Anti-Election Politics

OK, I've been getting some requests for election politics stuff. I have said in the past that nothing could possibly sicken me more, and I think I will use this space to explain why. 1 - Nothing but Spin This basically sums up everything about election coverage. People will ask me what I thought of the most recent speech, or debate, or whatever. My answer is always the same: it was exactly what I expected them to say. Is there any free-thinking person on the planet who doesn't know what any of the 3 responses will be on Iraq, or health care, or anything else? The one good thing that a person can learn during election season is the true depths of any partisan hacky-ness that a particular person or group embodies. allow me to explain by way of example - this post shows Republican hack Hugh Hewitt spewing venom at John McCain during the Republican primaries, when Hewitt supported Romney: January 31: McCain is a very weak general election candidate, and if he was to win, would not govern as a conservative in any significant way. January 14: To know John McCain in Congress is not to like him. January 13: [C]onservatives have to know that Senator McCain is the anti-conservative ... January 11: A GOP vote for McCain ... is a vote for an old warrior way past his prime ... July 10, 2007: [T]here are vast numbers of Americans who really are conservative, who really do vote their beliefs, and for whom John McCain's anti-conservative politics and positions could not be redeemed by his personal story of courage and service or by his relentless and correct support for victory in Iraq and the wider war. May 18, 2007: Senator McCain's contempt for you is complete. React accordingly. March 1, 2007: Sen. McCain is a great American, he's been a lousy senator and a terrible Republican. That's the brand. I have commented on this before, and I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed. Now, when the Republican nomination is decided, they couldn't be closer... So, it's obvious that Hewitt is merely a party hack, and his "analysis" isn't worth the Internet bandwidth that it takes up. Why then, should I bother to listen to what Hewitt has to say? I already know his motives, so I could write his stuff for him. BTW - I'm not really trying to pick on Hugh here, since just about every partisan hack could be de-constructed in the same way (remember how Fox News was anti-McCain too). It's just that Hugh's hacky-ness makes it so easy to show my point... 2 - Irrelevant "Analysis" In case you have been under a rock someplace for the last month or so, you have heard about Rev. Wright almost non-stop, to the point where I joke about his electability. In all seriousness, though, the Republican Hack Machine is in full swing on this one still today: If you go to The Corner (National Review Online's The Corner) right now: - The number of times the words "health care" is mentioned: 7 - The number of times the word "Iraq" is mentioned: 15 - The number of times Rev. Wright is mentioned: 230 What this has to do with election politics is unknown. I assume that NRO is still gunning for guilt by association, but with the pathetic-ness of the attempt, it's really tough to tell. Other members of the Nation of Hacks consider, with dire academic analysis, the importance of a candidate's beverage selection. This must be read to be believed: The switch from juice to coffee is a rite of adulthood. It’s not that Obama seemed to hold himself above the coffee drinkers. It’s that he seemed to lag behind them. He’s still on fruit juice while the adults are sipping bitter and bracing coffee. Even the readers of this neo-con rag take the author to task on this one: Interesting analysis of Barack’s ordering of Orange Juice for breakfast. I have also seen him eating arrugala during one of his lunchtime meals. I should note that John McCain regularly orders prune juice when he goes in for breakfast. What does this represent to him? Or, try this: I love you Commentary folk, but Abe, this post about Obama’s beverage choice , and JohnPod’s about a grammatical slip are psycho babble stretches beyond the ridiculous. A good rebuttal: Agreed. This is getting silly. Sometimes a glass of orange juice is just a glass of orange juice. I’m 51 and I love the stuff. Plus I’ve recently cut back on coffee. This is as bad as the earlier piece about Obama making a grammatical slipup. For pete’s sake, who cares? Everybody does it. Why read anything into it? Because it gives you another stick with which to beat Obama. I’m a McCain supporter and even I think this is ridiculous. And one more: This is hilariously bad. Ouch... and this is the gibberish that some people suggest I should want to inundate myself with? Be Above the Fray So then, what should one do if they want to explore election politics in a way this isn't completely idiotic? Well, you could start out by doing something like this. In 2006, when Obama burst onto the election scene, Hilzoy did a pretty good analysis of Obama's ercord, mostly to help understand the "he hasn't done anything" charge. Some relevant parts: Those are some of the wonkier things he's done. (There are others: introducing legislation to make it illegal for tax preparers to sell personal information, for instance, and legislation on chemical plant security and lead paint.) He has done other things that are more high-profile, including: His "health care for hybrids" bill An Energy Security Bill Various bills on relief for Hurricane Katrina, including aid for kids and a ban on no-bid contracts by FEMA A public database of all federal spending and contracts Trying to raise CAFE standards Veterans' health care Making certain kinds of voter intimidation illegal A lobbying reform bill (with Tom Coburn), which would do all sorts of good things, notably including one of my perennial favorites, requiring that bills be made available to members of Congress at least 72 hours before they have to vote on them. And a proposal to revamp ethics oversight, replacing the present ethics Committee with a bipartisan commission of retired judges and members of Congress, and allowing any citizen to report ethics violations. This would have fixed one of the huge problems with the present system, namely: that the members have to police themselves. But it's the wonky legislation that I love. That and the fact that, for a freshman Senator in the minority party, he has a decent record of getting his proposals enacted. So, this is a guy who "hasn't done anything"? Hmm... While the amount of investigation shown in the reference post borders on OCD, there are several less labor-intensive enterprises one could initiate. Here are some of the easiest: Go to the candidates government site (not their personal or campaign sites). Here is Obama's: http://obama.senate.gov/. Very few high-profile political candidates have not held a government office before, and therefore a government website should exist. The government site (***.gov) is important because of the rules for posting that apply - there will be less slant and spin there than in other places. There is another very important aspect to candidate evaluation: the candidate's voting record. This shows all of the votes cast in Congress on each item up for vote. Voting is the way that a Congressman actually speaks. For example, if a person wanted to know how a particular candidate feels on a particular issue, their voting record is a much better indicator than the candidate's platform gibberish. Interstingly, Obama links his on his [*.gov] site, so everyone can see his record. Many other senators do not. Another place that may be useful is a candidate's published position on various issues. Be wary, as this is not based on any actual data, but it can still be used to familiarize onesself with the strategic position that each candidate will take on various issues. The point: if you rely on the election news cycle to get your voting information, you will continue to get the same recipe of spin and irrelevant discussion. Don't succumb to it - do some reading and thinking for yourself.