Bjnemp (anonymous) says...

Whoa! Sour grapes from another frightened liberal! Nice try, Obama. Maybe 2016 will be your year.

September 11, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rcakmon (anonymous) says...

Doug, Senator McCain agrees with you.

"I make (decisions) as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."
John McCain, "Worth Fighting For", 2002

Choosing Gov. Palin was clearly a choice to appease the right wingers. Of course the Republicans are praising his choice and denying he chose her for this reason. However they had no problem making the same accusations about possible Democratic VP picks. Jon Stewart does a great job pointing out the inconsistent statements from rush/foxnews crowd. Although this is meant to be funny, it points out the way the Republicans spin with the best of them regarding Palin, teen pregnancy, the gender bias, etc.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/ind...

September 11, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Any Governor has more governing experience than any Senator who hasn't been a Governor. qed

September 11, 2008 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lycomu (anonymous) says...

Hey wasnt President Bush a Govenor before being appointed President? Gee, that worked out well didnt it?

September 11, 2008 at 2:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lycomu (anonymous) says...

and I am very frightened that Mccain might win. Frighted for my children, frightened for my country, and frightened for the future of the world as we know it. Desperate times do not call for desperate (McCain) measures. We need intelligence, compassion, and the ability to bring everyone together

September 11, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

tosie (anonymous) says...

I can't wait to see McCain/Palin win....

September 11, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lycomu (anonymous) says...

they win and we all lose

September 11, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sg (anonymous) says...

lycomu, that is exactly how I feel about the Obama Biden ticket.

September 11, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lycomu (anonymous) says...

yes i could understand why you wouldnt want a much better economy, better schools, aforable health care, more jobs, peace and security, a much improved global position.

September 11, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

sg (anonymous) says...

How will Barack Obama provide all of those things? The US gov't can't even manage the post office, and you want them directing your health care? Thanks but no thanks. And I'd hardly call Barry a uniter, but I guess you can if you want to.

September 11, 2008 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

John McCain is not perfect. He is, after all, human. John McCain is also a politician, just like Barack Obama. I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but all politicians, to reach the level of a presidential nominee, have had to make certain compromises. McCain and Obama are no different. There are, however, basic differences between them. Obama's instincts, experience and core base are liberal, whereas McCain's are moderate (in fact, too moderate for me). Although McCain and Bush are both Republicans, Joe Lieberman (2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee) and Ted Kennedy are both Democrats. Not all politicians follow the party line completely; however, Obama has his (not a single vote contrary to his party's position in the US Senate). These are facts. There is no right or wrong way to vote in this election. If your convictions are liberal, then you should vote for Obama. If your convictions are moderate or conservative, you should vote for McCain. Neither are the devil, and neither are the Messiah. They are politicians, as have been all 42 men who have held this office.

(Bush is the 43rd President, but Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President)

September 11, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

dale011 (anonymous) says...

Senator Obama has been recognized as the most liberal member of congress, even more liberal than Ted Kennedy. While I appreciate his rise from a needy childhood to Ivy league grad and now US Senator, his views prior to the end of the primary netted him the far left wing support, and now he has slid to he center, which should be expected. He will have debts to repay for the priviledge of running for our top office - debts to the far left wing. Their ideals are so far from mine, and the majority of the US populace, that we should all be breathing a sigh of relief that Mac is back. Imagine having a President Obama, Sen Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi free to ruin this great land.

September 11, 2008 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Hillbilly (anonymous) says...

dougie, dougie, you finally crawled out from under your rock, i have missed reading your insane crap, do you have your obama signs in your yard and on your car yet??? sweet......

September 11, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

neighbor (anonymous) says...

Is someone is beginning to see the ship begin to list? I think so. Neither are the best candidate in my book, but I have to laugh that someone actually believes that a done nothing Senator would accomplish what has been listed here.

September 11, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

eiggohp (anonymous) says...

lycomu~~~

If you want all of this....you had better vote for MCCAIN...he will at least protect you and your children.

What experience has Obama had???? Three years in the senate and two of those were campaigning!!

Just look at their records and see WHO HAS SERVED THIS COUNTRY!....sure not Obama!

September 11, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

I enjoyed reading your thoughtful commentary, Doug. I agree with your observations as well.

September 11, 2008 at 6:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Name me one outstanding President who had only Legislative or Judicial Branch experience. As for Bush, most Military personnel I know prefer him over Clinton due to treatment of the Military. For us, Clinton sucked.

September 11, 2008 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Hey Doug, I've got another line to add to your editorial. There at the end where you say "He’s so reckless that he’s willing to gamble his own country in order to gain electoral advantage.”

How about his own statement "He'd rather win a war and lose an election than win an election and lose a war".

Pretty much the 100% opposite of what seems to be Obama's stance.... and pretty much the polar opposite of your columnist's opinion above.....pretty much makes Wente look like an idiot, probably someone who will always vote party even if they nominate Daffy Duck or Adolph Hitler. She doesn't care about anything, except her own agenda. Plenty of idiots on the right could mirror the same opinions.... only I don't listen to much of that garbage either. I'm more interested in facts.

September 11, 2008 at 7:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

When he passed up the opportunity to be released from captivity & torture ahead of men who had been imprisoned there longer, was that another good example of McCain gambling his own country in order to gain personal advantage?

The only thing I see is that Wente is "willing to gamble and distort in order to gain personal noteriety"....

September 11, 2008 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

And "The choice of Sarah Palin demolishes Mr. McCain’s most promising campaign theme — that Barack Obama is too inexperienced and too risky a choice in a dangerous world. It also demolishes the picture of Mr. McCain as a seasoned man of judgment".

So, based on that, wouldn't it be accurate to say that "the choice of Biden demolishes one of Obama's most promising campaign themes - that McCain represents the entrenched long-term Washington politician, whereas he is a fresh face, a different kind of politician, one who hasn't been in Washington long enough to be one of the 'good old boys'"??????

September 11, 2008 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

hogan77 (anonymous) says...

Everyone... vote me for President! I may not have any qualifications, but at least I know more about what this nation needs, compared to either one of the fruitcakes running now. LOL

September 11, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

UsayULoveGod (anonymous) says...

I truly think it will not really matter who is President for the next 4 years due to it will take 5-7 to get us out of this mess that we are in , and it will get worse before it gets better.

September 11, 2008 at 10:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Midwestern_girl (anonymous) says...

John McCain may have experience, but what has he really done with it? He's been sitting on it for years! Also, I don't see how someone who agrees with Bush on nearly every issue is going to lead this country in the right direction. Obama may not have a lot of experience, but that's the great thing about America. You can have the qualifications, drive, direction, and dedication, and you just might be able to make the most valuable contribution that this country has seen in a very long time. I can't wait for that change to take place!

September 11, 2008 at 11:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I do think that the Democratic party is slowly moving closer and closer to socialism, which, although it is not the utter failure that communism has proven to be, is not the society I wish to live in. On the other end of the spectrum, although I do believe in capitalism, I do so only to an extent. Lots of things work in principle or ideally, by we do not live in an ideal or utopian world, and people are not perfect. Therefore, since all forms of government & systems are run by imperfect people, there is no perfect system. Problem with complete, unfettered capitalism is the greedy nature of humanity. Sooner or later, the filthy rich can never have enough. It's not enough that a CEO is raking in $30 million a year, and the company is raking in huge profits.. If he (or she) can slash wages, or outsource it to cheaper labor, or drop the wages so low that the only people they can get to fill the positions are illegal immigrants, then they will do it, all to make $50 million instead of $30 million. It's never enough. Capitalism needs restraints & limits as well, or the top percentage will forever trample on the rest. Sooner or later.

So we don't like people that agree with Bush on some things. Please send your stimulus checks back to the IRS.

So we want change, the "new kind of politician" Obama promises. At least McCain/Palin have bucked their own party at times. They've fought for what they believed was right whether their party supported it or not. Obama, on the other hand, has voted the party line 100% of the time. What's "new" about that?
If you live in Utopia, and believe that one party or the other is Perfect, (and, to be that, must necessarily be run by Perfect People) - then, yes, vote for someone who follows the party line unfailingly. If you're like me, and see faults in both sides, then vote for who you believe will ignore partisan politics when they believe that is the right course. Whomever you believe that to be.
No matter who wins in November, I do believe that we will see change take place.
If McCain has been "sitting on it for years", then what exactly has Obama done? Besides campaign for President & vote "present" alot?

September 12, 2008 at 12:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Consider this article written by a former author of Purpose Driven Life online newsletters...

'Them’s fightin’ words!’
by John Fischer

This is an appeal to Christian Americans everywhere to behave better as we approach this election.

There is already, on both sides, a good deal of fighting rhetoric coming out of the political conventions. A lot of harm was done to the gospel and the reputation of Christians during the culture wars of the ‘80s and ‘90s when Christians took up those fighting words, and it appears we are entering into another phase of the same leading up to this election. Let's try to not make all the same mistakes again.

Policy often obscures the lives of real people. For instance, there are many good arguments for the sanctity of traditional marriage, but to fight this as a war with rhetoric that demonizes gay and lesbian couples and those who support them, is to create enemies of those God loves and for whom Christ died.

