I originally wrote this as a comment in a thread in which a commenter (Sandre, thank you) said she couldn't call the two US Presidential candidates names because they both are US Senators and thus deserved respect. I've decided to expand on it and post it as an article to remind people that this isn't a game played by some unfeeling "politicians." These are people who have worked hard to make America a better place.
People seem to forget that these two men have accomplished a great deal and are highly respected by their peers. How many of us have given public service to their country? Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, their varied length and type of service, and their current and ongoing ability to handle the trials and tribulations of such a long Presidential campaign. They are constantly being recorded and inundated with questions, and how they react and present themselves...how they handle these pressures...is a good indication of how they will handle the pressures of President.
While we can disagree on whether we think the candidates have had the right amount and the right type of experience, we can see on a daily basis glimpses of their ability to deal with the issues of our time and make the decisions that must be made by our next President. If we observe them carefully, and open-mindedly, the choice becomes quite clear.
No matter whom we choose, both candidates deserve the utmost respect for their achievements and for their willingness to take on the toughest job any of us could imagine. Perhaps we should remember that when we lord our holier than thou attitudes over one candidate or the other. Despite what some people have convinced themselves, both men have earned the right to ask for our votes. The men themselves are worthy. Their policies...or perhaps more accurately, their philosophies...on most major issues are strikingly different. The choices they have made and the way they have run their campaigns is a true reflection of how they would govern if elected. So the choice is actually quite simple. See how they have managed the pressures of the campaign, see how they have led or been led, see how they prioritize the key issues. Then decide.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 118
I respect them both ad good men who worked hard as you say. ( BUT I do NOT beleive that being a senator ( or president ) automatically demands respect, based on their actions, I will be as disrespectful as I please.
THESE two senators, however have my respect and honor
I do not like Sherrod Brown, one of my US Senator's from Ohio.. But, he deserves my full respect as a US Senator.
Even with civility and honesty, debating is a tough thing to do. The key is to focus on the candidates' positions and philosophies, which are very different. The details, while not unimportant, are really not worth picking over. Neither candidate's "plan" on any issue is likely to be passed as law without changes, perhaps significant ones. As inclusive of ideas as candidates try to be, they still are working from the perspective of a candidate for one party or another. Once in office they are President for everyone, of all parties. It is in the trenches after inauguration day that the details of any policy are worked out.
So if we focus on the big picture regarding issues, the choices become quite clear.
Good article, I am glad someone else doesn't like this sandbox behavior either.
The trite bickering is a waste of energy and accomplishes nothing.
I agree, and will add we need more civility at all levels of both political life and in our own dealing with others. It is easy to get frustrated and angry, but by remaining civil and showing at least that level of respect we are treating others as we would have them treat us.
With regards to "respecting" the two obvious presidential candidates I've asked myself this question: Would I invite either or both of them to my house for coffee? Barack Obama? Yes. John McCain? Doubtful. But if either of them showed up at the door uninvited, they would both be invited in.
For these two candidates, they have earned the respect of asking for our votes.
As for whether Congress and/or the President does anything of value, well all I can say is that some of what they do is quite valuable. They make decisions that protect our jobs, our environment, encourage innovation, stimulate the economy, etc. They also waste a lot of money and spend way too much time focused on inanities and political posturing. My feeling is that it is up to us, the people, to pay more attention to what our elected representatives are doing and reward innovation, clear thinking, and those who have an eye on the future. Too often we reward pandering and "he brings $$$ to my district."
(Nice hat)
I like the tenor of this article; but would like to expound on one statement:
Quote, David:"
"People seem to forget that these two men have accomplished a great deal and are highly respected by their peers. How many of us have given public service to their country?"
In this Free Country, The United states of America, it is to "serve your Country" to be Productive, Helpful to neighbour and Family, Law-abiding. These are EVERY bit a "Service" to a Republic as is that of a Senator, or any other position of Service...these things, too, must bring "respect from ones' peers."
Additionally, One does not necessarily "defame a candidate" with his words, merely because you disagree with him. I hope that you will consider my words.
The previous two elections (and before) the red/blue divide has been such that only one or two states really impact the result. This year that might be different due to the nature of both candidates. This is a step in the right direction, in my opinion. (Of course, I suppose we should wait to see what happens before getting too comfortable about that.)
My web Site
I would treat them all respectfully, but they still need to earn my respect. Treating someone respectfully is different than respecting them.
Politics has been this way for quite a while now. It is hard to have respect for any of them when campaigns are run by attacking the other, smears, etc. Truth be known they don't respect each other.
A campaign ran on the predominant issues would cause a great deal of respect. Campaigns just attacking the other, not so much.
When those on each team get into name calling, acting like children, and are just flat out nasty. Why would we not expect the spectators to behave accordingly the same?
And true, treating someone respectfully is different from respecting them. In some cases they can simply be ignored; in others we have to put up with them; and in still others we should do something to remove them from the positions they have disrepected.
As for the campaign smears, they do it because it works. The negative ads work. We say we don't like them, but then we fall for their misrepresentations almost every time. So the campaigns and their surrogates keep smearing. We are as much to blame for rewarding it as they are for doing what gives them rewards.
I do not judge someone's worth on the position they have achieved. I met some pretty terrible people in pretty high places. Did they work hard to get there? Yes, they did. Do they deserve my respect? No, they don't. Not without meeting my personal standards.
I do agree that name-calling is beneath everybody....at least in a serious, productive discussion. That also goes for people in my book who have not "achieved" power and money in the eyes of the world.
So maybe not all senators deserve our unquestioned respect.
Senator Stevens has been in the hot seat since long before his "bridge to nowhere" tirades. He's been under investigation for these things for some time, and as long ago as last summer his house was raided by the authorities on a warrant. His son (or son-in-law) has I believe already been indicted, as have others involved with the alleged scheme. Unfortunately for him, Senator Stevens is up for reelection this fall and is already having some challenge for his party's nomination, and whoever wins the Republican nomination will face an apparently well known and financed Democratic competitor. So the people of Alaska will have their chance to decide whether it's time for Senator Stevens to "retire."
A side note: Alaska traditionally goes Republican, but Barack Obama has put more resources there than any other Democrat has in recent years. This controversy with the senior Republican Senator may help Obama's efforts in that state.
Agreed. People need to earn respect. My point is simply that both Barack Obama and John McCain have earned the right to ask for our vote.
And civility never should be out of fashion, even when we disagree with someone.
And I agree that respect needs to be earned and maintained.
I wrote something similar about how everyone talks about and treats our President.
You Know What Bothers Me?
Don.....sshhhh. David doesn't like name calling.
Personally, in my opinion, I haven't seen a valid plan from either about what they are going to do about the economy....the foreclosure crisis...job outsourcing and offshoring. And until I do, I'll vote for neither of the above.
If I were the kind of person who votes along one line, I'd vote for McCain because he's a strong advocate for gun ownership rights. But I don't vote along a single line.
I hope that the many Gatheranians who have responded positively to your article have now issued both a pledge and a promise to speak respectfully to / about one another even though there may be divergent views expressed about either Candidate.
Should you not agree that they deserve respect, then they deserve civility.
***************
Thanks for commenting on my article Marilyn and sending me here to yours.
We obviously agree on the idea of respect and civility for others. We apparently disagree on our President's decision to invade Iraq, but that's a topic for another forum.
I will note that lack of respect for our Presidents is not uncommon. My favorite President was horrendously attacked when he was in office. The cartoonists of the time (well before YouTube, political cartoons in newspapers were the favored form of satire) made fun of Lincoln's gangliness (at 6 ft, 4 in he towered over the average height that was around 5 ft 5 in or so). They made fun of his rural roots and his midwestern accent. They made fun of his policies. Many of these "satires" were very personal and I would imagine quite hurtful. And the "pundits" of the time vehemently argued his war policies. As you note, other Presidents have also received similar treatment.
So the difference today isn't necessarily that we have gotten meaner or less respectful, but that we have many more outlets to voice our opinions. In general, having a large number of fora is good, but it does mean that those who disrespect or have nothing of value to say get a place to say it any way.
So I suppose the take away message is that most people are, in fact, civil. Most people are, in fact, respectful. Even when we disagree. But the shear ease of communicating makes it seem like those few who are not respectful are more than they are. In number, and in substance.
Actually, both have presented plans and ideas about what they could do about the economy, and practically all other issues that people can think of. So the question becomes are they "valid."
The answer, of course, is who knows? None of us can possibly fully understand any plan put forth because none of us are economists or experts on the topics at hand. And there is no concensus even from the experts about what to do. Frankly, if it were that easy, we would have agreed to the plan years ago and just done it.
So the key question isn't "do they have a valid plan?" It's "based on the philosophies and professed policy frameworks of each of the candidates, which one do I think will be best suited to working with the right people to determine a workable strategy for a sustainable economic future?" (Or something like that).
Case in point as an example. There has been a lot of talk about opening up additional offshore oil leases as an energy solution. Where do the candidates fall on that issue? One emphasizes what amounts to a short term fix while the other emphasizes a change in our overall energy philosophy. These reflect fundamental differences in thinking between the candidates - short term gain (if any) versus long term sustainablility.
I don't actually want this to turn into a "this one or that one" post, but this comment made me think of something, and if you don't mind Timothy I would like to use it to make a point that is relevant to the respect and civility theme.
To say that McCain would be a strong advocate for gun ownership rights, and thus this would sway your vote, is to imply that Obama would somehow either not be a strong advocate or would revoke gun ownership rights. But this is one of those cases of a false choice. As President, Obama isn't going to be out there advocating that we take guns away from people. He has more important things to worry about. And if McCain is President, he also isn't going to spend any time out there advocating for gun rights because he would also have more important things to do. Presidents should worry about the big policy issues and priorities, not the micromanagement of peripheral topics.
So no matter who the President is, people will have the right to have guns. The recent Supreme Court decision saying that Washington DC's outright ban on gun ownership is unconstitutional certainly made that clear. That decision also said that states continue to have the right to require gun ownership registration, etc. So the federal goverment isn't going to be spending much time on the issue. Frankly, I will work hard to make sure that the President and Congress actually works on the critical issues that face us all, not focus on the little wedge issues that are moot because no one has any plan to substantially change them anyway.
The key issues for the next President will be (in no particular order) the economy, the wars (Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere), social security, homeland security, regaining our leadership and respect status in the world, etc.
As for what that is specifically, that too is simple. I want the government outlined in our Constitution. We haven't had such a government for quite some time. I want a foreign policy based on Thomas Jefferson's mantra - "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." I want drastically reduced federal spending and taxation. I want presidents who understand that government is best that governs least, instead of hearing them all talk about they've got a plan to "fix" everything. The best way to fix it is to get out of it!
It is in these places where the two main parties consistently fall short. The Republicans always TALK a good game with fiscal responsibility, but you've seen what Bush has done with the budget. "Tax and Spend Liberal" Bill Clinton had us on course for surpluses. Even non-defense spending has gone through the roof under Bush, growing twice as fast as it did under Clinton. Apparently, Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" is just like "Tax and Spend Liberalism", except instead of taxes, we get record debt, which is just taxes with interest. Thanks!
The candidate who comes closest to embodying those ideals at present is Ron Paul. My state screws write-ins, though, so I'm going to vote for Barr.
Therefore you are another of the rightwing nut jobs that hate fee speech and America.
Oh and about your brilliant article:
ARE YOU INSANE?
Rest home?
McCain and Obama? I can easily accept that they are not entirely in it for ego.
