Not just her. I'm talking about all of them. But concerning her and in response to her very well delivered speech, earlier today I was thinking, "everybody, lay off Sarah Palin." Now I'm thinking, "Sarah Palin, lay off everybody." Sarcasm doesn't invite sympathy. So, the gloves are officially off. Who has the right experience? Who has the right judgement? Who has the right vision for America? You make the call.
I can't help but believe there are real and good intentioned people topping the ticket on both sides. They say what they think they have to say. They beat the crap out of each other over meaningless things- saying their names are too Muslim, or their shirts don't have enough pins on them (flair? is this an "office space" joke?), or their daughters are too pregnant- because that's how elections are won. And in the end, their best hope is that we will hate them less than we hate their opponent. Maybe one day it will be different. Probably not.
So, in the spirit of having your hate grounded in fact- or in the spirit of trying to see past the spin and focus on more substantive issues- here are a few interesting, non-partisan web sites.
Politifact. A site that rates the truthfulness of the claims made by major players in the presidential campaigns and their ads. http://www.politifact.com/
Factcheck. Same idea, with a less exciting interface, but they have an interesting weekly "vidcast," video to summarize the week in politics. http://www.factcheck.org/
VA Joe Canidate Calculator. You answer 22 questions concerning your stance on key political issues, they tell you who you align with. If you don't know where you stand on the issue, click on the question, they will give a very brief summary of it. http://www.vajoe.com/candidate_calculator.html
Have fun.
Vote in November.
"Now a word on politics. This is an election year, and there are many strong and strident voices incident to political campaigning. It’s a wholesome and wonderful system that we have under which people are free to express themselves in electing those who shall represent them in the councils of government. I would hope that those concerned would address themselves to issues and not to personalities. The issues ought to be discussed freely, openly, candidly, and forcefully. But, I repeat, I would hope that there would be an avoidance of demeaning personalities." Gordon B. Hinckley, 1982.
18 comments:
thanks for links! in many ways i was super impressed with sarah...but one of my most major put offs was all those sarcastic demo ticket slams. guess you're right, they all do it. :(
thanks GBH you're right as always.
A recent LDS politico highlight...
Fast and testimony... "I am thankful for the book of mormon which teaches us to not be oppressed by overburdening taxes and placing a false king with false hope promises. This November remember that."
I was waiting for your thoughts on the conventions. Glad to see you did not disapoint me and keep them to yourself.
At first thought, I truly felt Palin was a political ploy to get all the Hillary women who hate Obama to vote for McCain. I still believe it is, but I like her and am impressed with her honesty thus far. Unfortunately, I felt my heart pull a little when I found out her youngest son has Down's Syndrome. I suck at working part-time at an elementary school and balancing a special needs son; I am not quite sure how she will be able to help run a country. If she can...more power to her - she is a better woman than I.
The quote at the end shouldn't be so little, I think it is dead on.
We are also so sick of the bashing. It gets frustrating trying to sift through the insults to get the actual stand each one takes on making America a better place.
At least Obama said, "leave the families out of it". The best thing said in a while from either side!
The quote is great, if disillusioned idealism (sorry, Gordon). The disappointed sentiment expressed by many about the nature of political campaigning seems to creep up during every election cycle, but that's the way things have gone for about, oh, the last century. At this point it's become the nature of the beast and I'm not optimistic it will ever change.
Just sit back and enjoy the mudslinging. There's no quicker way to my heart than snide cynicism and sarcasm. I love you, Seth Cohen.
As an aside, I've never cast a vote for a candidate based on who they chose as their running mate, and I don't believe I'll start now. But with all the attention Palin has garnered with her nomination (more than any I can ever recall), I've been curious as to whether the selection of a potential veep has ever altered the outcome of a presidential election.
Can anyone recall such an instance?
Jenny --
I think the Palin selection has less to do with getting the female Hillary vote and more to do with reenergizing the party's base (staunch coservatives). To say that the Hillary vote would run to Hillary is to assume that the only reason they liked Hil in the first place is because she's a woman; and personally, I don't think that's accurate.
I'm not leaving out the possiblity that it is a ploy, but if that is their intention, I think it is misguided. The ideological divide between Hil and Palin is such that I have a very tough time believing that a significant portion of Hil's base would make the jump.
