Friday, September 12, 2008

Politics

Disclaimer: I've had a recent and very painful run-in with family on matters political. Since this is my blog, I plan to continue to post my opinions here, since nobody is compelled to read my blog. If you have strong feelings about politics, and anything I say here is going to hurt your feelings, please skip the political entries. If you feel that an honest dialog based on the facts is possible, I encourage you to comment in the comments section below.

This video, not produced by the Obama campaign, sums up why I cannot vote for McCain. Because McCain will do anything now to be elected.



Backstory: McCain released a smear ad last week suggesting that Obama's education plan taught sex to pre-schoolers. This is preposterous and the lowest form of gutter deception!

The Truth: The Obama plan would teach children how to recognize inappropriate behavior (from strangers, regarding touching, abuse, etc.) and how to protect themselves from these very real dangers. In fact, these are the exact same principles taught to every Cub Scout upon their first week in scouting. Is McCain suggesting that Cub Scouts are teaching our children about sex? Of course not.

McCain is expecting to illicit a reaction from people who are either too lazy to dig deeper into the facts, or have already made up their mind so firmly on Obama, that they will not be swayed.

It just makes me furious that this once honorable man has stooped so low to win an election, whatever it takes.

12 comments:

JamesF said...

The McCain campaign seems to be intent on making this election about personality and "character" rather than issues. I don't know if you're aware of this, but McCain was a P.O.W. and therefore is beyond reproach, and Palin is female, so you really can say anything negative about her otherwise you're sexist and picking on her. And sadly this tactic seems to be working for them so far.

Scott said...

well said

Anonymous said...

I think character in a president is extremely important, and in this regard I truly question Obama's. Consider his radical associations : Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Flager, William Ayers. I'm not sure that he agrees with all of their radical views but he sure seems comfortable in their company, particularly when they are helping him climb the Chicago political ladder. Of equal concern is my informed belief that he is a socialist. Everyone is entitled to an opinion since we are currenlty a democractic nation. I just hope all that plan to vote for him realize the implications for democracy an Obama presidency would bring. Investors Business Daily (non-partisan of course) backs up this assertion :
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=302137342405551

Scott said...

That's a good argument, but if you want to talk about socialism, let's talk specifics:

I would assert that there have been more erosions of personal liberties in the name of security in the last eight years than ever under any president before Bush. Sure, Obama will be a typical tax and spend liberal, I'll admit that. But warrantless wiretaps, secret detentions, the ability to hold people (even Americans) without trial by calling them enemy combatants, suspension of habeus corpus, I could go on... these are things in the power hungry current Republican administration that scare the living pants off of me. It's an erosion of our Constitution never before seen in size or scope. And only one administration will stop it.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe there have been infractions against normal everyday people without provocation ? No doubt that would be completely unacceptable. Or is it possible that some innocent people's liberties have been accidentally compromised by an administration that has had to deal with by far the most horrific terrorist attack in this country's history ? I don't believe the administration as a whole is power hungry. There are always those that are. But I don't think the two at the top of this one are. Do I think everything the Bush administration has done is perfect ? Of course not. But I do believe their actions were sincerely motivated by a desire to do whatever it took to prevent another 9/11. I know not everyone does. Considering the magnitude of what happened on 9/11 don't you think that was supposed to be only the beginning ? I personally believe that history will credit George Bush with keeping America safe from more terrorist attacks. I'm sure that statement is going to get me in big trouble ! If you can't credit Bush at all I am very curious to understand your mindset about 9/11 and its aftermath. Is it just a stroke of luck that we haven't had another attack ? Do you think the radical Islamic terrorists' hatred for America has magically evaporated ?

Scott said...

I believe that our initial response to 9/11 was appropriate: the swift and focused targeting of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (not Iraq). I also support limited covert actions in other countries when needed (Somolia, Indonesia, whatever).

However, by waving the 9/11 banner, and by questioning the patriotism of anybody who differs in opinion, the administration has gone too far in the name of security. In a sense, the terrorists are winning by changing the fabric of our lives permanently.

