I don't know whether I'll do this much, but I'm hoping that the blogosphere will K-O the kind of nonsense ads that usually accompany a presidential election. I passed over the "lipstick on a pig" debate, which I found absurd and falsely indignant. Obama was clearly talking about McCain's policies, not Palin. McCain himself, indeed Dick Cheney, has used the expression.
And yes, the audience may very well have laughed because of Palin's "lipstick on a pitbull" comment in her speech. I take the fact that she didn't break down and cry because of the hurtfulness of the comment shows that she's "woman" enough to play with the big dogs. If she couldn't handle someone thinking of her views as pigish, then she's not strong enough to be a VP candidate... she is. So this one is for the trash. If the fact that people laughed really hurt you, then you may not be mature enough to listen to politics and should go back to your Dr. Seuss books.
But more significant is the attack ad the McCain campaign is putting out claiming that Obama supported "comprehensive" sex ed in Kindergarten in Illinois and that this is the only education legislation he has ever supported. This article points out how misleading this ad is. Of course both sides are spinning out distortions and I personally reserve judgment on these sorts of rumors about both sides until I have further information.
On this one, "comprehensive" meant through high school. All that Kindergarteners would have learned--and the bill never even went to a vote--is how to resist individuals who might try to touch you in inappropriate places. The ad thus plays into the usual conservative Christian machine that inevitably makes whoever the Democratic candidate is into the anti-Christ.
There are issues where evangelical Christians will side with McCain over Obama, but I don't think education should be one of them. On the matter of education, I have already concluded that Obama is the better candidate. I might add that the very journal that the attack add quotes critiquing Obama on one point, considers McCain a "do nothing" candidate on education.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I agree with everything you say. I was astonished at that ad misrepresenting Obama on sex education - deliberate distortion as was the well worn "pig with lipstick" cliche out of context. The Republicans are looking pretty silly to us down this end of the earth.
I agree that it is imperative to be civil during the election and to deal with issues, but some of the 'passion" that is represented by the media is over the "top" and plays into the "tabloid" mentality of the American people. I am trying to "control" my passions concerning convictions about my personal ideology...Ideology is necessary in the political realm, but dangerous, if not curtailed by rationale discourse where differences can be discussed and evaluated. I am glad for your post here in this regard. And yes, it is imperative that political canidadates don't personalize the media's attack machine...that is another lesson I'm personally learning.
As far as the educational goals of Obama, some of the things said on the media that were read verbatum led me to believe that some conservatives would have great reservations concerning his goals. These included homosexual tolerance, masturbation, and teaching the names of genital parts. I agree that the teaching of parts may be necessary in a climate where many parent don't take the time or neglect to teach their children what is important. But, are conservative values to be respected when it comes to other sexual issues. The family is not intact and it is important for society to educate these children in the meantime. Practicality trumps the "ideal", again.
Ironically, Sarah Palin's daughter herself is an object lesson the need for sex education in the American schools. They are having sex even before middle school. We certainly must try to stop this sort of sex, but to do so requires a change of attitudes, not the imposition of rules. The Republican approach to education--as in many other domains--is simply to harden boundaries, with little attention to what is really needed--mechanism s of changing people from the inside out.
For those who don't know, I say these things as a Republican. But I am thoroughly disgusted with my party on issue after issue. I feel the same about the extremes of the Democratic Party too.
Ken, do you really think there is any hope for an end to extreme partisanship? Cheap shots? Innuendo and outright fabrications? Without a real alternative (a viable third party) I don't see this happening.
I haven't followed much on the MSNBC flap.
I would point out, however, what everyone knows, Rush and his cohorts on the right make no pretense of objectivity on politics. That is where I would like to see some more transparency, in that journalists and media moguls would "declare themselves" ideologically.
"Ironically, Sarah Palin's daughter herself is an object lesson the need for sex education in the American schools"
That was my first thought on that particular announcement.
Post a Comment