My take on her is this: McCain has never been one who excites the party core because of his penchant to be a rogue (er...maverick) and adhere to centrist policies. Palin, however, has exactly the type of platform that conservatives get excited about. Thus, I think McCain's selection of her is more a play to the far right while at the same typing hoping to pick up a handful of Hil's supporters that have come to her within the last few years as she has run to the center.
It will be an extremely difficult divide to straddle, but McCain needed to shake things up big time and I think he realized that.
Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. I hate talking politics and Connors sucked me right into this shit.
Tyler...
Wow, these are the moments I miss sharing with you. I could actually hear your voice as I read your comment.
Good points... they made me think. So, to that regard, I am glad John sucked you in. I agree with the "shake-up" part; and I think that is why she will impact the decision made. I can tell you that I have personally spent more time researching her ideas, than McCain's...she is intriguing and he is old.
"To say that the Hillary vote would run to Hillary..."
Oops...that should have said run to Palin.
You have it right on the money. I too was surprised by her strength and her rudeness. Thanks for your comments. It's nice that thoughts like these are out there. Maybe you should run someday . . . I would vote. However, I must warn you that your jungle speedo might cause some controversy.
sorry music and politics not my strong points but I am still always happy to stop by and read what you have to say
Jenny, we can talk about this more next week when team snake goes head to head with Blair's softball team.
I have to say it John. I am not a good person. I really enjoy snide sarcastic put-downs. Its why I like the Simpsons and Conan and the Office. I ended her speech thinking wistfully to myself, "I wish SHE was running for president..." It reminds me of the SNL weekend update with Tina Fey about Hilary. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjFIlLSRGnw, but it does say the "B" word. Her closing line... (I can't quote here for fear of my comment being deleted.)
I also kind of like someone whose stance on capital punishment for people who kill children is "My goodness, hang 'em up, yeah."
Although, I do agree with Jenny that I have a hard time feeling she can do a great job raising a special needs child while serving as vice-prez. And that she is McCain's campaign's attempt to sway Hilary voters, since I firmly believe most people only liked Hil for being a strong woman. Not that it matters, I think Obama's got this one in the bag.
Brandi, you are a bad person. There no arguing with that.
concerning Obama having it in the bag, don't count the democrats out, they are very good at losing presidential elections.
That's true, but 3 elections in a row? Anyway, I am checking out this book from the library that I think you would find interesting too. I told you about it before, its called "Crunchy Cons: The New Conservative Counterculture and Its Return to Roots" by Ron Dreher. Here's my quote of the pitch from Amazon.com " In Crunchy Cons, Dreher reports on the amazing depth and scope of this phenomenon, which is redefining the taxonomy of America’s political and cultural landscape. At a time when the Republican party, and the conservative movement in general, is bitterly divided over what it means to be a conservative, Dreher introduces us to people who are pioneering a way back to the future by reclaiming what’s best in conservatism—people who believe that being a truly committed conservative today means protecting the environment, standing against the depredations of big business, returning to traditional religion, and living out conservative godfather Russell Kirk’s teaching that the family is the institution most necessary to preserve.
In these pages we meet crunchy cons from all over America: a Texas clan of evangelical Christian free-range livestock farmers, the policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection, homeschooling moms in New York City, an Orthodox Jew who helped start a kosher organic farm in the Berkshires, and an ex-sixties hippie from Alabama who became a devout Catholic without losing his antiestablishment sensibilities.
Crunchy Cons is both a useful primer to living the crunchy con way and a passionate affirmation of those things that give our lives weight and measure. In chapters dedicated to food, religion, consumerism, education, and the environment, Dreher shows how to live in a way that preserves what Kirk called “the permanent things,” among them faith, family, community, and a legacy of ancient truths. This, says Dreher, is the kind of roots conservatism that more and more Americans want to practice. And in Crunchy Cons, he lets them know how far they are from being alone."
And I took the VA Joe quiz, and apparently my candidate is Chucky Baldwin. eek. I'm on the same side as the crazies.
ok folks..auntie libby weighing in here. as one who can't resist a political debate, but actually hates them - we need to remember to look at the big picture, not just the one who holds the office of president. look at those who are running the congress as well and determine if the mix is good for you before casting any vote. is it balanced? should it be balanced? the most important thing - vote!!! too many people have fought too hard to give us this priviledge.
Post a Comment