The Economist on McCain and Obama

In August, before McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, The Economist featured this article on McCain:

Bring Back The Real McCain

This article above also highlights weaknesses in Obama.

Conservative writer David Brooks, who I have come to appreciate quite a bit, disagrees with the Economist in this article saying, "when people try to tell me that the McCain on the campaign trail is the real McCain and the one who came before was fake, I just say, baloney."

Today, The Economist, in what I feel is a fair and even-handed article, officially endorsed Obama for President: It's Time

Waiting On The World To Change

When John Mayer released this song, it struck a chord with many people in my generation through these lines:

"Me and all my friends
We're all misunderstood
They say we stand for nothing and
There's no way we ever could
Now we see everything is going wrong
With the world and those who lead it
We just feel like we don't have the means
To rise above and beat it

So we keep waiting on the world to change
It's hard to beat the system
When we're standing at a distance
So we keep waiting on the world to change

Now if we had the power
To bring our neighbors home from war
They woulda never missed a Christmas
No more ribbons on the door
When you trust your television
What you get is what you got 'cause when they own the information
They can bend it all they want

That's why we're waiting on the world to change

It's not that we don't care
We just know that the fight ain't fair
So we keep waiting on the world to change

One day our generation
Is gonna rule the population
So we keep on waiting on the world to change"

And now, perhaps sooner than expected, the time for waiting is over. Essentially, the two groups that will decide who will become our next president are undecided voters and first time voters, the vast majority of which are under 30 years of age. Historically, campaigns have had trouble getting young voters to follow through, actually cast a ballot, and make their voice heard. In the past, we could have perhaps used the excuse that our vote simply did not matter, but in this election, if you take young voters out of the equation, Obama's lead on McCain in the polls is essentially nullified as it then falls beneath the margin of error. So the time for waiting is over, and the time for change (at least in a generation's attitude toward participating in the American democratic process) has come. Irrespective of which candidate you support, please make sure you vote before or on this Tuesday, November 4.

What Some Conservatives Hoped For From McCain - Part 2

Here's an article posted yesterday on the same theme as the previous article I posted written in June:

David Brooks (Conservative writing for the NY Times): Ceding the Center

What Some Conservatives Hoped For From McCain

RealClearPolitics.com - How the Party of Lincoln was Left Behind on Civil Rights

There is undoubtedly a civil war going within the Republican Party at the moment. This article from a right-leaning publication helps explain why and also gives historical context for both the Democratic and Republican parties. This article also makes it clear why the Republican brand is suffering and why McCain's campaign has drawn criticism not only from liberals but also from conservatives. Written earlier this summer, this article comes from a time not so long ago when many Republicans hoped that McCain was going to restore the party to its roots as the party of Lincoln. The contrast between these hopes and the reality of the McCain/Palin campaign today is striking to say the least.

Apples and Oranges?

Recently, I've heard friends of mine express concern about Obama's associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. Personally, I don't think being friends, even very good friends, with someone means that you ascribe to their values. I have friends and family who are extremely to the right (to the extent that they question the reality of global warming) and those extremely to the left (to the extent that they praise the ideals of Marxism). My association, even my love for them as family and dear friends, does not mean that I share their values or political idealogy. Personally, I don't think it's intellectually dangerous to associate with a certain crowd, but I do think it is dangerous to associate with too homogeneous of a crowd, as that tends to encourage a closed-minded disposition. I think it's a mark of maturity and human progress when we can put aside our differences and genuinely care for and even partner with people who have drastically different ideologies compared to our own. If that relationship allows us to work together toward a common purpose, than we progress even further.

But let's assume the worst for a moment. Let's assume that these relationships are crucial indicators of a candidate's judgment and character. In my view, it then becomes a toss-up as to which candidate has the more dangerous associations. For Obama's relationship with Ayers, we have McCain's relationship with G. Gordon Liddy. Last November, McCain said on Liddy's radio show, "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." This is a guy who helped plan the Watergate-breakin and served 4 years in jail as a result. For Obama's ties to Wright, we have the historical Republican support of the religious right who, shortly after Sept 11, did not say "God Damn America" but effectively said God is damning America:

"JERRY FALWELL: And I agree totally with you that the Lord has protected us so wonderfully these 225 years. And since 1812, this is the first time that we've been attacked on our soil, first time, and by far the worst results. And I fear, as Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense said yesterday, that this is only the beginning. And with biological warfare available to these monsters; the Husseins, the Bin Ladens, the Arafats, what we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, if in fact God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.