Besides, Christians are going to be on both sides of most political debates anyway, because politics is full of compromise. The issues being waged, and the choices offered voters are never black and white – cut and dry. It’s all about choosing what you personally prioritize and to what you assign value. For instance, a Christian might vote for a pro-choice candidate because he lines up with the voter on many other issues, and she has weighed those beliefs and decided the sum of what she likes is greater than the sum of what she doesn't like about a candidate. Another Christian will see only one issue and think the first Christian has lost her head. It’s inevitable: we will disagree on politics. How we behave in our disagreement may be as important as the issues we disagree on.

Most of all, don’t lose your civility. Behave in a manner honoring to the Lord you serve. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute or oppose you.

“Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:8-9)

So please, for the love of God, our country, and those who need Jesus: Let’s behave ourselves. At least until November.

September 12, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good article, Denise. Any chance we could continue to behave ourselves even past November? LOL

I wonder if smear machines like the Daily Kos and others realize how many people they drive in the opposite direction? It's pretty obvious across the country the Palin smears have had much the opposite affect. South Carolina's democratic committe chairwoman Fowler said "Palin's chief qualification is she's never had an abortion", (she has since apologized) and Tennessee's Representative Cohen said that Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus, while Palin was a governor like Pontius Pilate (Yes, we already know many believe he is the Messiah, but didn't Cohen just slam every governor in America?) Couldn't we at least just smear on the issues and records?

Your paragraph on voting how we weight the issues hits the nail on the head exactly.

September 12, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Thank you, Open Eyes!

I think you know from posts in the past that you and I disagree politically. We will probably not convince each other to vote differently but we can conduct political discourse in a manner that is civil and respectful. I wish all politicians, both Republican and Democrat, could see it that way...

I hope you have a great day!

September 12, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Denise

I would be delighted to get a copy of the letter to you that I sent to the Obama campaign outlining my reasons for withdrawing my support for Senator Obama and giving it to Senator McCain.

I assume I could get it to Democratic HQ downtown.

September 12, 2008 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Netloafer,

Please do, if you feel the need. I would be happy to read your reasons.

You are welcome at Democratic HQ anytime. I won't be there to greet you, however, as I will be at work.

September 12, 2008 at 9:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Amen, Denise.

It's kindof like 2 basketball coaches, one thinks the team should play a man-to-man defense, the other thinks they should play a zone. They are both doing what they think is in the best interests of the team, and what they think will give it the best chance of victory. We have to look at the coaches record, do they do what they say, has it worked in the past, given the current competition, is it the right strategy at this time, etc....

September 12, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Denise

I didn't feeel the "need." I was just offering a courtesy.

I feel less of a need now, though.

September 12, 2008 at 9:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

I was brought up with a coach who insisted on playing in the zone all the time. He switched it up after I got out of my zone and hit 3, 2-point shots in one game. But that was many, many years ago and I digress...

Yes, each person sees the situation in their own way given many factors that play into their world view. Heck, even looking at two coaches records, what they say, if it has worked in the past, current competition and strategy may not lead observers to come to the same conclusion.

As a nation we must respect others opinions regardless if they agree with our opinion or not. I say this because I recognized the error of my own ways.

My apologies to you, netloafer, for my past offense.

September 12, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

I gladly accept your courtesy, Netloafer. Peace to you.

September 12, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rcakmon (anonymous) says...

Behaving ourselves would be nice. Unfortunately, that won't happen. America has responded to the negative ads. Both sides do it but the Republicans have perfected the rove/swift boat type attacks. Most people see these ads and just believe them at face value. That's how we ended up with W for eight years.

Here's an example of the distortion techniques.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzs...

September 12, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

I think only by modeling good behavior can we move toward better political discourse. The Roves and the Carvells be damned. That's just my opinion. I suppose I'm just being an unrealistic optimist. It's helps to keep me sane. And you know what I mean, rcakmon. Hugs to you!

September 12, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

USNretired (anonymous) says...

Bush is not the worst President I can remember. Since I am only 50, I assume others that are older can remember worse ones than I can. Many of our economic woes are not under our President's control, such as aliens owning and controlling property or entering and leaving at will with no respect for our culture or our laws. Other nations have enacted laws to control these things and improved the lives of the citizenry. That is a legislative, not Executive function. Presidents do not have as much power as some applaud them for, or disdain them for. There are 3 Branches, and all have some measure of control with 2 branches directly answerable to voters. These are facts, we each draw our own conclusions from them.

September 12, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I don't know that any one side has perfected them more than the others. Possibly, if a certain attack works better than others, could it possibly be because there is at least some truth behind the attack?
Personally, I'm glad we didn't end up with Gore for 8 years. And Al himself is probably glad it turned out that way now, anyway, He has increased his net worth to over $100 million off his global warming campaign. Of course, given the energy sucker of a house(s) he owns, he probably needs it - LOL

September 12, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

This is an interesting graphic comparing the economies of Bush at 2004 vs Clinton in 1996.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/...

I do believe our economy is now in a downturn, but remember we now have Democrats controlling both legislative branches since 2006. And their corresponding sub-20% approval rating. There's plenty of blame to spread around on BOTH parties.

Heard a funny on the radio this morning. A caller was complaining that the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania was closing a state hospital, and there were going to be hundreds of people out of work. The radio host reminded the caller that you can never blame a job loss on a Democratic governor - it is ALWAYS Bush's fault - as is everyting. - LOL

September 12, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Bush also has an ethnically diverse cabinet (more so than Clinton's first term), including our country's first 2 black Secretaries of State, one man, one woman, the highest posts ever held by a black man or woman in any cabinet so far. USay, since your vocabulary seems to be mostly about hollering "racism", I would assume that topic is the one that matters the most to you. So, since you hate Bush so much, I guess you don't approve of that either? Does that make you racist?

If McCain/Palin win in November, I know of at least ONE thing that will DEFINITELY improve. We won't have to listen to Pelosi continually bragging about how she's "the most powerful woman in America"..... LOL

September 12, 2008 at 1 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

I'm glad to see that some people are aware of how our government really works. The only "big" decision the president has to make, is to declare war, and he needs congressional approval to make it happen. I also agree that you can't count on the ADs to make your decision.

I did find some interesting information. For instance, the Republicans continue to portray Obama as a Liberal. Have they ever looked at the definition of a Liberal; "Having, expressing, or following political views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms . . . "

The following sites are pretty good if you're looking for more accurate information (quotes, history, where they stand on issues, the truth behind some of the twisted ads, etc.);

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-c...

http://grid.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Not decided yet on which ticket to vote for. Tending toward Obama/Biden (who I dislike the least so far).

September 12, 2008 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Good points, tools. Every person is going to have a different definition of liberal and conservative. Heck, my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, and my conservative friends think I'm a liberal. Liberal is also defined as, (among many other things) - "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible". Would not some points of Republican view concerning less government be more liberal according to that definition than the Democratic view of larger government regulating more and more of your life? Are there any tenents of "conservatism" that you could apply to Obama as well? McCain is also touting change, which you could definitely say is a liberal point of view.
I think that nowadays, "liberal", unfortunately, has been attached to the far extreme left. Just as people seem to think every conservative politician wants to take us back to the Christian equivalent of Sharia law. Both those labels have, of late, taken on the meaning of the more extreme views at both ends, unfortunately.

September 12, 2008 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

For those who are interested in how much 3 of our 4 candidates make/are worth...

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/2008...

September 12, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

These labels, though not precisely accurate to their definitions, are understood in the political context. "Liberal" is understood to mean a policy that favors larger government, more taxes and more regulation of our lives, whereas "Conservative" is understood to mean smaller government, fewer taxes and less regulation. It is these definitions, not necessarily Webster's, that we use. They are neither good nor bad, but descriptive. For example, Ted Kennedy is not ashamed of being called a Liberal, and Ronald Reagan was not ashamed of being called a Conservative. These labels are shorthand to understand a candidate's general philosophy and are thereby helpful in the political discourse.

September 12, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

nutsaboutools (anonymous) says...

Well put open_eyes.

September 12, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Given those definitions, I'm neither Liberal or Republican. To me it depends on the issue and I don't base my judgment using those parameters.

September 12, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Oops, I meant to write Liberal or Conservative.

September 12, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Denise, unless you are true to a philosophy, you are probably neither Liberal or Conservative. However, most people subscribe to a philosophy and therefore the labels, to one degree or another, apply. I have never understood why people who are clearly one or the other are afraid to admit it. Liberals particularly tried to avoid the label, primarily because Liberalism was seen as a total failure after Kennedy/Johnson/Carter. I think that they are less afraid of the label now. I respect anyone who has taken the time to think about the issues, subscribe to a philosophy and be willing to admit it. It is not especially popular in some places this election to admit to being a conservative, but I admit it, proudly.

September 12, 2008 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

rcakmon (anonymous) says...

Posted by Observation: Doug is just another Democrat. They are losers.

Observation, is it really necessary to call Democrats losers? Are you able to state your opinion without the put downs? Why don't you read some of the posts on here about respecting the opinions of others. Good advice for someone like you.

September 12, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker,

Here is my take on this. I welcome your response to my personal philosophy...

I work with special needs children. I am the parent of a special needs child. In that arena, labels are only important when it is time to get services to help that person succeed. When working with these kids I put every effort into focusing on each individual's issues and address those to the best of my ability. Other than that, in my opinion, labels serve only to create a wall of discrimination which in turn doesn't really address what is needed to improve the individual's condition, limits the potential of the person and in the long run restricts that persons contribution to society. I see it the same way with political issues.

