You're becoming tiresome, Bradley. This is not the story. Watch your comments dry up. I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt probably shot a deer out of season or something but that is not his biography and you missed the significance of last night. Have a nice week.
This is going to degenerate, again. But I think I get it. Like David Ehrenstein (in this one---and only one--- way), Bradley dislikes pretty much all politicians...yet has a drive to be contrarian against "popular wisdom." This also makes him feel "above" regular politics, and I can sure understand that impulse.
So Bradley does the big L Libertarian thing. That is fine too...except that the "pox on both their parties" approach just allows one side to win, and often without much of a plurality. This has historically happened (due to third party issues) several times. And the results have generally not been what the "third party" enthusiasts would have chosen.
Many TPT (third party types) will say that, even if their actions lead to electing a "bad" candidate, it will cause the other parties to reform. Except it doesn't, and never has. Other TPTs have a "I'll sit this one out, because I hate the other candidates." And much as I appreciate the sentiment, that isn't true either: sitting out elections just hands the election to the winner...and sitting out actively assisted that winner.
But....voting for the "lesser of two evils" perpetuates a bad system. Yup. Except the system, for all of its faults, is "least bad" of many alternatives. And very, very few of us (except for a couple of posters here) actually work in the grassroots level of the Republican or Democratic parties...which COULD make a difference.
MOST people vote for the "least bad" candidate, during elections. That is what we have now. It's not great. The system is, just like its candidates, based on a "least bad" philosophy.
This is just like the business with the Naderites voting their conscience in 2000, and giving the White House to GWB. Except you know that every Naderite born hated GWB much more than Al Gore.
The "outside the party" people believe that they can give an alternative to the two parties, when all they really accomplish is damaging close races.
Bradley doesn't like "lying" in politics. Bob Barr lies. So did Ron Paul. So do ALL the candidates. Most of us support the "least bad" candidate. And that doesn't include, to my view, becoming a tool of the RNC or DNC. And the MSM has been a truly massive tool for the DNC the past couple of years. So "fairness" toward attacking the two parties has a strange flavor right now.
Anyway, that was a speech. I don't like seeing this "lying" business continuously from Bradley, and I don't like seeing Dr. K and Bradley sniping at each other. Bradley will probably vote for Barr and thus for whoever actually wins. And that is his right. Dr. K. feels, and I believe rightly so, that Senator Obama and Senator Biden would be a very bad choice for this nation.
Senator McCain and Governor Palin? Also nonoptimal. But a whole freaking lot better than the other two. "Least bad," again.
Election seasons are full of emotionality. Why, I know people who are certain that McCain would appoint judges just as liberal as Obama would to the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter that we know how each candidate voted on Alito and Roberts, when it deeply mattered. Those people I mentioned were *sure* that McCain would appoint liberals and equally *sure* that Obama would be centrist.
Yuck.
Time for a change of subject, maybe? After all, there is more lying to be dissected the first week in October. And it is perhaps more productive to compare Prevarication Quotients, side by side, for each candidate. And despite how much the media has focused on teen pregnancy, we still haven't heard very much about Tony Rezko or Bill Ayres (speaking of lying).
My favorite bit today? Gloria Steinem writing how Sarah Palin is a "tool" of white politicians. This from the author of the "one free grope" rule for Bill Clinton.
Oh well. Election seasons suck rocks down to sedimentary strata.
That should have been "...white male politicians..." regarding Steinem. I'm still amazed that anyone would care to listen to her on the subject of women's rights, after Clinton.
The tiresome quote making a mountain of a molehill comes to mind.
But I wonder why Palin must send the money back to the federal government. Wouldn't local leaders know best how to handle funds in their own state instead of begging big brother in Washington to bless how they spend such funds they most likely sent to Washington in the form of taxes in the first place?
Bradley ~
While I often appreciate your insights you are beginning to sound like those Americans who constantly belittle America's accomplishments for all the world to hear. Like the Hollywood elites who sound off about how horrible America is in Europe.
Your take on politics seems to be like those Hollywood elites distain for America.
What was it someone said? Democracy is the worst form of government in the world except for all the other ones. It seems some have forgotten or ignored the second part of that sentence.
Reminds me of your pet peeves with some politicians who are not perfect but light years ahead of others in acceptability.
Brett, the quote is from Winston Churchill:
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Sir Winston Churchill
British politician (1874 - 1965)
From the Quotations Page online.
Here is some interests perspective on that quote and good old Winston:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Democra...ll(090503)
.html
I think it always pays to read Churchill's aphorisms.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/
Win...nston_Churchill
My favorite, which applies to most politicians, is this one:
"We know that he has, more than any other man, the gift of compressing the largest amount of words into the smallest amount of thought."
Winston Churchill was referring to the hapless Ramsey MacDonald, but it applies quite well to any number of politicians these days!
Eric,
Election seasons suck rocks down to sedimentary strata.
And the Sun will rise again tomorrow. Political and scientific truths.
