Don't Believe the Hype...

I'll admit it- I'm a former political junkie who still occasionally struggles with looking at deciding who will run our country like a college basketball fan sees March Madness. 

I was a College Republican, and "graduate" of the Morton Blackwell School of Leadership (ever wonder where the Republicans get all those clean cut, young political operatives? You know- the ones who help with all the "dirty tricks"? That was me. Remind me to tell you about an after-hours foray into a Planned Parenthood convention the night before a march... on second thought- never mind.)

I was a rabid Rush fan. I listened every day, went into withdrawals if I was traveling and couldn't find him on the radio and even listened to the recasts on the weekends. 

And before 4 years ago, I had never voted anything but Republican. 

I could talk the talk- I knew the spin and could argue politics anytime. 

But like I say- I've changed. I'm not registered as belonging to any party. I try to approach each election and vote based on the person, not the party. 

And in the midst of all that, I'm trying to walk away from the "politics of personal destruction" that Bill Clinton rightly decried. What was done to him and his wife was appalling, and though I'm not really a Hillary fan, I regret (and repent of) my participation in the smears and character assassination that they endured. Yes- my role was a small one. But for every "Trooper-Gate" rumor I passed on, every time I brought up Vince Foster, every Monica joke and Whitewater reference... I'm truly sorry. 

But... my participation in all that is why I know character assassination when I see it and that's what's happening right now with Sarah Palin. I thought the Jeremiah Wright thing with Obama was patently unfair. And so is this.

I don't want any longer to fall into the binary trap that says we minimize everything bad about "our" candidate and blow into ridiculous proportion everything about "theirs." That's why I'm as unconcerned with Obama's ties to former Black Panthers and Syrian national Tony Rezko (see how easy it is to make someone seem sinister?) as I am that Palin would fire someone in state government for his refusal to fire a Trooper who tasered his own 11-year old son and threatened to put a "f***ing bullet" in the head of Palin's father. I'd have fired someone who let a guy like that keep wearing a State Trooper uniform too. 

All of this stuff- all of it, can be made to sound like either a matter of National Security and Serious Lapse in Judgment and Ethics... or it can be seen to a matter of real life- decisions and friendships and choices that we aren't privy to and should be careful of judging- whether we're talking Obama and his pastor or Palin and her ex-brother in-law. 

For instance- Palin is being criticized for going back to work three days after having a baby. Yes- he has Down's Syndrome. As far as I know, that's going to matter a lot more years down the road than at 3 days. But what really happened? Did she go in for a couple of hours? Did she bring the baby? Was Dad staying at home and with the rest of their four children holding down the fort?

We don't know, and without a full picture of what happened, speculating on it just feels like gossip.

And a double standard- Biden took his first oath of office standing by his son's hospital bed- the son who had just lost a mother and sibling in a car crash, knowing it meant he'd be leaving that son to recover while he went to work on spending bills in Congress.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying Biden made a poor choice. What I am saying is that how you look at it probably has more to do with your party affiliation than anything. Democrats read that story as heroic. Republicans read it as a shocking choice to put a political career over family.

You can spin it either way, and like with Sarah Palin working after the birth of her son, no one who wasn't there really knows. Why are Feminist Democrat women critiquing this woman? Why are Republicans defending her 17yo pregnant daughter? Take any of the critiques, switch the party affiliations and you will see a magical switch in those defending and attacking as well. Bet on it.  

I refuse to look any more into the crap some people want to sling Obama's way. Radical roots? Shady connections? Closet Muslim?!?! Don't care. I know character matters- believe me, I know. But I won't discern Barack Obama's character by listening to republican hacks tell me what's wrong with the guy.

And I won't learn a single useful thing about Palin by listening to most of what's been said about her these last few days. 

The only way the media will stop this crap is if good people stop giving their ears to it.

UPDATE: 

I'm with Paul: 

"Anyone who thinks that the Republican Party is a party of hate or mudslinging in some sort of unequivocated way should have come with me to Peet’s this morning and tried to accomplish anything at all while sitting next to roughly eight senior citizens and their endless sound-bites directed at Sarah Palin and her family. 

I’m not sure that I’ve ever heard anyone slandered like this before - in politics or elsewhere. Really disturbing.

Hate speech aside, I suppose I can’t understand why anyone is so dogmatically convinced by either candidate in this election. Both bring much to the table, but they also have extremely glaring flaws."

Read the rest here

Comments

[Rich]

good post. my story is nearly identical to yours and i couldn't have said this better myself.