I have been out and about talking with a lot of people lately. I have learned everyone, democrats and republicans alike, do want what they believe is the best for this country and for our membership in the global community, That is a core commonality we all have. I'm seeing that democrats and republicans do not easily fall into liberal or conservative categories as one might think. That is my opinion.

As far as labels, we are all human with individual strengths, limitations and ways of looking at the world. I don't think any of us should truly fit into a neat little box. I think we're more complex creatures than that. We're just doing to do what we believe is best for our families, our community and ourselves.

September 13, 2008 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

I just can't figure out whether I'm a liberal with some conservative leanings/tendencies, or a conservative with some liberal leanings/tendencies. But, if I have to choose, I would have to say that I am definitely more of the second one....
(PS - I know what my friends describe me as, but I can't print that here - LOL).

September 13, 2008 at 11:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Denise: You are absolutely correct that both Liberals and Conservatives want what is best for our country. The question is: What is that? How do we implement it? And so on. That is where each person has his own opinion and philosophy. My philosophy is Conservative (smaller government, fewer taxes, less regulation of our lives), therefore I accept the Conservative label as best describing me. Ted Kennedy believes in bigger government, higher taxes to pay for it, and more regulation of our lives. Therefore, he accepts the Liberal label as applying to him. Generally, Democrats are Liberal and Republicans are Conservative, with various degrees on both sides. There are some who are a mix - John McCain is an example. Although he is probably more Conservative than Liberal, he has joined with Liberals several times (for example, the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, and the "Gang of 14" (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans) to reach a compromise on judicial confirmations, joining with Joe Lieberman on National Defense, etc.). These labels are not bad things at all; in fact, they are helpful as a shorthand to understand a person's philosophy. The problem is that so many people start hating people who are from the other side. Good examples: the "Bush haters" and the "Clinton haters" who hate someone for no other reason than they disagree with that person's philosophy. That is wrong.

September 13, 2008 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

jayhawker,

For clarification purposes only, are you saying you believe the labels of liberal and conservative are needed in order for political decisions to be made by legislators and how voters determine whom to support? Just asking...

My opinion is that these labels should go away because each gets in the way of good decision-making by legislators and clouds the issues for voters rather than defining them. Just my opinion...

September 13, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Denise: I am not in any way diminishing your opinions on this matter. I am only saying that, for me, these labels are helpful. Here's why: As a Conservative, I generally regard the best solutions to be made by the private sector, which is consistent with my philosophy. A good local example is the proposed smoking ban in restaurants and bars. To me, it makes more sense to respect the private ownership of these establishments and allow the free market to take care of the problem by individuals deciding whether or not to patronize them, even though I am a nonsmoker myself who doesn't like second hand smoke. The current presidential campaigns are discussing the issues of the day. However, over the course of the next four years, there will be many issues come up that we haven't yet considered. For example, the 2000 presidential election occurred before 9/11 and the threat of Islamic terror to our mainland. Therefore, knowing the label that best describes a candidate allows me to have some idea how a candidate will react to situations yet unknown to us. The same is true of legislative candidates. For example, who would have guessed that Governor Sebelius would have vetoed a $3,500,000,000.00 electrical generation plant at the time of the 2006 election? Since I support free markets, it was no surprise to me that Conservative legislators opposed her, while Liberal legislators supported her. Therefore, when the issue came up after the election, I was still satisfied with my 2006 vote, whereas Liberal voters were still satisfied with theirs. The same was true after the 1978 gubernatorial election in which Democrat John Carlin defeated Bob Bennett. Democrats (who are usually more Liberal) support taxes, so it was no surprise to me that after taking office, Carlin put forward a Severance Tax, which hurt the private sector and cost private landowners. For me, the labels are very helpful. They are not bad things as some suggest - they just give us insight into a candidate's values and beliefs. Again, I am not saying that you are wrong. This is America - you can, and should, base your vote on whatever criteria you think is right.

September 13, 2008 at 5:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker,

I never thought you were diminishing my opinion. I just wanted to make certain you knew I wasn't trying to bait or start an argument. Sometimes peoples motivation for a question or comment can be misconstrued. I was just interested in where you're coming from.

Thank you so much for expressing your point of view in a kind, non-confrontation way. I truly appreciate that.

Peace to you,
Denise

September 13, 2008 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker,

You are one of my favorite posters (along with Netloafer and Create), but I will concur with Denise about the use of labels in politics. The problem with the use of the words "liberal" and "conservative" are that they paint a picture of an individual or party that isn't necessarily accurate nor do they promote looking at our nations problems holistically. Take for example the concept of lower taxes, a popular conservative mantra for generations, how does that fit into our nations problem set as a whole. This past "conservative" Presidency believed in lower taxes, and is leaving the nation with an estimated $460 billion dollar deficit for the next fiscal year alone. The GAO has called massive tax cuts irresponsible, citing their internal statistics which suggest that it is unlikely our government can stimulate enough growth with a cut to compensate for the loss of revenue. The world bank has sent the US letters warning that we are putting the world economy in jeopardy and the dollar continues to exist at a relatively weak level as we simply print money to cover our multi-trillion dollar debt. The GOP's contract with America is broken. We have more government spending, not less. We have an ever expanding debt that my generation will be burdened with. We have a party touting privatization and less oversight at the same time that we were forced as tax payers to take over a fourth massive bank. The private sector can't fix everything. We need to understand that. Some things that a citizenry in a first world nation need don't always (or shouldn't always) include a profit motivator. We have to seek balance in economic policies.

Free trade should be fair for both parties involved (as opposed to opening our boarders as others close theirs to our products). Government intervention and programs are needed when the cost of inaction and complacency out weighs our involvement. Fiscal responsibility includes leaving a nation in a better financial position than when you found it. The meaning of "conservative" seems to differ greatly from the local usage when applied to a national stage. In the cases of both "liberal" and "conservative" we tend to dwell on the negative connotations of the words, and the individuals we deem the embodiment of the ideals. Instead, we should concentrate on which people can responsibly extract us from our current mess, regardless of homogenized label.

September 14, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

momus: Thank you for the compliment, which I sincerely return to you. You are obviously well informed and make your points very clearly. I think that you have made a persuasive case against Conservatives (which I don't accept, but will save that argument for a different post) rather than the label. If we know that a candidate is correctly labeled as a Conservative, we know that he will favor lower taxes. The label says nothing more than that. You have made an argument against lower taxes, not against the label. In fact, you, like me, find the labels useful so that when we vote, we know what we are getting. If you favor higher taxes, then you should vote for a candidate who has been labeled "Liberal". You have raised an interesting side point, however, and that is how the label has different meanings depending upon whether it is used in a local election or a national one. Personally, I see the labels as being consistent in both, with the difference being the issues that apply to local and national races. State and Local governments do not effect fiscal policy, in the sense of manipulating the markets and monetary supply, to the same extent as our national government, so the application of conservative or liberal policies, while still important, don't have the same consequences locally as they do nationally. On the other hand, local and state races effect our lives in a day to day way more than the national races (for example, the criminal code is a state issue rather than a national one). There is one thing that we might agree on, however, and that is that it is wrong to demonize either label. They are neither right nor wrong; they are merely descriptive, and nothing more.

September 14, 2008 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Thank you momus, and I do agree with what you have so capably cited here. Jayhawker, one problem I can see with regard to labels that either lower or raise taxes is the whole idea of fiscal responsibility at the moment. Right now, we are so deeply in debt that we must all -- liberals and conservatives and moderates alike -- recognize that we must work to lower that debt.

I saw Alan Greenspan interviewed on TV this morning. Here is a news item on that interview. I urge you to read it, especially the part about Greenspan being disappointed and frustrated in Bush's economic policies. Bush, Cheney and the Republican congress, he laments, have put politics ahead of fiscal discipline. Hope you get a chance to read this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/bus...

September 14, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

create: What did you expect from the New York Times? One of the most entertaining aspects of the media's treatment of the Bush administration is the elevated status that they have given Dick Cheney. It's hard to remember that he is merely the Vice President; they treat him as more powerful than the President and the Congress put together. He is one powerful dude, especially for holding an office whose only two functions are to preside over the Senate (with a vote only if there is a tie) and to check on the President's health daily. Somebody said that if the president wants his poll numbers to go up, he needs to send Dick Cheney out to shoot another lawyer.

As to the labels, I give up. They are only descriptive. I was not attempting to defend or attack the underlying philosophies attached to each, but was trying to explain their usefulness in political discourse and understanding.

September 14, 2008 at 7:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

momus (anonymous) says...

To be fair, Cheney is a self identified neo-conservative. I doubt that you would hear most local self identified conservative Kansans utter the phrase "deficits don't matter". But, I will say that if anyone elevated Dick Cheney in the national and media based consciousness it was Dick Cheney. A separate national security team for a VP? Mass expansion of a separate military based intelligence service? Pixelating the Vice Presidential residence on Google maps? This is a guy that scares the living crud out of people on both sides of the isle.

