The Challenge for Obama

After watching the GOP National Convention sink to depths not often seen in terms of fact distortion, the Democrats have been placed in an extremely difficult position, making their impending convention quite interesting.

Now, we all know that politicians are notorious for stretching the truth, being vague, or presenting creative interpretations. That is pretty much a given regardless of party. It is a sad but unfortunate truth in an attempt to (usually successfully) persuade ignorant voters. With all that in mind, the Republicans sunk to new lows this past week.

Let's take Paul Ryan. Now, I am staunchly opposed to his politics but in general, his reputation is pretty good in terms of being more or less honest (again, relative to politicians).  And yet, we saw Ryan flat out lie about the plant closing in Janesville, about his key role in the Debt Ceiling Commission, and join in the GOP distortion of the "you didn't build it" statement by the President.

We saw Romney flat out lie about the Republicans efforts to work with Obama and (brace yourself) actually wanted him to succee, when the record clearly shows that they opposed Obama from day one. We saw him greatly distort the numbers about college graduates and their ability to find jobs. We saw him lie about Obama raising taxes on the middle class when in fact we are still under the Bush tax cuts (and believe me, the GOP would have opposed any tax raise with staunch vigor).

You get the point.  Let's just say when the national media, known for understanding the way politics works, starts throwing out the "Lyin Ryan" tagline or when Fox news of all places notes Ryan's lies, we know we have sunk to new depths.

Strangely enough, it isn't the lies that has me most interested, but rather, the question of what approach the Dems will take during their convetion. On one hand, you might expect a "fight fire with fire" approach. While I am sure they will take some liberties with the facts and distort some issues, will they stoop to the flat out lying category? Will they get into a public spat about trying to set the record straight?

Before you answer yes, here is the problem. Swing voters have no stomach for what they perceive to be dirty politics. This will be an election of turnout. Republicans themselves have been quite honest about the fact that if this is an election of bases, they will win. If many of the unlikely/new voters turn out (like in '08), they will lose.  If the swing voters get disgusted by the process, they simply don't show up, leaving the Republican base with the edge. (This goes back to all the attempts to restrict the vote....all part of the plan).

So, this leaves Obama and the Dems in a really tough spot. Do they get down in the gutter, or do they take the high road and let the negativity work (and history shows that it does). The answer is somewhere in between, but it must be done VERY carefully and VERY skillfully. There is no doubt that they will try to get a little dirty, but it cannot come across as being dirty, and that is not easy.

This all goes back to Karl Rove, who was a genius in many ways and figured out long ago how to play this game better than anyone in my political history, a game that the GOP have taken to a new level this year.

And before anyone thinks that this rhetoric was simply Convention fodder, just wait until the unlimited super-PAC money starts throwing out their ridiculous advertisements.

Crist Endorses Obama

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/former-gov-charlie-crist-heres-why-im-backing-barack-obama/1247631

Since I earlier praised a Dem for not falling lock, stock, and barrel with his party in demonizing the opposition, I thought it is fair to point out a Republican doing the same.

Agree or disagree with either of their positions, but it is good to see members of either party deviate based on a more realistic evaluation of the issues and people involved.

This Video MIGHT Stop Romney From Becoming President

This Video MIGHT Stop Romney From Becoming President

Nothing surprising here, as this is common knowledge for those that are paying attention. Heck, we saw Walker play the same cards.

The Choice for Progressives

I read an interesting article in The Progressive by Matthew Rothschild called "The Third Party Dilemma" which discusses whether it is better to truly vote for what you believe is right (and in our current system, probably throwing your vote away), or whether it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils for fear that the other guy will be even worse.

Here is an excerpt:

So at election time, we have a choice between two proven failures. 

That's why I don't put much stock in presidential elections and much prefer to focus on building a mass movement.

As Howard Zinn used to say, voting is the least important political action you can take. 

(Side note: As someone that always encourages everyone to exercise their civic duty and vote, each year I am more convinced that this can actually be a negative given the bizarre reasons that many give for voting the way they do.)

Still, I'm torn. I feel the impulse to renounce Obama, and I understand the tactical arguments to vote for him.

Ultimately, voting for President may be as much an existential exercise as it is a political choice.

Do you-do I?-say no to Obama and to the Democrats and no to the two-party system, understanding full well that defiance is likely to be a lonely and ineffectual one?

