Obama vs. McCain: Why I’m Back on the Fence
This morning, I wrote at my own blog that I’ve pulled the Obama sticker off of my truck; that although I’m not suddenly a McCain supporter, I can no longer be counted in the Obama column.
In short, that I’m back on the fence.
This is causing a bit of consternation, some of which appears to be driven by some rather offensive (to me) assumptions (I’m a woman, and therefore must subject to the Palin hype. Or I’m an independent and therefore must falling for McCain’s superficial reach toward the center). And there have been a few genuinely curious queries, in both comments and email.
So I’ll take a shot at what’s going on in my independent, suburban, white, female mind.
First off — saying that the Obama sticker has come down does not mean I’ve replaced it with McCain’s. What it does signify, though, is that I’m back at square one, and I’m ready to listen to them both.
And yes, part of the reason I’m listening to McCain is Palin. But it has nothing to do with her gender, or her baby, or her hunting. It does, however, have something to do with her newness to Washington — a factor I also see in Barack Obama’s favor, as it happens.
I’m not drinking any Kool-Aid here. Did she single-handedly slay The Bridge To Nowhere dragon? Nope, she didn’t. Did she brave the dangerous “we don’t need no stinkin’ earmarks” thicket? Nope, she didn’t do that either…. and yes, I have a problem how the McCain campaign’s presenting both of those.
What about her religion, you say? Yes, she’s a social conservative to the Nth degree — but as far as I’m concerned, that only matters if she thinks her views should be translated to national policy. Her record (as opposed to the rhetoric) indicates that she won’t. Since this is of enormous importance to me, it’s an area on which I’m intensely focused.
Aside from all that, though, the Palin pick told me that McCain is not afraid to think all the way out of the box — at a time when Barack Obama seems to be fully inside it.
Was it reckless? I’m not sure, frankly. She is indeed inexperienced, but she’s not the utter neophyte her opposition is painting, either. Yes, it could have been a coldly cynical, partisan move by McCain, but I could care less about the politics of the pick. Furthermore, I’m not ready to pass judgment on her ability to lead. Simply because we haven’t yet heard her positions doesn’t invalidate them.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that if the McCain campaign keeps her totally wrapped up, and those positions are never articulated, then his ticket is not vote-worthy at all. But it’s far too early to know this, imho.
Meanwhile, the Barack Obama I embraced during the primaries seems to have disappeared. As I wrote in a comment at my blog:
His approaches to problems were only superficially related to standard Democratic policy prescriptions, in that they were grounded on the people as primary to any solution, and a government that was there to support their efforts.
The Barack Obama of the primaries hit those themes hard, again and again. While many of his policies sounded the same, the underlying principles made him very different, in my eyes. And he was a pragmatist to boot.
But the Obama of the primaries seems to have disappeared. I understood why he was so slow to acknowledge the success of the surge, but I didn’t like the pure politics of it. I understand why he’s sounded populism themes, but I didn’t like the reactionism.
And I even understand why he’s had to back off of any possible mention of a negative in relation to the Clinton years… but again, it’s pure partisan politicking.
In short, the playing field looks pretty even to me just now.
Both of the major party tickets have pluses and minuses. Then again, neither party suits me well in the first place.
Saying I’m no longer a check mark in the Obama column doesn’t mean I’m voting for McCain. It means that I’m listening to them both right now — openly and without bias (as much as possible).
77 Responses to “Obama vs. McCain: Why I’m Back on the Fence”
[...] I’ve expanded on my rationale in a separate post at The Moderate Voice. There’s been a lot of speculation (and angst) about the size and scope of McCain’s [...]
I’m Pretty Sure I Heard This Argument Before
In 2000, about George W. Bush and his compassionate conservatism. Apparently it works again this year:
Here's a thought experiment. Better yet, it's a real conversation I had with my 6-year old son who asked my why I support Barack Obama. I couldn't tell him about all the issues because he would barely understand them. And process stuff about “change” doesn't mean much. So I settled on this: I like the way Barack Obama makes choices. He is careful and deliberative. He listens to opposing viewpoints, develops a solution and sticks with it. If he's faced with new information or new realities he'll reconsider and change his mind if necessary. All in all, he's careful. That's what I like about him and why he'll be a good President.
John McCain is the complete opposite. He is impetuous and shoots from the hip. He makes reckless decisions – including picking Sarah Palin the way he did – and we all suffer the consequences. Like George W. Bush he goes more with his gut than his brain. And we can't afford more of that.
My son seemed to get it (I didn't use big words). We talk about making choices all the time. We remind him that he needs to think about consequences before making choices, and he needs to keep an open mind. We tell him to think before he acts.
If ideology and policy are of no concern to you, the decision making process of the two candidates should be paramount.
Hopefully this helps a bit.
Same thing happened to my independent, white, semi-rural male mind a while back Polimom….shortly after Obama began morphing into a very shrewd politician. And Elrod, your comments are well-taken, but they don't pull me back to Obama…yet….
“Meanwhile, the Barack Obama I embraced during the primaries seems to have disappeared. As I wrote in a comment at my blog:”
********
Do you regret not voting for Hillary in the primaries? A lot of people do right about now. Of the two candidates: Obama and McCain, Hillary seems like the best choice.
