Schwarz switches for Schauer

The AP is reporting that Former Congressman Joe Schwarz has decided to endorse Democratic State Senator Mark Schauer over Republican Tim Walberg who defeated Schwarz for the 7th Congressional seat 2 years ago in the GOP primary.

Schwarz told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he decided to endorse Schauer over Republican Rep. Tim Walberg because the anti-tax Club for Growth began running ads critical of Schauer.

The Club for Growth injected more than $1 million into the 2006 primary, helping Walberg defeat Schwarz, then a first-term congressman.

(snip)

Schwarz says he couldn't remain neutral in the race once the group got involved. He says it's "the straw that broke the camel's back."

Dueling partisan polling shows leads for both candidates while external polling has shown Schauer closing the distance in what has generally been considered a strong pick-up opportunity for Democrats looking to increase their majority in the U.S. Congress.

A debate between Schauer and Walberg is set for October 7.

Local Lipstick Pork

While watching Governor Palin squirm her way through the part of the ABC interview dealing with the amount of earmarks she helped bring to her local village while mayor, I came upon the thought that this in itself may open eyes of local politicians on the effect that requests for federal funds may have on their political future.

It has always amazed me that voters would decry the existence of federal earmarks on one hand, and pat local politicians on the back with the other for coming up with matching funds, and outright give always from the nations coffers.

While we have had our attention misdirected on players in our nations capitol, homegrown artful dodgers, and Fagin's have their way with the change in our pockets.
Some are admirable, and well grounded goals, but I have yet to see a beautification project, or river walk help put food on the table, or help pay a laid off autoworkers medical expenses. It is merely putting lipstick on the problems we have as a community. Dressing up a locality in new logo's, and garnishing our sidewalks with brick walkways may well give the impression of affluence to corporate investors, but the hard sell comes when prospective employers see blocks with empty houses, announced school closures, and multiple pages of foreclosure notices in our local paper.
The sickness does not evolve from the proper idea that government can, and should help those in need. It comes from the idea that everyone else is getting a piece of the action, and if we don't ask for giveaways we will get nothing and lose our place in line. Two wrongs, don't make it right.
In tough times such as these we as citizens need to prioritize what may be needed, and what is merely a bump, and grab from the pockets of our citizens. The last time I looked, health care costs, mortgage scandals, and the economy were the biggest issues on the minds of voters. We have two wars to pay for, and the well being of people caught in disasters on our minds. Bridges to nowhere, over priced hockey rinks, and the mating habits of crabs need to be put on the back burner. We need to realize that every penny asked for from the federal government is going on a giant credit card given to us by foreign interests.
Those that would run up the tally, need to be admonished for not having the nations best interest in mind. Change is needed in the White House, but in order for it to be effective it must begin in our local governments houses.

Undecided idiots or Independent patriots?

A long while ago I posted on my own blog evidence of the visceral hatred I have for those that cannot decide the most important issues of their lifetime. In that post I pointed out that the mushy middle may very well be the catalyst for the problems that we find ourselves in today. Indecision or lack of knowledge on any given issue by any of these rail sitters merely puts more pressure on government officials who are charged with doing the bidding of their constituents.
This becomes more apparent when looked at through the prism of this years election.

I forgot about this until I recently had a discussion with a friend who told me he was thinking about voting for Obama, until McCain picked Palin as a running mate. He does not like McCain, but thinks Palin is the answer. He thinks Obama may be a muslim, and does not seem to care about policy.
He has voted in every major election.
He is afraid we will be attacked again.

On the other hand I work with a gentleman that had until the last eight years regarded politics as something other people pay attention to. He didn't vote until eight years ago.
I have noticed when traveling through his work station that he was listening to the news on his satellite radio. Without question this is a full turnaround from those years ago, when he would be more involved with trivia questions on an oldies music station, than the speeches of both the Democratic, and Republican presidential nominee.
He voted Republican in the last two elections.
He is worried about the economy.

-Agnosticrat

I can understand Agnosticrat's anger with so-called undecided voters but yet I find myself sympathizing with them, sometimes it would be nice to not feel so invested in whether one side wins an idealogical debate. I don't agree with the media fascination with them since I often wonder how many of them really vote. I also wonder how many of them vote based on anything more than an infantile "gut" reaction about who would be a good beer drinking pal or who's church attendance is most likely to inspire "morality" despite numerous examples of horribly crooked scoundrels who fooled a nation into seeing them as folksy and pious.

What scares me more aren't the people who may be seriously conflicted about which political party best represents them (for instance, a person who opposes the drug war but doesn't like the Republican theological wing, someone who is bothered by the idea that Democrats seemingly prefer Government solutions to private ones, or the person who wants government to help out people who need it in times of crisis but think life begins at conception and that abortion is murder) but it's the people who walk into the voting booth having no idea of who they support and end up just flipping a switch.