One of the things I like about this blog and Cathy's before is a certain ability to go beyond the partisan and do a little shit disturbing. And one of Palin's big attractions to me is how she took on her own party, the Republican establishment in Alaska, and cleaned their clock.
Bradley does get overly puritanical but when he slathers it on Obama we all cheer. Oh well.
I end echoing Sandra Singh Loh's thanking of Cathy by extending her Raspberry to our political system.
It would really be nice to talk more about specifics. Like what to do in Iran and manage the economy. At least Palin spoke out supporting drilling and nuclear power while the Dems just bitch about evil corporations.
Mike K.
I'm going to write the facts as I see them, regardless of which political party they discomfit. If you don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.
Doug, your points are right on. But what to do when the majority of the press is in the tank for Barack Obama? If the press treated Senator Obama in the same fashion as Governor Palin, why, I would be very happy.
This is why the term "lie" disturbs me the way it does.
And I am not counting bloggers here---the blogosphere truly walks the walk regarding diversity of opinion. I am talking about the major news organs in this nation. There is definitely a prejudice in play, as well as quite a bit of hypocrisy.
doug,
You are precisely on target. When I was slamming Obama and Clinton, GOP partisans cheered. Now that I'm slamming their new messiah Palin, I'm a bum. The actual facts don't matter, because to them, defeating Obama is more important.
Sorry, I don't play that game. I point out uncomfortable facts instead of covering them up.
Nobody, including Mike K., has even attempted to explain how Palin's press release canceling the bridge meshes with her statement that she told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Nobody, including Mike K., has ever shown where Palin said anything like that to Congress at the time. If Palin ever did, it must have been in an inaudible whisper when no one was listening, because there is no contemporary record of her saying any such thing. (Feel free to correct me by linking to such a contemporary statement, Mike K, and I'll retract everything bad I've said about Palin.)
Palin says it now, when there's little political cost. But at the time, Palin told her constituents something very different. That's wrong, and whether someone has a D or an R after their names makes no difference.
Eric,
If the press treated Senator Obama in the same fashion as Governor Palin, why, I would be very happy.
I can't control my colleagues, but I am treating Obama in exactly the same way as Palin. With both, I am pointing out the uncomfortable facts the candidates would rather not discuss.
With Obama, it's his relying on nutbag, America-hating mentors like Jeremiah Wright.
With Palin, it's her false re-interpretation of the bridge to nowhere and her opposition to earmarks.
I feel comfortable saying Palin lied because we have her own press release, in which she says the opposite of what she's now saying. Her own words -- now and then -- condemn her.
Okay, you win. A politician lied.
BJF, I get why you are on her, and that's cool. She pushed a collection of facts together and makes them look like she said no thanks. Got it.
I am less concerned about that bit of flapdoodlery than I am about the kind of shenanigans that allows Obama to dismiss the 20 years he spent in a racist church and the friendship with an avowed terrorist.
I certainly think this is a great subject to cover. Do I think it's worth all this attention? No. It's something to remember and call her on later when it comes up. Holding politicians to account for their politiciany ways is something WE have to do.
And really, it's not a moral equivalency thing. There is a difference between the garden variety lies of a politician and the knowing association with a terrorist. I'm sorry, that's what I see.
*Full Disclosure - I like Palin. A lot. She's a great old kick in the pants to the stodgy old boy party types. (both parties)
*Really Full Disclosure - She is a politician. Nuff said.
Bradley,
I am treating Obama in exactly the same way as Palin. With both, I am pointing out the uncomfortable facts the candidates would rather not discuss.
A post modernist might well say that even the attempt to do so is impossible if not duplicitous. However, I'm not a post modernist and I like your approach. That said, tripping around the blogosphere renders our preference unsuitable if the goal is wide readership.
It reminds me a bit of the study by Amazon on buyers of books. The crossover of book buyers is nearly non-existant. I buy about as many books from various "sides." For instance "An End to Evil" and "Imperial Hubris." The authors fervently believe their respective viewpoints and both are well written.
This choir doesn't want to be preached to but does want to hear the best arguments. From Dissent to Commentary, I appreciated the guys in CUNY's Alcove 1, arguing the world.
http://www.pbs.org/arguing/
Faster please, as Ledeen would say. And I would add, "more, please."
Lycopene Goddess,
I fully agree that Obama's flaws are far, far worse than Palin's. He also has fewer qualifications.
What I have done in this election campaign so far was to first examine the faults of Obama and Clinton, with little to say about McCain. The Palin choice was an opportunity to give the GOP side some of that same scrutiny.
The next step is directly comparing McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden.
That will be most interesting, I assure you.
Bradley,
The next step is directly comparing McCain/Palin vs. Obama/Biden.