Get it?
“Do you regret not voting for Hillary in the primaries?”
No. I don't.
As a counterpoint to what Elrod wrote above, I'll tell you why I like McCain.
Sure he did pander some to the right, but he absolutely had to if he had any chance of being nominated, he found that out in 2000. The real McCain is much more centrist, weve seen that in such actions as McCain-Feingold and McCain Kennedy. We've also him lead bi-partisanship in the gang of 14. Now that Sarah Palin has brought real America to the ticket while at the same time mollifying segments of the right side of the Republican Party he can move back to his career long home more to the center. The Palin choice was perfect for him pitching a big tent to the right and to the center, between experience of people who know the system and the hometown America that isn't tainted by it. Had Obama Selected Clinton, or Bill Richardson he would have done the same, but he went with another Liberal in Biden and their is noone in the center on that ticket.
Obama on the other hand, is a very very liberal Senator. Hilliary Clinton was the moderate in that race, although many of my republican friends will groan and protest me saying so with arguments about socialized medice and such. Barrack Obama likes to put out a voted with Bush 90% figure, but here are some facts for you if you haven't seen them before. Obama voted with Democrats 95% of the time, Biden 96.6% of the time, making them the 11th and 8th most partisan by voting record. By Camparison McCain voted with the GOP majority 83% of the time making him the 65th most partisan out of 100. Obama walked away from a bi-partisan ethics bill to join his own party in an all democrat version, remember McCain's angry letter to him over that?
McCain has made the right calls in so many cases.(not all I freely admit) and because he was aware of the situation beforehand didn't bneed to consult as much and change his answer multiple times. On Georgia Obama answered twice with different answers and then came around to McCains position, How was McCain able to get it right? He had a top notch advisor, who the Obama campaign has attacked with the lobbyist label, but this was a man who had been keeping McCain uipdated on the situation so McCain wasn't caugth off guard. That is where experience comes in. That is why Joe Liebermann can cross party lines and support him. The next president will be dealing with a deeply divided nation and political parties that are very hostile to each other and a huge part of their job will be healing that rift so that the parties can work together more and actually govern instead of squabbling so much. Which candidate do you think has the strength to cut through the red tape and reach across the asile? The one who has been doing it a long time and angering his own party, with the running mate who has likewise taken her fellow republicans to task? or the guy who has been groomed by his own party and votes with them 96% of the time ans does his running mate?
I'll leave you with one other difference, altough there are many more:. Acceptance of responsibility. Have you noticed during the campaign that whenever Obama has a problem it always gets attributed to a staffer? How often does the buck stop with Obama? Remember his trying to deny the story about his vote on the babies that were accidentally born during abortions, calling his critics liars on national TV when in fact the voting record on the matter are crystal clear showing otherwise? contrast that with McCain, who is much better at accepting responsibility for error (and thus learning from it). Remember his involvement with the Keating Five? Well thats the mistake that lead him to embark on his career of reform. He learned from that, because he accepted responsibility, something Obama is yet to learn because he blames others. Thats fine for a legislator or community organizer, it isn't for an Executive.
I found an article in the Daily Sitka Sentinel Oct 28, 1996 p 3 that states “The newly elected mayor of Wasilla has asked all of the city's top managers to resign in order to test their loyalty to her administration.” It further states that “Palin said she made the request for resignations to find out who supports her as mayor.”
The Feb 3, 1997 p 13 article from the same paper states that “City librarian Mary Ellen Emmons will retain her post but Police Chief Irl Stambaugh was asked to resign following decisions announced Friday by Mayor Sarah Palin” Later in the article it states “Palin refused Friday to detail her complaint against the police chief saying only that 'You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you'”
I don't trust Palin and I think that since McCain picker her, I don't trust his judgement. I want a president to think outside the box but I think he made this choice based on gender so this woman will vote Obama.
I came into this election cycle completely wide open besides saying there was no way I was voting for Clinton. Too much cynical self-interest, too much Bush and Clinton exhaustion.
She actually won some respect from me for her grit and determination, but at the same time I cam away with even further thoughts on her motivations given the rancor.
Obama has struck me as a good mix between principled and pragmatic plus he is cool under fire. I come away with the same reaction as Elrod describes to his decision-making and leadership style.
That being said, I think after running a brilliant primary campaign, his team has seemed to really flounder since getting the nomination. They have played defense throughout.
On a final note, I have always, until the last year or so, really admired McCain. His switching on so many substantive positions to embrace every stance her formerly ripped to shreds (tax cuts for the wealthy, agents of intolerance, immigration position, torture, et c) really caused me to pause and re-evaluate his likely leadership. He pretty much gutted most of the things I liked about him to get the nomination.
I'm considering voting for Obama despite his lack of experience and a track record – so there!
Leonidas, would you mind clarifying what you mean by “real America?” It looks like you're saying that Palin represents actual Americans, while the rest of us who don't fit that mold just rent space here.
McCain is surrounded with lobbyists and voted for Bush positions 90% or better of the time in the past 8 years. What else do you need to know? If the Fake Hero and the Moose killing babe get in, forget choice. What else do you need to hear?
