new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: Totally and Unabashedly Political, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 4 of 4
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: Totally and Unabashedly Political in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
I know most of the kidlitosphere bloggers don’t like to talk about politics on their blogs, but I gave up that high ground long ago. Um... sorry? Anyway, I’m offering a safe space to comment about the debate last night because I feel that some of us — and by that I mean me — need to talk about it.
Now my motto is, “If you can’t say anything nice, at least make it funny.” Based on that, I searched the opinions for a good bit about the debates that rang true, but was also funny. This is the only one — so far — that made me laugh:
McCain came off as sour, agitated and petulant. Obama — man, nothing rattles that guy. But McCain was two tics away from a vein-popping “You can’t handle the truth!” Jack Nicholson moment.
Gotta love movie quotes. And this was from
Crunchy Con, a blog about conservative politics and religion. Makes you wonder what the liberals are saying! Oh wait, that’s me.
I found that quote in a
round-up of opinions from
Andrew Sullivan’s blog, a great place to find out more about the debate if you’re so inclined to do so. Or you can read the
transcript at the
New York Times. Like you’ve got that kind of time.
My main thought watching the debate was that Obama was calm, cool, articulate, and... presidential. McCain was like the angry old guy at the homeowner’s association meeting sniping about untrimmed hedges on the neighbor’s lawn.
Now there were times I got mad. McCain’s assertion that talking about horrible things shouted at rallies equals slandering all Republican rally attendees is a ridiculous diversion from a serious issue. I don’t think “health” of the mother should be put in finger quotes, no matter what you think the “pro-abortion movement” (my quotes are deliberate and derisive) is doing.
I was baffled by the rising celebrity of Joe the Plumber. Anyone else think that maybe Joe just needs a good accountant? Oh, and there were moments of amusement. The crowd actually laughed at the question of the moderator, “Why would the country be better off if your running mate became president rather than his running mate?” Obama talked about why Biden would be good president if need be. McCain instead talked about Palin like she was his feisty kid, even saying that he was proud of her. Gee, thanks, Dad. One of the best examples of Obama’s coolness, and his way of turning the topic around, was at this point in the debate.
SCHIEFFER: Do you think she’s qualified to be president?
OBAMA: You know, I think it’s — that’s going to be up to the American people. I think that, obviously, she’s a capable politician who has, I think, excited the — a base in the Republican Party.
And I think it’s very commendable the work she’s done on behalf of special needs. I agree with that, John.
I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we’re going to get serious in terms of research. That is something that every family that advocates on behalf of disabled children talk about.
Personally, I wouldn’t have been able to hold back a laugh at that question. This would also have been an ideal time for Obama to make sure that McCain understands that Palin’s son has
Down’s Syndrome, not autism. I would have paid money to see that correction by Obama with a pointed and yet totally cool look. Awwwk-ward.
Overall, I thought it was certainly a more interesting debate than the other two. I do wonder if McCain realizes that going completely negative during the debate gave Obama the opportunity to answer all the criticism with his actual policies and the actual truth. In some ways, the whole debate came off more like the world’s angriest interview of Obama.
So, what did you think?
It wasn't easy making a new America that we could all enjoy in our own political ideology. It wasn't easy, but it was fun. And you can do it too!
First I had to put Maryland, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Hawaii in the blue - which was a given for all states concerned.
Next, we had to make some tough state trades. We're giving up New Mexico for Idaho, North Carolina for Indiana and West Virginia, and Colorado for Kentucky (this is clearly the most painful). But most important we need a land bridge to connect the East and West coasts, so a big sacrifice needs to be made. We're giving up Florida for Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. It's unfortunate, but necessary. You know what? Given global warming, Florida isn't going to be worth much soon anyway. Sorry about Disney World though.
There you have it. Welcome to the Divided States of America. Let each section run itself as it sees fit. Lately, it seems like the only option.
(Another well-written article has come out on the disgrace of the McCain campaign attacks, this one stating, "he is attempting to resurrect the threadbare narrative which holds that Obama, by dint of color and heritage, is something foreign, something scary, something not of us. It's an offensive argument, yes. But in a nation as riven and fearful as ours, it is also a dangerous one. After all, it is a short leap from toxic words to toxic deeds." The article also notes something that I saw as I watched McCain trying to talk around the angry mob, that "McCain seems ashamed, and he has good reason.")
Originally, I thought that John McCain had sold his soul to the Republican Party. Now I think it’s possible that he has sold his soul to the devil. Lately it doesn’t seem like a big distinction, but it is. It really is.
I disagree with the ideology of the Republican Party, and think that cutting basic social services to undocumented immigrants is wrong. I am appalled with the political strategy of the campaign, and think that wasting the time of the American people on stupid issues like “lipstick on a pig” is wrong.
However, I am absolutely horrified by the current approach of McCain/Palin, and think that inciting angry mobs with insinuations and lies is wrong. Not just wrong in ideology or wrong in politics but morally wrong. Like God-Should-Smite-You-Down Wrong.
Who’s with me? Khaled Hosseini, author of The Kite Runner, says in a Washington Post editorial that not only is the jeering use of Obama’s middle name insulting to Muslims, but more importantly, “The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin... [to] denounce the use of Obama’s middle name as an insult.” He goes on to note that the most recent attempts to change the level of disrespect have been small.
Along with middle-name teasing, which we should have been done with in grade school, we hear that we don’t really know Obama. This message coming after two books he wrote and twenty months on the campaign trail — and delivered by someone who apparently doesn’t read and has been on the campaign trail for barely one month. We hear that Obama “pals around” with terrorists and felons. Of course, Ayers bombed buildings before Obama was an adult, and the University of Chicago and two nonprofit boards seem to have vetted him into society, but somehow Obama should shun him. Now Rezko was convicted after Obama had dealings with him over his house and property, but somehow Obama should have predicted that and shunned him too. The Wright controversy won’t be coming up, because Palin has her own preacher issues. Plus, it’s a lot of work to paint someone as both a radical Muslim and a racist Christian — but looking at the campaign, it was still worth a try.
Now McCain and Palin take all this crap on the road and get people really, really angry. The party line is that they can’t control what the people in the rallies say, things like “terrorist” and “get him.” Oh, or what people do, like threatening the media after Palin slams the media. Bullshit. If they’re going to rile up the people, they have to take the responsibility. Or, as said in this New York Times editorial, “The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder.” The writer, Frank Rich, begins his article starkly and bluntly, noting our biggest fear with an African-American candidate.
And I swear, if some angry, idiotic person takes this sewage and does something stupid, unmentionable, unconscionable, then John McCain is going to hell. And at that point, the country’s going to hell in a handbasket with him.
Feel free to skip this post on the political nature of words. I wasn’t going to write it, but I can’t stop myself from writing it any longer. Forgive me.
The new lines have been drawn in this race for the White House, and they are no longer about the concepts of experience and change. They are about the words.
Not terribly long ago, regardless of your party affiliation, the decisions were fairly clear-cut. The Republican and Democratic candidates were in line with their parties’ platforms. Sure, people could argue about a maverick reputation or a liberal bias — and that’s pretty much what we’ve been doing for the last few months — but in essence, each candidates represented his party’s platform.
But not everyone votes on party, so focusing on the two candidates themselves, you could decide which was more important to bring to the White House in 2009 — experience or change. Again, people could argue about the details of these concepts — and they did — but the essence of the argument remained the same: Is it more important that our next president have lots of political/governmental experience or that our next president bring change to our current policies?
That’s a real choice. Certainly I’m simplifying, but that’s what it boiled down to for this election. Experience or Change.
So, now McCain/Palin have decided that they want change as their agenda. Not actual change, mind you, but the word. Because apparently, repeating the word is enough. People now believe that the Republican party is going to bring change — to the office held by the Republican party — and it’s all because the McCain/Palin ticket is running on “change.” Again, the word, not the actual concept.
And this scares me. Because the words that candidates use have to matter. They have to be true, and they have to mean something. If candidates can just make stuff up, then hell, I could have run for president. (Perhaps I can also be thin if I just say it enough. Thin... thin... thin... Poof! Size 6!)
On that topic comes this article from The Washington Post today: “As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone.”
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters’ opinions of the candidates. “The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there’s a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she’s new, she’s popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent,” Feehery said. “As long as those are out there, these little facts don’t really matter.”
Somewhat related (but mostly included because of its great headline) is this article from
The Wall Street Journal, not known for its liberal bent: “
The GOP Loves the Heartland To Death.”
[McCain] seems to think that small-town people can be easily played. Just choose a running mate who knows how to skin a moose and all will be forgiven. Drive them off the land, shutter their towns, toss their life chances into the grinders of big agriculture... and praise their values. The TV eminences will coo in appreciation of your in-touch authenticity, and the carnival will move on.
Then there is this article from
The Guardian, which offers a frightening global view alongside its acknowledgment of the facts about Palin: “
The world’s verdict will be harsh if the US rejects the man it yearns for.”
We know one of Palin’s first acts as mayor of tiny Wasilla, Alaska was to ask the librarian the procedure for banning books. Oh, but that was a “rhetorical” question, says the McCain-Palin campaign. We know Palin is not telling the truth when she says she was against the notorious $400m “Bridge to Nowhere” project in Alaska — in fact, she campaigned for it — but she keeps repeating the claim anyway. She denounces the dipping of snouts in the Washington trough — but hired costly lobbyists to make sure Alaska got a bigger helping of federal dollars than any other state.
And just to remind us that words can also bring us hope, and yes, make us laugh, from
The Onion we get: “
Obama Modifies ‘Yes We Can’ Message To Exclude Area Loser: ‘Yes We Can, Except Nate Walsh,’ Obama Says.”
“I have always said that the change we seek will not come easy, that it will not come without its share of sacrifice and struggle,” Obama continued. “And the last thing we need is dead weight like Nate Walsh adding another 20 or 30 years to the process.” The speech, entitled “A More Perfect Union Minus Nate Walsh,” was 26 minutes long and contained the words “change” 12 times, “hope” 16 times, and “Nate,” in conjunction with the phrase “with the exception of,” 34 times.
I’ll try to get back on the books, and writing, and libraries. Really, I will. But I had to get this out of my system. I hope you understand.
Um, yeah, the "health" of the mother moment was sickening. Truly. I was offended.
But I walked away from this debate (which was more interesting, which did have more substance) with a 'stick a fork in him-he's done' feeling. I hope I'm right :)
Hi Pam! Thanks for blogging about this! I've been so political in my last few posts I thought I better give it a rest on my own blog. Man, McCain looked like Nasty McCrankerson last night. At one point, it looked like he wanted to bite Obama. The whole Joe Plumber thing is ridiculous. Some of the Air America hosts this morning are saying what Obama might have said, that if he's making over $250,000/year, he's not a plumber, he's a business owner, a small-time venture capitolist. And Obama will only be raising his taxes back to what they would have been in the Clinton years, which I think we can all agree were good economic times. Also, apparently Joe the Plumber is actually related to Charles Keating AND when Katie Couric asked him about Obama today, he said something like "he didn't answer my question; he tapdances like Sammy Davis Jr." Oy.
I thought Obama was great on the Roe v Wade question, and made McCain look like a fool and a liar, and I thought it was a bit weird they got so off on school vouchers for so long. And I kind of need to rewatch to get a handle on some of the bizarro things McCain said. Something about making returning Iraq vets teachers without any further training? I kind of missed it.
Oh, and Obama missed a great opportunity to mention reading with kids, when he was talking about parents' responsibility when it comes to education. Really wanted him to say it! Oh well.
One insight I took away was the blurring of the line between a "negative" ad and an "attack" ad. Technically, you could call any ad that criticizes an opponent's position or policy as a "negative" ad (and, in fact, that was the way they used to be categorized by the media). An "attack" ad, in contrast, would be an ad that goes after the opponent personally, or panders particularly to fear of what will happen if the opponent wins, without regard to any specific policies.
All of McCain's recent ads are of the latter variety. That's not to imply that the Obama campaign isn't running similar ads (by one count, they make up about a third), but by lumping them all together as simply "negative" ads as opposed to singling out "attack" ads, the distinction is disappearing in the public consciousness.
Which plays directly into the strategy of Karl Rove (and his devotees) — if you can't win by going "all attack, all the time," make damned sure that your opponent is so damaged that he cannot govern.* Which, in turn, helps your chances in the next election. (And yes, they're already planning for "Palin 2012." Seriously.)
I initially found it reprehensible that McCain would decry the negative tone of the campaign (falsely accusing Obama of running a equally sleazy campaign) and then turn around and launch directly into one of the same attack ads, live.
But then, I remembered what Bob Schieffer's actual question was: Would you be willing to make the same personal attacks against your opponent directly to his face?
And for McCain, apparently the answer was, "Yes."
* Or, you know, you can hope that one of the extreme nuts speaking out at your rallies does something more... direct. That solves your problem a lot more quickly.
Thank you for opening up a safe dialogue!
Has anyone ever noticed the way McCain slurps like a snake when he gets to talking?
I took notes last night, one column for McCain and one for Obama, and as I look over them today, I'm noticing a lot of ??? on McCain's side during the times he went off on tangents, didn't make sense, etc.
I love the way Obama stayed calm and smiled when McCain was ranting about things.
Obama was the clear winner and I went to sleep thinking, "Whew! McCain can't win the election."
Thanks for your post. I missed the debate, was at my writing critique group but I listened to the re-run on the way home and then watched Hardball. Who does McCain think he is with the finger quotes and "health" of a mother, my word. I wondered why the whole autism thing came up. I mean I foudn myself thinking, "wait, doesn't Pailn's son have Down's?" Thank you for your humor. I love it on the otherwise dreary northwest day.
Just imagine a meeting of world leaders ... Sarkozy or Merkel or Brown says something about say, terrorism, that "President" McCain doesn't agree with and what do they all get as a response? A rude grimace and some eye-rolling.
Yeah, that doesn't work for me. I want a president with some dignity.
Thanks for the rant space again!
I didn't watch. Frankly, I've had more than enough. I'm going to be very happy when this whole thing is OVER (or, this being America, starts gearing up again the day after the election for the NEXT four years. WHy can't we borrow the Canadian attitude about this - hey, folks, here's an election, we campaign for a few weeks, we're done, g'bye till next time... really...)
It doesn't matter anyway, for me, because I'm not voting for either of them. I cannot stomach the Maverick/Wolf Killer team, and Obama lost my vote when he picked Biden for VP. I'll vote for someone else, even though everyone might consider that a wasted vote. But my principles are my principles, and there it is.
Are there any more debates? Please tell me there aren't...
Good call, as in laugh-outloud funny, on the feisty kid point. I also caught the autism/Down's thing. My husband and I both turned to each other and said, "huh? Doesn't her son have Down's?" But maybe he means largely that she is a supporter of all special needs.
Not that I'm arguing on her behalf -- hardly.
Obama was the perfect gentleman. As always.
And I was hoping and hoping beyond ALL HOPE that he'd point out that pro-choice people are NOT NOT NOT "pro-abortion." Thank goodness he threw that in at the very, very end, like, after a drink of water or something. Whew. In the nick of time.
"Palin 2012"? I'll move to Canada if that happens. No, really.
I'm curious to Alma why she hates Biden so much she'd throw away an Obama vote. Genuinely curious. What do you hate so much about him?
Also, Jules, I wrote a long post the other day about choice and addressed that issue -- I was really glad Obama made that point too.
There's a real Joe the plumber? Is he also Joe Six-pack, or is this a whole Joe voting block I don't know about? Good thing I'm not a politician. Dang. I thought Obama did a great job last night. Very cool, on the ball and composed. I liked how he corrected and redirected the fear-mongering digressions with facts, briefly and clearly, and then brought the discussion back to the current situation, what needs to be done now. I liked what he said about education, and health, making sensible investments that save big in the future. A good moment I haven't seen mentioned here; that he expected the campaign to be tough, for things to get ugly in the next few weeks. But that he thought his (or their) hurt feelings were less important than doing what needed to be done to get things back on track, and moving forward.
I liked McCain better before this campaign. My respect is dwindling.
Hey, MotherReader. Thanks for blogging about this. I don't talk about politics on my blog because it doesn't fit into the scope of my blog, not because of any high ground.
As far as the debate goes, I didn't get to see it live (no tv), but I've been reading the transcripts. It does seem as if McCain is appealing more to people's emotions (i.e. the reiteration of the American people being "hurt" and "angry") whereas Obama talked more about the issues themselves and what he planned to do about them. In response to all of the negative campaigning, he said, "And, now, I think the American people are less interested in our hurt feelings during the course of the campaign than addressing the issues that matter to them so deeply."
I've been reading Drew Westen and thinking about how partisan our brains are wired (no matter what side we're on). FactCheck.org is helping me to be critical, even when all I want to do is sing Obama's praises. There's so much to think about, but I'm still incredulous that there are still undecided voters.
I liked the guy from CNN who referred to John McCain as "Grumpy McNasty". Cracked me the hell up. And I needed it, too, after him trying to be all pro-life (a recent switch for him, part of his soul-selling deal with the devil for this election season) and calling pro-choice folks "pro-abortion", plus trying to drag Bill Ayers into things. Pa-the-tic.
Even Fox News's online poll shows Obama winning the debate by a landslide, and I thought Obama's continued efforts to address the issues while batting down the bullshit was well-handled.
The split screen thing kinda made it seem like McCain was actually looking at Obama, but based on the desk set up, he was still not looking at him. So disrespectful.
And I've heard on another board from folks who knew people at a Palin rally that the N-word was tossed around freely by the audience (and loudly), along with "terrorist" and "kill him." So McCain trying to defend his supporters as the finest people in the country doesn't wash with me. Nor did Obama disrespect them as a whole, so McCain's "righteous indignation" came off as misguided.
And don't get me started on the actual or implied air quotes that went with the "health" of the mother. As if mothers don't matter. While I hope Kelly H's read was right, I was actually inclined to stick a fork in him last night. Literally.
I didn't get to watch the whole thing due to meetings, but from what I did see, I have to say, I was getting annoyed by *both* of them looking into the camera and addressing whoever the heck this "Joe" person is. I am not Joe, I am not a plumber. Whoever is in charge of the plumber's lobby is doing an awesome job because plumbers (plumbers called Joe?) seem to be who they both care most about.
If they wanted to impress me, they should have looked into the camera and address Shannan the Librarian.
;)
Kelly H, I believe the CNN dials went way down on that "health" moment too.
And Kelly F. (not that you were arguing), they were actual air quotes. For a minute there I wondered myself if maybe I had imagined it, but no. It's there on YouTube.
Lani, "he wanted to bite Obama." LOL. I also was up in my chair at that last section thinking that he was going to say something about reading... and then he didn't. Oh, so close.
Bill, thanks for the clarity on "negative" vs. "attack" ads. The Palin thing makes me shudder.
CO Writer and Kristin, I saw some YouTube mash-up of the McCain eyerolls, head shakes, and yes, snake-tongue thing. Not good. Not good for anybody.
Jone and Jules, someone called the autism/Down's syndrome thing a "senior moment." And that only makes the point for us.
Alma, that was the last debate. Whew. Like Laini, I'm curious about your strong opposition to Biden. The only strong feeling I've had about it so far is that he's not a great speaker.
Alkelda, oh you sound so sane and unstressed about this. I do love that. I read that people who listened to the debate or even didn't see the split screen didn't have nearly as strong a negative reaction to McCain. His body language counted for a lot - but it also showed a lot. (Oh, and the "high ground" thing was just tossed off. I had never considered politics in the scope of my blog, until I couldn't stand not writing about it anymore. Other people have better discipline. Or aren't as mouthy.)
Carolyn and Shannan, there is a real Joe the plumber who is all over the news media today, but I think Shannan the Librarian would have served much better. And it made me laugh.
MR: Sane and unstressed! Thank you. I do wish that's how I felt. When I watch debates or conventions, I tend to shout at the screen and shake my fist.
Alkelda, when I'm feeling particularly insane or very stressed, you're always the sane and unstressed friend there to help ground me and steer me away from the strait jacket.
Laini, thanks. I'll go read that!
Also, Laini, for what it's worth, I saw part of an Obama campaign stop in VA, I think it was, months ago, and a teacher stood up and told Obama that his pre-K funding something or other part of some budget of his something or other didn't have enough money in it for technology. And he basically told her that, especially for that age, books will do. Books can come first (which is so true -- before they have their fine motor skills down pat, can we read to them first instead of plunking them in front of computers?), and he talked about reading with his daughters at a young, young age and the good he think it did them.
Hi! Had to come out of the cave to chime in here.
I live in Arizona, so McCain has been my senator for a long time. I used to admire the man--liked his independence, thought he was honorable.
And then he turned whore. Hate to say it that way, but I don't know how else to put it. Seeing him embrace Bush--a man who had completely smeared him, attacked his family, run a despicable campaign against him--was really hard to watch. Suddenly McCain became just one more politician pandering to whomever needed pandering, because he wanted this so badly.
And then in this campaign, he's turned into this horrible creature, in no way resembling his former honorable self. Is this what power and greed does to someone? I've heard a lot of people compare him to Gollum, and I think that works. He's become desperate and ugly and dishonest and weird.
Whereas Obama has presented himself over and over as calm, measured, thoughtful, peaceful--exactly the qualities I want in a president after nearly eight years of bullying cowboy behavior. Bush has done us no favors in the world. I look forward to having a president who will mend our relationships and will choose peace and reasoning over brash "kick their a**!" tactics. Or is that strategy?
Thanks for letting us get it all out, Mother Reader. Blessings on you.
I'm not a McCain fan. Not a Palin fan, either. But Palin has one or two people in her extended family who are autistic and one or two who have Asperger's syndrome, which is on the autistic spectrum. I believe it's something that both she and McCain have mentioned before.
During the debate, I actually thought McCain looked unwell.
Please, please, please vote--to the people who say they're not going to vote. Chicken Spaghetti is begging you!
Robin, glad to hear from you. Little angry, huh? ;^) Don't worry, me too.
Susan, thanks for the info about Palin's connection with autism. Even though I joked about it, I felt embarrassed for McCain in a way that he was getting that basic thing wrong. I don't like having to feel bad for him. And the unwell thing? Yeah, I hear you. I would swear that during the town hall debate that he sounded like he was out of breath. It was unnerving.
I think McCain looked a little frantic at times trying to get his jabs in. They were deflected by Obama's calmness. I watched it on the PBS channel so there were not many of the reaction shots. I gather that CNN had a split screen throughout and that's where you really saw the Captain Grumpy action.
I must disagree with Susan about voting. (Hi Susan!) I used to think that everyone should get out there and vote no matter what, but the last two elections and a horribly disastrous Illinois senate election many years ago changed my mind. Voting is truly one of the most amazing and important duties/responsibilities/rights a citizen has. But if a person can't be bothered to get informed and can't figure out the major (and they are MAJOR) differences between these two candidates, they should just stay home. The stakes are far too great. Vote responsibly.
Andrea B
There are a lot of people proposing that voting be made mandatory, as it is in some other nations. But while I would encourage people to vote, at its core, the freedom to do something is worthless without the freedom not to do so.
And, of course, there's the fundamental assumption that voting matters. Which is an open question, given everything from the vagaries of the electoral college system to rampant corruption and election-rigging. That's not to say that those factors definitively negate the value of voting, but someone could readily believe that they do. Were we to force someone to participate in what they believe to be a corrupt system, where would that place us morally?
Just a random thought.