Sigh...Politics & Fray...which are not related, even though it sounds like they are

Aug. 25th, 2008 08:58 pm
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
Before I begin my rant diatribe post on poltics, on a positive note - I started reading Joss Whedon and Karl Moline's Fray series last night and am enjoying it, amazingly enough. ( FRAY )

Okay not as brief as I intended.

I am not currently watching the Democratic Convention, mostly because politics is giving me a headache at the moment and as far as I can tell Comedy Central does not appear to be covering it - dang-it! November really can't come fast enough. I've no clue what these people are going to do come November. At this point, there's a 50/50 chance McCain or Obama will win. I do know Hillary isn't going to be President, despite what her deluded supporters may think.

The Hillary Nitwits Supporters make no sense to me whatesover. In the paper this morning, a 61 year old woman in New Jersey who runs the organization PUMA (not to be confused with the word Cougar either as the animal or well, you know), stated "they can't keep us middle-aged women back! We'll support Hillary. She'll become President! Our voices will be heard!"

Ah.Okay.

I repeated this quote to a 62 year friend who stated: "WHAT? I am not middle-aged! I do not plan to live to be 112!"

First off, I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but unless you plan to live to be 112, at the age of 61, you are NO LONGER middle-aged. 60 is not the new 50 - no matter how many times you like to repeat it while you run on your treadmill. Second, Hillary lost the primary election, she ain't becoming President, that ship has long sailed, the majority of the delegates picked Obama. Plus, she caved. Gave a nice little speech and everything. Deal with it.

"So I'll vote McCain!" They scream like a bunch of bratty four year olds, no disrepect meant towards actual four year olds, who are beginning to look brighter and more adult than the Hillary Supporters by the minute. This begs the question why did they support Hillary to begin with?
( pardon me while I get up on my soap box... )
Tags:

Don't pigeon-hole me, please...

Feb. 23rd, 2008 09:45 am
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
As I mentioned in previous posts, I've been reading The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama lately. Surprisingly good. Didn't expect to enjoy reading it, honestly. These types of books usually either put me to sleep or aggravate me. But this one is fairly engaging and manages to put into words many of the things I've been thinking about the US, our current political climate, our past history, and what needs to be done for quite some time.

These two paragraphs taken directly from the prologue - pretty much summarize my own political philosophy:
( political belief )

Later in the book - he makes a point of showing how complex people are. That people can not be put in boxes. That we are more alike than we think. That for all our differences, we really do share the same values and basically want the same things - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - the ability to find a good job, have a family, spend time with our family, have a home, food, shelter, health, clean air and clean water.

( Nixon )

( Obama's Take on Presdent Reagan and why America voted for him )

( Clinton and Gringrich, Rove and Norquist - polarization in the government )

( Absolutism, Hillary/Obama debate comparisons, Obama's views on Republicans and Democrats and what needs to change )

I believe any attempt by Democrats to pursue a more sharply partisan and ideological strategy misapprehends the moment we're in. I am convinced that whenever we exaggerate or demonize, oversimplify or overstate our case, we lose. Whenever we dumb down the political debate, we lose. For it's precisely the pursuit of ideological purity, the rigid orthodocy and the sheer predictablity of our current debate, that keeps us from finding new ways to meet the challengs we face as a country. It's what keeps us locked in 'either/or' thinking: the notion that we can have only big government or no government; the assumption that we must either tolerate forty-six million without health insurance or embrace socialized medicine.

It is such doctrinaire thinking and stark partisanship that have turned Americans off politics. This is not a problem for the right; a polarized electorate - or one that esily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate - works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government.

I saw this in the Obama/Clinto debate as well - particularly in regards to our current President. Clinton went after Bush personally, calling him names, while Obama took a different approach - an approach quite similar to the one he does in this book - where he states in his second Chapter:
( Bush )

Obama says that he is under no illusion "that the task of building a working majority will be easy. But it's what must do, precisely because the task of solving America's problems will be hard. It will require tough choices, and it will require sacrifice. Unless political leaders are open to new ideas and not just new packaging, we won't change enough hearts and minds to initiate a serious energy policy or tame the deficit. We won't have the popular support to craft a foreign policy that meets the challenges of globalization or terrorism without resorting to isolationism or eroding civil liberties. We won't have a mandate to overhaul America's broken health-care system. and we won't have the broad political support or the effective strategies needed to lift large numbers of our fellow citizens out of poverty."

In 2005 - he responded to a blog attacking Democrats for voting for Chief Justice John Roberts, who he had voted against. He was supporting and defending them. Stating much the same argument he poses above. And got the predictable range of responses.

