All Posts From the ‘Politics’ Category

7 tips for talking about hot-button issues

Over the last couple months, I’ve engaged in dozens of conversations about religion, politics, and other sensitive topics. The conversations have been online and offline and with people with whom I agree and disagree, in some cases vehemently. After some reflection, I wanted to point out a few things that I’ve learned can be helpful when approaching these kinds of issues. I’m still working on these, and my critics will be quick to tell you that I’ve still got a long way to go. They’re absolutely right. But you have to start somewhere.

Many will probably disagree with my fundamental premise, which is that dialogue is valuable and is the only true path to understanding.

1. Initiate dialogue with those you disagree with
Far too many of us avoid talking about the deepest and most meaningful issues of life, often because we dislike conflict, we fear not knowing the right answers, or perhaps we’re afraid of offending someone. Whatever the reason, the result is that many of us live in ideological bubbles where ideas are seldom challenged and beliefs are rarely scrutinized. There are many people who harbor deep feelings of resentment and dislike, even hatred, towards people who hold opposing viewpoints on religion or politics, but they have never actually had an open and honest conversation with those people.

2. Seek to understand the other side
If you approach these conversations with the goal of changing the other person’s mind, you’re almost certainly going to be disappointed. Now, I know that it’s unrealistic to go into a tough conversation on a controversial issue when you have a dearly held position and truly have an open mind. But do your best. Try and set aside the preconceived notions you have and really listen to what the other person is saying. It might not be as ridiculous as you thought. Even if you still disagree after hearing them out, you may find that you respect them and their beliefs more than you did.

3. Find common ground
When going into tough discussions with people we disagree with, we tend to focus more on what we differ on than what we have in common. This is a mistake, as it sets people as enemies when they may agree on many of the most important points of their positions. A good example of this is the incredible fracturing that occurs in most major religious traditions over the most trivial minutia, despite the fact that they agree on almost all the key tenets of the faith.

4. Keep your emotions in check
Emotion and passion are useful, but only when they are tightly controlled. It’s natural for you to feel something when faced with things you disagree with strongly, but if you let your emotions fuel your reaction, the entire discussion will be useless, and is likely to make things worse. Be calm and rational as best you can, and if you can’t, put the conversation aside until you can. This is one reason that discussing things online or via email is often more useful; each side can take the time to think things through carefully and let their emotions settle down.

5. Stay away from personal attacks
One of my favorite moments in all the debates leading up to the presidential election was when Joe Biden talked about how it’s ok to question people’s judgement, but don’t question their motives. I think this is great advice in general. The truth about liberals and conservatives is that they both love America and want to see Americans succeed and do well; they just differ somewhat about the best way to accomplish that. When you accuse someone of being unpatriotic because of a political belief, or otherwise impugn their character, you only do damage to your own credibility and character. Stick to the issues.

6. Admit when you’re wrong
You don’t think you’ve always got it figured out, right? You will be wrong. When you are, admit it, learn from your mistake, and move on. And take heart…finding out that you’re wrong is a great thing, because you’ve eliminated another incorrect belief from your worldview. Progress :-)

7. Don’t get discouraged
The truth is that even if you follow the above (and any other great advice), you probably won’t see a lot of change in other people’s positions or in your own. People tend to hold many of these beliefs as a part of their overall identity, and getting them (or yourself) to think about them differently is challenging because they feel like they’re losing control over who they are at the core. But do not give up. I am living proof that rational discussion can change at least some minds. It may take years, but it can happen. And you might find that you change your mind on a few things, too.

I’d love to know if you think these tips make these kinds of discussions worth having, or if you have any others to share. Post them below…

Does it make sense to debate and argue about politics and religion at all?

Confession: I love to argue. I love the clash of ideas and defending a position for the fun of it. Sometimes this gets me in trouble, as I find myself defending a viewpoint against someone who is deeply offended because they don’t share my love of debate. Putting that issue aside, my question is this: does it even make sense to debate these hot-button issues that get people’s emotions flared up so easily? Can anything constructive come out of a discussion over liberal ideology vs. conservative ideology? Or do they inevitably devolve into name-calling and insults? How can we keep these discussions constructive and discover truth? I’ve got some ideas on the subject that I’m going to share in an upcoming post, but I’d like to hear people’s thoughts. Post yours in the comments.

