Blocs of Non-Critical Thinkers

If people think that John McCain:

-won’t raise taxes,
-can pander to the religious right without being beholden to them,
-has any big picture idea of where to take this country,
-will have the guts to cut government spending in any significant way,
-will protect women’s rights, and not just with respect to choice,
-won’t make at least one or two reckless decisions based on his gut,

then it says something about either their intellect or their ability to engage in critical thinking.

The reason I say this is not to bash John McCain, even though that’s probably how it comes off. I say it because I don’t hear anyone voting FOR John McCain. I only hear reasons to vote against Barack Obama. And the stated presumptions for those reasons are:

-he’s going to raise my taxes,
-he’s too liberal,
-he’s all about platitudes with no detail,
-he’s going to grow government,
-he’s elitist,
-he has too many advisors.

Hmmm…see any comparisons between the two that could be problematic?

Having a problem voting for any candidate is perfectly reasonable. But there’s something else going on in this country with respect to Obama, and no matter what the answer is, it’s not a pretty one. The only choices that make sense:

Reason #1 -- People have been listening to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Fox News for so long that they’ve forgotten that these pundits all have agendas that are stronger and less beholden to the truth than the “liberal mainstream media,” which at least tries to keep up the fight for objectivity. The aforementioned conservative “news” sources do not strive for objectivity, never have, and never will. If they’re your only news source, you might as well be listening to GOP Radio. Long time listeners connect early and then close off other sources of information. After a while, they forget that there are other credible sides to most issues and stories; they lose objectivity and the ability to think critically and question the messenger. Therefore, labels such as ‘liberal,’ ‘elitist,’ and ‘patriotism’ become charged with connotations that energize a subset of Americans without the usual filters to question whether those labels even apply.

Reason #2 -- Many people are uncomfortable with Obama’s intellect and it makes them feel stupid. That’s the only explanation how a mixed race child with no familial money who grew up being raised by grandparents and a single mom could ever be labeled as “elitist.” John McCain is not only the son of a U.S.N. Admiral, he’s 3rd generation; he married a woman who has a net worth that allows her to donate over $1MM in charitable contributions annually in the Phoenix ADI. George Bush is a 3rd generation legacy politician who also graduated from Yale. Throwing a black man from his circumstances who didn’t have actual wealth until recently in with those two and calling him the “elitist?”

Reason #3 -- Racism is a bigger undercurrent than anyone wants to publicly acknowledge. Lots of people know urban blacks who rub them the wrong way. They are seen as obnoxious and defiant, a group who intimidates and seems to expect something for nothing. Let’s just get it out there: that is a subculture that does indeed exist. But they don’t speak for African-Americans any more than poor rural racist whites speak for Caucasians. But if all people allow themselves to see is the stereotypical angry urban black man then they’re not going to want to give any quarter to what is seen as an ungrateful race. Or understand how someone like Obama could change the mindset of African-Americans permanently.

Reason #4 -- Religious beliefs make some people one-issue voters, or at least one-group voters. Otherwise, Sarah Palin, who is way out of her league, wouldn’t have energized so many people. They’re obviously not looking at her as a real leader: she’s a prom queen who happens to believe in a specific set of religious tenets. Perhaps there is this fanatical fantasy about turning the U.S. into some sort of idealistic Christian wet dream…never mind that this country was founded largely on religious tolerance and separation of church and state. The Republicans have pandered to the social right-wing of the party, which is as out-of-touch with the country at large as the social left-wing was in the late 70s and early 80s. The pendulum has swung, but a quarter of the country hasn't noticed and instead is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of fundamental Christianity as the law of the land.

Reason #5 – There is an outmoded (and wholly inaccurate) belief among a segment of the population that all taxes are bad and lowering taxes is always good. In a void or some idealistic capitalist video game, I agree. My votes for Republicans in the past has everything to do with fiscal responsibility. But in the last 8 years (including 4 where the Republicans had control of every house and arguably the Supreme court) the GOP hasn’t met a spending bill it hasn’t inked, AND they’ve cut taxes, reduced regulations and essentially have moved us all to a laissez-faire economic society. There’s a reason that we have antitrust laws. There are good reasons for regulation. (How much would common sense regulation of health insurance companies have done to stop the wreckage of our health care system of the last 25 years?) Not to mention that when you have a household that is spending more money than it takes in, and doesn’t have the good sense to eliminate any of the outgo, then you have no choice but to increase the income. The Republicans have been downright irresponsible with our money. Look at where we sit: if you think John McCain won’t raise your taxes or believe that they shouldn't be raised, then put me down for a big chunk of whatever you’re smoking.

What I sense are entire subsets of people looking for reasons as to why Obama shouldn’t be President, because they don’t want to come out and say that the real issue is clinging to one or more of the above 5 reasons. Therefore, anything that sounds remotely plausible is latched onto with a fervor, lest one have to admit that they’re racist, unintelligent, fearful, irrational or has suspended critical thinking.

I’m not saying that there aren’t reasons not to vote for Obama. But no one is talking about why we should be voting FOR John McCain. We have a large swath of people in this country who have suspended critical thinking in favor of dogma and sketchy beliefs. And that might be the scariest thought of all.

LET'S BLOW OFF A TOE

What is it with this large faction of the Democratic Party that are at best blinded by ideology and at worst are complete morons? This is the 3rd election in the row that the Democrats not only can win, but will win...if only they put up a candidate who a) has vision, b) isn't tied to a previous administration, and c) can pull the independents and centrist voters in.

Lo and behold, Hillary Clinton is actually in a position where she gets enough votes to steal the nomination (yes, steal) away from Barack Obama. Looking at the list above, she fails on all three points.

Are you people really that stupid?

Oh, so you think I'm being harsh or perhaps I just simply don’t see the magic or the significance of HRC. Ok, try this on for size: let's forget for a moment that the Republican in this race is John McCain. Let's pretend for a moment that it's Jeb Bush.

Tell me, Democrats, how that very idea turns your stomach. Tell me how determined you are to make sure that he doesn't get within sniffing distance of the White House. Tell me how much money you are willing to contribute to make sure that he loses, even more determined than you are to make sure that whatever Democrat is running wins.

Do you get the idea? Jeb might actually be the best politician and the most centric of the 3 Bushes. It doesn't matter; his name alone is polarizing and renders him unelectable. And yet, there are a large number of you out there who don't seem to understand just how much the name "Clinton" produces venom-laced saliva in this country. And no, they're not all right-wing wacko Republicans. Those of us in the center have absolutely NO desire to see anyone named Bush or Clinton hit the White House again. Ever. Not now, not in four years, not in eight years.

If Hillary is the nominee, you will in effect be electing a Republican yet again. Oh, I know you don’t think so. “She’s a fighter. She’s tough. The Republicans really don’t like John McCain, and the country is ready for a change.”

Don’t kid yourself. Because if you do, you’ll be shooting yourself in the foot yet again. The only control you might have is which foot and how many toes you can blow off.

And quit any comments about the idiocy of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. You need to look in the mirror.

WATCH THE BELT BUCKLE

There are lots of pundits, both amateur and professional, making all sorts of predictions about the 2008 presidential race. I'm no different in that regard. And, we all probably think we see things that allow us to draw conclusions that may or may not have any shred of reality to them by the time the election rolls around. However...

...when I was a wee lad, my father tried to teach me to football. He did at least succeed in giving me a love for the sport that I have for no other, not even the ones I actually did play well (like tennis or track). An unintended consequence was that a phrase he gave me while trying to show me the intracicies of defending and tackling in the open field became a great life lesson:

"Randy, watch the belt buckle."

This meant that a receiver or a running back would always try to fake you out before moving in the direction they were actually going to go. Their hands might flail, their head might pivot, their shoulders might juke, they might step one way and cut another. But the belt buckle would never move anywhere but where the body was actually going to go.

This same philosophy holds true for life, including politics. We're going to be told all sorts of things: Hillary's got lots of money, Obama's got the buzz, Giuliani's too abrasive, McCain has the support of party insiders, on and on and on. What's really going on?

Watch the belt buckle.

In this case, "the belt buckle" is the actual direction that someone's campaign is going, or the personal effect and perception they have with the electorate.

We'll be told that Elizabeth Edward's cancer will give John Edwards some sympathetic attention. Does it give him a shot? Watch the belt buckle. I see a man who still polls very high negative numbers, and compared to the other "front runners" he's not having much luck building a war chest even though he's been running for president since he came to the Senate in 1998. He's going to the turf for a loss of 3 yards.

We'll be told how much money Hillary Clinton has raised, how Bill will give her a boost, and how great of a campaigner she is. Does she get the Democratic nomination? Watch the belt buckle. Hillary's negatives are over 50% in some polls. Even in the more favorable polls her "won't vote for her no matter what" numbers are in the high 30s. Essentially, she's juking and spinning, and she might spin down the field for a few yards. But she has little chance to get to the end zone.

I don't want to overuse the football analogy because that's not really the point. What IS the point is to not be swayed by your own personal feelings or anyone else's for a candidate. Nor should you be swayed by the story-of-the-moment, or some minor jump or drop in the polls.

So when you see that the media is already trying to pile on Giuliani, yet his positive numbers rise while his negative numbers fall, the media is trying to juke you. When Fred Thompson hasn't even "taken off from the line of scrimmage" and people are trying to put him in the White House (Wesley Clark kind of comes to mind), you might want to see how well he runs down the field first. When John McCain is the supposed "chosen guy" of the Republican Party, but he's being caught handily from behind...well, you get the idea.

Watch the belt buckle.

By the way, Obama's got 70 yards of open field with only two defenders to beat, and one of them's turned the wrong way....