My point about labels was that they aren't helpful for the simple reason that people on both sides of the isle contain aspects of both conservative and liberal values, so we choose to label a person conservative or liberal based on a hierarchy of values that we deem more or less important within the conservative or liberal mantra. McCain has been referred to as "liberal" on some issues by conservatives, and that shows that even the most politically aware among us can speak in amorphic relative terms. "Liberal" or "Conservative" tags used when referring to an individual mean that a person subscribes to an exacting belief system on every issue, an expectation that is unreasonable. Hopefully, people in positions of leadership problems solve based on information they have available, trying to make the best decision possible based on facts and not "using their gut". In certain instances, self identified conservatives may make liberal decisions and vice versa. So, the black or white, liberal or conservative tags are, at best, an over simplification of what should be a complex decision making process within the human brain. This over simplification is an overt attempt by both sides to frame their opponent while discouraging critical thinking on issues facing our nation. Sell them a story they can vote on, even if it doesn't make any sense. One "man of the people" owns nine homes and a private jet, while an "elitist" grew up in a single parent household with a mother on food stamps. Labels are for those who don't wish to educate themselves, or wish to perpetuate the pre-existing frames.

September 14, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Eloquently put, momus. I believe both sides of the aisle were well served in your last commentary.

Thank you!

September 14, 2008 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Labels, if properly applied, are a shorthand accurately describe most politicians. It may be that Ted Kennedy has voted with the conservatives at least once during his 46 years in the Senate, but he is still a liberal overall, a label that he wears proudly (in fact, he even calls himself the "Liberal Lion of the Senate"). Of course, there are times when the Conservatives and the Liberals come together on issues. For example, Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch worked together on the No Child Left Behind law. Just because Kennedy worked with Hatch, and vice versa, does not change the fact that overall their credentials as Liberal and Conservative, respectively, remain intact. To ignore the labels, if properly applied, reduces the ability to fully understand them, especially in a shorthand way. I submit that the Liberal label belongs on Barack Obama, while the Conservative label mildly applies to John McCain. Those who think otherwise are those who don't want to educate themselves, choosing instead to accept campaign talking points rather than evidence.

September 14, 2008 at 11:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Obviously, Dick Cheney has his detractors. A vice president's power to influence policy rests entirely in the hands of the president for whom he works. I happen to believe that George Bush has done our country a great service by fully including the vice president in major decisions, as did Bill Clinton with Al Gore before them. At any moment, a vice president may move from relative obscurity to become the Big Enchilada. If he or she is not prepared, it could be disastrous. In my lifetime, it has happened three times (Truman and Johnson upon the death of the president and Ford upon the resignation of the president). I really don't know how much preparation that Ford had, but Truman in particular was ill prepared. He had not even seen FDR since the inaugural and had no idea that we had the A Bomb. Johnson was similarly excluded from JFK's administration, primarily because JFK and LBJ didn't like each other. LBJ, as the former majority leader of the senate, was better prepared than many just because of his own network, upon which he had to rely to find out what was going on in the White House because JFK had cut him off completely. Neither of these presidents did our country a service with this selfish approach to governance. On the other end of the spectrum, both Gore and Cheney, as active participants in their administrations, would have been very well prepared if the call came, and I think that both Clinton and Bush are good models for future presidents in making certain that that was so. A vice president who comes to the presidency always does so in a crisis, without benefit of a transition or even having his (or her) own people in place. For one, I appreciate both Presidents Clinton and Bush for this approach, as well as Vice Presidents Gore and Cheney for involving themselves as they did. (I know that my tense in relation to Cheney is not correct, since he has four months left in office.)

September 14, 2008 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker,

I research and reason beyond campaign talking points,affording me the opportunity to ignore the diminutive labels of liberal and conservative. That is my way.

You are welcome to your point of view.

DD

September 15, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

open_eyes (anonymous) says...

Dick Cheney's residence is available in hi-res on plenty of other sources. If you search it, you will see various claims as to why it is pixelated out on Google Maps. You can also find a list of other sites/places that are pixelated out, by Google, including other private residences. Perhaps it is a by-product of all the hatred directed at him. I also think that in the aftermath of 9/11, it is prudent to have some vastly increased military based intelligence services, and who better to be involved in that than the person just a heartbeat away from the presidence? He doesn't scare me in the least, unless I were to go bird hunting with him - LOL
All I know is, I do NOT get my hard news from Jon Stewart & The Daily Show.

September 15, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

create (anonymous) says...

Jayhawker, I'm sorry you feel that way about the New York Times article. I thought the reporter presented a very objective view of Greenspan including this quote that not only relates his dismay with Republican party leaders in one area of concern, but also describes the most interesting reason of all why he was FOR going to war in Iraq and it had nothing to do with WMD as Bush tried to sell us over and over again. As you know, Greenspan is a Republican:

"But in the interview, Mr. Greenspan seemed dismayed that leaders in his own party paid little heed to his pleas for spending restraint and for “pay-as-you-go” rules that would require Congress to offset the cost of new tax cuts with savings elsewhere. He repeated the conclusion about the Republicans’ loss of Congressional control in the 2006 elections: “They deserved to lose.”