Be a part of the change in America. Go vote today.

The heart and soul of America is stirring to life. I won’t offer any tired speeches about how we’re fed up with the same-old brand of politics and power. I won’t tell you how important it is that you get involved. I’ll just point you to this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/on-the-ground-2008

If over a thousand college student can drag themselves out into the cold before 7am on a Tuesday morning, you can too. If millions of people all around the country can brave long lines, snow, rain, freezing cold, and the loss of their valuable time, all to make sure their voices are heard, so can you. There is something incredible happening out there today. Please go be a part of it.

Fighting the pull of political cynicism

Warning: this is yet another post about politics. Ugh…I know. Hang in there; it’ll all be over soon.

The election season is simultaneously a frustrating and enjoyable time for me. I enjoy talking about politics, and I’m always frustrated to see the way that campaigns and public discourse deteriorates over time. I enjoy talking to friends and family about political perspectives and hearing about how people make the decisions they do. One of the most common sentiments that I hear from people is some variation of one or more of the following: I don’t care, all politicians are crooks, my vote doesn’t matter, etc. This kind of political cynicism is very common and understandable. Are politics twisted at times? Yes. Do politicians have egos and pursue their elections with a certain selfish aim? Absolutely. Does that make politics worthless as a national concern? No, I don’t believe so.

Politics and and public policy are infuriating at times, but they do matter. They have a tremendous impact on the people of this country, the world, and future generations. Not everyone has the disposition to read and ponder the arcane language of some obscure piece of legislation, but it’s worth remembering that those pieces of legislation have a real impact on people’s lives, and they deserve our scrutiny and consideration as a result. I also think the best chance that the average person has to impact these things is vote. How do you as an individual have an impact upon the economic situation in this country other than your vote?

I understand the anger and frustration with politics and our obsession over it during election season, but I also think that we must be careful that we don’t go too far in our anger. Political cynicism is tempting because it’s an easy and seemingly reasonable retreat from the 24-hour news coverage and obsessive nitpicking over trivial minutia that goes on in the final days of an election, but it’s ultimately the most dangerous position of all, because cynicism leads to apathy. And apathy among the masses leaves our nation and its future in the hands of those who are unlikely to protect it.

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

~Plato

Goal and habit update - Sept. 2008

Where does the first week of the month go? Seriously, I seem to wake from some kind of slumber every month on the 7th or 8th and realize that we’re already 25% of the way through the month. It’s very frustrating :-)

I’ve decided I’m going to offer folks a monthly update on my goals and habits and how things are going. That way, if you don’t care, you only have to skip one “progress report” post per month.

September was the battleground for my first month of my new goal plan. Here are the highlights:

  • Of 13 goals, I completed 7, or 54%
  • Out of 22 days for my seven habits (I do them mon-fri), I did them an average of 56% of the time
  • My weekly habits were done 50% of the time
  • I completed both of my monthly habits, or 100%

Granted, those first three numbers aren’t great. But I was only a day or two short on several of the uncompleted goals, so that hurt me. Overall, I wish things were better, but I’m happy with the fact that I have a plan, am working the plan, and am tracking my progress. Here’s a few of the completed and uncompleted goals, in case you were wondering :-)

Completed:

  • Run an 8 minute mile (sad, I know)
  • Do 50 pushups
  • Do 5 pullups
  • $1000 emergency fund
  • Complete a financial review
  • Combined blog / twitter subscribers of 200

Uncompleted:

  • Emergency kit
  • Read a Christian book
  • Launch BlueSwarm
  • Complete real estate review

I’ve moved the uncompleted goals into my October set of goals, plus my new ones, so we’ll see if I do any better at the end of this month :-)

Why I’m voting at all (and not for a 3rd party)

Warning: this post is about politics, so please skip it if that doesn’t interest you. I’ve got a few more political posts over the next couple weeks, but things will die down in that department after the election, I’m sure. Until then, thanks for bearing with me :-)

As I wrote last week, I’ve decided to vote for Barack Obama. Many of my family members and friends who are conservative Republicans were dismayed to hear this, but the feedback I got overall from people on both sides was generally respectful and intellectual, with a few notable exceptions. One of the excellent questions that many people sent my way was this: if I disagree with Obama on many issues (which I do), why vote for him at all? Why not sit the election out or vote for a third-party candidate as a matter of principle? It’s a great question and I wanted to talk a bit about my reasoning here.