[Rachel]

Well said, Bob! I also spent many years as a Young Republican and faithful Dittohead. Then after the 2004 election, I changed dramatically and became a Bush-bashing, Al Franken listener. Now I'm just tired of all that. I'm sick of treating politics as a battle between good and evil.

It's funny that you mention Rush because I just tuned in to his show this morning because I was curious to hear what he has to say about Sarah Palin (he is completely infatuated and thinks she is the best thing that has happened to Republicans in years). His show was as entertaining as I remembered but I couldn't listen very long because it was so negative and extreme and one-sided.

[starla]

I'm not hearing the media talk about her choice to run with a pregnant 17 year old and a special needs baby. Oddly, I'm hearing that from women. And not just any women, conservative women who look at her say "That is not reflecting family value." "That is not family first."

On the left, women don't seem to be commenting on her choice of career, they seem to be offended that McCain would pander for their vote by puting someone up for VP that directly opposes their values. "Does he think I'll vote for him just because the VP is woman?"

Me? I'm just amazed that McCain could pick someone that all the women could agree on. Facinating. Absolutely facinating.

[david]

BINGO!

is it too much to ask for meaningful, intelligent discussion about the issues facing our country.

how odd is it that to this point the BEST political discussion of this election was held in a Southern Baptist church moderated by a pastor?

[aaron stewart]

I don't agree with Paul when he says that both candidates have a lot of glaring flaws. Maybe talking about VPs but about Obama vs. McCain to me there is no comparison.

But throw personality and charisma and all that out the window and focus on the issues ( as if that's going to happen ). In my mind there is still no comparison. McCain is a forgetful elitist that wants to start more wars and put the tax burden on me and my children whether I like it or not. That's his entire platform. Fear, security and Metamucil.

[Bob]

C'mon, Aaron- didn't you read the comment just before yours? :)

Have a realistic view- if you can't name a single downside to your candidate, there's something wrong.

Obama- lack of foreign policy experience. 2 years of national political experience, most of which he's spent running for president.

McCain- Yes, he's old, maybe too old to trust this office to. And he's tied to this administration more than he's not.

Both candidates have flaws and both have serious, substantive policy proposals that you won't hear them talk about on National TV- at least until the debates. Get used to it- go to their websites if you want that info because you won't get it from TV.

And *both* will put a tax burden on you and your children. There's simply no where else either of them can put it! Both sound amazingly similar when it comes to taxes- both want to cut them for everyone reading this blog. They disagree mainly on the ceiling/level at which they will be raised/remain the same.

What we need is a conversation about two competing visions for America- not a rehashing of the DNC and RNC talking points.

[Bob]

"On the left, women don't seem to be commenting on her choice of career, they seem to be offended that McCain would pander for their vote by puting someone up for VP that directly opposes their values. "Does he think I'll vote for him just because the VP is woman?""

" Sarah Palin found some unlikely allies Wednesday as leading academics and even former top aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton endorsed the Republican charge that John McCain’s running mate has been subject to a sexist double standard by the news media and Democrats. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13129.html

[Jessi]

I've been hoping you'd have a post on this whole deal, and you didn't disappoint! Excellently expressed. It all goes both ways. We do need to do what Aaron said and throw away the personality and charisma tugs on us, and vote for who more closely represents our values (even though probably neither candidate fully does what we'd like)...but his own follow up to that sort of proves he too is having trouble doing just that...because obviously McCain's platform doesn't include Metamucil. (BTW, anyone who's concerned about McCain 'checking out early' because of his age should take note of his 96 year old mother at the RNC looking quite coherent for her age!) I also think that to say he WANTS to START more wars would be stretching it (from what I understand, his experience with war wasn't exactly a cake-walk, so I doubt he's LOOKING to put others in that position), and whoever thinks that Obama's taxes for business (instead of 'me and my children')isn't going to affect us in any way should probably think again. There's no eutopia, and there's no perfect candidate, my friends.

Anyway, GREAT post Bob.

