Maverick or Sleep Aid?

About a month ago I ranted poetic about Sen. Obama and his European tour. It turns out my rant hit a few nerves with the Obama supporters. In turn, I promised to air my beefs (a.k.a my opinion) with the McCain campaign.

Watching John McCain's campaign has been like watching paint dry: boring, tedious and completely uninspiring. After Bob Dole's campaign run, I didn't think it was possible to see a more mundane presidential candidate.

I was wrong.

John McCain won his party's primary because he is a maverick. He's someone who has been a thorn in President Bush's side. He doesn't play it safe. People like that he has convictions and that he sticks to them even when they go against the political tide.

It's evident in this campaign cycle that voters are ready for someone to come along and shake things up. That's why Obama's message of change and hope have resonated with so many people. McCain was suppose to bring that same type of message for the Republicans.

So what happened? Where did the maverick go? I'm guessing that after he won the primaries his advisers put a lid on everything people enjoyed about him in the name of "playing it safe." We sure wouldn't want a candidate who rocks the boat, or goes out on a limb or wins an election, would we?

So to those McCain advisors, I'd like to give you a little advice from this mom and housewife who knows little about politics but a little more about what appeals to people.

1. Please don't let the resident old guy drive around in a golf cart with former President George H.W. Bush. It's not at all endearing to see two grumpy old guys taking the mode of transportation most often found in double-wide trailer parks in Florida. It's a mental picture that still keeps me up at night.


2. Please tell me why he. is. so. monotone. and. boring. when. he. speaks. It drives me crazy. He's suppose to have a temper and, frankly, I'd like to see a little fire in his eyes. Have him get excited. Teach him a little whoop and holler. Get him to go crazy. But. please. don't. bore. me. with. his. monotone. rhetoric.


3. I know he was recently criticized for talking too much about being a POW but I believe he hasn't said enough. There are so many stories that haven't been told about his time as a prisoner and, while I respect his privacy on the matter, that's the one reason many are drawn to him. At least use those who served with him to tell the stories.


4. Give people more access to him. He was recently in my city and spoke to a small group at a local factory. Wow! That's riveting footage on the 6 o'clock news, especially when the next story is about Obama parting the red sea on his way to speak to thousands.


5. Point out every chance you get why he is known as the maverick. Talk about the bills he's pushed through that were unpopular with his own party, and show us why he is capable of shaking up Washington. If people are looking for change then let them know how you've been an agent of change in the senate.

Republicans finally saw some life from this comatose campaign when McCain announced Gov. Sarah Palin as his choice for Vice President. Regardless of what you think of her, she has been her weight in gold for injecting fresh life into this very stagnant campaign. As my good friend Patty likes to say, Palin's the color person. She's the person who adds spunk and life and color to an otherwise very grey candidate.

With that all being said, I'm really amazed that McCain has stayed even with Obama in the polls. I believe it's been Obama's race to lose all along. But that's what they said about Hillary a year ago, too.

I hope the Republicans get to show their stuff this week at the RNC and they unleash even more wild and crazy antics that can energize their base. Otherwise, they just may put this night owl, and their chances of winning, to bed.

Maverick or Sleep Aid?

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/09/maverick-or-sleep-aid.html

The Final Word

The love just keeps pouring in here at P4M regarding the Obama rant I posted some time ago. As much as I'd love to continue repeating myself over and over in the comments, I thought I'd just post a final comment here so we can all move on to other equally explosive topics.

For the last 8 months I have provided balanced and non-partisan coverage of the election on this blog. My desire is to provide a place where people can become knowledgeable about politics and challenged to think so they can make informed voting decisions. Over these months, many of you have thanked me for providing a place where you don't have to wade through the spin to learn the clear facts about the candidates and their campaigns.

I always go out of my way to make sure the candidates are portrayed fairly and accurately. Even though I try to have multiple sources confirm facts, occasionally I get a fact wrong or misspell a word. Many thanks to those of you who set me straight.

But I think my track record has been pretty clean. In fact, much better than most of the media who love to print stories while the facts are still unfolding or quote sources who are not reliable, or take quotes out of context.

But here at P4M, we all seemed to be a great, big bi-partisan family who was very happy. Well, until last week when I posted (I admit) a rant that was clearly labeled an opinion piece. Apparently, I am not allowed to express an opinion on my blog because now I will be incapable of ever providing another believable, non-partisan word.

I find that logic interesting since one of the big stories this year has been how Sen. Obama has the media eating out of his hand. This was made perfectly clear not in their treatment of Sen. McCain, but of Sen. Clinton. For months, Sen. Clinton had to endure the media fawning over Obama and throwing him softball questions during debates. As funny as the SNL skits were about this subject, they weren't too far from the truth.

