I’m Voting for “That One”

I promised myself that I would stop writing about politics when I no longer had anything original to say. Who needs another person on any side just repeating the same old stuff? I’m dancing pretty close to that line now, but I really don’t care to proceed with caution. I’m completely engaged in this election, and I want to talk.

So, I guess John McCain and I have something in common. We’ll just keep talking, whether or not we have anything original to contribute. The difference between us is that I think I’m pretty willing and capable to adapt what I say to responses I get. Seems to be a McCain-Palin tactic to make a point, watch and smile (Palin) or look away and smirk (McCain) as your opponent refutes your claim, and then repeat the original point and statistics without in any way responding to your opponent’s counter argument. The final step is to hope voters are too dumb to notice what you’ve done. It’s annoying to me that the time constraints of the debates make it possible to get away with this.

It seems that even when your opponent preempts your ridiculous argument, you will still follow the formula. He’ll say: I want to go through line-by-line and cut all programs that aren’t working. John will say I’m proposing all kinds of new spending, but the net total is still less than our current budget. You’ll respond: Senator Obama has proposed 349587 kajillion dollars of new spending. What I want to do is go through every program and cut all the useless spending.

And, that brings me to another point. Last night only, and not in the previous debate, it seemed like John McCain often repeated what Obama had just said without saying (save for once!) that he agreed with Obama. Like with the last example. Sure, going through the budget and cutting unnecessary projects isn’t a genius idea in the first place, but McCain used such the same wording as Obama that it seemed strange he didn’t even acknowledge the similarity. It’s a joke they’ve used a few times on It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, where one character comes up with a brilliant plan, the other says, “no, I know what we should do,” and then repeats the same plan as if he came up with it on his own. You see, it’ funny because it’s ridiculous; playing up this angle would have worked far better than McCain’s actual attempts at humor last night.

As for tired arguments:

Dearest Obama, I will give you “John McCain two weeks ago said the fundamentals of our economy were strong,” because that says a lot about what McCain knows about the economy, but give the “Bomb, Bomb Iran” thing a rest.

McCain, my friend (that’s your line, right?), don’t tell me again that Obama did not support the surge and still won’t admit it was a success. He has admitted it; he even said he was wrong. And, for your own good, stop with that thing about how Obama would sit down and talk to terrorists, because he has refuted your spin over and over again, and it was never a good argument to begin with. What fault am I to find in that? Also, don’t bring up the thing about small businesses being taxed unless you find a response to Obama-Biden’s counter that only a small percentage of small businesses make more that 250,000 a year.

Hearing Cindy McCain label the Obama campaign as the “dirtiest campaign in American history” just after her husband’s campaign announced their new swift-boat strategy, well, it made me wonder whether some of these people–Republican and Democrat–believe their own spin or just spew it. I’m serious. I myself have no BS-ing talent at all–not even the amount that would make life a little easier–so I don’t understand how it works.

Here are some other seemingly hypocritical things I don’t understand. Palin saying our economy needs strict government oversight (regulation?), but government should just get out of the way! McCain saying he’s going to put a stop to all government spending, but buy up a bunch of bad mortgages. McCain continuing to say he’s a reformer, though he’s voted over and over again with the president. This one’s a little unfair: McCain saying in the same sentence that he’s not very popular with his party (so, how’d you become the Republican candidate?) or the Democrats, and somehow that makes him good at bipartisan work; mavericks work really well with others, right? For good measure, I’ll throw in, Obama wanting to cut taxes for the middle class, but signing the bailout bill (though I understand why he thought it was necessary).

Back to Tuesday’s debate, am I the only one who’s uncomfortable with all the American is the best nation in the world, America has the greatest work force in the world, America is the greatest force of good in this world talk? Coming from either candidate, I don’t like it. I love America. But, I cannot swallow that arrogance. Why do we need to declare ourselves the best in the world? Oh yeah, so we’ll be motivated by fear to preserve our superiority. At least to the last example, I can agree. Speaking of nations, America does have the greatest potential for good. It also has the greatest potential for evil. That’s how power works.

When it comes to all this America Rules! speak, the one thing I like about everyone’s response to our current crisis is that we’re all saying America could be better. That first means admitting that America has faults. I guess it’s no longer unpatriotic to say so. This allows for a climate of discussion that was missing from the last election. Four years ago, it seemed like questioning our practices was the way not to get elected; now, the only workable platform is change.