The option of not voting or voting for a third-party candidate was one that I wrestled with for some time before making my decision. I actually campaigned for Dr. Ron Paul during the primaries, which might surprise some of my readers, as Dr. Paul’s views and positions are drastically different from Obama’s. But the truth is that I have never met a politician that I agreed with on everything. So in some sense (though I disagree with the term), I’m always voting for the “lesser of evils”, even if I vote for a third-party candidate. In this case, I made the judgment to vote for Obama instead of a third-party candidate for two reasons:

1. I’m a pragmatist. Either Obama or McCain is going to be President, and I want the one that will do the better job. One of the valid points that someone has raised is that this position sounds like all I’m interested in is winning, rather than the defense and support of the truth, as I have accused many in the Republican party. I think the crucial difference is that the Republicans that I’m speaking about are so consumed with the attainment and retention of power that they are unwilling to admit any failings or shortcomings in their own party, or admit anything positive in the other. And as I talked about at length, they have turned a blind eye to lies and injustice if they believe it will help them win. On the other hand, I’ve tried to speak out against lies on both sides (and I will be doing so more). I certainly don’t agree with the Democrats or Obama on everything, and I’m willing to speak about those things when asked. But I still believe that Obama will make a much, much better president than McCain.

2. Positions and policy aren’t everything. Despite the “lesser of evils” theory and being practical, there is a tipping point at which both options are too evil to support. However, though that point has been reached with McCain for me, that point has not been reached with Obama. I truly believe that Obama’s motives and integrity are in the right place, though this is just my opinion and is very subjective. If I felt the way about Obama that I feel about McCain, I would vote for a third party or not vote.

Both of these points are very subjective and personal in nature, so some may be unsatisfied with this explanation. All I can tell you is that it was a tough decision and I only made it after significant research and reflection. I hope that everyone puts as much (or more) honest effort into making their decision in the coming weeks, and I deeply respect those who do, regardless of whether their conclusion agrees with mine.

Why I’m Voting for Barack Obama

I’ve made a very tough decision: I’m voting for Barack Obama. I’m sure that many of my Republican and conservative friends and family will be deeply dismayed to hear this, but I would ask them to hear me out with an open mind before firing up the prayer chains. I would also ask that before contacting me, you read this post in its entirety and take some time to ponder. I would absolutely love to have a logical and well-reasoned discussion with anyone on the things I’ve written below. I am determined to fight to discover the truth and defend it at all costs. I’m absolutely willing to change my mind if the case can be made that I should. However, if you intend to contact me with an emotional diatribe about how I’ve been swayed by the liberal media, how Obama is a baby-killing terrorist sympathizer, how you just know in your heart that the liberal establishment will destroy everything we hold dear, accusations of my faith being in jeopardy, or any other unfounded hysterics, please don’t bother.

Also, please be aware that most of this post is my opinion and is to be treated as such. Also be advised that I am well aware that not all Republicans (or Democrats) feel the same way. I have tried to qualify my statements as much as possible and make it clear that I am speaking about the majority of Republicans and the direction of the Republican party in general, not every single individual.

Before I get into the meat of my post, I should give you a little background on my life. I grew up in a staunchly conservative and Christian family, which in my mind was synonymous with being a Republican. I remember watching the election results in 1992 with a group of people that included my parents and many of their closest friends. I remember the deep dismay and disappointment in that group when Bush lost to Clinton, as if we were at a funeral. I remember it again when Clinton defeated Dole in the 1996 election. I remember the mood among many Republicans (elation?) when Clinton was impeached in the late 1990’s. I remember our excitement when Bush, a no-nonsense Christian conservative (that I voted for) defeated Al Gore in 2000.

I graduated high school and enlisted in the US Navy, graduating boot camp on September 13, 2001. I was sent overseas to Italy, where I was stationed for 2.5 years. The military already tends to lean conservative, and in the years after 9/11, we tended to view Bush as a tenacious defender of freedom and democracy around the world. I argued stridently for the Republican cause, convinced that our actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world were justified in name of defeating terrorism. I voted for Bush again in 2004, though by this time, Iraq was starting to look a little less black-and-white to me.

I got out of the Navy and went back to the University of Colorado for business. I took all the usual business classes, but I also took a few classes which would end up having a huge effect on my perspective, including topics like macro- and micro-economics, formal logic, human anthropology, developmental economics, energy science, and globalization. For some of these classes, I couldn’t get enough, and for others, I was a voice of dissent on much of what I viewed as liberal thought. But being exposed to some very different perspectives than I had grown up with was good for me, especially since the environment there was one that encouraged dialogue, examining the evidence, and forming conclusions based on that evidence.

I’m sure that many conservatives will read this looking for some clue of exactly where I was misled or duped into believing the great lie of liberalism. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint, but there’s nothing there. I’m not a liberal, and my political views fall much closer to true conservatism (or libertarianism, as some like to call it) than they do to liberalism.

As recently as a couple years ago, I viewed John McCain as a maverick, a man of honor, and someone who was willing to place himself in political peril to follow his conscience. He had a record of crossing the aisle and working with Democrats, and I admired that. He was a war hero, clearly a man of courage, and independently-minded. Though I didn’t agree with his policies or positions in many areas, particularly the war in Iraq, I admired him for being willing to tell it like it is.

But over the last few years, something gradually began to change. McCain started voting with his party and the President more and more. He started changing his positions on things, and he started saying things that didn’t turn out to be true. The trend has worsened over the last six months, but the tipping point was McCain selecting Palin as his running mate. That a man of his experience would select an arrogant, inexperienced, ignorant, and dishonest woman that he had only briefly met twice to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency indicates that McCain is no longer the man of character that I once thought him to be, but rather a man who will do anything to win. The last three weeks have only confirmed it, as Palin has repeatedly demonstrated her ignorance and arrogance, repeating the same discredited lies over and over, often with McCain at her side. It seems as if almost everything either of them say at this point is either a distortion of the truth or just empty words with no meaning.

However, what’s even more troubling to me than McCain’s and Palin’s repeated lies and distortions of the truth is the complete and total unwillingness of a single Republican that I know personally to admit it. Not one Republican that I know has been able to say “That’s not true. I support McCain and his policies, but he’s lying. He should apologize immediately.” Not a single Republican that I know or have talked to has been able to admit that picking Palin was a cheap political trick. Not a single Republican that I have talked to has had a single good thing to say about Obama. Not one. Only one has had anything negative to say about the prospects of a McCain / Palin presidency.

Why is that? Why would so many Republicans, who pride themselves on having the moral high ground and many of whom are people of faith, tolerate (or encourage) such blatant lies and distortions of the truth? Well, I believe it’s because they want to win, more than they want to be champions of truth. Like so many who determine to fight against something worth fighting against, the Republicans have become the very monster they hate, in three ways:

They’ve lost their focus on small government
Traditionally for small, limited government and states’ rights over a large Federal government, the Republicans of today offer not small government and a policy of fiscal conservatism, but big government and a policy of spending far more than we bring in and borrowing the difference. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of a humble, non-interventionist foreign policy. Now we’re mired in two wars that will cost the taxpayers over a trillion dollars. We have seen the Federal government attempting to consolidate more and more power under Bush. But perhaps the most telling change we’ve seen is the sheer increase in the size of the Federal government combined with a huge decrease in the revenue we bring in. Here’s a quote from an article about the official estimates from the Congressional Budget Office:

In 2001, CBO predicted the federal government would amass surpluses totaling $5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period. Now, CBO data show a cumulative deficit of $3.8 trillion over that same period. That’s a $9.4 trillion deterioration, $7.2 trillion of which was caused by policy actions. Tax cuts and security-related spending increases caused 83 percent of that.

