John Baer: Oh, no, not again: Politics driven by drivel
I DON'T THINK I can stand it. Not another national election slipping into the swamp of the same old politics. Not this year. Not at a time when the country could use some actual leadership.
I DON'T THINK I can stand it.
Not another national election slipping into the swamp of the same old politics. Not this year. Not at a time when the country could use some actual leadership.
I mean, come on, we're in two wars and an energy crisis.
Unemployment's up, real income's down. A rotten economy rips family budgets with high health care and fuel costs.
And what are we fixated on?
Earmarks, a lipstick debate and a Sarah Palin TV interview.
Lord, save us all.
Oh, and it's an interview, set to air tonight, with ABC's Charlie Gibson, the same Charlie Gibson who, with sidekick George Stephanopoulos, turned the Clinton/Obama debate in Philly in April into a shameful slamfest on Bosnia, Rev. Wright and flag pins.
Gibson should be interviewing celebrity chefs.
Speaking of which, what's this total crapola from John McCain's manager, Rick Davis (the same Rick Davis who says this election is "not about issues"), that Palin gives interviews only if the press shows her some "deference"?
Are you kidding me?
Palin is the biggest distraction of the season, so far offered solely in sound bites - "I told the Congress, 'Thanks but no thanks' " - taken from a well-crafted convention speech and re-delivered word-for-word at highly choreographed rallies.
Deference?
She should be, as any national candidate should be, grilled early, hard and often on her record and basic political beliefs.
Deference?
The press in this country, in any democracy, is the best vehicle to get voters as close to the truth as possible. The press represents voters. Any campaign restricting the press is thumbing its nose at voters.
And lipstick on a pig?
Please. It's a common, even trite saying. McCain used it. Palin used it. Obama used it.
(And Signe spoofs it. See her cartoon, Page 15.)
Now there are campaign TV ads suggesting that it's somehow sexist?
Are we really going to allow the national debate to be low-jacked by stupidity at a time the national debate is important?
Do we really want the democratic process driven by drivel?
This is a race about the future of the nation, not about the Republican noise machine, not about Obama's oratorical gifts or promises.
Voters need to focus on what's of consequence in their own lives and which candidates' positions on issues such as the economy, foreign policy and health care they agree with or believe in most.
These issues and positions are too important to be drowned out by distractions created, as I see it, for that very purpose.
Earmarks?
Really? Earmarks account for less than 1 percent of the $3 trillion federal budget. That's worth a central place in the debate?
And, look, I think it's great that McCain and other members of the Arizona congressional delegation reject earmarks, making their state the least-reliant on government pork - just $18.70 per capita, according to a study this year by the government watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
But guess which state ranks first in earmarks at $506 per capita, more than double the second-place state of Hawaii?
If you guessed Alaska, you win.
And while, in fairness, this was also true before Palin was governor, and is mostly due to Alaska's longtime GOP Sen. Ted Stevens (that would be the recently indicted Ted Stevens), it strikes me that the governor of a state getting such federal largess is somewhat disingenuous bragging about anti-federal government restraint.
In fact, it strikes me as a brag to nowhere.
I actually hoped Obama and McCain, two decent men, would run the kinds of campaigns the times beg for: serious-minded, voter-directed, maybe even respectful of one another.
That hope has faded, displaced by democracy-damaging dreck. *
Send e-mail to baerj@phillynews.com.
For recent columns, go to