And he wonders if maybe the critics are right, that there's no escaping the great political divide and maybe most of us have given up seeing it as little more than a spectator sport.

But - he believes - that this isn't true. That there are people out there like himself. ordinary citizens who have grown up in the midst of all the political and cultural battles, but who have found a way - in their own lives, at least - to make peace with their neighbors and themselves. I imagine the white Southerner who growing up heard his dad talk about niggers this and niggers that but who has struck up a friendship with the black guys at the office and is trying to teach his own son different, who thinks discrimination is wrong but doesn't see why the son of a black doctor should get admitted into law school ahead of his own son. Or the former Black Panther who decided to go into real estate, bought a few buildings in the neighborhood, and is just tired of the drug dealers in fron of those buildings as he is of the bakers who won't give him a loan to expand his business. There's the middle-aged feminist who still mourns her abortion, and the Christian woman who paid for her teenager's abortion, and the millions of waitresses and temp secretaries and nurse's assistants and Wal-mart associates who hold their breath every single month in the hope that they'll have enough money to support the children they did bring into the world.

I imagine they are waiting for a politics with the maturity to balance idealism and realism, to distinguish between what can and cannot be compromised, to admit the possibility that the other side might sometimes have a point. They don't always understand the arguments between right and left, conservative and liberal, but they recognize the difference between dogma and common sense, responsibility and irresponsibility, between those things that last and those that are fleeting.

( What I think of all of this, and my current take on Clinton, McCain and Obama )
  • Current Mood: contemplative
Tags:

Ack - Politics Redux - a Hopefully Objective Guide to The Presidential Candidates

Feb. 20th, 2008 07:32 pm
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
Been reading Barak Obama's Audacity of Hope - which is great. But, decided I wanted to see what all these guys have actually done - not what they say they plan to do, or promise they will do in order to persuade us to elect them. Actions after all speak louder than words. So in an attempt to get past the rhetoric and name-calling, below - for your reference and my own - are links to the each one of the main Candidates "Voting Records", "Bills that They've Sponsored", and "Comparisons of their Voting Records". (I ignored Huckabee, because I honestly don't see him as much of a contender in this race anymore.) Most of the links are from objective sources - merely interested in reporting the data not in persuading us to vote for *their* candidate. I tried to avoid any links that contained an emotional pov or endorsement of one of the candidates listed in an attempt to provide myself and anyone who happens upon this post with as much impartial information as possible.

John MCcain's voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270

Barack Obama's voting record:http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Hillary Clinton's voting record:http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Hillary vs. Obama - article links on their voting records compared:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/22/hillaryclinton.barackobama

Excerpts: Clinton and Obama differed most famously on the 2005 energy bill that helped pad the profits of oil and gas companies while expanding ethanol use. But while Clinton adopted the consensus liberal stance against that bill, which Obama backed, the contrasts in their records give neither one a leg up with true-blue Democrats. On immigration, ethics, gun control, and other controversial questions, Clinton and Obama tended to switch off, each wearing the liberal mantle some of the time.

One little-mentioned split occurred on a proposal to restrict Pentagon spending on cluster bombs, which explode and scatter thousands of tiny weapons over a vast area. Those small bombs are prone to going off years after a battle, sometimes killing and maiming Middle Eastern children who mistakenly trigger them. Israel came under fire from the UN and international human rights groups for its use of cluster bombs during its 2006 war with Hizbullah forces in Lebanon. In the autumn of that year, with memories of the conflict still fresh, several Democrats sought to limit US defence spending to cluster bombs that would not be used in civilian areas....

Obama voted in favour of limiting use of the bombs, while Clinton and 69 other senators opposed the spending limits, defeating the proposal.

2. Ethics Comparsion - go here:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/barack-obama-vs-hillary-clinton-records-on-transparency-lobbyists-and-ethics/

3. How have Clinton, Obama, and McCain been Voting on Trade Issues?

http://benmuse.typepad.com/custom_house/2008/02/how-have-clinto.html

Excerpt:"McCain voted "pro-trade" in all the 13 roll calls I looked at in which both he and Clinton voted. Clinton voted pro-trade in 54% of them. I haven't scored Obama because he only entered the Senate in 2005 and wasn't there to vote in more than half of the roll calls included here. However, from 2005-2007, he and Clinton voted the same way in each roll call I've included."