[Jon]

As an Obama supporter, I realize that my perspective is slanted a bit. However, I also write from the perspective of one who was a dyed in the wool republican for my whole life. I freely admit that you can "blame me, I voted for Bush". I actually voted for McCain in the 2000 primary and I have a great deal of admiration for him and his integrity. That being said, if he were anywhere close to the candidate that he was then, I would have a much harder decision this time around. I told my wife back in the beginning of this process that I hoped McCain and Obama would be the nominees because I thought that they would have a campaign based on issues instead of the nastiness that has been politics for a long time now. I listened to the speeches last night hoping for a little similarity to the previous weeks, "John McCain loves this country just as much as we do". I looked and hoped for a demonstration of the "good will" as Sarah Palin put it, regarding the opposition. All I saw was Obama absolutely derided for his "job" as a community organizer. To me I have never cared much for the experience issue. I think it's somewhat important but not overwhelmingly so. How exactly are you qualified for the job of Leader of the Free World anyway? However, if you consider his experience I would rather have someone who devoted a good bit of their life to actual service rather than political service any day. I would hope that perspective would remain with them even into politics. To be sure McCain served and served bravely and courageously but in his own way, so did Obama. I'm not sure I could say I would use my Ivy League education to serve the downtrodden, if of course I had one. :-) Just a couple cents from me. I could go on forever but that would ruin the book. :-)

[Zach]

ah, a recovering rush addict. things make a bit more sense to me now. ;-)

i get what your saying here, bob, and i agree with you. but when the GOP is being attacked, you seem to require nuance and accuracy. When it's the dems who are receiving partisan attacks, even untrue attacks, you seem to take pleasure in it (i.e. "OH SNAP!..."). But maybe that's the rush still swimming in your veins or maybe that's me just splitting hairs.

"And he's tied to this administration more than he's not." ha. being generous is great and all, but that's straight up evasive. it would be nice to see both parties get that kind of kiddie glove treatment here.

[andy]

Bob, do you read Andrew Sullivan?

Genuinely good political discourse is out there, you just have to dig for it.

[Bob]

Well- when it's a real attack that's unfair, such as Glenn Beck suggesting Obama MAY be a fascist, I speak up. I give SNAPs to good rhetoric one liners.

As for being tied to this administration... well, I'll refer you back to your Driscoll/Pagitt reference. He may be in the same party as Bush, but that's about it. The two are personal enemies...
As for kid glove treatment, well... I don't think I'm giving that to anyone. I am trying to be a bit less personal all the way around- and right now, the treatment of Palin is what's on my radar.

But seriously- I'm just the pastor of a small church with a blog- trying to encourage us all not to look to a candidate or government to save us. If my church and my readers tended toward McCain supporters, you'd see things skew a bit differently as I challenged THEM. But since most of our church community and I think many of my readers are Obama supporters, well... that's where the challenge is going center.

[Zach]

supporting the president by voting in favor the president's agenda more than 90% of the time doesn't make them the same person, but it on policy matters, which the GOP are almost totally ignoring, that's a few notches up from as "being tied to the administration more than he's not."

i'm just requiring an equal amount of nuance and accuracy that you seem to believe is necessary when critiquing McCain/Palin.

[Bob]

According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain's presidential support scores (the percentage of roll call votes on which he sided with Bush's position) for each completed individual year of Bush's presidency are:

Year

McCain Presidential Support Score

2001 91%

2002 90%

2003 91%

2004 92%

2005 77%

2006 89%

2007 95%

Actually- it's a bit more nuanced :) than that. Most of the "votes" are on procedural maters. Obama himself votes with GWBush 40% of the time.

I don't think I'm being nearly as unbalanced as you think... For what it's worth- I like Obama better than McCain :)

You saw this one, right? http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2008/09/jon-stewart-on-rove-on-palin.html

[Zach]

your last comment totally proves my point.

if you average all those percentages together, you get 89%. so i apologize that i wasn't completely accurate. i was off by one percent.

[Bob]

Its not a matter of percentages when the cast majority of votes are procedural matters. McCain has been a consistent opponent of many Bush policies. He even opposed the Bush energy plan that Obama supported.

My sense is that it's not that I'm not as pro-obama as you'd like- it's that I'm not as anti-McCain.

And my point is that I'm not anti either. I like them both. For the first time in my life I'm happy if either ticket wins.

It weirds me out that that bothers some people so much :)

[Bob]

I honestly believe that both Obama and McCain will work across the aisle. I'm excited about that prospect.

[Zach]

so the percentages are meaningless because of the nature of the votes?

again, this just proves my point. regardless of who you like more, you certainly don't show a tendency to be as disciplined in giving both sides the equal benefit of the doubt. Great, you can say that calling Obama a fascist is unfair. Pat yourself on the back! But when people question Palin's credentials and experience, then you complain that the media is being "overtly biased" and "inherently sexist." You use a scalpel when dissecting McCain's voting record but bring out the sledge hammer on some kind of media conspiracy theory when Palin get's some push-back on her lack of experience.

