Senator McCain has repeatedly called Senator Obama “the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate.” Why has this been the campaign mantra as of late? Republicans have found that calling someone too liberal is a successful strategy into scaring the voting public, painting their opponent as crazy, and alluding to labeling their opponent as a socialist. Best of all for Republicans, this never needs to backed up by any rational, serious, or legitimate source.

But is it true? In short, no. First, many organizations, think tanks, and magazines come out with these liberal/conservative rankings each year. Each of these rankings have their own criteria, judgement, and bias. This cannot be argued. What else cannot be argued is that Obama is consistently not the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate. In fact, Senator Biden often ranks more liberal in these polls. Does anyone ever claim the Senator Biden is too liberal? Nope.

So, why is the public so eager to acccept this as fact? Is it his skin color? Is it his name?

The reality is that Senator Obama is fairly conservative and risk adverse. He runs on change, but picks Senator Biden, who is a long time Senator, older, white, gray hair, who has a son who is a Washington lobbyist. He comes out against the War in Iraq, and many of the voting public think of Obama as anti-war or a pacifist. He does not want to end the war on terrorism. He just wants to move troops to Afghanistan. He is for universal health care. But his version of universal health care does not create a single payer health care system that dismantles the insurance companies. In fact, like Senator McCain, Senator Obama ran on a “reach across the aisle” platform in 2004. He has always been willing to compromise.

I am not stating here that these policies are wrong. That is for another post. I am simply pointing to a decision making process that implies a govern to the center style of Democrat that President Clinton made famous.

The reality is this. President Bush’s approval ratings are at an all-time low. The economy is in shambles. There are two long wars going on. The Republican candidate is not well liked even by his own party. The Republican candidate has consistently made gaffes on the very subject that is supposed to be his strong point, the war.

With all of these things going on, the Democrats should win in a landslide. Likely, Senator Obama will win, and he will win by a number far beyond the required 270 electoral votes. These election results, however, taken out of the context of the last 2 incredibly close elections and placed into the larger context of presidential races will demonstrate that this “landslide” is not so large. There are still segments of the country that do not understand the Democratic platform, its policies, and how these policies will benefit their daily lives. Unless this changes, the Democrats are doomed to only be able to run Democrats who will be fairly conservative in their governing style if they have any hopes of winning. This limits opportunities for real change.

The real power of the presidency is the daily opportunity to lead the people, to persuade the people, and to motivate the people. The Democrats have failed to do this in the past, and until they succeed, there will be no candidate that represents true change in governing.

When was the last time we said a Republican candidate was too conservative? It never happens. It would not have any traction. Conservative is a bad word. We need to make liberal a good word once again. A word that politicians are not afraid to label themselves as.

Maybe I will start…I am T, and I am a liberal, and I am asking for your vote for the T/Kucinich ticket in 2016!

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”

–John Kenneth Galbraith

On the way to school this morning, I pulled up next to a car that had a bumper sticker that read “No Liberals.” Of course, I had to find out what the driver looked like. I pulled up further, and the driver had a jacket that had…please sit down for this because it will surprise you…had an American flag on it…

It gets better though…
- It turns out that the jacket with the American flag on it was his uniform. He is a subway train driver…Yes, the conservative gets his income from a public transportation system.
- The driver drove a 1995ish Toyota Tercel
- The driver also had an IRA sticker on his car.

Literally fifteen feet later, a SUV cut me off on the road. The license plate of the SUV read “USA ROX.” This made a little more sense to me. Weirdly enough, the SUV had a sticker on his back window that was a shamrock in Ireland’s colors…

I did not realize that the Irish were so conservative…

A cross post (with some minor additions) from my memestream.

A discussion had ensued about the the validity of the media in modern political dialogue, some of the relevant sections of which (those i was writing in response to) are included below : “Decius” and “adam” are other memestreams regulars and friends. There was also some discussion of voting a straight Democrat ticket in the hopes of establishing a basis for a return to dialogue. My opinion on that notion shall be made clear below.

adam wrote:
I, although I’m English, believe in a decent America, a moderate America that speaks at the ballot box but is generally quiet and modest.
…

to which Decius replied:
I hope you’re right, that there is this great, silent, moderate America, but it has no voice, and its hard to beleive that its real when you never hear from it…

to which I said:
But where would you hear it? What outlets will amplify the voice of anyone in the group you describe (assuming they actually exist, which is a premise I’m willing to entertain primarily to facilitate this dialogue)?

The media won’t do it because it’s not good business and for all the vaunted power of the internet, it’s become dominated by shrill partisans or complete nobodies without clout or trustworthiness.

You want a return to civilized dialogue and respectful disagreement, but you’ll have to forgive my cynical laughter. It ain’t happening this cycle or the next. In the most crucial battle of all, the far right has won — they’ve equated politics with morality. They’ve created a link between your political opinions and your essential human goodness. There is no respectful disagreement with people who are evil, with your enemy, and I see the problem getting worse before it gets better.