I don't like that Obama has moved to the center…………….especially since the whole political playing field has been tilted for some time to the right (What was once thought of as a conservative Democrat is now a raging liberal)`. Progressives aren't even on the board. But given the stakes and the set up (two party system where both parties are corporate infiltrated), Obama will get my vote, albeit reluctantly.
I would like very much to hear from a candidate that they will honor the bill of rights, reinstate habeas corpus, get rid of guantanamo, abolish torture, rendition, and the hidden war against immigrants and Moslems. Best bet is Obama, but he too is willing to lick up to the Israeli's as our 51st state.
But a vote for McCain is a vote for an empty shell, a soul-less politician. Palin is a frightening distraction, given her lack of experience and her rather extreme positions.
Before we define the “real America,” I just wanted to note that the 2000 census counted 222,360,539 Americans living in Urban areas and 59,061,367 living in Rural areas.
Hey, POLIMOM, if you want to vote to overturn Roe v Wade, be my guest. It's one vote away from oblivion. If women don't care about the issue, then as a man who's quite unlikely to father any kids, hell, it's no real skin off my nose if they throw women in jail for having an abortion and doctors in jail for doing them.
Usually I view abortion as a freedom issue. Even though I don't have a personal stake in it, I don't think the government ought to be sticking its nose into these decisions. But obviously, this doesn't matter so much to you and to some millions of other women. Who knew?
“The real America,” that's code for all-white small towns. Most of the people and politicians who heap praise and sentiment on all-white small towns don't have to live in them. I did live such a place for a few years, and now I live in a big city with different kinds of people. Feels a lot more real than the small town ever did.
On the Fence
McCain and Palin both have histories of working for CHANGE. Obama just talks about it.
A well-presented explication, Polimom. Thank you.
(It also seems to have prompted interesting explanations of their positions by Elrod and Leonidas . . . and Holly in Cincinnati left me totally gobsmacked by the news she is considering voting for Obama!!!)
It seems a focus on “outside the Beltway” solutions seems to be an integral part of your evaluation of both tickets. I must admit to never having thought of the tickets in that light.
From this perspective: Obama picking Biden brought him Beltway establishment cred (possibly at the expense of his outsider status), while McCain the Washington insider got outsider cred by picking Palin.
Perhaps many Americans share this view. I would not be surprised; given how unpopular Washington is these days among BOTH the GOP and Democratic bases.
I found Elrod's view of the respective merits of Obama's cool deliberation vs. McCain's impetuous rashness interesting as well. Leonidas has a somewhat different take on this same aspect: McCain angering his own party, while Obama carefully aligns his positions.
I tend to agree with Elrod that the Palin pick was unsettling. Perhaps it was inspired and brilliant . . . it may get McCain the presidency! . . . but what if a President gambles impetuously and then loses?! Worrisome thought. Do we want a maverick President? (Do we need maverick solutions?)
Much food for thought here all around…..
Since it only got one comment last time, here were my thoughts on the real America game a couple weeks ago in a guest post.
In addition to your obvious ignorance of my position on this issue, FP, you seem to feel that the executive branch of our government is actually a dictatorship; that McCain will be able to simply waltz his SCOTUS pick right into his/her new office, and that'll be that.
It doesn't work that way.
I have consistently said that it's all about McCain to me. He's the one that has to convince me one way or the other because Obama is much more of an unknown quantity. And I think he's gone a long way in doing that. At this point, I would surprise myself if I don't vote Obama. Here's my thinking in a nutshell:
First, no one governs the way they campaign. Once faced with the complexities of actually governing the lofty campaign promises tend to evaporate. Certainly the details do. So rather than concentrating on details, I tend to concentrate more on a person's general approach, consistency, temperament, decision-making style, and that sort of thing. And to put it bluntly, McCain's VP pick was pretty much the last nail in the coffin. It doesn't have much to do with her, mind you. Heck, we still know very little about her views on much of anything. And why not? Well, it appears to me the reason is she was a last-minute, seat of the pants selection. They obviously didn't prepare her for a possible roll-out. In fact, it's rather clear they didn't vet her very thoroughly. And apparently, McCain felt obliged to go the Palin route because he decided at the last minute that the guy he really wanted would cause too much dissention within the party. I mean my goodness, he has been the presumptive nominee about as long as Bristol's been pregnant. And in all that time he wasn't able to flesh out a Plan B? That to me is reckless — and lacking in deliberative thought.
I was an early proponent of John McCain. But in the last several months I've watched him walk back on so many different things. Not walking back a little, but a lot. What he allowed at the RNC convention was abominable. Many of his cohorts didn't just criticize Obama and the Democrats they tried hard to belittle them. And then he got up there and proclaimed himself a maverick? A guy that would reach across the aisles? It was nothing short of schizophrenic. It convinced me that McCain was a guy that wanted it both ways. And if he couldn't win out either way he'd do something unpredictable. Some might call that thinking out of the box. I call it vitriolic.
We've heard a little about his explosive temper with regard to his congressional colleagues. And if that was all it is, fine. Let off a little steam, but don't let it affect your judgement. The problem is, I believe it does affect his judgement.
