Differing on 90% of Issues means they are not like you.

>> Friday, September 5, 2008

Is it just me or is it a strange thing for people to think that someone who disagrees with them on 90% of the issues is just like them. It makes no sense to me. I just saw the Survey USA numbers for their survey of Independents and it blows me away. If you ever needed proof that there is no such thing as the rational voter than this type of statement is it. I get it, you think that they are a "good person" or someone you can respect. The thing is though, they dont respect you.

This concept seems to be lost on most voters. Here is one example comment i found on the net.


So I'll comment on this one too...I'm independent and I can tell you that I felt more moved by Sarah Palin's speech than I did Barack Obama. Let me explain why. Sarah Palin's speech connected more personally with me than anyone else. Barack Obama is amazing, his speeches are always cool. But after the speech is over I can't help but feel what Sarah Palin pointed out: what am I left with after the glittery words and the soaring oratory? Truth be told, the media's focus on personal issues like her family, as well as her special needs child, probably makes me focus more on the fact that she is more like me than Barack Obama. She's not like me on the issues. I don't agree with her on 90% of the issues. But, I connected with her speech in a way that I did not with Barack Obama's speech.


This makes no sense to me on several levels. The first being that someone who disagrees on 90% of issues is not like you. They think differently, have different world views and probably different values. To consider voting for someone who would enact 9 things you opposed for every one thing you liked is just a bad idea. The only way that makes sense is if people simply do not care about policy outcomes-- at all.

Beyond the simple fact that you would be voting totally against your self interest with this type of view think about Sarah Palin and what she said in her speech.


But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world. America needs more energy ... our opponent is against producing it.


The number of falsehoods in this section alone is simply remarkable. You should read the fact check on her speech. Here is the hilzoy take on the Palin lies

Ha, ha, ha. I gave a rundown of Obama's accomplishments in the Senate here. They include the Lugar-Obama bill on nonproliferation, and an ethics reform package that the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet." Ruth Marcus summarizes his record on reform:

"He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed -- again to the dismay of some colleagues -- to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers. He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns."

Not a single major law or reform, indeed.

And I wasn't aware that writing memoirs was something to be ashamed of. Obama has, in fact, written only one. McCain (with Mark Salter) has written at least two.


It would probably be easier to point out what she said that was actually true. The point of this is that if you connected with this lady you connected with a liar. Someone able to go in front of millions of people and lie to them repeatedly about yourself, your opponent and your running mate. In addition there should be a deep irony that she attacks Obama for a lack of substance in his speeches when her speech provided virtually nothing in that regard.

Something else to consider though is that Palin is a far right ideologue who does not value you your thoughts and ideas. To her all that is important is her beliefs and imposing them on you. If you resist her you are fired. She may be hockey mom but to me she has more in common with a celebrity parent. Someone willing to exploit their children for their own ends. Palin is all a deception. Palin does not respect those not like her and that means people who dont comply with her beliefs.

In contrast Obama speeches are real. They come from his heart and they try to communicate his vision for where he wants to take the country. Far from lacking in specifics or substance they are full of both. To believe otherwise is self deception. Obama constantly lays out his plans and his strategies for given problems. If all you take away from his speeches is the brilliance of the prose than you were not listening.

Maybe i am wrong though. Maybe it is possible for someone who disagrees with your fundamental principles on 9 out of 10 topics, holds you in contempt, lies to your face to be just like you. In that case though i am not sure i really want to be friends.

1 comments:

Progressive Traditionalist September 7, 2008 at 2:16 AM  

Hello, Gaucho Politico.
Identity politics is weird.
Sad to say, but that's as deep as some people can go.

That whole "impose our beliefs" thing is common to extremists on either side. They have a few other things in common.
Both share a notable reliance on the hasty generalization.
Both tend to confuse style with policy.
Both of these groups see their own arrogance as conviction, and feel threatened easily. I think that's really why they feel the need so strongly to control other people.

Just a starter list.
I'm sure you could add to it.

O-le,O-le, O-le, O-le! O-le, O-le!

  © Blogger template Sunset by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP