Commentating on Commentary

I love commentary in news. I believe that it should be clearly identified so people do not confuse news with opinions, but I think it is a great tool to help understand news. You may agree or disagree, but it helps to see the argument.

But, I wish there were more rebuttals in opinion pieces. Point/counterpoint shows like the cancelled CNN show, Crossfire (thanks Jon Stewart) end up being scream bouts sometimes, but in print, thought out opinions can be expressed without interruption and then a true rebuttal can occur.

I think I'll give this rebuttal thing a try. Glenn Beck is a commentator. He makes his living on his opinions. He hosts one of the most listened too radio shows in the country (so, full disclosure, I am jealous of him), hosts a nightly show on CNN Headline News, is a bestselling author, and writes a weekly column for CNN.com. I will be arguing against his latest column from CNN.com.

First of all, to give Mr. Beck credit, I believe he thinks for himself much more than many of his right wing colleagues. I know Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's arguments before they make them. Beck tends to be a little different. But, in his column entitled, "Obama no, McCain maybe" I believe his opinion is soaked with red herrings, straw man, and ad hominem fallacies.

I'll dissect his commentary point for point, with his words in regular font and mine in italics.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A lot of people don't believe it, but the truth is that I really don't know whom I'm going to vote for this November. It won't be Barack Obama -- he and I simply disagree on too many fundamental issues -- but it also may not be John McCain.

This should come as no surprise to anyone who pays attention to conservatives, they are unhappy with John McCain as their nominee.

As much as the media and the analysts try to pigeon-hole people as having only one political ideology, the fact is that most people (at least, most "real" people), don't fit neatly into one predetermined set of political beliefs.

He's right that most people do not fit neatly into one predetermined set of beliefs. But, he is in the media. Commentators, members of the media themselves, use the media in general as a straw man. Some in the media may "pigeon-hole" people, but Beck pigeon-holes the media into one simple entity. In fact, the "media", are television, radio, newspapers, websites, blogs, movies, books, billboards, and music to name 9 forms of media. Does Beck really expect us to believe that everybody involved in those industries believe we should be "pigeon holed" into a particular ideology. Beck doesn't pigeon hole people and neither do I. Already, we have two members of the media who do not engage in pigeon holing. What a start.

I'm no exception. Although I am a "conservative," I'm not a "Republican," and there's a big difference. A true Republican, or a true Democrat, is someone who puts their party above their principles and their candidate above their conscience.

No, a true Republican or a true Democrat is someone with the principles similar to their respective party. They are also realists, not idealists. They know that it is unrealistic to think they can get public policy to represent every exact position they have. They also know that the only way for that to be possible, would be in an authoritarian system. Authoritarian systems are not democracies Glenn.

But most of us (or at least those of us who live outside the Beltway) aren't like that. We're more like the mad scientist Frankenstein: We'd like to take a piece of this candidate, a touch of that one and a little slice of the one over there, mash it all together and create someone who's lines up perfectly with our values and beliefs.

Again, it sounds like Beck is calling for an authoritarian system. That is because, since everybody is different, the perfect candidate for anybody is himself. However, with trust in a democratic system, we can get decent policy through debating a wide variety of representations.

Which brings me back to John McCain. Like Obama, McCain and I have fundamental differences on a host of important issues. Sure, I disagree with him less than I do with Obama, but is that really the standard we should use in choosing their candidate? Our country isn't a reality show where we simply elect whoever's left after all the backstabbing and lying is finished.
Is it?

I understand what Beck is doing. He is putting tremendous focus on the Presidential election. That makes sense being a national host. Discussing various House and Senate races would lose him ratings. People in California simply do not care about Kay Hagan's chance of beating Elizabeth Dole. The reason the framers of the Constitution spent so much time discussing and writing about the legislature is because they wanted the power to be in the legislature. Mainly, because they saw a powerful executive as too similar to a king. But, unless we change to a proportional election system, you will always have to choose the lesser of two evils or be excited about at least one of the candidates.

On my radio program, I talk a lot about voting for your values. But as time goes by, we all tend to get buried in the minutiae of campaigns and lose sight of those things. Day after day, the media and analysts feed us stories that line us up against each other like armies getting ready for battle. Standing in the middle isn't an option, so people tend to take a side, even if they don't feel completely comfortable there.

Again with the media. They want ratings Glenn, just like you.

The only way out of that trap is to try to define what it is you really stand for and believe in. After all, how can you say that Obama or McCain reflects your values if you don't even know what those values are?

That's why people study and learn about the candidates Glenn.

Chances are that your definition will slant heavily to the values advertised by one of the parties. That's fine, but keep in mind that just because a party says they stand for something doesn't mean it's true.

We didn't need Glenn to tell us this.

After all, the Republicans said they stood for smaller government, but the size of our government grew enormously under a Republican president and a Republican majority in Congress. Democrats said they stood for an end to the war in Iraq, but for better or worse, nearly two years after taking over Congress, they don't even have a timetable for withdrawal.
My point is that actions speak louder than words. The "R" and the "D" don't matter if the people we elect don't follow through on their promises.

In this case, he is completely right in his criticism of the Republicans. However, Glenn should be smart enough to know that George W. Bush is still President and that the Democrats' "majority" is up for debate (Both major parties have 49 Senators, two independents caucus with the Democrats giving them the technical "majority" but, Sen. Lieberman sides with Republicans on the issue of Iraq, and for much of this session, Sen. Tim Johnson was out due to a brain hemorrhage).

So what are my core values, the things that I refuse to compromise on? To figure that out, I decided to try to define what I think a conservative really believes.

Here comes the fun. After discussing voting for your own values and why we are not all the same, he tells every conservative what they believe.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.

Shelter and health apparently not important to conservatives.

A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.

I agree with the point happiness isn't guaranteed. But, history won't agree with him when it comes to whether conservatives believe that the pursuit of happiness is guaranteed.

A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.

He's talking about taxes. He is also associating money with happiness. Or maybe happiness can be found in love? So conservatives must believe that gay people should not be penalized for finding happiness with a person of the same sex? Maybe, if money can give you happiness, drugs can too, or maybe indecent and obscene programming allows people to achieve happiness. I understand why rich people do not want to be taxed. But, even when they are heavily taxed, they remain rich. The rest of these people are denied their pursuit of happiness through conservative policies.

A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.

This must be what Beck is talking about when he says there is a difference between a conservative and a Republican. Corporate bailouts, passing blame on failed policies, sayings its the media's fault. I do not think I have ever seen a conservative in our government Mr. Beck.

A conservative believes that real compassion can't be found in any government program.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.

That's the problem. The government did not do anything. Any private group or individual can help but, most do not have the resources to make the kind of impact a government does. Also, the private community is not required to help and not everybody is compassionate. The government does not need to be compassionate, it needs to help its own people. Furthermore, if a conservative wanted to help his neighbor, he wouldn't benefit from government kickbacks, outsourcing, and downsizing. He wouldn't fight social programs that could help his neighbor, he would encourage them. Healthcare may not be a right, but providing it would help your neighbor Mr. Conservative.

A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it's not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family's needs than some faceless, soulless government program.

You may be. But not everybody, including some conservatives I am sure, are attuned to their family's needs.

A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else's throat.

Bullshit.

A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.

If you go to church to be preached to, you have missed the point. People also watch tv and listen to the radio to be entertained, and who preaches to them Mr. Beck?

A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.

Another difference between conservatives and Republicans apparently.

A conservative believes that a child's education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.

Parents should be involved with their child's education. Parents should also send their child to public schools. Beck's idea is simply unrealistic, and I think most people know that.

A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.

So no death penalty and no war?

A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.

Read something, anything, about the Great Depression. Also, another stark difference between Republicans and conservatives.

Those are the things a conservative believes in, and they're the things that I believe in. Now, if only I could find a candidate to match.

Now, this is out of my character and what I believe in, but I've wanted to say it to a conservative for a long time.

Hey Mr. Beck! If you don't like the way we do things in America why don't you just get the hell out?
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer. AND RABBIT


Bottom Line? Think for yourself, whether you're a conservative or a liberal. Don't let that tool or this tool tell you how to think.

Rabbit

Conspiracy?

Big news yesterday. If you can make a battery that would ease energy costs, John McCain will give you $300 million (Click Here for Story).

This triggered a thought in my head. Follow me, conspiracies rarely are simple. In the past few weeks, the call for increased drilling in various places, mostly ANWR and offshore. Everybody agrees that oil will eventually run out, some people just think it will last longer than others. It is in the oil companies' best interest to keep the country's addiction to oil. With the spike in oil and gas prices, many consumers are pushing for other forms of energy. If somebody met McCain's goal tomorrow and came up with the perfect feasible energy source, it would take several years to be completely integrated into all cars. So, if the oil companies' can make the American people think that increased supply will ease prices, then the push for alternative energy will decrease.

Basically, I think its possible that the oil companies want the focus on drilling, instead of alternative energy, to keep a chunk of the American people believing that oil our best bet.

Now, if somebody did meet McCain's specifications and came up with the golden battery, who would want to pay more than $300 million for the blueprints?

Answer: Oil Companies. Paying off an inventor with double or triple that price would be more than beneficial for oil companies. Who knows? Maybe they have already done that? Maybe, they are trying to exhaust our oil reserves so that they will have us completely at their will?

I do not think anybody can argue that oil companies have not tried to develop alternative energy. But, why would they implement them when they could still make billions on oil?

Bottom Line? I have no proof to any of this. I just think it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Also, it is ridiculous to think that oil companies don't want to make money.

Rabbit

Public Financing

Over the past week, many people hammered Barack Obama over his "flipflop" on public financing. First, everybody who knows anything about campaign financing, and I mean everybody, knows it is not anywhere near perfect.

But, what confuses me is that Republicans, of all people, are angry that Barack Obama will refuse to take tax payer money. This is the ultimate case of grasping for straws. Republicans are slamming Barack Obama for beating them. He is raising more money than they have ever raised, and they cannot keep up. George W. Bush started the trend away from public financing after all.

Obama did say he would take public financing in the general election if he could work out a deal with the Republican candidate. That did not happen. Publicly, McCain can claim that he tried to work for a deal and he may very well have done that. But, thanks to McCain's own bill on campaign financing, 527s would outspend both candidates, likely tipping to the fundraising scale to McCain. This is where the swiftboating came from in 2004. Public financing would not provide Obama with the money he needs to fight back. John Kerry took public financing in the general election, and could not fight back.

McCain also is living quite dangerously in criticizing Obama regarding public financing. In November, McCain took out a $4 million loan and the DNC wants the Federal Elections Commission to investigate McCain.

The most compelling part of this story is that Obama is running the most "public" campaign in the history of Presidential campaigns. Over 1.5 million people have donated to his campaign, at an average of less than $100 per person. Half of his donors have given less than $200. Only a quarter of McCain's donors have given less than $200. McCain relies on old-school back slapping with the rich boys over wine and $1000 per plate dinners. Obama relies on the working people who believe in his cause.

Bottom Line? Its all political. The American people need to realize that. Another American people should learn? Who is the elitist here?

RIP George Carlin

George Carlin died Sunday at 71.




What a legend.

Rabbit