Another example: one of the things I liked least about Bush43 was his decision-making style, which he admitted was more instinctual than thorough (an appraisal also acknowledged by his wife Laura and many in his inner circle). Considering what has happened in the last 8 years or so, I thought… never again. I want someone who is thorough about how they think. I want someone I feel has thought out Plan B just in case Plan A doesn't work out. I want someone who has thought out Plan C even, just in case. So when I recently learned about McCain's admission that he likes to take chances, that was another nail in the coffin.
I also look at the people a candidate attracts to work on his or her staff. I have a problem with the fact that McCain hires so many big time lobbyists — many of whom represented conflicts not only to McCain's own interests, but also to America's. Mind you, I consider it good, and in fact essential for the potential leader of the free world to get varied opinions, including those whose opinions differ dramatically. But I'm not comfortable with the idea that they're the ones in charge of shaping policy.
Unfortunately, I have to get back to work, so I think I'll end there.
“Her record (as opposed to the rhetoric) indicates that she won’t. Since this is of enormous importance to me, it’s an area on which I’m intensely focused.”
Polimom, I have to disagree here. Both McCain and Palin would appoint hard right judges and justices. It's not just Roe v. Wade, though. Alito and Roberts, heralded by McCain/Palin as the kind of justices they would appoint, believe in the “unitary executive,” and would further undo the balance of powers, support administration officials hiding from oversight, and support a politically-driven justice department. These are wildly extreme views compared to the written guidance of the founding fathers.
Most disturbing to me though, as I've said before, is the clear appearance that the GOP is attempting to trick voters into voting against their own best interests, a profoundly anti-democratic position. By lying about their opponent's positions, and lying about their own, McCain/Palin are fighting hard against the “informed electorate” that the founding fathers praised as essential to a successful democracy.
Finally, we are handing to our children a mountain of debt and a degraded planet. the GOP will continue this trend, as is their record since Reagan, and would delay for another 4-8 years any action to change course on issues critical to the freedoms and the lives and health of future generations.
Elrod and Ricorun have both referenced a similar point regarding McCain's impetuous or instinctual decision-making.
While issues and ideology are important, I wonder if HOW the POTUS approaches decision-making is even more important.
I recall some years back the Canadian conservative Prime Minister Mulroney boasting to the effect that he “rolled the dice” on some important national issue (free trade, or maybe Quebec?). I remember chiefly that this comment provoked massive outrage in the Canadian public that its leader should make critical decisions impetuously . . . like a maverick gambler.
Canadians punished the conservatives with an historic decimination in the subsequent election.
I don't think publics like impetuous gamblers for leaders. Especially conservatives . . . who, after all, are conservative and like to know where they are going. One always knew what direction Reagan would steer the ship of state in . . . even if one disagreed with him.
Again . . . this has been a provocative thread . . . with food for thought.
Polimom…….I won't bog you down with wonking, but since you are now a newly minted free agent, would you send me your phone number so I can forward all these annoying automatic dialing calls to you? I'm sure they would much rather talk to you than to me.
Leonidas, “On Georgia Obama answered twice with different answers and then came around to McCains position, How was McCain able to get it right? He had a top notch advisor, who the Obama campaign has attacked with the lobbyist label, but this was a man who had been keeping McCain uipdated on the situation so McCain wasn't caugth off guard.”
Here's a link to an interesting piece from today's Washington Post…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
Personally I do haev a problem with McCain's advisors who are (or have been) lobbyists to foreign governments. If his advisors are (or have been) in the employ of foreign countries how do you think McCain can receive impartial advice? In the sace of Georgia it has been mentioned that Saakashvili thought McCain would be in more support of his position…
I voted for Hillary in the primaries, and I am voting for McCain in November.
The poster who focuses on decision-making processes of the candidates makes a very solid point. But then, I share his/her POV. The choice seems so clear that anyone still mulling it cannot acually be motivated by issue positions. So personalities and image move to the fore. Unfortunate but undeniable, at least as it pertains to most such potential voters.
Apparently a lot of people like Sarah Palin. What can I say? She makes my skin crawl — she is a bold liar and hypocrite, a vengeful and corrupt petty bureaucrat who is in denial about being out of her depth, and to top it all off, she seems quite nasty (what makes her, and HER extremist religious views, which clearly bleed into her politics in a big way — “God” wanted the Iraq war, she says — better than anyone else's? And what, exactly, is wrong with being a community organizer? I guess it is much better to be a small-minded, power-hungry, “barracuda”) . I guess a lot of people like that.