So I guess some of you are saying that it's okay for the "non-partisan" media to give your candidate preferential treatment but not okay for this "non-partisan" blogger to question some campaign choices he made.

Final Word? I still stand by this blog and its intent to not "endorse candidates, parties or ideology." Not one time in that post did I endorse a candidate or party or ideology. I merely stated (with an admitted edge) why I thought Sen. Obama had used poor judgment in planning that trip.

I'd also like to believe that you are all smart, thinking women (and men) who don't judge a person's entire party affiliation and voting record on one written piece. Face it. After 8 months, you don't know if I have blond hair, green eyes, 4 kids, or a dog. You don't know if I drive a Hummer, own a business or if I'm an African-American woman. And I bet you can't tell if I believe in global warming, tax cuts or school vouchers.

So what makes you think you know who I'm going to vote for in November?

But what if I told you I was voting for Obama---would that suddenly change your mind about my ability to provide posts rooted in fact? Would all be forgiven with you Obama supporters and now I'd find myself on the outs with the McCain supporters?

I'd like to believe you don't care who I'm going to vote for and you just want to continue to read the same non-partisan posts I've been doing for 8 months.

Will I do more opinion pieces? Well, I still owe the Obama people a McCain rant...and it's coming.

After that? You'll just have to stay tuned to find out.

The Final Word

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/08/final-word.html

Obamapalooza

I've been working on this post forever trying to bring an objective tone so you can all make your own assumptions and opinions on Sen. Obama's world tour this week, but I can't do it. I am fired up!

I think the trip to Afghanistan and Iraq was appropriate and necessary. But then Obama had to get all spineless and concede that "America's troops have contributed to improvements on the ground in Iraq, but I still stand by my vote against the surge." Why not just admit that he was wrong?

I can respect a man who admits when he is wrong.

Then the Obamalooza moved on to Israel, Germany, and France? Are you kidding me? Since when does a presumptive presidential candidate (he's not even officially the nominee yet) go overseas and speak to heads of state as if it is January 2009---and to be given a "rock star" welcome in these countries to boot.

• Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq's welcoming gift was an endorsement of Obama's troop withdrawal plan.


• King Abdullah of Jordan was happy to be his limo driver in Amman


• Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted she "wouldn't resist" another presidential back massage.

Then strangely, I read that "No foreign reporters were granted places on his O-Force One and the only interviews he's deigned to give so far have been to the American big shots.

So if Obama doesn't want the adoration of the world, what does he want? Hmm...Oh I get it. Now it's all clear.

This trip was to show the American people that he does have the foreign policy chops he needs for the White House...except I didn't know simply meeting with foreign leaders and fawning all over each other made you an expert in foreign policy.

Frankly, I don't think voters care if he wins the 2008 Presidential Miss Congeniality award from the world. I think we're more concerned about the $74 it took to fill up our mini-vans this week or the second jobs our husbands had to take so we can pay for groceries or how the next President of the United States is going to keep our families safe.

That's what I want to know from the presumptive candidates.

Americans like leaders who are self-confident, poised and in command. But as I watched the news and read the papers this week, I saw a candidate that came across as arrogant, presumptious and disingenious.

Well, that's how I see it. What do you think? Do you think this week's world tour boosted Sen. Obama's campaign? Do you think I'm PMSing (and you'd be right) and need to take a chill pill? Or, do you think Obama's tour o' countries actually helped McCain?

Obamapalooza

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/07/obamapalooza.html

Which Reason Matters Most?

One of my favorite bloggers is marketing guru Seth Godin. He had an interesting post today on voting. Here are a few snippets:

• Voting is free.
• Voting makes some people feel as good as if they just gave blood, but you don't get cookies or a pin.
• Other people have a real problem with voting, probably involving the act of taking responsibility.
• Many, many people feel uncomfortable voting for someone they think might lose.
• Other people think there's no such thing as a wasted vote.
• If you voted with your parents, I bet you're more likely to vote now.
• People rarely dress up when they go out to vote.
• There are no prizes or other promotions associated with voting (vote once, get another vote free).
• If a person votes for you, they feel a lot more connected to the work you do.
• Elections are quite close more than you would imagine. Which means that votes surely matter.
• Yet a majority of people don't bother.

Seth concludes with a great question, "I wonder which reason above matters most?"

Which Reason Matters Most?

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/02/which-reason-matters-most.html

As I See It: Education Wrap-Up

I've had a few people ask me why I haven't given my opinion on the education plans this week. My short answer is, "Who cares what I think?" This blog is about helping each of you figure out what you believe and providing the facts for you to do so.