Mr. Greenspan also spelled out his own views about the war in Iraq: he supported the invasion, he says, not because Saddam Hussein might have had weapons of mass destruction, but because Saddam had shown a clear desire to capture the Middle East’s oil fields.

“I supported taking out Saddam, because he was moving inexorably toward taking the world’s oil resources,” he said. “Iraq was a far greater threat than Iran to the world scene.”

I'm simplifying here, but perhaps had they listened to Greenspan's warnings we wouldn't be in the mess we are in this morning. Yes, I know, Palin/McCain are going on record to blame Washington being "asleep at the switch," but then again, so is Obama. So much for labels.

Momus, great post. I firmly agree with Denise_Dorsey.

September 15, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

netloafer (anonymous) says...

Momus

I agree to a certain extent about labels, but I think they serve some useful purposes. The term "conservative" should mean something, as should the term "liberal." Each philosophy has a set of undergirding principles (i.e. - conservatives believe strongly in the value of tradition and values passed on from previous generations going back for thousands of years). Liberal thinkers place some value in tradition, but believe far more strongly in current thought and evolutionary political and social process. The Supreme Court is a good example. Roberts, Alito, and Scalia believe the value of original intent is far more important vs. the liberal idea that judicial activism is more important than original intent. This is not to say which philiosphy is better. It is to say that the approaches they take to issues is generally different.

I've been reading a lot about being "informed" voters and sorting out the issues. While it might tickle our ears and egos, I think it is a modern myth. None of us is truly objective when it comes time to pull the lever, none of us is truly an "informed" voter. The issues we face are far too complex to insist that our particular brand of reasoning is enlightened and free of labels or bias compared to those we disagree with. It may make us feel good to use such reasoning, but the truth is that the person who chooses for reasons of "enlightenment" or claims to be free of bias or labels has claimed high ground that he/she cannot rightly claim, or hold. Their views are every bit as subjective as the person who votes on the basis of hair color, age, gender, race, popularity, eloquence, populism. etc.

I think it's fair enough to say that the right thing for each of us to do is to vote, as much as possible, consistent with our respective world views.

I have subjective reasons for my vote. I've looked at the issues and have come to the conclusion that I'm no more enlightened than the next guy. I'd like to pretend that I am, but an honest look tells me otherwise. So, I'll pull the lever and be quite content to be considered unenlightened for pulling in the direction I do.

September 15, 2008 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Very good, netloafer. I would add Clarence Thomas to your list of Supreme Court justices. On the label thing, I was surprised to see that so many folks apparently are unable to see their usefulness in political discourse. Labeling is not a partisan practice in its pure form. I suspect that it may have become politically correct to pretend that we are neither conservative nor liberal, but I also suspect that almost all of us will fit into one category or the other, to some degree or another. I further suspect that those who claim to disregard the labels secretly or unconsciously pay more attention to them than they will admit. That is the beauty of America, we can vote on whatever criteria we wish.

September 15, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

I still say labels are limiting, be it in politics or other areas such as mental health conditions as I mentioned in an above post.

I'm not suggesting this to be politically correct, an elitist or judgmental.

My hope is that if people start with looking at someone or something using a label, they can also go past that and look at the full picture before coming to a conclusion.

That's all that I'm suggesting.

September 15, 2008 at 1:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Denise: I apologize to you if you construed my comments to suggest that you were elitist or judgmental, which I did not intend. I do agree with you that we should look past the label. John McCain is a good example. I think that he is moderately conservative. However, he has certainly sided with Liberals from time to time, and consequently, on certain issues the moderate conservative label doesn't fit him. However, taken as a whole, he is mildly conservative. You made good posts and started a lively debate. I had no idea that there was so much feeling about labels, which to me are just part of the landscape, much as Democrat or Republican labels are, with just more refinement.

September 15, 2008 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

Well, for me, being wary of labels has definitely come into play being the parent of a special needs child and also in working with special needs children. Naturally, this attitude has spilled over into other areas of my life.

Thank you for the apology and your kind comments. It was an interesting debate, wasn't it! I look forward to more in the future with you and others.

September 15, 2008 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

jayhawker (anonymous) says...

Thanks, Denise. I know that I'm off topic, but thank you for the work that you do with special needs children. I have a cousin who is as old as I (which is old) who suffers from Downs Syndrome. He was not expected to live long, but has. He is a very nice person, and our whole family appreciates the good work of those who have helped him all these many years. People who help the specially needy are special people.

September 15, 2008 at 2:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) says...

TO go a little further off topic, Downs Syndrome is not the population I serve; I'm not a Saint. No, I serve the kids with emotional disorders such a Bipolar Disorder, Aspergers Syndrome and Oppositional Defiance Disorder. I guess you could say I hang out on the Autism Spectrum...

September 15, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )