a quick snapshot

I had an unfortunately contentious argument with some fellow parents today. The four of them were, shall we say, on the conservative end of the spectrum, and I am clearly not. Unfortunately, I was partly responsible for the contentious turn of the conversation since I saw it fit to drop plenty of my own opinions about the election, the mess we're in, and the record of the past several Republican administrations. What bothers me is not so much the substance of our debate—such discussions are important for society, I think. What bothers me is the rhetoric and anger that I let slip.

That said...

I thought about a few of the points I glanced on in the conversation, and it seemed worth putting a small inventory of them together:

• Many of the foreign policy disasters we are still dealing with happened during Republican administrations. These include the removal of Iran's Prime Minister in 1953 under the Eisenhower administration, the support of and development of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship during the Reagan administration, and the support and development of Osama Bin Laden as part of the mujahadin in Afghanistan during the Reagan Administration.
  
  
• Much of Palin's story is built on lies. The funny part here is that I wanted to provide one or two solid non-partisan links, but there were far too many good sources to choose just one. For now, though, here's a good start.
  
  
• McCain's favorite economic adviser and co-chair of his current campaign really should take much of the blame for the current crisis. And that culpability began in the Reagan administration. Man, ain't deregulation great?!?
  
  
• Obama and Ayers have never been close. In fact, they haven't had any direct contact in more than three years, and never "palled around together."
  
  
• It strikes me as very interesting that this campaign almost seems like a contest between Obama and Palin at moments.
  

I'll come up with more points as the days wear on. Regardless, I learned an important lesson today: you don't persuade anyone by criticizing their people. Rather than attacking someone's candidates and listening to their attacks on my candidates, I should have asked a question. To wit, why should someone support McCain?

Had the conversation turned in that direction, I could have offered plenty of reasons I think someone should vote for Obama. And every one of those reasons would have been based in things I like about the man, his ideas, and his advisers.

last night's debate

To put it as simply as possible, the messages I got from last night's debate were:

• Obama: Vote for me because I have plans for how to get the country back on the right track, and I care about the middle and working classes — a message that clearly resonates with me.
  
  
• McCain: Vote for me because I've been doing this for a long time, and I deserve it.
  
  
• One man struck me as patient, but ready to fight back when attacked while the other struck me as someone who simply cannot believe that he is not winning—after all he's done.
  
  
• Though the debate has been declared dull by many pundits and bloggers, I think the subtler psychodrama was fascinating.
  
  
• Tom Brokaw did a wretched job as moderator.
  
  
• McCain mentioned Ronald Reagan and Joe Lieberman more times than he mentioned Palin. Which is to say he didn't say her name a single time.
  
  
• Mostly, I was struck by how much this matchup exemplified a generational break. McCain relied on anachronistic references and jokes and, from an obsession with oil and nuclear power to a Cold War mentality, displayed a frame of reference buried in the last half of the twentieth century. Meanwhile, Obama displayed a desire to look at the world as it is now and find solutions that make sense for future generations.

That said, the most remarkable and telling part of the debate didn't even occur in the debate itself. Instead, the post-debate period illustrated clearly the differences between the candidates and their approaches. Picked up from Wonkette, the video below shows 11 minutes out of more than half an hour filmed by CSPAN after the debate. Sure, you can see the infamous dis when McCain sidesteps shaking Obama's hand. More importantly, you can watch the McCains leave as quickly as possible while the Obamas stayed around to talk to people. There is no audio, so you need to be able to read lips if you want to know what they're saying. It is remarkable, however, to watch them both carry on conversations with many of the people in the hall, and to watch the excitement as these "undecided" voters ask to have their pictures taken with the Obamas.

So I put it out there... who would you rather have as a leader: someone who leaves as quickly as possible or someone who makes an effort to connect with and listen to everyone?