McCain, similarly, has a long record of incompetence (from finishing nearly last in in his Naval Academy class to the five plane crashes to his numerous gaffes today), corruption (I can't believe there is a poster citing his “learning” from the Keating Five experience when he remains surrounded by lobbyists and still caters to the rich and powerful at every turn) and nastiness / bad temper, and disrespect for women — imagine how much we would hear about it if a Democrat had called his own wife what he called Cindy, or how much would be made of the same level of infidelity he has demonstrated. This just isn't the good guy the image-builders present, and that most of the MSM buys into (in return for being catered to on the campaign trail). He has flip-flopped like crazy, dumping his “maverick” positions on tax cuts for the rich, campagn finance reform, and even torture, where you'd think he'd stand firm, according to the political advantage of the moment, cancelling out his only real claim to independence. He stoops to low, irrelevant attacks like the Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears “celebrity” ads vs Obama. His “bold” choice of a VP is an obvious pander to the right wing, and shows he is willing to have a puppet of the Bush-Cheney crowd run the country. Indeed, that is what we will get, regardless of whether this 72-year-old, five-time cancer sufferer survives his term. Please take some time to read up on the facts, to actually do what McCain only SAYS he does — “put Country first” — and vote for the change we need (sorry for the slogan but it DOES describe things correctly, IMHO). Obama may not be super-experienced, and I don't agree with all his stances, but he has shown himself to be a respectful, serious, thoughtful, decent man of high intelligence and strong character who can restore the nation's good name around the world and move us past the low place into which Bush-Cheney have dragged us, with a powerful assist from the 90+%-of-the-time partner McCain. Thanks for enduring my rant. And thanks, everyone, for caring enough about our common future to post and read. More knowledge will bring us closer to better solutions.
GreenDreams said
Both McCain and Palin would appoint hard right judges and justices.
Rasmussen says most American voters (60%) agree with the Republicans and say the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution
It's not just Roe v. Wade, though.
Why are you worried about Roe v Wade. Even if it was overturned, it would not outlaw abortions, just turn it over to the states, and most abortions are in blue states where it would still be legal.
I'm really surprised when I see these remarks about McCain being outside of the box now, just because he picked a woman who is unknown. She is not qualified to be VP. Maybe in 8 years or after some time in a national arena, but not now. McCain has rescinded most of his “maverick” positions and judging by what I have read of Palin's political record, she changes position regularly depending on public opinion and political convenience. In what way do either of these two represent outside the box. They simply are politicians who are choosing their positions to curry favor with the electorate, not based upon sound judgment and consideration of issues. I am really tired of politicians who have no moral compass and no fixed principles and who are willing to adapt to the prevailing political winds whenever convenient. Even Obama is not immune to this, although I personally believe that his move to the center during this election was to be expected and was certainly much less jarring than McCain's virtual about face on many issues.
Contrary to the rather off-hand assumptions that I've simply no care for the issues, there are any number of them that matter to me. But the proposed solutions are not coming from one candidate, and in some cases, I'm not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel at all.
Since this has been a pretty sane thread, maybe somebody can help me with this particular puzzle: Which of the two major party candidates is likely to reduce the size of our incredibly bloated government? Either? Neither?
Polimom, I generally read your posts because of your perspective so I was very interested in this particular one and if you are back on the fence I can't help but wonder how many people (more specifically in this case, women) are back on the fence.
You mentioned, “What about her religion, you say? Yes, she’s a social conservative to the Nth degree — but as far as I’m concerned, that only matters if she thinks her views should be translated to national policy. Her record (as opposed to the rhetoric) indicates that she won’t. Since this is of enormous importance to me, it’s an area on which I’m intensely focused.”
Personally I don't think Palin has much of a record to run judge by. Given her limited responsibilites as mayor in Wasilla, I don't believe 1 1/2 years as governor is enough time for her to reach her stride and put through any legislation that she might want…. after all in the first two years of the Bush presidency he hadn't yet implemented many of the policies, except the war on terror, that are hallmark of his administration (whether you agree or disagree with them). Adn many of his policies used the war on terror as an excuse to push through his policies…. whether economic, military, social, or what have you.
But back to Palin…. I am concerned about her views for two reasons. First about her religion. You are correct that her religion does matter if she doesn't translate her views into policy. But how can one believe in one thing (say teaching creationism in school) but say they will continue to support that which they do not believe (evolution). To me Palin and McCain knows her views are extreme and they need to temper them. Then about the issue of global warming… she says she doesn't believe human activity results in global warming. Even Bush and Cheney have come around and acknowledged that human activity does play some role. But Cheney's position was (is) that it's a personal virtue to conserve…. So I don't expect Palin to support policies which are environmentally friendly. Sure she may stay “silent” on them, but I thought we had reached a point where we need to take action to curb global warming, not continue business as usual.
The second cause for concern is that the Republican religious right push aggressively their religious agenda. Everything from denying sposual rights to gays and lesbians (I'm not even talking about banning gay marriage, I'm referring to rights granted by the state to married couples which the religious right feels that gays and lesbians should not have) to parity in the workplace for minorities… Bush ran on a platform of uniting the country, even though his support was from the religious right and he supported much of their agenda and divided the country. He also touted being a “compassionate conservative” and turned out to be was anything but one (which was no surporse to me because how can one be compassionate while supporting the death penalty?
So even if Palin doesn't support positions her supporters will try to have her push through (and there's no reason to suggest that she would go against the very people who elected her, especially when she shares their views), I doubt very much that Palin will support positions which she is against, such as global warming, pro-choice, the proper seperation of church and state, ending workplace discrimination, etc.
