Archive for September, 2008
September 17th, 2008
Ok… here’s a new take on the hockey mom and pit bull story.  Question: “What’s the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom?”  Answer: “The hockey mom carries a semi-automatic assault weapon”.   To add to the myriad of crazy reason John McCain chose Sarah Palin we have to deal with the possibility of a VP who responds to a question about assault weapons with the response that she’s a member of the NRA. Another of her soon to be famous vague answers to specific questions. Other than the paranoid ideology that “it’s our right” I have yet to find a reason to own an assault weapon. For those who love guns…sport, hunting, self protection…fantastic - enjoy. However… please forget the idea of a gun that can mow down a large group of people in super expedient fashion. I’m tempted to say I wish Sarah Palin would just go back to Alaska but then I remember I would still like to visit there some day and I want to feel safe from assault weapons when I go.
Jon Murray
September 15th, 2008
Am I alone? Is there something wrong with my thinking? I have watched both political conventions in their entirety and am more convinced than ever that this country is in terrible shape. Every move, every thought of those elected to serve the common good is directed towards furthering their careers. The only way they can do that is to toe the party line, attend to the wishes of those who finance their campaigns and to the special interest groups who will support them in exchange for getting only those things that benefit them. There is no apparent thought given to the needs of the country and it’s citizens. One do-nothing Congress has been replaced by a do-even-less Congress. A one year moratorium was proposed on earmarks. It was a Republican idea so the Democrats voted it down. Result….$17 billion of our tax money put into earmarks so that our Congressmen could buy our votes with our money. Thanks a lot, Senator Durbin and your fellow Democrats.  Nothing has been done to control our borders and stop the river of illegal aliens from crossing into our country. Thanks, again, Senator Durbin and your fellow Democrats. Millions of people are out of work due to ill-concieved “free” trade agreements. Thanks a lot, Republicans. I am well aware of the fact that a Democrat was President when NAFTA was inacted, but the Repulicans have totally embraced it and have advanced other ”free trade” agreements. We are more dependent on foreign oil than ever before, using that causes global warming and increases our trade deficit exponentially. Let’s drill so we have more oil to burn. Thanks again, Republicans. The worst problem facing our country? Us. Yup, those of us who keep voting the same people into office every election. The old definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. So, let’s join together to take our country back. Don’t vote for the incumbant. What difference does it make if you don’t agree with the opponent’s ideas? We’re getting nothing for our money now The worst that can happen is that we will continue to get nothing. If we do nothing, we will join the ranks of our Congress and be, “Do nothings,” too. Be somebody. Do something. Vote to take back our government. Our vote is all we have, we don’t have lobbyists working for us and we’re too poor to be big contributors. Our vote is all we have; use it wisely. Think about it.
==================================================================
Back to Top | < Previous  | Next >
September 14th, 2008
A reader posted a comment to my last post and agreed that it is difficult to sort through the chatter on the candidates. He reiterated my somewhat rhetorical question and asked how I and other members of the Voters’ Panel plan to “sort through the chaff” to reach a decision on who to vote for. While I cannot speak for other members of the Panel, I am settling on a strategy that I believe will work for me.
The candidates main websites are a good place to start, but one has to remember that they are obviously pushing their own positions. I tend to ignore most of the radio media (Rush, Hannity, Dobson, etc.) because they are more about creating controversy than discussing the real issues. As someone once said, “Gentlemen, we’ve got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!” I’ve yet to hear any of them talk sensibly about an issue. All they want to do is push their agendas. About the only radio personality I’ve found who seems to take an objective, balanced view of the political madness is WLS’ Roe Conn. At least when he discusses politics, he looks at the issues in a practical way.
I also recommend ignoring all the stuff coming out of the blogosphere (except this blog, of course!), as they mostly try to stir things up and keep us away from the real issues. The poster said he believes that the national press is out of control and seems to go out of their way to push a specific agenda. While that may be true of some of the papers, I believe you can still find a balanced view out there. One of the best sources I’ve found is Newsweek magazine. I’ve always been impressed with the insights offered by their reporters and how they can dig into claims to get to the real meat of a situation. The articles are very informative and go much more in depth on a topic than newspapers can. They will tell you the good and the bad. As far as the TV media goes, I really miss Tim Russert. He did a great job for Meet the Press and NBC News and could really break things down to the nitty-gritty.
Basically, what it comes down to is for each person to invest the time to do some research on the candidates and, more importantly, to go in with an open mind. That is key. Try to look at the issues from the other candidate’s point of view and try to understand why they support a particular position. THEN make the decision as to whether you can live with that position or not. Tune into the upcoming debates to see what the candidates have to say. Talk to people whose opinion you value to see what they have to say on a particular candidate and see whether you agree with their opinion. Ultimately, each person has to make the decision that is right for them.
Unfortunately, most people won’t take the time necessary to do all that. Many won’t even take the time to vote, and then they’ll complain because they don’t like the way things turn out.
Gary Tiffany
September 11th, 2008
It seems like there’s just been a little too much rancor in the campaign durng the last couple of weeks. I’m sure that those on both sides of the campaign are nice people…and the American people want leaders who are civil and respectful…
So…here’s what I suggest: A playdate for the Obama and Palin kids. We know that both families have young kids and they would most certainly get along famously. Michelle Obama should call Sarah Palin and set up a couple of play dates. Maybe one time in Chicago and one time in Alaska. What a great way for cultural exchange.  And, just maybe the parents might find a little common ground so that the campaign can focus on the issues instead of personalities.
Jon Murray
September 9th, 2008
Well, the candidates are all now chosen and it’s time to actually THINK about who to vote for this November. Each side approaches the issues differently; in some cases they are far apart, and in others, not so far. It begs the question: how DOES one sort through all the chatter to come to a decision on who to vote for?
Should one vote for a candidate simply because of the party? While some would say yes, that doesn’t seem to me to be the way to go. That smacks of paternalism, with the party saying they know what is best for me and to just vote our way and shut up.
What about “experience”? True, time spent in the Senate does contribute to one’s knowledge and will influence how one approaches a situation, but does anyone every really have the experience to be Commander in Chief? In looking back at the last few presidents, all learned on the job, for the most part.
Are hot button issues dealbreakers, or are they outweighed by other considerations? Consider guns – the Republicans don’t want any more gun laws and say they support gun owners right to bear arms, but as Obama asked at the convention, isn’t there a common ground to protect hunters’ rights but still keep AK-47s and assault rifles off the streets? Makes sense to me. Or consider abortion – the Democrats want to keep it legal and safe, but would like to find ways make it the option of last resort and therefore rare. The Republicans, on the other hand, are staunchly opposed to giving women a choice in the matter (there’s that paternalism again), saying they want to overturn Roe v. Wade. While they don’t want to let you decide whether to have the child or not, they do want to let you decide where to send the child to school if you have an underperforming school. Strange logic. Should one of those issues, or any other one issue, be the deciding factor in one’s vote? Or can you “hold your nose” and vote for a candidate if you mostly agree on other things?
Someone once said that gridlock is good and when we have one party in the Presidency and a different party in Congress, they have to work together to get anything done. Is that a reason to choose one candidate over another?
We’ve got a lot of things to think about in the coming weeks. I’m looking forward to the debates to help me decide who to vote for. It should be an interesting time.