Good points David.
"So no matter who the President is, people will have the right to have guns. The recent Supreme Court decision saying that Washington DC's outright ban on gun ownership is unconstitutional certainly made that clear."
That vote was actually pretty close. If there were a couple more liberal Justices, the vote could have actually gone the other way.
But like I said, I don't vote along a single line.
Obama talks a good talk...he's a very skilled speaker, but would he walk the walk if elected? Who knows. My e-mail inbox is full everyday with negative information concerning Obama. Who really know how much of it is true...or if it's fair. And is McCain behind it all? Another concern for me is who will Obama choose as his running mate? Will it be Hillary? Do we need another Clinton ( or Bush ) in the Whitehouse in any manner? For me, 20 years is enough and we don't need to go down that path again.
McCain's body language when giving a speech concerns me. Most of the time he has his right arm pounding down as if he's saying " You must listen to me! I'm always right! " all the while pounding that arm in a Hitleresque fashion. I always pay attention to body language and facial expressions...and McCain's concern me.
So David...those are my concerns considering both McCain and Obama. Actually, the thought of either one of them being President scares the heck out of me.
The gun issue will remain a non-issue even if the supreme court was all liberal judges (which in itself should be an oxymoron). The courts have consistently interpreted the second amendment to extend to individuals despite it's "militia" language. That is just not going to change. It's an absolute non-issue.
As for your in-box being full of negative information, it's safe to assume that most of it is not true. Get your information from reliable - and diverse - sources. Anyone who gets their info solely from CNN or solely from Fox News (for example) is simply not being fully informed. We need to get info from CNN, Fox, the WSJ, the Washington Post, the BBC, the etc, etc, etc. Each outlet has their slants, some much more than others, but we need to have information from multiple viewpoints to be able to draw our own conclusions. We should never accept anyone elses opinion at face value, especially if its "sent around in an email."
I think your interpretation of McCain's body language is accurate. I saw a report recently that looked at the body languages of the two candidates - McCain's was more forceful, more agressive; Obama's was more comfortable, more the kind that works well with others. They said that these could be interpreted as either good or bad for either candidate depending on where you stand on the issues. For me, I've had enough with a "you're either with me or against me" or "good vs evil" attitude. It doesn't allow for other viewpoints to be heard, and it leads our allies to term us as "dangerous" (which I have heard first hand). I prefer someone who feels comfortable in the role of leader, who has the confidence to listen to opposing views and make a sound judgment when setting policy, both domestic and foreign.
Oh, as for Hillary as VP. Not going to happen. The country is more than ready to move on from the Bush/Clinton/Bush families.
I would add, and I know you understand this from your comments, that our work doesn't stop at the voting booth. We, as voters, often forget that we can have our say in how our elected representatives represent us. Too often we whine and complain and then just vote for the same guy each time because we know their names. We feel comfortable with "the devil we know." Yet, sometimes we have to take a chance on the one we don't know that well. We have to listen to them speak, listen to their philosophies, and feel confidant enough to go outside our comfort zones.
I believe that either of the current major party candidates will restrain spending better than the current administration. But they will have different policies. There will be shifting of priorities from subsidies to those who don't need them to the programs that we do need for the future. And that's what it comes down to - a choice between the past and the future. I'm for the future.
In your second, I agree with what you're saying completely about the two major parties and which has accrued more debt than the other the last few decades, there's really no contest.
However, your last paragraph is where I want to take issue slightly. When you say: "There will be shifting of priorities from subsidies to those who don't need them to the programs that we do need for the future. And that's what it comes down to - a choice between the past and the future. I'm for the future. "
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't we make it a priority to give those decisions back to the people instead of having the feds do it? Why can't we trust in the individual to make their own priorities? "We the people" are theoretically at least still in charge of this country, right? So why should we be forced to accept an either/or in which neither option is particularly appealing? (to me at least)
On other issues we as individuals have more power to make our own decisions and set priorities, but for some issues the government must set the priorities "for the greater good." The trouble is that too often the government (i.e., the party in power) sets priorities for their party's good instead of the rest of us.