Anyway, I find your current indecision interesting… I hope I didnt' come across as saying you shouldn't vote for Palin… if your views match her views then you should very much vote for her. All I'm saying is that given Palin's religious beliefs, the beliefs of her supporters (and their intense pressure to push through their agenda) and the power of the WH (even if she is VP she will still yield enormous influence) I can't imagine that Palin would actually support positions that she is against, including global warming, workplace rights, etc. If elected McCain and Palin will owe the religious right a lot, particularly if they want to stay in power for a second term.
I wish you the best in your pursuit of determining the right candidate for you. For me the choice is simple, but for many others, including it is more difficult. My Mom (a senior citizen and retired doctor- she's very intelligent) waffled between McCain and Obama but is now firmly with Obama. Her sister, here in California, is waffling between the two, but is leaning towards McCain. The issues are complex and I want to thank you for taking your right of a citizen seriously and considering the strengths of each candidate. So many people like one candidate for the wrong reasons and don't make the best choices. So I'm glad that you'll make the best choice for you, even if it is for a candidate I don't support. This is what democracy is about.
Polimom,
That's a very well written post, but I feel it's more than a bit nebulous. I think a good exercise for you (or anyone really) is to write down the top 5 or so top issues to them in this election. Then figure out where each candidate stands and right down which one you prefer for each of those issues.
And I'll give you a hint about the issue of reducing the size of the federal government, neither of the two major parties or candidates are going to do it. If you limit yourself to McCain or Obama, you're choice is between how that money is going to spent, not if it will be.
Polimom, I generally read your posts because of your perspective so I was very interested in this particular one and if you are back on the fence I can't help but wonder how many people (more specifically in this case, women) are back on the fence.
You mentioned, “What about her religion, you say? Yes, she’s a social conservative to the Nth degree — but as far as I’m concerned, that only matters if she thinks her views should be translated to national policy. Her record (as opposed to the rhetoric) indicates that she won’t. Since this is of enormous importance to me, it’s an area on which I’m intensely focused.”
Personally I don't think Palin has much of a record to run judge by. Given her limited responsibilities as mayor in Wasilla, I don't believe 1 1/2 years as governor is enough time for her to reach her stride and put through any legislation that she might want…. after all in the first two years of the Bush presidency he hadn't yet implemented many of the policies, except the war on terror, that are hallmark of his administration (whether you agree or disagree with them). And many of his policies used the war on terror as an excuse to push through his policies…. whether economic, military, social, or what have you.
But back to Palin…. I am concerned about her views for two reasons. First about her religion. You are correct that her religion does not matter if she does not put her views into policy. But how can one believe in one thing (say teaching creationism in school) but say they will continue to support that which they do not believe (evolution). To me Palin and McCain knows her views are extreme and they will temper them (just like Bush did). Then about the issue of global warming… Palin says she doesn't believe human activity results in global warming. Even Bush and Cheney have come around and acknowledged that human activity does play some role. But Cheney's position was (is) that it's a personal virtue to conserve…. So I don't expect Palin to support policies which are environmentally friendly. Sure she may stay “silent” on them, but I thought we had reached a point where we realize the necessity to curb global warming, not continue business as usual.
The second cause for concern is that the Republican religious right pushed aggressively their religious agenda. Everything from denying spousal rights to gays and lesbians (I'm not even talking about banning gay marriage, I'm referring to civil rights granted which the religious right feels that gays and lesbians should not have) to elimination of discrimination (including equal pay for women) in the workplace… Bush ran on a platform of uniting the country. But once in office Bush rewarded his religious right supporters divided the country. He also touted being a “compassionate conservative” and it turned out that he was anything but compassionate. This was no surprise to me because how can one be compassionate while supporting the death penalty? So again Bush pushed through his beliefs and rewarded his base for their support. McCain and Palin will do the same.
I doubt very much that Palin will support positions which she is either against (or has not given much thought on), such as global warming, pro-choice, the proper separation of church and state, ending workplace discrimination, etc. If certain issues were important to her, then she would have given more thought to them. I’ve discovered that people don’t push for change on issues they don’t have a strong or passionate opinion on.
Anyway, I find your current indecision interesting… I hope I do not come across as saying you should not vote for Palin… if your views match her views then you should very much vote for her. All I'm saying is that given Palin's religious beliefs, the beliefs of her supporters (and their intense pressure to push through their agenda) and the power of the WH (even if she is VP she will still yield enormous influence) I can't imagine that Palin would actually support positions that she is against (or even lukewarm about). If elected McCain and Palin will owe the religious right a lot, particularly if they want to stay in power for a second term.
I wish you the best in your pursuit of determining the right candidate for you. It is a difficult decision. My Mom (a senior citizen and retired doctor in Alabama) waffled between McCain and Obama but is now firmly with Obama. Her sister, here in California, is waffling between the two, but is leaning towards McCain. The issues are complex and I want to thank you for taking your right of a citizen seriously and considering the strengths of each candidate before voting. Many people support one candidate for the wrong reasons without making the best choice. So I'm glad that you will make the best choice for you, even if it is for a candidate I don't support. This is what democracy is about.