They’ve lost their moral compass
Ironically, I believe that the reason that Republicans have lost their moral compass is due to the commingling of the Republican party and Christianity (the Religious Right). Evangelicals in particular, convinced that they needed to save this country from its impending moral downfall, resolved to become more active in politics. This in itself is not a bad thing, but somewhere along the way, Evangelicals began to focus more on political power to defend virtue than the virtue itself. They assured themselves that they could defeat evil through legislation and judicial influence, and pursued those aims with fervor. The results have been disastrous, as Christians and conservatives have fought to change the heart of this country from the top-down via legislation and judicial decisions aimed at defending “traditional values”. Aside from the fact that this approach can never be effective, the greater travesty is that in their pursuit of legislative and judicial influence, Evangelicals have lost sight of the very values they were trying to defend. The pursuit of justice and truth became less important than winning elections and passing laws. Exacerbating the problem has been political strategists like Karl Rove and Steve Schmidt, who have shamelessly exploited the propensity of this demographic to be “single-issue” voters, usually around abortion. These strategists have worked hard behind the scenes to inflame emotions and passions in the party faithful and painted the debate in terms of these moral and social issues. The result today is a party made up largely of Christians and other believers who are unwilling to condemn dishonesty and injustice if they believe the results will be in the favor of their cause. After reading too many accounts of voter purging and other electioneering tactics in the 2000, 2004, and perhaps the 2008 election, almost always at the behest and benefit of Republicans, I am convinced that many in the Republican party no longer care one whit for fairness, democracy, or liberty, but only for the protection and exercise of power at any cost.

They’ve forgotten what makes America great
Republicans over the last eight years have repeatedly shown that they are willing to sacrifice freedom and liberty for the sake of security, with the War on Terror serving as the battleground for this ideological battle. Let me be clear: terrorism is a horrific thing, and deserves our full fury and strength in response. We should never tolerate it, and we should never negotiate with it. But if our response sinks us to a level where we’re no better than the monster we fight, is it worth it? We have stripped away the rights of thousands of terrorism “suspects”, thrown them into secret prisons without explanation or notification to their families, held them for years without charges or trial, tortured them, and then released them without apology or explanation. Many of these people were treated this way on the slimmest of evidence, perhaps only because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. To watch those who claim to follow the teachings of Christ try and justify these actions turns my stomach. Domestically, we have seen the encroachment of more and more of our civil liberties in the name of security, and the executive branch has attempted to lay claim to far more power than it is entitled to, laying waste to the system of checks and balances our founding fathers so carefully crafted. On top of all of this, much of this has been done in secret and in violation of the Constitution. And rather than offering a message of change and accountability, Palin throws out snarky comments about how Obama is too concerned with reading terrorists their rights, to hysterical cheers of the party faithful. No, Ms. Palin, we’re just concerned with making sure that people like you don’t strip away the rights that our founding fathers called inalienable.

The Republican party of today uses fear and the constant threat of a terrible enemy to justify violating the Constitution, impugning the character of their rivals, and attacking the patriotism of any who disagree. One need only spend a few minutes watching the Republican National Convention with an open mind to understand what I’m talking about. How many times have we heard Bush and Cheney tell us about the grave dangers that we’ve been spared as a result of allowing further encroachment of our rights? How many times have we seen Republican pundits imply or claim outright that liberals hate America, hate freedom, tolerate terrorism, or any other despicable nonsense? This sort of ideological terrorism is designed to silence all dissent and appeal to a part of the human psyche that devalues reason and logic in favor of panic and acquiescence for security’s sake. And too often, it is successful, as people cower in fear and refuse to speak out against such propaganda for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer. The case is often made that if we don’t strip away these rights “just for a little while”, there will be nothing left to protect. So be it! This country was founded on the unquenchable fire of belief by a group of determined men and women who risked everything–their lives, their fortunes, and their reputations, in order that liberty might be bought. As Patrick Henry proclaimed, “Give me liberty or give me death!” Where are the patriots of today in the Republican party who are willing to sacrifice anything for freedom? If the price of security is the loss of liberty, then we as a nation should be willing to lay down our lives, just as the great patriots who came before us were willing to do. As Benjamin Franklin said, if we give up our freedom for the sake of security, we will ultimately end up with neither.

