Friday, September 19, 2008

Because the Fobcave is a Fair and Balanced Blog

(By which I mean "fair and balanced," not "adamantly right wing," as Fox News uses the phrase.)

This week I came across an interesting article responding to Barack Obama's claims that a John McCain presidency would not bring "a dime's worth of difference" from the current administration. Now, regular readers no doubt have picked up on the fact that I'm a passionate Obama boy. I like his stances on the war, on the environment, on gay rights (well, more so than any other presidential candidate ever), on the economy (to the extent that I understand economics), on just about everything, but even more so I feel like he's a sincere person and when he says he's dedicated to make real and lasting change, I believe him. The one thing that bothers me about his campaign, though, is his insistence that John McCain is a clone of George W. Bush. I'm not crazy about McCain, and one of the things that bothers me most is that he seems intent on continuing Bush's pointless war in Iraq, but honestly, he's not Bush.

Which is why I was a little confused as to why he chose a person who is Bush--except maybe even more evil and more laughably ignorant on things that people who want to be leader of the free world should know--to be his running mate. It occurred to me that perhaps just-right-of-center McCain felt he needed someone who would pander to the religious right, but seriously, was there ever any concern that extreme rightists would vote for Obama? What it comes down to, of course, is the obvious answer: McCain chose Palin because she's a woman. As if that's somehow empowering to women.

Oh, right, I was trying to be fair and balanced. Damn, I'm no better at it than Fox.

But she still scares me.


Scot said...

Criticizing Palin? Isn't that sexist?

Man, you just don't know when to stop making enemies with feminists ;-).

"was there ever any concern that extreme rightists would vote for Obama?"

According to the wacky far right wing news sources that I can't stop myself from checking, some leaders of the religious right, just after the primaries, were threatening to stay home on election day and try again in 4 years. Seems McCain didn't call their possible bluff.

Mindy said...

She scares me too. And I don't even like her glasses.

B.G. Christensen said...

Scot--It is sexist, because Palin represents everything that feminists stand for.

Mindy--I don't know, I kind of like her glasses.

Craig said...


Is it sexist to want the person flying the plane to be a pilot?

She scares me much more than he ever did.

B.G. Christensen said...

Well it's certainly occupationist.

Th. said...


You're kidding! I'm surprised. No, McCain's not Bush, but neither is Palin. (And this notion that she was selected "only" because she was a woman is ludicrous. My dad's been talking her up for over a year, and believe me, he was no Hilary supporter.) (Although to suggest her being a woman didn't help would be naive.) I trust her more than any of the men on either ticket. Why? Because (excluding the crappy stuff McCain's speechwriters are forcing on her) you know exactly where she stands.

She throws members of her own party on the street for corruption. I can get behind that.

She signs that gay-rights bill into law even though, religiously, she's against it because it's the legally proper thing to do.

Whether one agrees with Palin's opinions or not, a few things are clear: she won't act above the law and she'll fight corruption.

Who doesn't like that?

It's a heckuvalot better'n Bush.

She's the best thing to happen to feminism in years.

Craig said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig said...

You may know where she stands, but that place is incredibly creepy.

She is blatantly, and constantly lying (as is McCain) about all sorts of issues: the Bridge to nowhere, the effects of new drilling, earmarks, just to name a few.

Whether one agrees with Palin's opinions or not, a few things are clear: she won't act above the law and she'll fight corruption.

That is far, far from clear.

To me, she seems like nothing but an opportunist who will do what is expedient and will blatantly lie , and keep lying in the hope that if she does it enough, maybe we'll start believing her.

Sounds a lot like Bushie to me

Th. said...


The lying-about-earmarks thing blows my mind. How has she done this? She's been completely consistent on this point!


Yes, she has applied for and accepted earmarks.

Why? If we don't ask this question, we're refusing to consider the full spectrum of facts--just looking for things to throw at her.

She took earmarks because Alaska, in her opinion, has no other option. Because the federal government won't allow Alaska to make use of its resources, Alaska has no choice but to take handouts. (There's a welfare-mom metaphor in here somewhere, but it's probably offensive.)

She wants to drill, in part, so Alaska doesn't need earmarks anymore. But until Alaska doesn't need them, she feels obliged to take them. (Which is where we would say "for her children" if we had been rude enough to use the above metaphor.)

I would rather have an honest person than an enigma.

Like Ben I have an innate trust of Obama, but as I examine myself, I think that's based more on charisma--not what he says, but how he says it. I really have no idea who he is other than what my gut suggests.

I'm planning on voting for him, but I can't be sure that's the right thing to do. How could I be? Who is he, exactly? Sure, I believe he accepted help from shady Chicago politics without becoming corrupt himself, but it's only a belief. What real evidence do I have?

And of Palin? She moved harshly against the dishonest in her own party--and not just of her own party, but of former close allies. That speaks of integrity. And that, to me, counts for a lot.

B.G. Christensen said...

Well, Theric, I don't like her, but I'm not going to try to convince you to dislike her.

Craig said...

What I was referring to with the earmarks was her criticism of Obama for also taking earmarks for Illinois, and wording her criticism to make it appear that she hadn't, and had always been against earmarks, whereas that is obviously not true. She did the same thing with the whole bridge debacle, pretending nationally not to have supported it, when she had and did very strongly while Governor of Alaska (before the VP thing). She is being manipulative and dishonest, and not very well at that, which makes it all the more stupid.

Craig said...

I'm not saying that she hadn't done some good in Alaska in rooting out some of the corruption, but she is woefully unqualified (much less so that Obama) to be VP, let alone President, and her comment about seeing Russia from Alaska is, I think, rather telling how simplistic her views are.

I mean, I can see the moon from my house, does that mean I'm qualified to be an astronaut?

B.G. Christensen said...

I can see the laundry room from my living room. What does that qualify me for?

Craig said...

Being a laundress?

A washing machine repairperson?

Th. said...


There's no point to the who's-more-qualified argument. I think the main issue we have here could be solved by remembering Lincoln. Back in the good old days, presidents (and candidates) wrote their own speeches. Granted, I think Palin could be more assertive in the fashioning the nuances of these speeches that feel dishonest because they're not wholly true, but I would rather listen to someone's actual words than their performance of a PR troupe's assumption of their words. I feel this way towards both sides. But do we really want the debates to feel like an episode of The Office?

B.G. Christensen said...

Ooh, I've always secretly wanted to be a laundress.

You can call her lack of public speaking ability candor and consider it a virtue, but didn't people say the same thing about W. eight years ago?

Th. said...


Not me. Geez, I hated that guy. That was the year I really liked McCain. He must be sad to know I would have voted for him in 2000.

One more lying, irritating president with a Southern accent and I may have to give up radio.

B.G. Christensen said...

I didn't really know he existed. I was in Spain, oblivious to American politics.

I'm sure McCain mourns the loss. I know I do--honestly, I think we'd be in a very different place now had it been him instead of Bush. Or for that matter, Gore instead of Bush.

B.G. Christensen said...

If only I'd been politically responsible enough to follow what was going on and sent in an absentee ballot--to Florida!

Mr. said...


You make a good point. You've convinced me that this whole mess is your fault.

B.G. Christensen said...

I'll do better next time, Mr. sir. I promise.

Rebecca said...

"I mean, I can see the moon from my house, does that mean I'm qualified to be an astronaut?"

Possibly the funniest (and truest) thing I've seen/heard/read lately, and I've had no shortage of hilarity lately.

B.G. Christensen said...