Or perhaps I've misunderstood your point. If so I apologize and look forward to a clarification.
No I should not agree. This country is not a "better place" and is getting worse every day. This isn't a difficult job. It really only requires integrity and an understanding of the English language and the constitution. Decorum is all I can give them and often times they make it so even that's undeserving. They don't deserve respect from me and they have accomplished nothing for the good of the country. I don't follow the media and the hype. Our govt is out of control. There are not too many at the federal or local levels that are doing their jobs and many are involved in blatant criminal activity "under the color of law".
For example, the people really can't set a priority for switching from an oil-based energy scheme to a sustainable energy scheme.
Many have done just that. The technology exists and would be considerably more affordable if more people were purchasing it. On the flip side of that people who weren't too savvy have sold some of this technology to big oil not understanding that they had no desire to advance ot but only wanted to shelve it and use it for the acquisition of more fed subsidies.
On other issues we as individuals have more power to make our own decisions and set priorities, but for some issues the government must set the priorities "for the greater good."
This isn't so. I don't need a dictator and the constitution was supposed to prevent this, thats why we WERE a republic and not a democracy. Often times they are working for advocacy groups who adhere to very small populations. A case in point. An advocacy group for the blind is going to start pushing congress to spend our money studying the feasibility of making hybrid cars noisier which in the long turn of events will eventually make these cars unnecessarily louder and considerably more expensive to the benefit of no one with the exception of congress, the advocacy group and the manufacturer who will all profit (the circle of lies). According to the NTHS there are 6 blind people per year that are struck by autos and in the past 5 years not one has been struck by a Hybrid (or ever) and of the few cases that can be found, the results weren't because the blind person didn't here the car and walked in front of it and were not in the street when struck. Our govt is a fraud. The American govt has subsidized the production of food to the note of $28.5 billion and there is no evidence of this at the consumer level and many products you cannot purchase directly from the producer. Then add to that the fact that every bacterial outbreak has come from USDA inspected foods. Where is the greater good? What issues should the govt be dealing with?
How true.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977410312
And being that the first amendment does not apply in the courts of the United States... it's time to review that quote.
Even in this particular race I have had to deal with a new learning curve.
One I respected and supported until relatively recently, and as that candidate started waffeling, I still was able to say well I respect the man but not his stance on the issues.
But it has gone from that to seeing this person really playing dirty pool, and watching the other one take it on the chin stay standing and strong. Must I really respect anyone once they get that far into the gutter? It seems to overshadow all else.
Worse yet is so many people who don't know squat about the actual platforms but when some muckrakers do their thing and these people grasp onto that, even if it is a total lie, they dont care. They get it stuck in their craw and let this nasty name calling mud slinging lies determine how they cast their vote.
Worst of all. I love my country so very much. I want what is best for it and I do not believe in love it or leave it. Our forefathers didn't leave just because they didn't love what was going on, they worked to fix it, if it was within their powers. Yet I have had to live with the other guys choice for nearly 8 years...no I live in Texas so add on his governorship to it. Am I going to have to continue to watch my country fall apart because someone just wont do what is right? I know that if the tables were turned people who support the current holder of office would ask why they should have to live with the actions of who I would want. Best I can say is the candidates I have chosen, when elected have done great things for this country and most have left it in better shape than when they started, and I am talking about issues that effect everyone. Not just the ones who make over a certain amount of money, but everyone.
The best I can offer at this point is to suggest we all get more involved than we have been, and not let the forces of the past continue to blind us.
I also believe that people should respect the position of the President - I get so bugged when reporters talk about President Bush and they say "Mr. Bush" instead. Where is the respect? I am not Republican and I don't care much for the current administration, but there needs to be a certain level of respect for the office....
It is the reality in the courts of America. Every court everywhere.