I’m sure many conservatives at this point are wondering why I think Obama is any better. Just like I do with McCain, I disagree with many of Obama’s policies and positions. I don’t care for his trend towards larger government and his views on gun control. I disagree with him on abortion, though not with the vehemence and vitriol that many Republicans do. I disagree with him to some extent on health care, though the health care debate in this country is far more complex than most people understand or are willing to admit. To the extent that his campaign has misrepresented the truth or the positions of their opponent, I strongly disagree. I do agree with him on some very important things, including foreign policy, the War in Iraq, and civil liberties. I am convinced that unlike McCain, Obama will not lead us into another war unless we are attacked.

Policy and positions aside, I deeply admire Obama’s character and background. He seems to be a prudent and temperate man who practices what he preaches. I admire the fact that he attended one of the best colleges in the country (Columbia), despite coming from a background that certainly didn’t predispose him to that. I admire him for being willing to serve some of the poorest parts of Chicago as a community organizer for a cause that he believed in, not for money, fame, or power. I admire him for attending one of the best law schools in the country (Harvard) and graduating Magna Cum Laude. I admire him for using his legal training as a civil rights attorney, helping give a voice to those who have none. I admire him for teaching Constitutional law at another of the best law schools in the country (Chicago) for twelve years, demonstrating a commitment to knowledge and to the Constitution, two qualities that have been sorely lacking over the last eight years. As one conservative who has endorsed Obama put it, it’s comforting to consider having a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.

On a side note, I despise the vicious streak in many Republicans today that tend to view all of the above and disregard it. “Community organizer…haha! Civil rights attorney…who cares? Graduate and teacher at some of the world’s best schools…whatever, they’re just liberal institutions.” The worst of these displays was at the Republican convention, when several of the party’s leaders openly mocked Obama’s commitments and accomplishments in these areas. Disgusting.

I’m not sure how much weight this should have on how we vote, but I also admire his personal life. Though wealthy by most standards, his family owns one car (a hybrid, of course). He has been married only once, and by all indications, has a great relationship with his wife and daughters, despite the stress of the national spotlight. You can tell by looking at his children’s faces and the way they interact with their parents that they have grown up in a loving home. I also admire the fact that his wife is well-educated and well-spoken and has served in a leadership role for non-profits for causes she believes in. And I deeply admire their marital relationship, which is a phenomenal model to the nation of what marriage should be, something we’ve not had in the white house for quite some time.

I admire that he has been willing to put himself in political peril to work towards goals he believes in. A good example is the fact that he spoke out against the Iraq war in 2002 and 2003 as a state senator, despite widespread support for the war on both sides of the political spectrum. As a state senator, he had nothing to gain from making such statements; the easy thing would have been to say nothing. And I know this is going to shock people, but I actually admire him for working with Bill Ayers on a cause he believed in. To have refused to work with Ayers on a worthwhile goal for fear of hurting his political image because of something that happened four decades ago, deplorable as it was, would have been a cheap and self-serving political move. Knowing someone and even working with them on a cause does not mean you agree with them on everything.

Finally, I admire his ability to grasp complexity and nuance and wrestle with it appropriately, rather than painting the world in black and white. This propensity has cost him, as trying to explain a balanced position on some complex and emotional issues makes for poor sound-bites, causing people to accuse him of being verbose and waffling. But I do not want another President who shoots from the hip, who makes decisions with his (or her) gut, or who fails to recognize and assess complexity. Increasingly, McCain has shown himself to be that kind of leader, and Palin has no other choice, as she apparently has virtually no experience or knowledge to fall back on.

As I said, I do not agree with many of Obama’s policies, and I think that some of them will eventually do harm to this country. But the Republicans have lost something far more important than having a better policy position: their integrity. They’re so consumed with winning the culture war at any cost that they’ve sacrificed the very morals and values they claim they’re trying to defend. Perhaps one day they’ll realize it and return to the roots of the true conservative movement. Until then, I cannot vote for a candidate who repeatedly lies to the American public and continues to advocate stripping away our freedoms with the hubris that only comes from knowing that his constituency will allow it.

Shame on us all.

True Courage and Honor: Five Conservatives Who Are Speaking Up

WARNING: This post is about politics, so please skip it if you don’t care :-)

This post makes me very happy to be able to write. Here are five conservatives who have had the courage and decency to speak up with the truth about McCain and / or Palin. I don’t agree with them on all points, and I think they’re being far too generous to McCain / Palin in some cases, but at least they’re speaking up. Perhaps there’s hope for true conservatism yet.

“Palin Problem” by Kathleen Parker

“Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.”

“Experience Matters” by David Brooks

“Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she’d be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.”

“Palin the Irresponsible Choice?” by David Frum

“Should John McCain lose in November, Sarah Palin has just pole-vaulted into front-runner status for 2012. Should Mr. McCain win, her grip on the next Republican nomination will become a lock.

So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It’s not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.”

“McCain Loses His Head” by George Will

“Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?”

“A Conservative for Obama” by Wick Allison

“But today it is so-called conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt. Facing this, John McCain pumps his “conservative” credentials by proposing even bigger tax cuts. Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask.

Today it is conservatives, not liberals, who talk with alarming bellicosity about making the world “safe for democracy.” It is John McCain who says America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth.

Barack Obama is not my ideal candidate for president. (In fact, I made the maximum donation to John McCain during the primaries, when there was still hope he might come to his senses.) But I now see that Obama is almost the ideal candidate for this moment in American history. I disagree with him on many issues. But those don’t matter as much as what Obama offers, which is a deeply conservative view of the world. Nobody can read Obama’s books (which, it is worth noting, he wrote himself) or listen to him speak without realizing that this is a thoughtful, pragmatic, and prudent man. It gives me comfort just to think that after eight years of George W. Bush we will have a president who has actually read the Federalist Papers.”

The truth is devastating, is it not?

Distortion of the Day: Obama’s Experience

One of the favorite talking points of some of my Republican friends is that Barack Obama only had 143 days of “actual work experience” before he announced his Presidential campaign. I had heard this many times, but I’d never stopped to investigate. Turns out it’s more than a little misleading, if not a downright falsehood. Obama was sworn in as a Senator in January 2005 and announced his candidacy in February 2007, more than two years later. So where did the 143 day figure come from? I can’t tell for sure, but I suspect that it refers to the number of days that the Senate was in session AND Obama was there. Even if that’s the case (and I’m checking), this is misleading for two reasons:

  1. To imply that a United States Senator is only working when Congress is in session demonstrates either malice or stupidity. Do these people honestly believe that for the other 600 or so days that Obama was a Senator, he was kicking back at home with a beer?
  2. If Obama’s experience only counts for when Congress was in session, then isn’t the same true for McCain? So I would expect that Republicans will downgrade McCain’s 26-year Senate career to only about ten years or so. The idiocy of this reflects the idiocy of claiming that Obama only has 143 days of work experience.

This is just another clear example of how some Republicans are willing to twist and malign the truth in order to build the case they want to build. But if their case is worth building, then it certainly doesn’t need the help of a lie. This is so clear in this example, as two years of Senate experience stacked against Senate 26 years of experience makes the case just as well as 143 days against 26 years. Why lie? Why not stay above reproach?

Here’s some more info and sources…I want to dig a little deeper into the 143-day number to see if that’s even true, but even if it is, it’s still very misleading.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1032608/barack_obamas_143_days_of_experience.html

1) Cheri Jacobus posted her article on The Loft, the blog for GOPUSA, on May 5, 2008 :
www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=707

2) Barack Obama took the oath of office for the Senate on January 4, 2005:
obama.senate.gov/about/

3) Barack Obama announced his presidential exploratory committee on January 16, 2007:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16652674/

4) Barack Obama made his formal announcement speech on February 10, 2007:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IHvOYY6feI

5) The US Senate was in session for the following number of days since Barack Obama took office:
2005 - 136 days
2006 - 136 days
2007 - 180 days
2008 - 136 days as of Sept 12

thomas.loc.gov/home/ds/

Why the “liberal media bias” is no excuse to stick your head in the sand

I’m getting a little tired of Republicans attacking the integrity of my political positions and assuming that because I don’t agree with them on something, I’ve been duped by the “liberal media”. If you want to actually talk about the issues, then we can. However, avoiding intelligent and reasonable dialogue by questioning the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you is insulting and only highlights the weakness of your position.