The fact that some people feel compelled to vote even when they seem to have no over-riding interest in the issues involved or a deep passion for who should win, makes me wonder why they don't just stay home. I don't care for the get out the vote messages that insist everyone HAS to go vote or the men who died at Normandy will have given their lives for naught. Some people just don't have a grasp of the issues or care much for what happens and therefore should be perfectly entitled to just "sit it out" if that is what they choose.

- Pol Watcher


Well that is kind of a pop answer isn't it?
Vote because someone died for you to have the ability to.

It really turns into a beast when you place lives as the cost of war as reason for anything. After all any responsibility we have as citizens, can and to some degree has been, sold through this kind of ultra-patriotism. From buying war bonds during previous wars, to joining the peace corps in the sixties, and voting. At some point the fact that people died for this right sounds like less of an ideology, than it does a slogan. Even the most ardent of patriots must admit that through over use, the phrase may have lost some of it's meaning. None the less it has till now shown itself to be a less than stellar call to action in getting the people to the polls

The answer in this case may not be brandishing the lives of those that fought so hard in the past, but must be (in my opinion) showing the voter that they are on the front lines in their own fight. That their own actions now, (rather than someone else's actions then) are the real meaning of patriotism. That they must fight for this democracy with ballots, and information every bit as hard as our forefathers did with muskets, and tanks.

In the early eighties there was a movement among minority activists to tell children that education was a legal right, but that they must demand it from the people in charge of teaching them. It taught the fact that they were being denied the right of an education through a system that seemed to expect apathy from both students, and parents alike.
It was successful.

Get out the vote, as far as I can see uses this to some extent in order to get people at the polling place, but with nothing more than a cursory knowledge of the facts concerning the candidates, (gathered most likely from television talking points), you will end up with at least one of the examples I pointed to before. Growing the will to learn more in depth what each candidate stands for, is the only way to beat the expectation of apathy from the system.

That expectation is that voters will be turned off when discussing anything more than lipstick on pigs, and who may be a secret Muslim. All of this in concert with those that would rather instill fears of a fixed system. That they all are crooks, and it is better to vote for the lesser of two evils, has got to have an effect on anyone may want to have more of a stake in the affairs of government, but have the idea that simply asking how, when, and where to get involved, may lead to derision.

Today I saw a talking head on television say that political forums in which each candidate answers questions separately is boring, and that voters can't wait until the melee brought on by the debates. It made me sick to my stomach to think there was someone that may have tuned in to one of the forums to hear what the candidates would have to say, but chose instead to watch a re-run on television, or almost anything but watch and listen to serious questions being put to the candidates.

-Agnosticrat


I'm glad you brought up education, because I think the one thing I can point to most responsible for the failures of our elected leaders is the failure of our educational institutions. Simply, the American people have lost all capacity to have a rational debate based on a thorough understanding of history, rhetoric and philosophy of government. We have a mass media that has replaced culture, we have pop trivia which has replaced a thoughtful understanding of complex issues. Our political debates are sound byte shout-fests made to grab attention and ratings.

The most important thing I ever learned in school was a college course in which we discussed fallacious arguments. The ability to see through a bullshit argument that relies of absurd reduction, straw man tactics or other cheap debate stunts is something every single citizen of our democracy must have. Too many people fall for the emotional line of argument Agnosticrat mentions in which people base their vote on the worship practices (or lack thereof) of the candidate. How many people stupidly fall for a small snippet of dialogue chopped completely out of context to make it sound like someone said something they didn't say (this elementary school tactic is a favorite of simple minds)?

The American educational system is too often devoted to producing good workers for our factories instead of good citizens for our democracy. I happen to think if we concentrated on producing a citizenry capable of free thinking and rational discourse we'd not only have the democracy we desire but our economy would benefit as well.

As much as the founding generation freed this nation from the tyranny of a brutal monarch with muskets, it was also the product of the Enlightenment and the power of the pen in the hands of an educated class that respected the right of people to be capable of rational thought and to come to the right conclusions, to stay engaged in the ongoing argument that is the constantly evolving idea of the United Stated of America. Every ballot cast is another musket aimed at the heart of the forces of tyranny that potentially would tear asunder this nation conceived in liberty. However, an uninformed voter is just shooting wildly into the crowd while it takes some thought and consideration to aim the vote in the right direction.

- Pol Watcher

In 100 words or less...

The Michigan Supreme Court defied the will of the people. Justices Taylor, Corrigan and Young agreed with the Court of Appeals while Justices Markman, Cavanaugh and Weaver said the the proposal was too complex to distill into 100 words or less. The disgusting decision ignores that complex issues are constantly distilled into short summaries, from history class (The Civil War was primarily a war over the right to own slaves but also one of state rights versus centralized federal government) to literature (Romeo and Juliet is the tale of two star-crossed lovers from warring families who engage in a doomed romance).

By the way, just for the fun of it I made the above paragraph exactly 100 words. Because of the Court of Appeals decision to create an absurd rational (which could in theory be used to strike down any ballot proposal in the future) to overturn the will of 415,000 valid signatures from Michigan voters partly based on the law of a completely different state, we now have to hold our breath and wait for the glorious Constitutional Convention we've been promised would come and save us from ourselves.

