Personal observations.


Blogroll
Sharing Our Spaces
Oklahoma Observer
CarTalk
Esther's Photos
Where's Esther
ec-432
OKBID.ORG
Oklahoma Economics

 
I am impressed that the Washington Post sided with John Kerry. This is a newspaper that has a very conservative management (like most do) but one that has historically done its best to remain as objective as possible for a staff of humans. Knowing that the WP endorsement editorial would be well considered and full of good arguments I had to look it up.

Go to www.washingtonpost.com and find the link for the endorsement editorial. When you click on it you will be asked to register. It is free and if you are comfortable registering with online media go ahead. The editorial is a good collection of arguments for and against each candidate.

For example, here is what the staff said about George Bush's form of steadfast leadership:
These failings have a common source in Mr. Bush's cocksureness, his failure to seek advice from anyone outside a narrow circle and his unwillingness to expect the unexpected or adapt to new facts. These are dangerous traits in any president but especially in a wartime leader. They are matched by his failure to admit his errors or to hold senior officials accountable for theirs.

Concerning the domestic economy the newspaper admitted that Bush came into office facing a looming recession even if the country still enjoyed a federal surplus. The recession and the 9/11 attacks would have driven the federal budget into deficits no matter what, the paper claims. However it continues:

But Mr. Bush aggravated those circum- stances and drove the deficit to record levels with tax cuts that were inefficient in providing economic stimulus and that were tilted toward the wealthy. Despite the drains on the Treasury from the war in Iraq, he insisted that all the cuts be made permanent; no one, no matter how rich, was asked to sacrifice. Mr. Bush's rationales have shifted, but his prescription -- tax cuts -- has remained constant, no matter what the cost to future generations.

The paper concludes that the President has failed to earn a second term, but then it turns to asking whether Kerry deserves a chance at the position. Although he fails to provide a real plan to address the problems related to retirement and health costs, the WP says Kerry offers more "fiscal realism." Kerry's plans to offer health insurance to more Americans and his long-running defense for the environment commends him to the post. However, none of that would matter if he couldn't keep America safe.

But we believe the challenger is well equipped to guide the country in a time of danger. Mr. Kerry brings a résumé that unarguably has prepared him for high office.

The editorial isn't short. It will take awhile to read it through, but it is well worth reading if, like me, you like hearing a full range of arguments even long after your decision is made. This piece is an airing of those arguments that must have gone on for weeks in the staff meetings at the Post.


posted by Unknown at 10:38 PM

 
Many people don't vote in America. However, concerning me the most are those people who were politically active at one time, but who became frustrated and disillusioned. Looking over some events in the past 24 years I have come to a new appreciation of them.

In 1980 I recall standing in a long line outside a polling place in Texas. I had a deep respect for Jimmy Carter, but so much had gone wrong and the challenger was a real smooth talker. I stood there, very young, along with my wife, eager to vote.

Four years later we were disgusted by Reaganomics and badly disillusioned by how easily a sweet talker can mislead well-meaning voters. We avidly watched the Democratic Convention in 1984 and were swept away by Mario Cuomo's keynote address. To this day a friend of mine says the one person she really wants as a Presidential candidate is Mario Cuomo.

We were excited by the prospect of turning Reagan out and putting in Walter Mondale, but we were even more excited about electing Geraldine Ferraro the first female Vice President. Then we watch in horror as Ferraro was drummed out of the race by slander and innuendo and Mondale was framed as a left-wing nut.

You wonder why women don't vote? Does anyone have to ask?

Not many years later, we watched and listened as Anita Hill put her life and career on the line to confirm a report she reluctantly made concerning a colleague who was being considered for the highest legal post in the country. Even worse than Clarence Thomas' subsequent confirmation was what happened back here in Norman. We watched as a Democrat who we once admired, the new president at the University of Oklahoma, failed to lift even a whisper in Ms Hill's support or even in support of the academic chair that was to carry her name. As the vindictive sneers of E Z Million drained away all prospects that she'd stay and make OU the center for the study of women's legal issues, the new president was silent, ensuring a huge loss for the school.

People have to ask why we lost hope and gave up on the country?

Bill Clinton's victory was a surprise. He certainly didn't talk like a progressive, but he offered a sense of hope that we could return to being a society of people who act responsibly toward each other. He began with bold strokes, attempting a more tolerant policy of gays and lesbians in the military and establishing a serious, bi-partisan commission to study health care problems and solutions.

In response to his administration of hope and reason we got 8 years of expensive, politically motivated investigations into trumped-up charges. We got vindictive politics and finally distracting personal failures. Once again worthwhile policies lost to the politics of hate.

I know people who stopped voting after the Clarence Thomas confirmation. I saw others give up after eight years of irrelevant bickering during the Clinton years. That was all before the debacle of the 2000 election.

In 2000 we experienced a divisive campaign and an election with so many polling problems that the decision was left undecided for weeks and concluded by intervention of another branch of government.

I no longer point an accusing finger at my friends. In fact, I feel compelled to explain why I keep voting, but I do keep voting. Indeed, this year I've added campaigning for candidates of my choice. In light of the past 24 years, we all have a choice to make. We can drop out or dig in.

My choice is to dig in. I've tried to see the consequences of each choice. Some say the consequences are the same because we are powerless against the weaknesses of mankind. They may be right, but if they are not, if there is even the slightest difference we can make, then fighting for good candidates, and even fighting to hold those good candidates to their responsibilities, is better than giving up.

Sometimes my candidate will embarrass me. Sometimes I will lose a race in spite of my best efforts. I understand and accept that.

I am campaigning for ideas more so than for people. I support the values expressed by the candidates and will expect them to honor those values in office. I hope more of my friends will come to the same conclusion that values are worth fighting for even if the people involved fail us at times.

posted by Unknown at 1:33 AM