"I'd also like to draw your attention to several posts during the past week on Barak Obama's likely trade stance. Jonathan Dingel posted an excerpt from a Guardian article by Daniel Koffler, which argued that Obama had a deeper understanding of the power of markets than other Democratic and Republican candidates: Is Obama better on globalization? Simon Lester agreed: Is Obama Better Than Clinton On Free Trade? Lester points to this post by Greg Mankiw to illustrate Obama's grasp of economic issues: The Pigou Club watches the debates . Emmanuel disagreed, pointing to Obama's record on agricultural and ethanol subsidies (Obama represents Illinois, an important agricultural state): Obama is the Protectionist's Choice, Too. Emmanuel's post also suggests the sorts of roll calls that might be used to expand this data set, and the potential for changing the relative standing of the candidates reached here. To the extent that the roll call information sheds light on this debate, it suggests that Obama and Clinton may behave similarly."

4. Gov.Track -on which bills sponsored by the candidates while in Congress and the overall trend of their voting record:

- Obama's : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
-Obama's Bills: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629&tab=bills

- Clinton's:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
-Clinton's Bills: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022&tab=bills

-McCain's:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071
-McCain's Bills:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071&tab=bills


5.The National Journals' Vote Tracker - Obama the Most Liberal Senator -

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

Key Votes Used to Track - or Senate Vote Comparison - http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/votes.htm
Tags:

Eeny, Meeny, Miny, Moe....Obama or Hillary?

Feb. 4th, 2008 09:56 pm
shadowkat: (chesire cat)
Okay really happy that I'm not commuting into Manhattan tomorrow - it's going to be packed due to the Giants Parade.

Anyhow...the primaries are tomorrow. I'm still on the fence between OBAMA and Hillary. I'm a registered democrate, I think, so can vote in the primary in NY. Whether I do or not is still up in the air.

Here's who the progressive feminists are supporting and why:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/NYfeministsforpeace/

Me?

Ugh. Hillary Clinton is a tough lady. She's pragmatic, has had experience with the difficulties of passing a National Health Care Program, knows the Senate and how to get the two parties to work together, knows first hand what happened during 9/11 - having seen it from both her Husband's perspective, New Yorker's perspective and current administrations, has a strong desire to take this country in a different and more positive direction, and I like her views:

1. Universal affordable healthcare with choices including keeping your current coverage or choosing from the same plans as Members of Congress. The only difficulty is she wants to make it a mandate rather than a choice. But I think that may be a good idea - since if we mandate that people have health insurance we will be better able to control disease outbreaks and promote wellness across the board. The downside of course is most people can't afford to do that. But if we give those people a tax rebate - as she proposes - and mandate that it be used for health care, that could solve the problem. On the other hand - it will also create a lot of paper work, slow down the system, and could result in a lower standard of care not to mention more bureacratic red tape as we have seen with Hillary's other great accomplishment - HIPAA.

2. Protect homeownership by freezing home foreclosures and protect homeowners from predatory lenders. Okay. Sounds good in theory. But, that puts Banks at risk - and we are already having troubles with banks closing or merging and the loss of jobs. How can you protect homeowners and not cause banks to close or other problems from emerging?

3. Common Sense Spending - Don't Spend What you don't have on what you don't need. Yeah, but she's as guilty as the rest of them for pork. Padding bills with stuff for her constituents.

4. Tax Fairness - tax relief with New York's middle class...not bad.

Also it would, I admit, be nice to have a woman president. But I'm not voting for someone just because they are a woman, any more than I'd vote for someone just because they are black or a man.

Hillary has a strength and pro-activeness that I'm not certain I see in Obama. As well as a pragmatism. Obama feels very idealistic to me. Almost too good to be true. And I'm not sure the fact that he reminds me of JFK is necessarily a good thing. JFK - if you remember - didn't do much as president except almost start World War III and get us into Vietnam. It was LBJ who signed the Civil Rights Bill and pushed Medicare through. LBG, who was less charismatic, was able to get a lot more done and was far more pragmatic. So the comparison makes me uneasy. Charisma doesn't always make a good leader, just a likable one and while it helps to have a likeable leader, it should not be the main thing.

On the other hand? Obama was against the Iraq war. And more importantly is less divisive than Hillary. I know Republicans that would vote for Obama. A lot of people really hate Hillary, democrats and republicans. So, I think Obama may have a better chance at winning the General Election. Plus, Obama seems to be motivating people in a postive way. People seem to like him.

I don't know. What do you guys think? I probably won't be responding to the comments, I just want to know what people think - regardless of whether or not you are American or of voting age. So this is open to everyone.


[Poll #1133149]
  • Current Mood: contemplative
Tags:
Page generated Apr. 23rd, 2025 02:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios