan in 2000. I thought he represented what he now claims to represent: a belief in limited, and most importantly competent government that above all spent taxpayer dollars wisely.
I'll rely on the words of others to help explain it. Andrew Sullivan in this post explains it well: instead of running an honorable campaign focused on reform and competence, McCain has turned his campaign into a freak show. A Dennis Rodman transition from workmanlike, admirable respect to a washed-up joke. A campaign that has gone so low as to resort to identity politics and faux scandal ala Karl Rove's best work.
As Sullivan notes, at one point McCain treated foreign policy as a deadly serious matter worthy of his heroism and experience. That makes the choice of Sarah Palin - a short-term Governor and former small-town mayor with absolutely no foreign policy experience whatsoever - reprehensible for its obvious political basis. McCain says he'd rather win a war and lose an election. With his choice, McCain made it obvious he's so consumed with winning that he'd pander to the whacko fringe of the GOP and create the possibility of putting an inexperience hockey mom in the Oval Office should he not be able to complete his service.
Further, Ms. Palin's acceptance speech, and in fact the entire GOP convention, was the kind of thing McCain would have criticized in 2000. Heavy on partisanship and cheap shots, low on ideas and bucking his own party (his acceptance speech was too little, too late). Ms. Palin's tone had me thinking of nothing but Al Gore's pathetic whining and sighing in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Finally, the hypocrisy required to support this campaign is simply too much:
However, I've gotten a couple of requests to expand on my thoughts and today marked an occasion worth blogging about: I made up my mind that I will not support John McCain for President this year.
Despite my criticisms of McCain on other blogs, this is not an easy decision. I was a big McCain fan in 2000. I thought he represented what he now claims to represent: a belief in limited, and most importantly competent government that above all spent taxpayer dollars wisely.
I'll rely on the words of others to help explain it. Andrew Sullivan in this post explains it well: instead of running an honorable campaign focused on reform and competence, McCain has turned his campaign into a freak show. A Dennis Rodman transition from workmanlike, admirable respect to a washed-up joke. A campaign that has gone so low as to resort to identity politics and faux scandal ala Karl Rove's best work.
As Sullivan notes, at one point McCain treated foreign policy as a deadly serious matter worthy of his heroism and experience. That makes the choice of Sarah Palin - a short-term Governor and former small-town mayor with absolutely no foreign policy experience whatsoever - reprehensible for its obvious political basis. McCain says he'd rather win a war and lose an election. With his choice, McCain made it obvious he's so consumed with winning that he'd pander to the whacko fringe of the GOP and create the possibility of putting an inexperience hockey mom in the Oval Office should he not be able to complete his service.
Further, Ms. Palin's acceptance speech, and in fact the entire GOP convention, was the kind of thing McCain would have criticized in 2000. Heavy on partisanship and cheap shots, low on ideas and bucking his own party (his acceptance speech was too little, too late). Ms. Palin's tone had me thinking of nothing but Al Gore's pathetic whining and sighing in his first debate with George W. Bush in 2000.
Finally, the hypocrisy required to support this campaign is simply too much:
- I have yet to meet a GOP blogger who denies that, if the Dem nominee for VP had a pregnant unmarried teen daughter, right-wing hacks wouldn't use the issue as fodder for complaints about the ticket's lack of family values.
- Ms. Palin, while achieving the not-very-commendable status as slightly better than her fellow Alaskan Republicans, went out of her way to secure federal pork - criticism of which being a major reason I supported McCain - as both Mayor and Governor.
- Ms. Palin continues to use the outright lie, or at the very least massive distortion, that she told the Federal Government "thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere. I'm sorry, but saying no to pork out of a sense of fiscal duty means you RETURN THE MONEY.
- The McCain campaign has engaged in the worst kind of identity politics, again one of the hallmarks of the left that I find so reprehensible. They have the gall to suggest that any questioning or criticism of Gov. Palin equates to misogyny and sexism. Does this tactic remind anyone else of the left on racial issues?
- Today, the McCain campaign went to a new low by inventing a preposterous scandal when Obama had the audacity to use a cliche that contains a word Palin spoke a week ago. A cliche, mind you, that McCain himself used to describe a policy position belonging to a woman, Hillary Clinton.
- I'm sorry, but I haven't met too many ballsy "pitbulls" who avoided the press for two weeks and counting to study so they could answer the public's questions.
I have many issues with Mr. Obama. I am afraid he, and especially Mr. Biden, are far too beholden to the public employee unions. The policy positions described at their convention were, indeed, boilerplate Democratic positions with few innovations or centrist ideals. But, based on the campaign they are running and based on the experience and character of the two men, I can at least respect them at the end of the day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