PAT ROBERTSON: Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen'.

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we're responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system."

I find it interesting that Robertson and Falwell were criticized, even lampooned as idiots, but they were never called un-American, unpatriotic, America-hating, or dangerous. The fear that Jeremiah Wright struck in the hearts of some Americans was not felt by those same Americans when this Robertson/Falwell interview received attention 7 years ago. This year, Pat Robertson was Guiliani's spiritual advisor, and in general, Americans did not find it alarming in the same way as the Wright/Obama situation. McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006. The following was printed on the press release from the University on March 28, 2006:

"While Sen. McCain and Liberty University Chancellor Jerry Falwell have had their share of political differences through the years, the two men share a common respect for each other and have become good friends in their efforts to preserve what they see as common values. This will mark his first ever appearance at Liberty University."

Somehow becoming "good friends" and sharing "common values" with Robertson did not hurt McCain's credibility either. In fact, it helped his campaign. Since 2001, Robertson has visited G.W. Bush at the Whitehouse to discuss topics including the war that he basically said was something America deserved. Can you imagine what would happen if Obama was elected president and had Wright visit the white house to discuss the war? In my opinion, there's clearly a double standard here, but that really points to another topic, which is perhaps more important and relevant than this one.

Personally, I think none of these "guilty by association" arguments matter too much in this election. But even if I'm wrong, for minds that oppose prejudiced leanings, we're still left comparing apples and oranges, and to neither candidate's clear advantage.

A Record Breaking Experience

There are a number of reasons trusting John McCain with our highest office is difficult for me despite his very honorable record up until he decided to make a serious play at the presidency (roughly 2004-2006). To be fair, I am somewhat concerned that Obama has had only 2 years of government experience on the national level. I think Obama supporters who are honest can admit that experience does matter. We can argue, as many democrats have, that no new president enters the oval office with presidential experience. However, I think in our heart of hearts we all know that experience in the field prior to entering the oval office will certainly have an effect on how a candidate acts as president, in the same way that our professional experiences usually add to our ability to work at higher levels within a field of work. But here’s the catch: the value of a person’s experience depends on what he has learned from that experience and his application of that knowledge in the present. Experience is not in and of itself a good thing, but a neutral thing. It has great potential to reinforce a person’s capacity for being effective in any line of work, but does not automatically equate to that effectiveness. In my field of education, for example, there are many teachers who have decades of experience that add little or no value to the quality of their instruction. In many cases their effectiveness actually diminishes with experience. So how do we judge what a person has learned from his experience? By examining how his experience influences his present judgment. In short, John McCain’s present judgment reveals to me that he is tired of being a true maverick and being punished politically for it by his opponents as well as his own party and has in turn made startling compromises to align himself with his party. As a result, he has become a low-rent parody of himself. Despite his long and noble record in the senate, he has strayed so far from it in this election that many of us are not asking “Who is Barack Obama?” but “Who is John McCain?” In my opinion, we are watching the unraveling of a great patriot, made even more tragic by the fact that he is likely near the end of his career. I want Obama to win, but at the same time, I do not want McCain to lose and have this misguided chapter of his career be the one that Americans remember.

A Republican friend of mine says that McCain will be a better president than his campaign suggests as his record is what should be considered, not his rhetoric (he also says this same standard should be applied to Obama). David Brooks supports this idea in a McCain-supporting article:

“It’s not that [McCain] has changed his political personality that bothers me. I’ve come to accept that in this media-circus environment, you simply cannot run for president as a candid, normal person.”

And yet Obama has run for president as a candid, normal person, and he has faired well so far with that approach. The tragedy for McCain is that Americans might have taken well to an uncompromised version of him. His base would not have been as excited, but would they have instead flocked to Barack Obama, an African-American liberal with a funny name? I think not.

Another Republican friend of mine recently said to me that McCain was the best man for the job and if Republicans have to play a little dirty (including tactics of fear and pandering to ignorance and bigotry) to get the best man in office, than so be it. I must assume, to give McCain the benefit of the doubt as a decent man, that this is the rationale behind his recent campaign choices. (If I do not, than I would have to assume much worse things about him which I do not believe to be true.) However, I view this line of thinking as fundamentally opposed to the ideals of democracy. Furthermore, a campaign that elicits the kind of terrifying responses we have seen at McCain/Palin rallies cannot possibly be justified by a win for his campaign. As an idealist living in the real world, I am open to the idea that sometimes the ends justifies the means, but in this case, the cost to the character of our country is simply too high. Even if he wins, America loses too much in the process. For me, no amount of experience can justify the judgment behind having his VP say to supporters that Obama “palled around with terrorists” and run an ad focused on the same theme. McCain is not an ignorant man. He must have understood the dangers of what he was about to do. He must have understood that there are some in his base that fear Obama simply because of his skin color and his name (as seen in this video). And if for some reason he was shocked by people’s reactions, than perhaps he truly is out of touch.

And now I must address his greatest error of judgment which cannot be separated from his record as it could potentially have a greater impact on America than all of his work in the senate combined: picking Sarah Palin as his VP. A Republican friend of mine makes the argument that he would rather have the inexperienced candidate at the bottom of the ticket than at the top. But I say that Obama and Palin cannot honestly be compared as equals in any area of competence. In addition, the problem I have with Sarah Palin is not with her, but with John McCain. As Matthew Dowd, a chief strategist from George W. Bush’s reelection campaign, states in this article: “[McCain] knows, in his gut, that he put somebody unqualified on the ballot. He knows that in his gut, and when this race is over that is something he will have to live with... He put somebody unqualified on that ballot and he put the country at risk, he knows that." This is an error in moral judgment that cannot possibly be swept under the rug as part of a campaign the educated are supposed to ignore in favor of McCain’s experience.

I came into this election season as a left-leaning independent voter, but even staunchly conservative Republicans who are generally regarded as “thinking/intellectual conservatives” have criticized John McCain’s judgment:

• Kathleen Parker writing for the National Review, a conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley Jr., the figurehead of American conservatism: “Palin Problem: She’s Out Of Her League”

• Christopher Buckley, son of William F. Buckley Jr., and now a former writer for the National Review (he was let go after writing this article) on TheDailyBeast: “Sorry, Dad, I’m voting for Obama”

• Charles Krauthammer for the Washington Post: Palin’s Problem

• David Frum for the National Post: Palin the irresponsible choice?

• George F. Will for the Washington Post: McCain Loses His Head

• Peggy Noonan from the Washington Post: The Trial

• Wick Allison for D Magazine: A Conservative For Obama

And just today, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, endorsed Obama as reported here in the NY Times: Powell Backs Obama and Criticizes McCain's Tactics

A Reasoning Republican's Point of View

As previously mentioned, I had a series of email conversations with a conservative Republican friend of mine regarding his thoughts on the election. With his approval, I have consolidated his responses and broken them down by subject area for posting on this site. Obviously, my opinions differ from his on many of these topics, but I certainly appreciated his ability to think lucidly about the election and bring up logical arguments for his position. These conversations have stretched me to grapple more deeply about where I land on these topics. The process of talking "across the aisle" has been a good one for me, and I hope to recreate some of that benefit for readers of this site.

------------

On the Media:

"I have a problem with the pundits/campaign representatives etc. taking extreme positions with no recognition of the other side, no recognition / admission of their own issues and deliberate exaggeration / misrepresentation of issues etc. Quite frankly, I can't watch Fox news as much as I can't watch Keith Olbermann (John Stewart is legitimately funny, so he gets a pass, so does Stephen Colbert, most of the time). Aside from that though, the rest is fair game. There is usually some substance underlying the distorted junk they are spewing, it has just been so twisted and simplistically presented that it's impossible to watch for a thinking adult. The underlying substance, for me, is a legitimate part of what we should talk about, and subsequently, the so called 'talking points' are legitimate places to debate, as long as the debate is in good faith."

On Palin:

"I don't think this is a debate the democrats want to have (and actually one strategic reason McCain picked Palin). The fact that there is even a discussion that there may be some parallel between the amount of experience Obama has and that of Palin is devastating for Obama. She was a Mayor of a small town for two terms and has been a Governor for almost two years. He was a state senator of a small district in Illinois (who voted "present" most of the time), and has been a US Senator for two years before running for President. One could legitimately argue that "executive" experience of a governor vs. legislative experience as a senator (with no legislative credit to his name) is more relevant and give the nod to Palin, but I won't do that. I'll call it a toss-up, actually I will even give Obama the nod for being in the national spotlight and dealing with it well for the last year. The glaring difference is he is on the top of the ticket, she isn't. The reality is VP's don't do much, so the top of the ticket is what matters. If you are worried about the unlikely event that McCain dies in office and we end up with "inexperienced" Palin, how confident does voting for Obama make you feel? And on what are you basing that confidence? I agree that for the same reasons I cannot get comfortable with Obama's lack of experience, Palin's lack of experience worries me as a pick, but I can get over that worry, because actuarially (sp?) it is a small chance she is ever President, but with Obama its guaranteed he is President."

On Experience (Executive & Legislative) & Palin:

[I asked him why experience matters so much when talking about Obama, whose 2 years in the US Senate + his time in the State Senate combine to more years of experience than what George W. Bush had prior to becoming President (6 years as Governor of Texas).]

"To the George Bush experience question. A couple of thoughts. There is, in my mind, an experience hurdle that must be crossed. You need a record to run on. McCain (and Biden, were he the Presidential candidate) far exceed the hurdle. Obama doesn't meet it. Had he waited another 4 or 8 years (as most people expected he would) he probably would have met it. Being a second term governor of one of the nation's largest states (any way you measure it), with a record that can be analyzed, criticized, praised etc. did meet it for me, but I agree it wasn't a slam dunk. In the middle of your first term, doesn't meet it.

I am not saying that legislative experience is irrelevant, or wholly not applicable, only that executive experience maybe more relevant or applicable. Given my druthers I would prefer someone with both, or someone who had been a governor for a long period of time, but that choice does not present itself. Again though, I go back to the fact that we are comparing Apples and Oranges with Palin and Obama. Let me be clear, I would not vote for Palin as President of the United States based on her current experience, just as I will not vote for Barak Obama for President of the United States based on his. That I see as logically consistent. People who will vote for Obama, but have a problem with Palin's experience I find logically inconsistent.

State Governor vs. State Senator experience re: both state level. I did some (admittedly quick) research on this one, and actually could not find out how many state senators there are. It seems most states have at least as many as congressional districts but many have more (Ohio has 30 state senators, but 18 congressional districts). So I would safely guess there are more than 500 state senators in the US. There are 50 governors, there are 100 US Senators, there are 435 US Congressman. States have significant power in the US federalist system of government, and the Governor, much like the President, and in many cases more so, sets the agenda, dictates what actually gets done, and takes credit/responsibility for the record. There is a strong history of Governor's being elected President from both parties. George W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and that is just the last 40 years. Never has someone jumped from being a state senator to President. I don't believe that there is objectively a comparison. It gets back somewhat to executive experience. The closest you can get in similarity of roles to being President in the US (excluding Foreign policy) is being governor. Big state, little state probably isn't even as relevant. Bill Clinton came from Arkansas, Carter from Georgia. The other two groups that have provided Presidents are Vice Presidents (usually with previous Governor/Congressional experience) and US Senators (never with less than one term as a senator).

In terms of your second question. I guess I don't believe that either state senator, or mayor are relevant to assessing someone's capabilities to be President. Those two positions are both stepping stones to higher political office that people use based on their personal political circumstances/connections/opportunities to get to higher office (if that is their aspiration). Once the stepping stone has been used to get to a position that is relevant (to my previous answer above, Governor, US Senator, high profile congressman (Speaker of the House etc.)) then, over time a record can be built that voters can assess, critique, criticize, praise etc. In that capacity I find them pretty close to a wash. Again though, they are apples and oranges for me."

On Bipartisanship:

"McCain is a politician, as is Obama, and just as much as Obama's rhetoric on scrapping NAFTA (just one example) was a sop to the primary base that his own economic advisor said he didn't believe in, the inevitable truth is that during the primaries republicans lean right, democrats lean left (because primaries are about winning the base) and then for the general election everyone comes back to the center (because the general election is about winning the moderates/independents). This is all the more the case for McCain because he has historically been such a rebel in addressing republican positions (see immigration, campaign finance reform, torture, supreme court filibusters etc.) Because of this reality, for me, with politicians, actions speak exponentially more than rhetoric. This is one of my primary reasons for respect of McCain (see the list above), and one of my primary concerns with Obama (please show me any list of actions). The rhetoric is soaring, no doubt, and that is important for inspiring a nation (see Ronald Reagan), but not enough for me, especially when put up against someone I respect as much as McCain (and that is for his political stands more than his personal back story). I think, having secured the nomination and placated the base with Palin, his convention speech was a much clearer reflection of his unvarnished thoughts on "both parties" being the problem. About whether he can stand up the party. The RNC (and DNC) are pretty much shaped by the current leader of the party, which with a sitting president, is the president so it should change. But no doubt there is a civil war going on in the republican party that is being papered over by the desire to win the election (Palin helps deal with this a little for McCain, which brings us to point 2)

Another point that is somewhat different, but related to the evidence of actions (experience) rather than rhetoric. Obama has made much of moving past blue state/red state partisanship and governing in a "post partisan" way, however there is no evidence of this in his time in government. In fact when given the opportunity to ("Gang of 14" compromise on federal judge filibusters as one example) he hasn't. McCain on the other hand has actual evidence of doing so, and doing so on many occasions in high profile meaningful ways (Gang of 14, torture, campaign finance, immigration off the top of my head)."

[From a separate email]

"One comment on the bipartisan stuff. There are many un-controversial bipartisan things to do (extreme example, resolution honoring MLK. It will be bipartisan, since it is universally accepted as a good thing). What is more interesting and relevant to what I think Obama is referencing is finding a way to not be an ideologue and actually go against the prevailing view of your party and its traditional pressure groups (teachers union, Christian coalition, trial lawyers, anti-immigration groups etc.), reach across to the other side and actually get something done. I appreciate the research below [regarding Obama's bipartisan work], and admit I was not aware of it all, nor do I know the specifics of each instance, but that in of itself says something. McCain's stances have been high profile, because they have been controversial, from what I read below, and from the lack of press coverage at the time, Obama's don't appear to be.

With respect to your second question [about what the content was in the 5%-10% of issues that McCain voted opposite of Bush over the last 8 years], I think you know as much as I do on this one. I believe it is technically accurate (just as it is technically accurate that Obama was rated to have the most liberal voting record of any senator), what this actually means I don't know. It's like that quote about statistics "there are lies, damned lies and statistics". What really matters is what is behind all those votes, and as you said, what was in the 5%. It maybe that only 10% of the votes were on truly controversial/meaningful things and half the time he went the other way (same true of Obama). That being said, I do believe that McCain made a concerted effort to court the base over the last eighteen months, and he probably voted the party line more than in the past. Just as he has "flip-flopped" (sorry "changed his mind") on making Bush's tax cuts permanent. So I would imagine that there is some significance to the 95% number, and in my mind a legitimate line of attack for the Obama campaign, just as the "rated most liberal senator" line of attack is legitimate for the McCain campaign. They are a simplistic, but overall accurate reflection of the candidates ideological tendencies, even if reality is more nuanced then they communicate."

"Sometimes the other side has a point."

This quote above is a small, hopefully harmless soundbyte from Obama's book, "The Audacity of Hope."

The Obama campaign has been criticized (since the primaries against Clinton) by some democrats as not being aggressive enough in its attack, feeling that one has to fight fire with fire, and arguably, evil with evil. While Obama certainly has gotten his hands dirty in the campaign process, I think an honest person can say that he has set a new precedent of decency and respect we have not seen from either side in a long time. More significantly than any other presidential candidate that I can remember, he has chosen to fight fire not with more fire, but with water.

More recently, he has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for saying "John McCain was right" several times during a presidential debate. The McCain campaign even ran a TV ad highlighting these occurrences. But in my view, I think reasonable Americans are ready for a leader who understands that the measure of true strength and leadership should not reside in one's ability to villainize dissenters and draw bold, divisive lines between us ("the good") and them ("the bad") as we have seen recently from the McCain campaign. For me, the true measure of strength and leadership lies in one's ability to consider ideas from both sides, think thoroughly about a decision, and come up with a solution that provides for the common good. I think John McCain, as evidenced by his record in the senate, is capable of such leadership. But I would also say that since 2004, and certainly since the general election, he has been willing to sacrifice these ideals of true leadership to pander to his base. Does Obama also pander to his base? Certainly. But the difference is that Obama has upheld a basic decency while doing do. (Admittedly, where the line of "basic decency" can be drawn is very subjective, but in my mind, McCain has crossed it and Obama has not.)

In stark contrast to McCain/Palin ignoring (at least initially) the disrespectful and downright horrific statements made by supporters at their rallies, Obama chose a different approach as reported here in an article by the New York Times regarding his expanded economic plans:

"Mr. Obama reprimanded his audience when people started jeering at the mention of Mr. McCain’s name, declaring: 'We don’t need that. We just need to vote.'

Mr. Obama praised Mr. McCain’s proposal to waive the rules that penalize retiree withdrawals from 401(k)’s, saying: 'I want to give credit where credit is due.'"

Some say that campaigns should not be taken too seriously, as we should prioritize a candidate's record over his rhetoric. But I believe that campaigns have historically set the tone for each president's term and are the true beginning of a candidate's presidency. In addition, I believe a candidate's choices in governing his campaign provide significant insight into his current capacity for sound judgment. Even more, in a democratic process, campaigns should be taken more seriously. Campaigns are where candidates make their promises to the American people, provide their plans, and set the tone for the direction of our country's next chapter. In my view, misdirection away from the issues, using tactics of fear and polarization, are not only an attack on American decency but on democracy as a larger ideal.

Our next president must work to take the higher road for the common good. I have been disappointed for most of my voting life watching candidates run for the highest office in our country by reaching for the lowest ground in a win-at-all-cost contest. This year, I think we have two candidates who are capable of leading differently. The difference is that one candidate has shown us that leadership in the past while the other is showing us that leadership now.

If The World Could Vote For Our President

A friend of mine (US Citizen) who has been working overseas for the last several years sent me this link to a map from The Economist depicting how the world would vote:

http://www.economist.com/vote2008/

I think most of us would agree that how the world would vote is a relevant topic, but the details as to why its relevant or its degree of importance are certainly debatable. I'll refrain from injecting my opinion here, however, if you would like to assert yours, please do by posting a comment, a link to a relevant article, etc...

Continuing to Cross the Line

Here's an excerpt from an article released today by The Associated Press regarding the angry hate-filled outbursts that continue to be heard at McCain-Palin rallies:

"McCain once stepped forward directly to denounce that tactic. This week, his campaign merely issued a lukewarm criticism that tried to score a political point in the same breath: 'We do not condone this inappropriate rhetoric which distracts from the real questions of judgment, character and experience that voters will base their decisions on this November.'"

Until he began his presidential campaign, I found it very easy to respect John McCain. He has an honorable record of service in our military and in the senate. He has often spoke up against his party on issues of principal such as when he denounced the Swift Boat ads run against John Kerry in 2004. But in this moment, with his own presidency on the line, I think he is crossing over toward a dark place that is not only dangerous for his campaign, but more importantly, for his country. McCain's judgment must be better than to assume, as his campaign manager does, that the "inappropriate rhetoric" displayed at Republican rallies has "nothing to do with what our candidates are doing or saying right now."

Perhaps some believe that anything goes in a political campaign, but I definitely think there is a line. McCain has crossed it, and in the same moment, ironically revealed a less than favorable side of his judgment, character, and whatever else his experience has taught him. If he wants voters to believe that he will truly be an agent of positive change, he should have led his campaign in a congruent fashion. Either way, now is the time for him to put country first and lead strongly by taking a stand against bigotry and steering his campaign in a new direction.

Crossing the Line / A Republican Breath of Fresh Air

We've seen some of the ugliest sides of America this week from Republican rallies, including incidents where supporters of McCain-Palin called Obama a terrorist and yelled out "kill him!"

Here's an article from ABC reporting on these rallies.

Today, as reported here from the Wall Street Journal, McCain finally took a stand against these horrific outbursts from the Republican base and yet aired a new ad linking Obama to Bill Ayers, who Palin referred to as a terrorist earlier at one of these rallies. Personally, I think it's time for the McCain campaign to draw the line cleanly with both his words and his actions if he is truly trying to reform the Republican party. He cannot tell his supporters "I have to tell you [Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared (of) as president of the United States" and simultaneously run an ad linking him to someone his VP pick referred to as a terrorist a few days ago. I have a weak stomach for negative ad campaigns in general, but when people are saying things at rallies like "off with his head" and "I can't trust him because [Obama]'s an Arab," McCain has to know that his campaign has crossed the line. If he wants American voters to believe that he can truly reform the Republican Party, he's been handed a golden opportunity to prove it. It's time for him to put a definitive end to these ridiculous character attacks. (And in response, Obama should also pull his ads on McCain and the Keating 5 Scandal). However, if I am honest, I think McCain and Palin should have nipped this in the bud as soon as the first of these outrageous comments were made. If there was ever a clear time to model judgment and decisiveness as a leader during this campaign, and to put country first, this was it.

Like some of you, I have harbored not just a little judgment toward the Republican Party while living under the Bush Administration. But I want to take this opportunity to remind myself and those of you like me that the bigots at these rallies do not represent all Republicans. Here's another good article by David Brooks, a conservative addressing the unfortunate trend of anti-intellectualism in the Republican party: The Class War Before Palin

3 Branches of Government & Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Jessica Tou recently made a comment here adding helpfully to my post on the Bill of Rights. As a followup, here are some resources:

To learn more about the 3 branches of our government as laid out in our constitution:

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml

To learn more about Landmark Supreme Court Cases that have since shaped the interpretation of our constitution:

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/Teach/freeResources/LandmarkSupremeCourtCases/

Factcheck.org on the Economic Crisis

Here's an article that helps fill out the picture a bit on the Economic Crisis, proving again that oversimplification seems to be the ultimate enemy of truth during election this season:

"Who Caused The Economic Crisis?"

Debate Transcripts & The Saddleback Civil Forum

The Commission on Presidential Debates provides transcripts of current and past Presidential Debates.

Also, you can read a complete transcript of the Saddleback Civil Forum here.

A Reasonable Republican Point of View

As you may know, I am leaning heavily towards voting for Obama. However, I created this site not to convince readers to mindlessly follow my lead, but to instead engage minds, both Democratic and Republican, in a thoughtful process and dialogue. Accordingly, before I express my opinions about the two candidates, I would like to share two articles sent to me by a well-respected, thoughtful Republican friend of mine. Both articles are written by David Brooks, a conservative writing for the New York Times:

1. "Why Experience Matters": An article exploring the back story behind McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as well as providing some helpful historical context on both parties. While this article does question Palin's experience, the same argument can be made against Obama, who is running for the top of the democratic ticket. Reminder: The VP Debate is on tonight at 6pm (PST).
   
2. "Thinking About McCain": An article providing a logically strong, balanced, and reasonable argument for supporting McCain.
   

My Republican friend (who wishes to remain unnamed) has also personally written some very reasonable emails to me regarding his support for McCain. I am currently working on compiling them into categories for posting on this site.

The Bill of Rights

In a previous post, I directed readers to the official site of the US Constitution. While I think it would be great for people to read the whole constitution, much of the original constitution is very dry in that it describes in detail the structure of the US government and focuses less explicitly on American ideals. However, The Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to our Constitution) talks much more explicitly about our values as a country. I also found the historical reason behind the creation of The Bill of Rights interesting and reflective of our founding fathers' motivations:

(from the site):

"During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a 'bill of rights' that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights."

I encourage you to consider The Bill of Rights during this election as you decide which candidate is more likely to lead us in the right direction.

Factcheck.org Exposes "The Lowlights" of Both Campaigns

As the entirety of Factcheck.org can be a bit overwhelming, this article provides a helpful summary of "red flags" to watch out for from both campaigns:

"The Whoppers of 2008"

The Constitution of the United States

Our constitution contains the ideals upon which our country was founded. If US patriotism was a religion, this document would be its holy book, and yet I must admit that I never gave our constitution a thoughtful read until only a few months ago. Sadly, I am sure I am not alone in my neglect of our country's most important document, which is why I am posting the link to the official site of our Constitution here:

The Constitution of the United States

As someone who is newly engaged in the voting process, I found it helpful to first read this document and interpret for myself what the ideals of our forefathers were as they founded this country. In the midst of all the negative ads and media distractions, it's easy to lose perspective on what is truly important. For me, our constitution serves as a grounding point, and accordingly, much of my vote will depend on which candidate, which party, and which stances on issues most closely align to what I think is an accurate representation of our constitutional ideals.

(Added 10/20/08)

Here's an article sent to me from a friend regarding this topic:

Wall Street Journal - Opinion: How to Read the Constitution