What sets this election apart is that only the Dem ticket triangulated to the middle. They have eviscerated their base or at least those that formed the antiwar, leave Iraq now, paleo and lefty crowd. Obama has actually become more hawkish on Afghanistan/Pakistan than McCain. He is nearly as hawkish on Iran. Obama had little choice. There just isn't much support outside of radical circles for an isolationisst policy. But the risks are huge. It places into more contrast his association with Wright and recent rejection of the Rev. Compare this to the pale shadow thrown by Palin's pastor's embrace of Jews for Jesus. One is hate America the other is just Christians being, well, Christians.
Criticising Palin about this will likely result in the Wiccan "Rule of Three*" being played out.
*An admirable extension of the "Golden Rule" in an otherwise silly "religion."
I'd like to see the side by side comparison. Could someone please just define what the heck a community organizer is, exactly? Are there goals, budgets, contract negotiations, strikes to settle, land disputes and sanitation issues to handle? Can anyone tell me?
Also, Is anyone else waiting for Biden's piehole to get flapping? I am so waiting for that.
doug,
It's unfair to disparage Wicca like that, or to use the scare quotes. Many "religions" look silly to outsiders. Look at what Mitt Romney went through on account of his Mormonism.
I don't know if we have any Wiccan Swampers or lurkers, but there's no need to gratuitously insult them.
Of course, even my renowned religious tolerance is not universal. Scientology is indeed a silly (and dangerous) "religion."
VL,
I don't think there is any set definition of what community organizers do. They sign up people to vote for candidates, support or oppose projects, etc. Saul Alinsky is considered the father of community organizing. (Admired by H-Rod Clinton) From Wikipedia:
In his Rules for Radicals, a book that Alinsky ironically dedicated to Lucifer, "the first radical" , Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing,
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevsky said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families - more than seventy million people - whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.."
Actually, the term "lie" continues to have great resonance. All I ask is that it is used equitably And I would feel differently if the same level of Roman-judge style judgementalism was applied to BOTH sides.
I don't see that as I scan the news and magazines. Like that oh so wonderful US magazine cover (run by Jann Wenner or ROLLING STONE fame).
Anywya, I think that a Prevarication Quotient is relevant. Let's compare number of lies---that is, misrepresenting or exaggerating things for campaign consumption---told by all four members here, from Biden to Obama to Palin and McCain.
And let's see 'em side by side on one sheet. I think that everyone would agree that the more lies told, the less truthful and trustworthy?
Like the lovely bit from Obama regarding Palin being mayor of "Wasilly," and thus not very experienced and not spending large sums of money and having huge numbers of employees...claiming he had done all of those things in his campaign. You know, the campaigning he said he wasn't going to do originally.
Not to mention ignoring the whole Alaska governor thing---with more employees, more budget, and more responsibility. And the interviewer didn't call him on that. The MSM is strangely silent, again.
That is a pretty big "lie," I think.
As I say, a big ledger comparing lies among the various candidates would be interesting. But Senator Obama is counting on people in the media giving him cover, minimizing his gavottes witih the truth, and so on.
I gave up on perfection long ago. I'm looking at the ledger.
Since I live in the real world, I certainly don't expect perfection in anyone or anything. I don't know anyone who I've agreed with 100% of the time, and that includes every occupant of the Oval Office during my lifetime.
I'll have issues with a President McCain and a Vice-president Palin, but in terms of the ideology and integrity of the two, the gulf between them and my comfort level will be a few inches wide, while the gulf involving Obama/Biden will be several miles long.
And considering the idiosyncrases of Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Clinton II, and Obama (not to mention Biden)----which includes blatant dishonesty along the lines of the meaning-of-is-is, Marc-Rich-pardons, recall-sitting-in-gunboat-in-Cambodia, sniper-fire-in-Bosnia, never-heard-Reverend-Wright's-fanaticism-before---
-is there any top leader of the Democrat Party in today's era who doesn't seem to automatically come with feet of clay that weigh no less than a few tons?
Eric and Mark,
You both make good points. Please take into consideration that most of my political posts don't give the 30,000 foot view; they are looking at individual persons and events. Overall judgment comes later as election day draws near, which I think is a logical way to go.
I would have posted on this night's convention, but was occupied covering something regular people care far more about: an area code split.
Bradley ~
Now that will stir the people up. I was once an Angeleno who kept my 310 area code when it was split. It was amazing how some Westsiders used that 310 as a badge of honor or something.
Santa Monica & Brentwood elitists! Ha!
Try being a mayor of a small town and NOT try to get some governmental largess.
I'm very impressed with Sarah Palin, and, after seeing some of the other VP possibilities, less impressed with them.
Brett,
You are probably also aware that all Angelenos scorned those afflicted with the dreaded 909 area code. (YouTube video).
Bradley,
I found an even sillier religion than Wicca or maybe even Scientolgy but the forecast isn't Clear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...and/
7599810.stm
Does anyone smell something now?
And the nastiness evaporated. Thanks to the Digital Gods.
Shocking a Politician distorts the truth to get votes, I have never heard of such a thing. This is breaking news.
Commenting by HaloScan