Polimom,
According to the Non Partisan Tax Policy Center, both Obama and McCain's plans would increase the national debt – Obama by 2.7 trillion and McCain by 4 trillion. (To be fair, I've seen different figures by different analysts, not sure why, but McCain is always about a trillion dollars more than Obama.) (Okay, I just checked it, the different figures 3.3 trillion for Obama, 5 trillion for McCain, seem to include interest.) McCain's primary problem is a decrease in revenue due to tax cuts to the rich, while Obama's is a decrease in taxes for people making less than $250,000.
Personally, I think they need to raise taxes – this, to me, is always the problem: presidents swear they're going to cut taxes to get into office, but then they won't cut the programs people need/want. The Republicans have a much worse track record on this than the democrats, in general.
I don't like paying taxes any more than anybody else, but it's better than being so massively in debt.
Stockboy, you said: “But how can one believe in one thing (say teaching creationism in school) but say they will continue to support that which they do not believe (evolution).”
But isn't that what the entire premise of our foundational government is based on? That there's a rule of law, and a set of principles, and that one person's beliefs may not be imposed on all? Do you therefore think that someone with such religious views is, or should be, automatically out of consideration for national office?
Leonidas,
My response is that I think McCain views reform mostly through a personal lens and not a structural one. That he jettisoned so much of his prior agenda to gain the nomination shows that he cares about power and ambition (as he admitted in his book) and not the higher causes of reform. He is obsessed with personal honor, which he also admits.
As a result he sees himself occasional above the “partisan rancor” when it gives him lots of media attention and adoration. He absolutely loved the media spotlight in 2000 and when he broke from Bush on a few issues in the next couple years. But when those reform issues got in the way of the nomination he threw it all away. Honor-obsessed people must be seen in a respectable light by Those Who Matter. And for McCain, that was the press.
The two signature acts of reform in his Senatorial career – campaign finance reform and immigration reform – John McCain has completely jettisoned. These are not minor issues. This isn't like pandering to the Christian right or going over the top on support for the war. That stuff I can understand in the heat of a race. What I cannot accept is his complete rejection of the things that made him the “maverick” in the first place.
So we are left with a question: who is this guy? I think he's answered it himself. He is incredibly obsessed with personal honor and will react recklessly if he feels his honor is threatened. Obama had a very successful convention. Instead of picking Tim Pawlenty, a social conservative who McCain knows and trusts, he threw up a gimmick in Sarah Palin in order to change the conversation. For the time being Sarah Palin is drawing crowds. But how long will that last? And what does that say about his decision making process?
Country first?
Taking off katiba's post, something I would like to see is more transparency with tax revenues. By and large, very few people will vote for taxes to be raised on themselves, particularly when the revenue simply goes to the General fund. They see whatever programs they most dislike or what is most wasteful and associate their hard-earned money with that. However, people do vote rather commonly to raise taxes on themselves when they know exactly where the money is going and they approve. Educational bonds are routinely approved, as are other items such as highway funds, war bonds, and more. People might be more open to raising taxes if the knew that that money would go exactly towards item X and no where else. I've been toying with a deficit/debt fee myself.
“I make them (decisions) as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can,” Mr. McCain wrote, with his top adviser Mark Salter, in his 2002 book,
“Worth the Fighting For.” “Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”
I for one don't want to live with the consequences of his mistakes.
I think the selection of Palin was a Hail Mary. McCain is a weak Republican presidential candidate. I don't think anyone on either side
of aisle would argue this. “Republican Whisperer” Rove was on the scene pushing his VP choice, McCain had his (Lieberman.) The twain didn't meet.
Enter Sara Palin.
Repub PR machines know that America is like a teenager — it's emotional and it needs to be stimulated all the time. It likes to buck authority and it doesn't listen. And America loves watching reality tv….watching people humiliate themselves,
argue, compete…whatever. The machine knew with the right spin (yes pun intended) they could turn this whole campaign into a kind of American Idol with not many folks being the wiser. I think they chose Palin because she
was provocative (for all the reasons we know) – and they had nothing to lose. And we fell for it.
Polimom: Since this has been a pretty sane thread, maybe somebody can help me with this particular puzzle: Which of the two major party candidates is likely to reduce the size of our incredibly bloated government? Either? Neither?
I've grappled in my mind a lot on this question. And to me a better question is: which of the two major party candidates is likely to improve the efficiency of government? That question is not any easier to answer, but I think it's more to the point. For example, outsourcing of government-funded programs technically reduces the size of government, but it doesn't necessarily make things more efficient from an overall cost/benefit standpoint. In fact, it's often just the opposite. Hiring loyal cronies or like-minded ideologues to head major departments doesn't guarantee better efficiency. In fact it usually just serves to make them more dysfunctional.
To my mind, the single biggest problem we face right now is that the government is dysfunctional. One result of that is the fact that the private sector is not properly regulated. Look at the mortgage crisis. We have problems selling beef to foreign markets. The spinach you eat could kill you. Scientific reports are either gamed by flaks or withheld altogether. Imported toys could turn your kids into blithering idiots. New Orleans and other parts of the Gulf Coast are still suffering.