Or do you-do I?-swallow hard and vote for the man we've been criticizing so loudly for three and a half years because the guy he's running against, the rightist movement behind that guy, is so hideous, knowing full well that by doing so, we'll be giving our vote to a man who hasn't earned it and to a party that is in hock to the corporate powers that be?

Do you-do I?-vote for Obama because in some areas he might make people's lives less miserable than Romney would?

For what it is worth, I was able to justify Bush's re-election with the hope/belief that his gross mismanagement and the hole he would put us in would actually wake up many Americans and we would see some change. On one hand, I felt justified in his disastrous presidency, but obviously, we obviously haven't learned based on the current state of affairs.

Obama/Romney Scorecard

As we lead up to the election, I thought it would be interesting to track Politifact's evaluations of Obama's and Romney's public comments.

For ease, I am just going to cluster them into two categories: True/Mostly True, and Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire. I have excluded only one category, Half True, though obviously you can figure out that number if you wish by using simple math.

Here are the numbers as of today...

Obama
True: 46%
False 29%

Romney
True: 29%
False: 43%

What is really sad about this is that even though Obama's "honesty numbers" are better than Romney's at the moment, he still has almost a third of his comments that are not truthful or accurate

As another side note, I checked out the infamous "American's for Prosperity" file. This of course is the Koch brothers funded group that is currently paying for a lot of the anti-Obama ads on TV and that has been a major player in attempting to shape public perception, particularly in the 2010 mid-term elections.

Of their public comments (ie advertisements), NONE of them rated even mostly true. An astounding 86% of their evaluated statements were rated as false, mostly false, or pants on fire false. That is truly sad (though I suppose it gives Scott Walker and his 63% false rating something to shoot for).

Bowles: "I am not going to act like I don't like him."

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/14/exclusive-bowles-on-ryan-im-not-going-to-act-like-i-dont-like-him/

I don't post this to discuss Paul Ryan and I don't necessarily endorse Bowles opinions of Ryan (either the positive or the negative), but what caught my eye was that it was a person of some significance who wasn't afraid to attempt to look at the opposition in a measured way. How rare is that these days?

Both parties feel the need to demonize the other side to such a degree that serious discussion becomes impossible. You do not have to agree with President Obama and his policies, but he is really destroying our country? Really? That is what constitutes political discourse? Or, if you truly wish to demonize Obama (as I have done with Scott Walker for instance), can you at least list a few real policy issues that you have disagree with in a fundamental way? Based on my everyday discussions, I don't think many people can, not because they might not exist, but rather we are buried in this culture of ignorant and blind attacks.  The common American, of either party, makes very little effort at educating themselves on the issues, leaving both parties pandering to the lowest common denominator, while the serious folks of both parties wind up frustrated and feeling helpless blowing in the wind of yet more and more of the same old same old.

(And yes, I do realize that I praised a facebook post that exaggerated the connection between Scott Walker, an evil and pathologically manipulative being, and Paul Ryan, someone I thoroughly disagree with, but believe is no more good or evil than your typical politician. My defense?  I agreed with the jist of the post, if not the word for word interpretation.  Either way, I will admit to some hypocrisy when dealing with a quick facebook post. Hey, nobody's perfect.)

Anyway, the bottom line is that regardless of what you think about Bowles or Ryan, I found Bowles' words to be rare and borderline refreshing. There is a great clip of Stewart ("Daily Show") mocking Palin for saying that the Dems are the only ones who take cheap shots or practice inclusion, before of course playing numerous clips of Republicans and Palin herself doing exactly that. It has to stop (and yes, I am looking at you Fox News, and to a lesser extent, MSNBC).

I wish more people could take the Bowles' approach. I think our country would be better off.

Walker-Ryan Facebook Post

I came across one of the better Facebook comments I have seen. This was posted in a thread based on the news that Scott Walker and Paul Ryan exchange text messages regularly.  It comes from Rev. David Huber and it was so good, I wanted to post it here for posterity:

Two sons of privilege who think they are self-made. Narcissistic, arrogant, sinfully prideful, and they embrace and encompass everything that Jesus stood against: empire, greed, disdain for the poor and marginalized, violence as a viable political tool, and the assumption that the rich are ipso facto morally superior.

Well done Reverend Huber...well done.