I do not trust my government. They have done nothing laudable that would earn that trust. In every way, I see failure: at home and abroad. And in the name of security, we have squandered our high moral standing in the world.

Yes, we have not had a major attack, and I am thankful for that. But I believe that has been mostly luck. If the terrorists want to, they would find a way--a new way--as they did in London and Madrid.

Every time the terrorists attack, the western world constricts a little more, and a little more, until we begin to resemble an Orwellian state. I'd say that is giving in to fear and letting the terrorists win.

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty. --John Adams

Anonymous said...

Neither one of our last two posts contain many provable facts. But that's ok because what is most striking about them anyway is how polarized our nation's impressions and perceptions have become.

To me it seems like it began in the early 90s with the Bush41/Clinton race. From there the polarization has grown. In large part I blame the mainstream media because they no longer do their job of impartially investigating and reporting news. They have done the public a major disservice by not providing balance. I think this became quite clear during the Democrat primary this year. Once the media darlings, the Clintons found out what it is like to be dropped for a new liberal idol, Obama. SNL wasn't far off the mark with their spoof in which Hillary was asked questions in an antagonstic way while the toughest question given to Obama was whether or not he was comfortable and wanted a pillow. LOL !

Anyway, the media culture has created a situation in which unless you deliberately seek out news sources right of center it is virtually impossible to be well informed. If you haven't tried it I submit that the FOXNews cable channel, though slightly right of center, attempts to be balanced and those on the left and right are very respectable and professional voices.

Thanks for letting me contribute to your blog. I think this will be my last post - due to our polarized opinions the discussion could go on and on and on. At this point I'm ready to say "Let the best man (or woman) win !"

Scott said...

Fair enough. I thank you for your comments.

Anonymous said...

Regarding your original claim of "gutter deception" by McCain, have you read the bill in question yourself ?

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session

Actually the bill does say the students in Kindergarten-12th grade should receive education in sexually transmitted diseases and how to prevent them.

Again, you may never hear any of this in the main stream media, but this article from National Review Online provides some balance. Regarding Kindergarteners the bill goes way beyond the media talking point of "protecting young children from sexual predators."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=

Scott said...

I just read the bill. It looks to me that the final bill was modified in committee. The 6th grade is struck out, and the K is inserted. I'm not yet convinced that you could blame this on Obama, the original sponsor of the bill.

Anonymous said...

The markups you see are actually the bill itself, i.e., the purpose of the bill was to revamp sex education in Illinois public schools (the original text is the old bill). Actually Obama didn't sponsor it (a Carol Ronen? did). He voted for it.

Although Obama might argue all he wanted was the "inappropriate touching" language and maybe that is the truth then why did he vote for a bill whose intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten ?

He has to be held accountable for his record just like everyone else. I don't agree with the attack ads but it seems to have become a reality in American politics and both sides are really good at it.

But the bottom line is where in the world is the mainstream media to help us find the "truth" ? How many people have the time to dig up the truth on every issue ? The media is so deep into the Obama camp they are literally useless !

I'm not suggesting you agree with me but I appreciate your open mind and taking the time to read the bill.

Scott said...

I read something interesting about the "polarization" comment raised earlier. An article supposed that the Internet, with its massive amounts of information (blogs, news articles, MSM, etc.) is actually contributing MORE to the polarization of opinions in politics, now more than ever, even though there are plenty of information to be found on all sides of the spectrum.

Basically, the theory is that people develop their viewpoint early on, and then seek out only the information that supports their viewpoint. So, those who've decided to vote Obama seek out liberal media outlets, while conservative supporters will seek out only conservative media outlets. Nobody is forced to watch "the only game in town" which was something like NBC Nightly News or the local newspaper back in the 60's or 70's.

Honestly, I am totally guilty of this. I recognize that.

© Copyright 2005-2014, Scott E. Harris. All Rights Reserved.
Please do not reproduce or copy without the permission of the author.