The Democrats, some of them, still want to have a discussion that’s founded on logic; but they get drowned out by the rhetoric of emotion or ignored by a media they can’t buy. I’d like to believe a straight Democratic ticket would edge us back in the right direction, but I fear a sense of entitlement will vindicate the kind of Democrats who just borrowed from the republican playbook and turned the debate into a battle of good and evil.

Religosity — and i DON’T mean Faith — is the greatest threat to the United States since the civil war. Yes, I’m serious. It has infected every debate, every issue. What used to require reason and analysis now requires only that people view the issue through the lens of whatever ideology they’ve adopted. What was once called a nuanced opinion is now called “elitist” or “weak” when it’s even noticed at all by a populace who’s less and less interested in or capable of bothering with the intellectual exercise of finding truth.

The system has been poisoned. Poisoned by absolutism. By intolerance. By moral superiority. By money. I no longer see a way out. Only a vague hope in the cyclical nature of everything… a hope that the pendulum will swing back. I have almost no faith in the proposition that I can do anything to help it. Even after all this, I myself am too angry to be objective, too demoralized to be fair minded and far too frustrated to believe anyone, ANYONE can be convinced of anything through reason or analysis.

And I’m too emotionally exhausted to even really care.

1) Mr. Rogers. At a time when public broadcasting was under attack (much like today), Mr. Rogers, then in his thirties, went in front of the applicable appropriation committee and turned its scrooge chairman’s heart from stone. Absolutely stirring in delivery:

2) Marx Brothers. I’m not sure which one of the ‘brothers’ this is, but the artistry and creativity shown here blows my mind:

perhaps now the winds are shifting. popular culture will soon reflect that which many of us already knew– that large components of the current administration has been marked by total and complete malfeasance. first, we have the new dixie chicks record, a somewhat subtle rebuke to the right for its demonizing. their first single can be heard here. (and no, I can’t believe I just linked them either). second, comes news that Neil Young has prepared a new record, summed up by the track title “Let’s Impeach the President.” While I am still undecided on that particular tactic, I am pleased to see some people step up. And to that end, from a source I honestly can say that I did not expect, comes one of the strongest and truest sounding calls in the entertainment industry:

i know i’ve not been so good with the text lately (laziness, spare time, etc), but here is a doonesbury strip which really sums up the politics on media situation today.  (click comic for full size)

eric alterman sums up succinctly the issue i had in my mind in the fall of 2000:

Discredited Neocon war cheerleader Lawrence Kaplan tries to argue that because certain liberals have embraced realism, here, they have abandoned liberalism. Bull**it. He is purposely confusing “idealism” with “utopianism.” Without realism, idealism is mere vanity. (See under “Nader, Ralph.”) It’s a healthy sign that liberals are embracing realism more and conservatives demonstrate that they couldn’t care less about creating an effective foreign policy—rather than posing as trying to do so—when they mock it.

some outstanding reading i have found on the internet recently….

this article over at rolling stone is an unbelievably interesting and sickening look into our current political system. even without all of the corruption in the administration and republican leadership in congress, the gaming of the system in which the republicans currently partake is enough to turn even my absurdly cynical stomach. good to know, yet unsettling. why can’t the public realize that these people are working “day and night to burgle the national treasure and burn the Constitution”?

on a similar theme, check out this post at the opinion mill that draws the analog of George W. Soprano. this administration is currently performing a “bust-out” of the United States government, taking it for everything its worth while they still have the reigns of power. and, as Thomas Frank can tell you, what’s the matter with kansas appears to be the matter with everyone (the media included). they’ve bought a bill of goods.

if you’re looking for something a little lighter, check out these two posts (one, two) over at blogmaverick, Mark Cuban’s blog. i have recently added his blog to the blogroll, despite it might seem that he’s a little full of it. i personally like to see people using their money to harass the status quo. anyway, the posts are Mark calling out Donald Trump for being a pompous ass and giving his (much more coherent) side of the competition between their reality shows (and yes, I know that this happened last year). for total surreality, take a look over at trumps new blog. i particularly like the donald’s argument that corporate corruption can really just be reduced to tackiness.

So the French decided to say “no” to the EU Constitution…basically putting a wrench into formal European unification and cooperation for the time being.

I was reading the article from a quick AP news blurb. As a part of the article are small pictures of French people demonstrating their feelings against the EU Constitution. A 30-something in a poorly chosen izod shirt with the collar flipped up smiling carrying a sign that says “Non” was captioned “Leftist militant speaks his mind about the EU Constitution.” An old man in wornout tweed jacket and an old-man leather hat talking to a reporter was captioned “Leftist militant concerned over loss of French national identity.” A 40-ish woman with glasses, a bread and wine belly, a big grin and thumbs up was captioned “Leftist militant celebrates victory in French referendum.”

Here’s a topic to discuss amongst yourselves…Leftist Militants in France are neither Leftist nor militant…discuss.

The fact that the French voted to be more nationalistic, inward looking, and xenophobic is not Left…that’s extreme Right, like Pat Buchannen-style right.

Maybe I’m showing my right-wing ignorance here, but isn’t that a perversion of what the entire Leftist movement is supposed to be about? Or is the AP just completely in the dark?