Notes from the weekend - debate edition

If you have been hiding under a rock for the past week, you may not know that there was a minor altercation between our presidential candidates on Friday night. You may also have missed the news that one of the candidates tried to scuttle the whole damn thing under the guise of this little economic crisis we've had going on. Well, the little gambit didn't work; the maverick gambler played his bluff and lost. He arrived in Oxford, Mississippi, with a slight snark following in the media coverage.

{On a side note, the location of the debate is, itself, remarkable. Ole Miss was a campus that required National Guard intervention for integration to happen.}

So, yes, the debate happened. The Impolitic household took in another parent and child for the evening, and the first graders tore up Banana's room whilst the parents drank wine and beer and tried to follow the meanderings between Senators Obama and McCain. Loosely put, here's what I saw:

• Both candidates played to their supporters. In general, Obama was more forward-looking and more specific in his answers, but really both did their best to stick to talking points even when Jim Lehrer tried to pull them into more engaging territory.
  
  
• McCain looked tired and seemed the less-prepared of the two. His efforts to land attacks against Obama turned ad hominem and snide. In fact, when he tried to begin with the standard, tired attack of the Democratic candidate as a tax-and-spender, Obama deftly argued back with specifics about his proposals and effectively took the wind out of the attack.
  
  
• Obama seemed better prepared, and generally navigated the proceedings with a far more presidential demeanor. When asked to engage McCain directly he obliged, even when it was clear that McCain would not even return eye contact.
  
  
• McCain spouted some fascinating lines. His reference to SDI (Reagan's Star Wars program) was bizarre and seemed anachronistic given current issues. We had to rewind his phrase "not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning" twice to parse what he meant. His reference to a pen for vetoes recalled Bob Dole's awful debate performances, particularly when he paused and said, "Well, this pen is kind of old." It truly was a head-scratcher.
  
  
• Obama held his own on the foreign policy sections of the debate. Particularly good was the moment when he pointed out that McCain kept referring to the surge—as though the war had begun in 2007, not 2003.
  
  
• Though some friends have criticized the format, I appreciated Lehrer's effort to push the debate into a more discursive model and to resist hewing firmly to a script.

************
UPDATE: This Old Pen

wow

There has been plenty of rumbling about McCain's begrudging support in his party and further rumbling about how he has lost some Republican support, but losing George Will has to occupy a special level of Republican Hell. And when Will compares you to the Queen of Hearts, well, it's just a sad day if you're a Republican candidate:

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated. This childish reflex provoked the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that "McCain untethered" -- disconnected from knowledge and principle -- had made a "false and deeply unfair" attack on Cox that was "unpresidential" and demonstrated that McCain "doesn't understand what's happening on Wall Street any better than Barack Obama does."

What a two-fer of criticism: Will and the WSJ. Good going, McCain. Keep it up, please.

plagiarism?

I was searching for images related to the Peterson's Guides today, and one of my searches brought up this old logo for the company:


The image seemed awfully reminiscent of something else I've seen recently, something that was supposedly designed recently:


I guess this means the McCain campaign is so bereft of new ideas that they can't even design a unique logo. Or maybe it's just that there isn't anything they won't recycle. Anybody care to comment?

McCain

I have one thing to say about McCain's speech... apparently none of his handlers have ever watched The Colbert Report. If they had, there is no way they would have had McCain speaking in front of a green screen (or a blue screen) again. Ever.

Let the games begin.

slow burn

And McCain's slow burn continues with this:

McCain Calls For Economic Surge
by faizshakir

Seriously. Is there a single piece of rhetoric in here that hasn't been a stock part of the standard Republican presidential campaign speech since 1980? Out of control governmental spending? Check. Lowering taxes on businesses? Check. Opening new markets to U.S. products? Check—and checkmate since that particular chestnut is more than one hundred years old.

Jeez. The man's rhetoric is as tired as his voice.

Meanwhile, he's just been owned by Paris Hilton. Wow.

saddest campaign moment ever...

This has to be one of the most pathetic, uncomfortable campaign moments ever. It's. Just. So. Inarticulate.



Picked up from Wonkette.