Here's another question that is somewhat unrelated: why is it that we as a nation spend more on health care per capita than anyone else and yet we have something like 45 million people uninsured? And what good does it do most of us when the GDP increases 3.5%/year if essentially the only ones that benefit are the upper 5%? Likewise, what good does it do to cut deeply into discretionary allocations if we get ourselves into another shooting war if we don't absolutely have to? Iraq and Afghanistan have already cost us over $500 billion. And that's only counting already allocated expenses. Over the long term they are going to cost us trillions.
Another thing: IMO whatever we spend on clean energy and energy efficiency technologies will be money well spent in the long run. Energy efficient technologies are inexpensive, provide jobs, while at the same time saving gobs of money and substantially reducing the use of fossil fuels. Similarly, clean energy alternatives also provide jobs and substantially reduce the use of fossil fuels. But they aren't inexpensive. However, the market for clean energy is so huge that they do represent a truly unique opportunity to revitalize the domestic manufacturing sector and significantly enhance our intellectual capital for export overseas. An emphasis on nuclear power is unlikely to do much for either of the latter — while being at least as expensive and probably more.
Amanda asked a valid question about what I thought “real America” was.
To me real America is America outside the political beltway where people work to make ends meet without a lot of extra left over after buying the groceries, paying the bills, and maybe being able to save just a little bit for retirement. I'm talking the working and middle class and not ivory tower acedemia, or the halls of government, or millionaires, I'm talking about hometown American whether its rural, inner or outter suburbia, or urban.
Sarah Palin represents this because she is a hockey mom as well as a governor, She is a mother of 5 as well as a business deal maker, she is a hunter as well as a reformer. She went into politics via the PTA not via the Ivy League and the Chicago political machine, she continued in politics fighting for things that effected her family, not because she intended on a political career, she found herself there by suprise, not as a plan with politics as a goal.
She is simply more like most of us than she is like them.
P.S. But it's not too late for us to snap out of it !
Biden, Obama and Palin have humble backgrounds.
You're trying to create a contrast where there is none. Palin fought her way to an exclusive club with only 50 members. She makes more money than most of us. She was allied with Ted Stevens during her rise to power.
Leonidas, I see your point. But GW Bush was voted in for almost the same reasons – “down home compassionate” guy. People voted with their emotions because the man he presented to us pushed the right buttons. And look where that has gotten us. Most probably he will go down as the worst president in the history of our country.
I don't want or need my neighbor or cousin to be president — I want a leader of character, substance, and intelligence. We so desperately need great leadership again.
Don Singleton: Shhh. You can't expect everyone to handle Roe v. Wade rationally. You're right about various state laws — I posted a link very recently listing the various states' abortion laws and what would be the case in them if there were no Roe v. Wade. It's there if people are calm, mature, and care to read what the situation is.
As for the continued neurotic agitation on here about Palin, it's sad. McCain made a good surprise choice that makes the McCain campaign now an attractive alternative to many. It seems many can't handle that and resort to all kinds of fiction to deny the truth.
“She is simply more like most of us than she is like them.”
That's a fact that those who actually fear her, realize, for it's why her appeal is so broad, not limited to that Religious Right bogeyman.
I have to laugh at the fiction about Palin being an “impulsive” choice by McCain, another lame and failed effort to portray McCain as suffering defective behavior (as with his so-called temper; Biden is worse when it comes to saying dumb things, though the media are understandly reticent given whose campaign they openly and predictably have been supporting). Palin was a surprise only because she was a lower-tier potential choice. SHE WAS ONE OF THE POTENTIAL CHOICES FOR MONTHS. [sigh]
What's funny is watching your total reversal on matters of “celebrity.” You leveled the celebrity charge at pretty much all of the Obama supporters, but seem unwilling to recognize that the exact thing you've described happened with Republicans and Palin.
She may have been on a list of potential choices.
But she wasn't vetted and we all know it.
McCain himself says he's an impulsive decision maker! (see his direct quote from my earlier post.)
“Perhaps it was inspired and brilliant . . . it may get McCain the presidency! “
That's what probably will be needed for many skeptics to admit it was inspired and brilliant. (So far the results have been remarkably good but we have two months to go!) The worst of the opposition will never admit it is true or even a possibility.
“Getting the presidency” … What about governing our country?? Two very different things.
DLS,
The political implications are up for dispute. Palin may or may not have been a good strategic election choice.
But that misses the bigger and more important picture: The Palin pick was unquestionably a bad choice in terms of governance.
ChrisWWW alludes to another part of my overall discomfort with the state of the race right now with this:
What's funny is watching your total reversal on matters of “celebrity.”
Leaving aside altogether who made the comment, I've seen a very definitive disconnect by many of the Obama supporters re: Palin. And I likewise see a complete absence of irony on the Republican side.
When they assail Palin's experience, the first thing that goes through my mind is that Obama was also assailed on precisely these grounds. Palin's pastor(s) have said things that are outside the mainstream? Hmmm — where have I heard this before? And accusations of falling for personality? *ahem*
This is a large part of why I'm not taking many of the counterpoint arguments to heart, on either side of the debate. Everybody is starting to sound very much the same. One merely need exchange the name of the target.
(no offense intended to any individuals at all with this comment, btw — this is a generic observation).