Diary Of A Mad Voter: Dan Rostad
Let’s Pull For The Candidates That Play Well With Others
By Dan Rostad, 1-07-08
 |
|
 | |
|
You have probably heard the old saying, “Everything I need to know about life, I learned in kindergarten.” Think about it for a moment. Kindergarten was for most, their first exposure to life outside of the comfort of their own family. A bunch of kids crammed into a room together with the expectations of learning, formulating ideas, being creative and accomplishing tasks. All with the security and comfort of the teacher’s care, snacks, walks together, recess and of course, quiet times.
Bullies were given time-outs and lectured by the teacher about being nice to fellow students. We were taught to be creative and how to work with others. The quiet, shy kids were encouraged to participate and explore their talents through projects that made them comfortable around others. The loud, outgoing kids were encouraged to be less selfish and single minded by working together in a group.
Life couldn’t have been better.
I sure wish we had more kindergarten teachers serving as political leaders today. Voters seem to be yearning for a peacemaker to lead in government and they’re obviously in the process of rejecting those who would make politics an instrument of polarization.
Look at those presidential candidates today who are running without attack ads. They are taking the lead in these early primaries and caucuses.
In their new book titled: Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That Is Destroying America, authors Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas explore how angry polarizing politics are destroying the fabric of our country. Beckel, a liberal Democrat, and Thomas, a conservative Republican, both columnists and political strategists are not shrinking away from their partisanship, but are suggesting we should look for those things we agree on when it comes to political leadership.
Remember in kindergarten when little Billy wanted to tell everyone else how the craft project should look more like his daddy’s motorcycle than Cindy’s doll house? A good kindergarten teacher would find ways for both kids to have their own voice, leaving them with no reason for name calling and hair pulling. All the kids learned real lessons about how to come together for the betterment of the whole class. Heck, even the teacher would write these positive characteristics on the students report card: “He works well with others,” “She gets along well in a group.”
Today, we use words like collaborative and inclusive, but our politics are reflecting the complete opposite. I have always said that if you have a conviction you should stand by it, but I am convinced that you can keep your convictions while working in the political arena without resorting to attacks on people holding opposite opinions.
In their book, Beckel and Thomas tackle the four main political issues of our time.
-The Red State/Blue State divide is a myth.
-A “common ground” presidential candidate can win in 2008
-Polarizers like Ann Counter and Michael Moore are not the future of political debate in this country.
-Major party politics is facing extinction if they continue on this polarizing path of destruction.
When they wrote this book nearly a year ago, Beckel and Thomas talked about how common-ground candidates like Barack Obama and John McCain are gaining in popularity and might have a shot at being their party’s nominee, because they were not going negative and were giving voters a reason for hope. Look at the results of the Iowa caucuses – Obama beat Hilary Clinton and John Edwards and McCain came in third – and on Tuesday we’ll see how these two candidates do in New Hampshire. It is not just change that voters want today. We want someone who will “work well with others.”
We need to look for those candidates who are leaders in finding the common ground. We need to elect those candidates who are like our kindergarten teachers and act to bring us together as a group and teach us to reject those who are name callers and pigtail pullers.
Editor’s note: Dan Rostad’s weekly blogs are part of NewWest.Net/Politics’ “Diary of a Mad Voter” feature, a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. For more columns check in with www.newwest.net/madvoter. And for more information on each of the bloggers, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
First and foremost, they claim "partisanship" is some new and nasty creature that has crawled into politics. If you want nasty politics, maybe you should read up a bit on the way politics was at the beginning of our nation. The election of 1800 between Jefferson and Adams was particularly acrimonious.
The other part of their thesis is that "partisanship" somehow turns off the populace to politics. Rush Limbaugh started in 1988. It seems reasonable to declare this as the beginning of the newest hyper partisan era. The voting rate in the 1988 election was 50%. It was 55% in 1992. The fatality of a Clinton reelection dropped the rate to 50% in 1996. In 2000 and 2004 the rates were 51% and 57%. The last midterm in 2006 also had good "off year" rates of 40%, including record numbers among youth.
If people are getting so turned off by the partisanship why are they participating at levels better than the "kumbaya" good old days?
Basically an analysis of what these guys are saying shows they are full of it.
First, it is because the D.C. cocktail circuit is too uncomfortable when everyone is arguing, and these people don't get out of the Village much. These people are more concerned with the social and gossip aspects of politics, it is all a game. They could care less whether people in Idaho or Wyoming have affordable Health Insurance or not and their kids aren't dying in Iraq; policy is purely abstract and that is why "bi-partisan" (split the baby) solutions are just as realistic as real solutions...none of it really affects them except to cause fewer arguments at David Broder's Christmas Party.
Second, if you didn't notice, whenever Democrats are coming into power, Republicans and their fake Democrat enablers like Bob Beckel start calling for "bi-partisan" solutions. And yes, Bob Beckel is a fake, neutered, Democrat who works for Fox News and is used to provide cover to Fox against allegations that they are a wing of the Republican Party. You can watch clips and read transcripts where Beckel sells out Democrats at newshounds.us (they watch Fox so you don't have to). Real Democrats don't work for Fox, and when they do go on the network they mock it for being so dishonest.
