We’ve hit this topic before on SCO, but Danny Carlton pointed me to a Clinton forum where folks are speaking out as to why they’re going to vote McCain.

He especially notes this post, wherein a socially liberal woman lists all her reasons for supporting the McCain/Palin ticket.  Yes, it’s mostly over Palin, but not just because she’s a woman.

I have always voted Democrat, I was a strong Hillary supporter, I am pro-choice, socially liberal, pro GLBT and I am so proud to be supporting the McCain/Palin ticket!

I plan to send in $$ when I can to the McCain campaign. I can’t tell you how thrilled I am the McCain choose Palin as his running mate. I love the fact that she is considered a reformer, has tackled corruption in high places, has Executive experience, a watchdog for our tax dollars, a woman who is comfortable doing stuff with her hands and isn’t afraid to take the lead! We have been given a present from above. It can’t get any better!!

This may not completely clear up how many women may be making the switch to the GOP for this election, but it does help answer some of the “Why?” questions.

Some time ago, I suggested an alternative debating format, which would certainly make for a more interesting (and informative) evening. The format would go something like this:

moderator: The next topic will be educational reform. Mr Obama you are to begin. Please explain briefly Mr McCain’s position on what needs to be done to improve our educational system. You have three minutes, which will alternate with one minute corrections from Mr McCain until you are both satisfied.

[The two exchange]

moderator: Now, Mr Obama that you established an understanding of Mr McCain’s stand, you have 3 minutes to rebut that position.

Then … they reverse and Mr McCain explains Mr Obama’s position until Mr Obama is satisfied he has successfully explained it. And Mr McCain gets a short rebuttal of that.

And then of course, they move on the the next topic.

What this avoids of course is the endless arguments we so often find, where one side rebuts a position not held by the other and vice versa. It also means that at least two people (the candidates themselves) and perhaps several in the audience as well will finally come to understand the arguments and motivations of the otehr side instead of just demonizing a caricature of the same said position.

“If you don’t like change, you’re going to like irrelevance even less.”
General Eric Shinseki, retired Chief of Staff, U. S. Army

“Change” is the new black. Senator Obama has made change the cornerstone of his campaign, promising that he is running “to offer this country change that we can believe in.” Senator McCain of late is also promising change from the same old Washington politics. (Senator Obama, unsurprisingly, has taken some umbrage that Senator McCain, who is a member of the party that has (somewhat) been in control the past eight year, has appropriated the banner of change.)

Here’s my problem: It’s not the change that either candidate intends that matters. It’s the change that is going to befall this country in the next four years that matters. Look, the pace of change in our lives is unlike ever before: the ubiquitous threat of terrorism, more countries joining the nuclear club, information proliferation, emerging economic competition, outsourced jobs. The list goes on forever. Read the rest of this entry

For 8 years, liberals have accused George W. Bush of “shredding the Constitution”.  But as Rasmussen Reports notes, Obama supporters don’t even seem to take the Constitution seriously.

OK, civics question:  The job of the Supreme Court is to … what?  What is their primary purpose?  Wikipedia tells us that, while the Court’s purpose was a bit hazy during the early years of our country, it finally congealed.

Initially, during the tenures of Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court lacked a home of its own and any real prestige.

That changed during the Marshall Court (1801–1836), which declared the Court to be the supreme arbiter of the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison) and made a number of important rulings which gave shape and substance to the constitutional balance of power between the federal government (referred to at the time as the “general” government) and the states. In Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts. Both Marbury and Martin confirmed that the Supreme Court was the body entrusted with maintaining the consistent and orderly development of federal law.

The Supreme Court is to rule on the constitutionality of the cases, and the laws involved with them, which are brought before them.  That’s their job.  But then, if you don’t know that, or consider the Constitution to be two-century-old Silly Putty, that may alter your perception.

Which takes us back to Rasmussen, where, for starters, the overall numbers seem passable, but not what I would have hoped.

Most American voters (60%) agrees and says the Supreme Court should make decisions based on what is written in the constitution, while 30% say rulings should be guided on the judge’s sense of fairness and justice.

But take a closer look, and you’ll note that one’s perception of the Constitution alters your vote.

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

The better your grade in social studies, or the better you know how the US government was intended to work, the more you’re likely to vote Republican.  If you think that, in order to change the laws, you just need to change the courts, you’re both badly mistaken from a civics point of view (that’s for the legislature) and likely to misuse the system (e.g. gaining same-sex marriage by judicial fiat rather than legislation). 

And you’re most likely a liberal.

No, I agree with The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder that Obama did not call Sarah Palin a pig.  I don’t believe all references to “lipstick” are, from here on out, oblique references to her.  The “lipstick on a pig” word picture has been with us for a while.  It’s probably not the best word picture to use at this point in time, but I don’t think it was a personal attack.

What I’m hoping comes out of this election season is a realization by the many “professional victim” groups that sexism (or racism or homophobia) isn’t hidden in every disagreement.  So, Democrats, stinks to be on the other end of the hysteria, eh?

Update:  Speaking of hysteria, looks like the term “community organizer” is now forbidden.

At the Crain’s Business Forum this morning, [NY Gov. David] Paterson drew attention to a phrase used numerous times by speakers at the Republican National Convention to describe Barack Obama’s leadership experience: community organizer.

“I think the Republican Party is too smart to call Barack Obama ‘black’ in a sense that it would be a negative. But you can take something about his life, which I noticed they did at the Republican Convention – a ‘community organizer.’ They kept saying it, they kept laughing,” he said.

Guess some Democrats aren’t getting the realization.

If Barack Obama loses the election this November (and at this point it’s impossible to say whether he will – it’s too close to call) it will be because of a series of unforced errors. They are missteps in the campaign that when taken individually don’t seem like a huge issue but when combined have the effect of totally derailing what would have otherwise been a hugely successful campaign.

Read the rest of this entry

Ed Brayton, normally quite accurate in his reporting, titles a post of his, Another Palin Lie. Ed states,

And Stephen Foley, at The Independent, has an article titled, Sale of Alaska’s state jet on eBay revealed as a lie. From Foley’s article,

Yet, here are the lines from Sarah Palin’s speech, at the RNC, in which she references said plane:

That’s it. No other references to the sale of the jet was made in her speech. Astute observers will note that she does not state that the plane was sold on eBay, nor does she state that it was sold for a profit.

It ain’t there, fellas.

Do you think, just a thought here, that her intentions (at that point in the speech) were to emphasize her attitude towards wasteful spending, and not to give a detailed accounting report of how Alaska unloaded it’s luxury jet?

Did she imply, in her RNC speech, that she had actually sold the plane on eBay? Could be. Yet, did any intrepid journalists or Democratic party operatives, armed with the not-so-secret data of the plane’s actual sale, trap Palin by asking her for specific data on how the plane was sold? Are you kidding? That would mean actually trying to get to the truth of the matter.

Truth be told, we must rewrite Foley’s paragraph, from above, as follows:

Sarah Palin bolstered her reputation as a reformer – and got one of her biggest cheers in her Republican convention speech last week – when she said she had sold put the governor’s official jet on eBay as her first act on taking office in Alaska.

Words… just words.

Note: However, John McCain’s statement, referenced above, seems to be a different matter entirely. Maybe he should just let Sarah speak for herself.

Charlie Martin at the Explorations blog has put together an (ever-growing) list of 60+ rumors about Sarah Palin.  Most have links to their debunking, and a few are actually…er…”bunked”.  Bookmark it.  I have a feeling we’ll all need to refer to this often in the next 2 months (and with any luck, the next 4 years).

Commenter JA recently alluded to “arguments” made by the pro-life movement in which he allued to the pro-life movement arguing that a fundamental argument against contraception is as a “tool” punish those having pre-marital sex with babies. One might also note some similar allusions, that people oppose equal wage legislation because they “hate women” (or that that “hatred” of women is the basis of pro-life arguments). Another example is to point that the GOP in general don’t care for the plight of the poor.

Look, I could argue that the real reason atheists deny God is because they are afraid of what God’s existence implies for their moral choices and especially their rejection of repentance in general. I too could argue that the Progressives/Democrats don’t care for the poor, for the policies (such as their ecological movement) they push so often are directly harmful to the poor (for example, carbon reduction policies will cost money … especially impacting rising energy costs. Who will be impacted more, Mr Gore and his cronies … or the poor).

The point is, none of the actual arguments used by either party devolve to the argument used by those parties. Atheists do not claim that the reason they deny God is the implications for their eschatological future if He did exist. Catholics (for example) never use in their arguments for contraception that they oppose contraception for utilitarian reasons related to reducing pre-marital sexual activity.

As I noted once before, I had an extended discussion with a gentleman (email exchange) about SSM. I broke it off when he admitted that it was his view that the “only argument ever used against SSM was based on bigotry.” That is, any argument presented was just protective coloration and dishonest dialog to conceal one’s ingrained prejudices against gays. This is both essentially in itself bigotry of a different sort and a dishonest (uncharitable) violation of the unwritten agreement one enters into when one begins discussion.

I think in general people address or try to attribute motives behind arguments which may or may not exist. Unless you have the powers attributed to the Shadow (who “knows” bwahahahaha) then you don’t know what the motives behind the argument used by those whom you are addressing. You should (being charitable) allow your interlocutor the benefit of the doubt and assume he is honest. That is, that the arguments he gives for his policies are in point of fact, the actual reasons for holding the said position.

Honest dialog insists that you take as honestly believed the arguments your interlocutor presents.

It would be interesting if the “fairness doctrine” in media instead of “giving equal time” to opposing points of view in media instead was aimed instead at making sure our dialog was honest.

Sarah Palin is confusing the Left and the mainstream media.

And should we be surprised? In their myopic view of the world, they lack the ability to focus in on anything but that which surrounds them – anything but that which they are already engaged with. Within the realm of their understanding it seems to be nothing short of ludicrous that John McCain would seriously present the likes of Sarah Palin as candidate for Vice President of the United States. Their refined rationalism recoils at the thought of a right-wing, former small-town mayor, gun-lovin’, pro-life, Bible-believing woman being second in command – a mere heartbeat away from becoming POTUS. Indeed, the vile attacks levied against Palin, since her addition to the ticket, are all too telling.

John Podhoertz links to a NY Times article (HT: Crunchy Con) which illustrates the myopia of the media. From the NY Times article,

You mean that, as a Christian, she believes that the sovereign God (of the Bible) has… a will? That said God also has… a plan? And that we are to pray to said God for his will to be done through… his plan?

Horrors!

Perhaps the reporters for the NY Times piece, in their zest for research, should do a bit of it on what constitutes the Christian faith, not to mention finding out what the Bible says on the subject.

Better yet, how about they take Melinda’s suggestion, and listen to some of the sermons from the pastor at the church which Palin attends (sort of an end-around on the whole Jeremiah-Wright thing).

Or, maybe, listen to the excitement of the people…

Now that the presidential campaign is in full swing, the big question in media circles is when Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin will be available to them to answer their questions. This is to be expected since they spent the last week since McCain’s announcement acting like a petulant child because McCain dared to nominate someone they hadn’t vetted.

The main problem the media faces is that they are no longer the gatekeepers of information. Ever since the collapse of the monopoly controlled by CBS, NBC, and ABC they’ve struggled to keep themselves relevant. And while they do serve a purpose, it is not as great as it used to be.

My guess is that Governor Palin will make media appearances in the coming weeks but will be careful to select outlets that are willing to treat her with the respect that she deserves rather than trying to assault her with smears and “gotcha” questions. She doesn’t need to bother sitting down with media outlets that have shown themselves to be hypocrites. They don’t deserve the privilege of being able to ask her any questions.

…in Chicago.

An estimated 123 people were shot and killed over the summer. That’s nearly double the number of soldiers killed in Iraq over the same time period.

Waiting for Obama to call for the troops police to pull out.  It’s lost, right?