There are plenty of talking heads out there who will engage and entertain you with their insights and analysis on everything from the issues to the latest polls to what a candidate's body language meant during a debate. That gig is pretty well covered. What isn't available is a place where you can get facts without all the filters and bias. I'm hoping this site fills that void.

However, one of my other goals is to encourage healthy debate which is a hallmark of a free and democratic society. So each week I will throw out an opinion or pose a question so together we can hone and refine our own viewpoints and really begin to take ownership of our ideas. That doesn't mean I want you to all come to my conclusions. It simply means I want us to stop lettting other people think for us.

So here's how I see it this week...

I think the differences between all the candidates and their education plans was pretty clear. All of the Democrats had what I like to call "womb to groom" plans. They presented very detailed and all-encompassing plans that, in some cases, provided for a child before they were even born all the way through college and to the altar. A lot of great programs were proposed that addressed literacy, after-care, teacher education and retention, greater accountability and leveling the playing field for kids in low-income areas. Only a few of these plans had a price tag attached to them and none of them told us where the money was coming from to fund these efforts.

On the other hand, Republican candidates took a much more hands off approach to education. Simply stated, they think parents and the market should drive education. I tend to lean more in this direction of thinking.

I want my candidate to have a strong desire to see school choice become a reality. I would like to see a system where we aren't tied to the school in our neighborhood but we're free to attend any school in our city that would best meet our children's needs. Have a child that excels in the arts? Send them across town to the school that places emphasis on music or art education. Want your child to learn Chinese? Enroll them in the school that has added Chinese language classes to their offerings because they know the market is demanding this type of education.

I think releasing schools from the government regulations that tie their hands would actually create better and higher achieving schools. I mean, name me a government run agency that actually runs efficiently and maybe even turns a profit. There isn't one. But name me a successful business and I'll show you a business that continually strives to provide the best product available and at the best cost. Let the free market into the school systems and suddenly you'd see schools that don't squander money on programs that don't work. You'd see the good teachers rewarded for their work.

So what about underachieving and unsafe schools? Wouldn't they suffer the most? Well, some of them would probably have to shut down because they failed to perform---but itsn't the good? Why do we allow schools that aren't thriving to continue on thinking that if we just slap another band-aid on them (a.k.a. another government sponsored program) they will suddenly become a high achieving school. The problem with those schools is greater than a single program.

The conventional wisdom is that if we give more money to schools that will equate with higher test scores, better teachers and greater student success. In 2004, American schools spent an average of $8,400 per student. My kids attend a small private school that spends $5,700 per student. The teachers make half of what their public school peers make, there is less money for enrichment programs, they don't have computers in every classroom and the facilities aren't fancy. In fact, there isn't even a library in the school. However, this little school has produced three National Merit Finalists in the first two classes it graduated and the average SAT score is 1400.

Their secret? Well, many of you will argue that it's because they only enroll Einsteins and don't have to dirty their hands with kids who have learning disabilities or kids who are troublemakers ---at least that was my impression before my kids were enrolled there. Actually, I have found they are just average kids and some do struggle with dyslexia, autism, and a host of other learning difficulties. However, the school's emphasis on parental involvement, teaching the basics, and maintaining a peaceful and ordered environment has created a school where kids love learning and that has translated into academic success.

Schools can do more with less. We just have to give them the freedom to run their schools like they are in the business of educating tomorrow's leaders instead of holding them back with programs and mandates and rules that pushes education to the background and leaves political correctness as its guiding force.

I found this great article that detailed how San Francisco and a few other cities around the nation are moving to a school choice system and how it is changing the face of education for the better. Hey, if San Francisco can make it work, surely we all can find a way to move our schools to an education market.

That's how I see the issue of education in America. How do you see it?

As I See It: Education Wrap-Up

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/02/as-i-see-it.html

Identity Politics

Periodically, I'll highlight questions and comments sent to me that I think will promote good discussion and cause us all to think through our convictions. This is a great question that was posted by a reader yesterday:

I'm curious to know people's thoughts on identity-based politics. For example, for the Huckabee supporters here, do you find yourself more inclined to vote for him because of his identification as an Evangelical Christian or would you feel the same about him if he were of a different faith?

Assuming his identification is a factor, do you encourage other voters who might share an identify with another candidate, based on gender, race, religion, or whatever, to likewise vote on that basis?

I'm sure everyone can find other reasons to vote for particular candidates, but it seems like identity is a significant factor behind several of the candidates' support. I'm just curious to hear people's thoughts on the issue and whether identity politics is viewed as a good, bad, or neutral political dynamic. In the interest of full disclosure, I'm a registered democrat, white male (non-mom), leaning toward Obama.

What are your thoughts? How do you see the issue of Identity Politics?

Identity Politics

http://politics4moms.blogspot.com/2008/01/from-in-box-identity-politics.html