Cal Thomas, by the way, has based his entire career on being a Republican attack dog. Calls from a partisan operative like Thomas for everyone to get along are disingenuous at best.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aaVlSyTtsmic&refer=us
Young people hate Republicans, and their record turnout for Obama supports what I said above. You notice how in the article above, the Republican who is paid to shine this turd says it shows "disillusionment" with politics? Sounds like Beckel and Thomas don't it? Too bad record turnouts don't support that Republican talking point.
P.S. Republicans spreading their disgusting little rumors of Madrassa's and making their little racist bird whistles like Jonah Goldberg did this week will only makes young people hate Republicans even more. And keep up the good work on global warming denial Craig. My own experience in a college classroom suggests that is a winner for you too!
First, I have never denied climate change as you suggest.
Second, with your false charge against me you sound like Clinton's footsoldier, Bob Kerrey, who got into trouble with questioning Obama's heritage.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jw9LxLiKitL3w_Vmj9UvflHDyFlQD8TL2LJG0
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
By NEDRA PICKLER – Dec 20, 2007
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey has apologized to Barack Obama for any unintentional insult he committed by raising the Democratic presidential candidate's Muslim heritage while endorsing rival candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Kerrey sent a letter to Obama on Wednesday, lauding the Illinois senator's qualifications to be president and saying that he never meant to harm his candidacy. Kerrey told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that he sent the letter on his own and had not spoken to Clinton or her campaign about the comments he made Sunday in Iowa.
"What I found myself getting into in Iowa — and it was my own fault — it was the wrong moment to do it and it was insulting," Kerrey told the AP. "I meant no disrespect at all."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the senator accepted Kerrey's apology, sent to the campaign in the mail and via e-mail.
While announcing his support for Clinton on Sunday, Kerrey told The Washington Post in an interview that while he hopes Clinton is the nominee, he would like Obama to have a role — especially because of his ability to reach out to black youth and Muslims around the world.
"It's probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim," said Kerrey, a former governor and the current president of the New School in New York City. "There's a billion people on the planet that are Muslims, and I think that experience is a big deal."
<<<<<<<<<
Flounder, like Kerrey, you fail to correctly state that Obama is a Christian.
Youths, like my son, seem to be attracted to Obama, not because he pounds the politics of hate, division, and blame like Hillary does, but because he has an upbeat message of hope and togetherness. Unlike Hillary, he doesn't emphasis "I" but rather "We."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And while specific policy points are important and positions matter - so does this feeling of change. Obama is making people feel like they can do something. People feel that radical change is possible and realizing that they want to be a part of it. As an activist, getting people over the barrier of believing that they can’t accomplish anything is always the biggest challenge, I feel. The feeling that nothing can be done - the feeling that this challenge of climate is simply too big, that’s what I see blocking progress. Obama is helping us get past that.
Especially among youth. The youth turnout in Iowa was historic and phenomenally important. Not only is the Obama campaign engaging thousands of young people in politics for the first time, they are making our job as youth activists much easier. A strong youth vote scares establishment politicians, making them more open to our demands. It helps us fund-raise, showing foundations and donors the power and value of youth organizing. It serves notice to the country that a new generation is rising up.
No, Obama’s policies aren’t perfect - not even close. We need to keep pushing him on it - that’s why students here in NH handed out info about coal and mountaintop removal at the rally tonight, why we’ve been doing global warming campaigning here for the last 6 months. But listen, this fight isn’t going to be won with policies. Look at the US Congress - are this people ever, really going to pass the laws we need them to? I mean seriously, you know who works in Washington, many of you have lobbied them for years - you think they’re going to radically transform our country in the time we need them to? As Obama says, the scale of our challenges have exceeded the capacity of our broken politics.
The only chance we have is to completely redefine politics in this country - to spark a massive movement for a clean energy economy strong enough to lift millions out of poverty, to stop global warming. To follow the tradition of the civil rights movement that refused to only fight their battle in Washington, but fought in the streets. It’s about changing the conditions on the ground, not in Washington, which is what matters now.
And while Edwards might fight harder in Washington, and Kucinich might have better policies, and Hillary might be able to pull more strings, no one will help us get the American people to believe in radical change more, no one will change the conditions on the ground outside of D.C. more than Obama.
<<<<<<<<<<
Whether someone's politics are blue or red, there is no denying Obama's strong leadership qualities. A leader, unlike Hillary, doesn't say "I, I, I....." but rather inspires those around to engage in unified action towards a common goal. A real leader gets a peson to believe in their own strength and see that their participation matters. Churchill and JFK had those qualities as did Reagan.
That point is that a lot of people really hate Republicans and really hate George Bush. That may be partisan or hateful...and that may make Republicans and the media that want to go to their cocktail parties uncomfortable, but it is doing great things to get people excited and involved in politics. The turnout from New Hampshire today will bear that out.
Anyone who says this is bad for the country has an agenda that runs contrary to getting people involved in politics. Those people are Republicans and people who live in D.C. and want to be important. There is a reason Republicans do what is called "vote caging".
P.S. the article you pointed to even proves my point. Obama talks about activism in radical policies that Republicans hate like equality and access to health care and it is making him popular with the youth. By contrast Reagan gave speeches in Philadelphia, Mississippi to pander for votes from the KKK. Young people today hear of that and it makes them sick. In response Republicans have to try something to repress the vote.