[Dan Brown]

Folks, if you don't expect shameless hypocrisy from partisans of both camps, you must not have followed politics much in your life. Remember, for instance, how NOW suddenly decided that sexual harassment http://www.reason.com/news/show/30734.html>wasn't such a big deal after all when Bill Clinton was the accused? I must say, however, that the Karl Rove clip was a stellar example.

By the way, who wins the election will have practically zero impact on the situation in Iraq. Either candidate would seek an understanding between the US and Iran, and neither would just hand over the keys to Tehran without getting the best deal possible. The pace of withdrawal will be determined by prevailing security conditions, regardless of who is the next president. Also, both candidates have made plenty of irresponsible spending promises. I'd actually prefer Obama to McCain (though I intend to vote against both of them), but the former has plenty of negatives as well, not the least of which is his http://www.theagitator.com/2008/08/23/biden/>choice of running mate — who not only is at least as http://genehealy.com/2008/08/biden-and-dumb-wars/>gung-ho for war as McCain but also is http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/12/13/123441/87>awful on civil liberties.

[Bob]

Zach- or maybe it's that you are hyper-focusing on my attempts to be fair-minded about mccain palin and completely ignoring when I have done the same with Obama and Biden?

Good points, Dan!

[sonja]

Amazing, and fascinating post and ensuing conversation. I'm sorry I wasn't around for the beginning of it.

I've been letting my take on Sarah Palin gestate for a while (pun intended). I believe that she was selected specifically to tempt folks like you, Bob, back into the fold.

My mother could have been sitting in that group of olders in Pete's that Paul describes (except that she lives in VT). The character bashing is not pretty and I do not by any means condone it ... but it comes from a very real fear that those folks feel that the country they love and fought for (remember this is the so-called "Greatest Generation") is being taken over by a Christian "Taliban."

That is the fruit born of the seeds of planted by Pat Buchanan, James Dobson, and all the fear that has been stalking all of us for so long. Re-read the first couple of paragraphs of this post and think about your own behavior in your own past. You can't just dismiss it with a "Well, I've changed now." and think it's over. You mention some event with a Planned Parenthood clinic ... there are real people who run Planned Parenthood clinics. Real people, with real feelings and real hopes and real dreams. They believe that they are doing right and good just as much as you do. I don't know what you and your cohorts did, but on some level it created harm to others. There was violence done and it created fear of Republicans and the right and worst of all ... it created fear of Christians and of Jesus Christ.

It wasn't just you either, this was done all over until an expectation of harm was created. And it's not to say that Left has been entirely innocent either. No one is. But, I guess I'm left wondering what it will take for real change to come about ... since it's not going to happen with either of the candidates in the major party.

[aaron stewart]

Sonja - Palin was picked to shift attention of voters from the fact that John McCain would be worse than GW and on to her. It's been working rather nicely hasn't it? She's a token and a pawn, there are any number of strong women in the senate with better track records that McCain could have picked as a running mate but he probably doesn't want the competition.

If I were her I would feel used not empowered.

[Bob]

Aaron- "the fact that John McCain would be worse than GW"- absolute crazy monkey talk. GW is a train wreck. Only the most partisan folks on the left would say something like that about McCain who has taken on his own party time and again. Go ahead and believe and say that Obama would be better- that's an entirely defensible position. But to say McCain would be worse than GW? Monkey talk. Crazy monkey talk, my man. :)

Sonja-"I guess I'm left wondering what it will take for real change to come about ... since it's not going to happen with either of the candidates in the major party." Exactly. Jesus is it- not Obama or McCain. I believe they are both good men, but good men trapped by a political process which has a vested interest in not solving problems (after all, if we actually solved anything, what would we run on?)

Vote for who you think will do the best job, but at the end of the day if your Hope is in anyone but Jesus...

[aaron stewart]

Bob you nitpicked a small part of what I was trying to say. :) That comment was about Palin and her nomination.

[Bob]

No- it was the foundational center of your comment- That Palin was chosen for a specific reason- to distract voters from a "fact". If the "fact" is spurious, so is the rest of the comment.

Look- I have no doubt Palin was chosen for a list of specific reasons- as was Biden!
Was Obama crass and calculating and manipulative in chosing Biden to shore up his experience/foreign policy credentials? Absolutely not. It's what the VP is for.

Was McCain crass and calculating and manipulative in choosing Palin to bring some youth and women's interest to the ticket? No. It's what the VP pick is for.

Both made a choice based on their needs and deficits- it remains to be seen which chose more wisely.