Most Republicans that I talk to always seem to assume that to the extent that I disagree with them, it must be due to my being influenced by the bias and attacks of the “liberal / left-wing media”. What’s worse is that they’re always peddling conservative pundits and commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity as better sources of info. They freak out if I post an article from the Wall Street Journal or The Associated Press, but then gleefully send me articles from CitizenLink, WorldNetDaily, and ExposeObama.com. Many of these people might be surprised to know that I already regularly read articles and posts from sources like that, some for the info and some for the pure comedic value. I’m also happy to check out the ones that I haven’t read before and see if I find anything interesting. I regularly read conservative and Republican blogs and websites, and I look up clips from conservative TV shows when they deal with something interesting. Anytime I’m in the car, I try to listen to political talk radio, which is overwhelmingly conservative. But you have to keep something in mind: for almost ALL of those sources, I am listening to them for their OPINION of the facts, not for the facts themselves. Here’s why:

Almost none of the sources that Republicans (at least the ones I’m always hearing from) trust are sources of original research. In other words, those organizations, which are almost all self-described as being biased to the conservative side, have a mission of giving a conservative viewpoint and perspective to the facts. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is crucial to understand that they are editorial sources, not original sources. They do not send out reporters, they don’t conduct investigations, they don’t interview people, and they don’t cover events live. They are NOT news sources, they are opinion sources.

So ask yourself this: where do THEY get their facts? If you read pretty much any article on any of those types of sources, they talk about how Obama did this and McCain did that and this is what it means. They quote people and they give numbers and they build a case for their opinion. All this is well and good, by the way. But where do they get that information in the first place? What’s the original source? How does Rush know what Obama said at a press conference, or how much McCain has collected in campaign donations, or where Palin was mayor? Where do the quotes and financial numbers come from? Where do the photos come from? None of these organizations are collecting them themselves, so they must be getting them from someone else.

Turns out that they’re getting their facts from the same place I am: the mainstream media. They watch the wire services (Associated Press and Reuters), TV news channels (CNN, MSNBC, Fox), newspapers, and other “mainstream” journalistic sources.

(Side note: I’ve often wondered exactly how these people determine what sources are “left-wing / liberal”? Is it just anyone who disagrees with them or ever prints anything positive about Obama or negative about McCain? What’s their evidence to support their indictment that certain sources are “left-wing” and therefore not to be trusted? I haven’t gotten an answer yet.)

Now, journalists aren’t perfect. They’re human beings, and they have natural bias that DOES creep into their work. This bias goes both ways, but let’s assume that bias in the “mainstream media” is primarily liberal in nature (highly debatable). The fact that there is some bias doesn’t mean that those sources have no value. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Journalistic integrity is not completely dead, at least not yet. Journalists actually DO strive to be fair and balanced for the most part. Some might disagree with that last part, but my question is this:

Why not go to the original source? How can one make the case that instead of going to the slightly biased original source, I should instead go to someone who takes that original source, wraps it in their opinion so it fits their ideology, and then feeds it to me as news? And I should have that be my only source of information? And the worst part is, those sources have told me that they’re biased! So why should I trust that the picture they’re painting for me is the whole picture? Why should I believe that they’ll faithfully report the facts, even if they’re damaging to their cause? Why should I think that they’re going to show me both sides equally, the pros and the cons? Of course they won’t: they’re in the business of selling a conservative ideology, and those things don’t sell their product very well.

The entire problem can be avoided by going to as many of the original sources as possible for yourself, taking them all with a grain of salt, listening to the conservative and liberal editorial voices on both sides, and making up your mind for yourself. But some people can’t stop advocating for only listening to the conservative editorial voices. So either they can’t think for themselves, and thus have to rely on a “conservative” editorial source telling them what to think, or they’re not really interested in the truth, just in hearing what they want to hear, so it doesn’t matter to them if the conservative source is biased to the point of distorting the truth.

Which is it?