The Con Con (a double con, so to speak) will be made up of the very people who would have been negatively affected by the Reform Michigan Government Now initiative, just as the courts who struck it down were as well, so it would take a real dunce to expect real reform. What we will likely get is a couple of bones thrown out to keep the wolves at bay and the assembled brain trust will go back to their day jobs, continuing to ruin state government and put up road blocks in the way of progress in Michigan.

The politicians and special interests will manage to kick the can a little farther down the road, but the people of this state and this nation are slowly waking up to the destruction done to our democracy by the wealthy elite. Michigan government is dominated by the Mackinac Center's ruling class and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce which screws its own small business members by supporting policies that help China and Wal-Mart while destroying Main Street and small towns. The Republican Party will continue it's quest to dismantle any form of social safety net, public education, sensible health care reform that doesn't line the pockets of insurance companies and will continue to blame the Democrats for it.

The 70% of people of voters who said they would approve the Reform Michigan Government Now proposal should do well to remember exactly who stood in the way of letting them vote on this and understand why they did it. History has proven that when the people want change, the ruling class will do whatever it takes to stop them. It says something that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce fought so hard to prevent a series of reforms which had NOTHING to do with "small business" or economic policies. It says something that the corporate-owned media of Michigan relentlessly repeated Saul Anuzis' lies and spin. It says something that the powers-that-be could not let a reform effort backed by nearly half a million voters even get to the ballot. It says something, and it doesn't even take 100 words- Michigan voters are demanding change the politicians and power brokers who stand in their way will soon face their wrath.

One last note to the media: From now on, will you follow the same standard with every other reform proposal and allege that you know who wrote and funded it even when you don't? Will you dismiss any ballot measure because it comes from somewhere other than exactly down the middle of the road? Will you actively work to destroy any ballot measure than either side of the political spectrum alleges will favor the other?

False fact checking and biased balance

Obviously, I started this blog because I felt like the major news media was letting down the American people. I couldn't begin to chronicle the exhaustive list of abuses but one central theme I notice that seems to strike me as particularly disturbing is the notion that the truth must always lie between two opposing points of view. What may be seen as true in Buddhism ("the middle road is the path to enlightenment") doesn't necessarily always hold water in our political dialogue.

Take your average political TV show. You always have the "liberal" and the "conservative" to discuss the issues of the day. But first, is that what you really have? You see, often the so-called liberal is usually some slightly left-of-center person who is often called a strategist or is perhaps a newspaper columnist who's professional credo demands he at least attempt to be fair to both sides (not that this always applies- see Kristol, Bill or Will, George). The conservative is often a member of the far right wing who is backed by some institution with some patriotic name featuring the word "enterprise" or "heritage" where they have been taught the proper talking points. Often the moderator will discuss some hot button "issue" that the cable news people are obsessing about for a day that will be nearly forgotten tomorrow. The questioner throws the topic out to both sides and tries to get the sparks to fly and often the guests, who usually are there to sell their newest book, are all too willing to take their time on TV to raise their "brand awareness" and gain points with their side with a few quips or barbs directed at the other side. In the end, the viewer learns nothing about any policy proposals or issues, but is only aware that both sides tend to obscure their policies with rose petals and horse manure. In the end, the host usually declares they will continue the discussion some other day, declaring that both people have made their points, etc. What has been accomplished other than to convince people that if these people represent politics, then they should want no part of it?

Then, you have the journalist who pretends to want to help you figure out who is lying and who is telling the truth in a political debate. After a politician has given a speech or released a statement, the reporter calls on an "expert" to help enlighten the audience as to the veracity of the politician's words. Sadly, the experts are often not really much more than just another reporter who certainly doesn't wish to call out someone in power as having lied and then face the wrath of their supporters. While journalists love to sell their profession as being a legion of Woodward and Bernsteins, the truth is they more like a pack of sheep cowering in fear that an editor would receive an angry call or email about a piece they submitted, or worse yet an advertiser who is threatening to pull their account because they've been upset. What you often end up with is a sort of nimble soft shoe routine where the "fact checker" tap dances around the question of whether the politician was lying or not and may suggest that something was "untruthful" but in the end declaring that both sides fudge the truth (offered without evidence). Once again, the news consumer is left thinking both sides are of a kind of the truth must lay in the middle.

When one side is clearly lying and the other side is not, who will speak up and say so? In recent days, we've seen many news stories seeming to debunk a politician's claims yet in the end they always like to muddy the waters and pretend as if both sides do it exactly equally. This false equivalence is meant to dampen criticism that the media is being overly harsh on one side or the other and to reduce angry calls and letters that could cost a journalist their job. Often though, this criticism is simply a charade designed to play into a deliberate campaign where lies go unpunished, where truth no longer means anything and average people are left with nothing to do but vote based not on policies and issues but on wedges and code words.

This false debate debases our politics, but more importantly it's ruining our country.