Comments

Great point. Lately, it seems our styles under stress are becoming more readily apparent in most daily activities. The discourse around our national politic making it all the worse. Good for you to take the high road (relatively speaking) and hanging up. Wonder if he got the message? Wonder if the rest of us did as well?

Posted by David Porter at September 8, 2008 3:21 PM

@ tom & david - AMEN!

It may sound "Old fashioned," but if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.

In politics, business or anything where reputation and perception (Brands) are constantly reviewed and "on the line," public tirades and dirty tactics just perpetuate the negative.

Take the high road. Eloquent speakers can make the point without defacing the competition. And if your brand, business, party (whatever) is strong enough, these tactics won't be necessary!

Keep Cooking!
Andrew

Posted by Andrew B. Clark at September 8, 2008 3:29 PM

Thank you for that posting.

I am SO tired of the shouting and not just in politics.
Quoting Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King:
"The real measure of a man is not where he stands in times of comfort and convenience, but in times of challenge and controversy."

Shouting and insults are ineffective tools to measure leaders or those charged with leadership. It's just noise...

Posted by nextgenradio at September 8, 2008 4:29 PM

Emotional intelligence does make a difference!!

Posted by Paul Thornton at September 8, 2008 7:27 PM

In remembering the speeches of the Republicans during their convention (Graham, Giuliani, Thompson), I was appalled at the mean-spiritedness and the seemingly grand-wizardliness of the speakers. (Was that uncivil?) The rhetoric was frightening. The Democrats during their convention, in my opinion, was by far more civil. I even wondered while listening to the passionate rhetoric of the speakers above, espousing Country First, as a diety, if we were being incited to war. I wondered the same while listening to the Republican candidates over the weekend in Michigan to the thunderous applause of the audience. What is this insistence on war if it's not to reve the country to a continued cycle of war? Is Iran next? These sort of speeches as those given by many at the Republican convention were beyond uncivil. It felt more like we were being incited to war.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 8, 2008 9:26 PM

Judith's comment, "these sort of speeches as those given by many at the Republican convention were beyond uncivil," I disagree. I viewed Giuliani, Huckabee, and Paylin. They were not only civil but also humorous. They poked fun at the Democrats and made me laugh. Leaders need a sense of humor and strong convictions. Some leaders take their convictions to the extreme and become uncivil and aggogrant. But describing the Republican speakers as "Mean-spirited, grand wizardary, frightening rhetoric, and inciting war" is inaccurate and unfair.

Posted by Paul Thornton at September 8, 2008 10:13 PM

Thanks, Paul. I forgot about Huckabee. Though he hit hard there was not the mean-spiritedness and seemingly grand-wizardliness as spoken of above. Of all, for me, Graham was the most frightening and Guilani too with his continual reference to 911, as if we have all forgotten. This is fearmongering, nothing else. But I am cautiously optimisitic, as this didn't help Guiliani in his bid for presidency. His campaign sank like the Titanic.

I will practice civility now and recognize, Paul, that we all have opinions. I, however, shall hold true to mine as stated above. I might also add that I am unmoved by your claim of unfairness. And, one other thing...I didn't include Palin here as her non-substantive speech shall I say seemed...simply...bitchy. Sometimes we fall into prescribed roles; such a role seemed fitting here. Was that uncivil? God knows I'm imperfect.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 8, 2008 10:39 PM

The funny, or not so funny thing about humor is that it doesn't play well to all audiences. Humor can, in fact, be a dangerous thing. I tend to be rather fair and prone to laughter myself and I wasn't laughing. Many of the speakers at the Republican convention seemed arrogant indeed. The sea of sameness in the audience seemed to lack humor too. There was a strident sound in response to the sarcasm. But I wasn't down with it. I did like the jazz, though. Great band! Who were they?

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 8, 2008 11:00 PM

Strong convictions, without fact, based on lies, led us into the Iraq War. Careful, Paul.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 8, 2008 11:04 PM

I am more fearful of the polarization of our nation politically than I am about which candidate gets elected.

The point of a "democratic republic" is to strive for an environment in which every citizen's concerns have an equal right to be considered. Whenever a major demographic feels that it has no ability to voice effectively its concerns, we end up with the same kind of "magnificent catastrophe" as what occurred in 1800 and in 1861.

My concern is that our nation is beginning to be driven by a constant "fanning of the flames" of discontent from all corners. Instead of recognizing the value in a system which allows a Ford to be followed by a Carter and in turn to be followed by a Reagan or Vice Versa, we speak of stolen elections. And neither extreme is innocent in this matter.

My neighbor may have political views which are almost opposite to mine, but as long as the feeling is mutual, he is still my fellow citizen and I will defend his right to express his views both verbally and at the polls.

Posted by James Shewmaker at September 8, 2008 11:09 PM

@ judith

if you had used the phrase "false information" instead of the word "lies" your posting to Paul would have been civil, but as it is written, this is an example of being uncivil.

Posted by James Shewmaker at September 8, 2008 11:12 PM

James - Thank you. I agree with much of what you've written. But regarding "false information" as opposed to "lies" it is sometimes very important to call a spade a spade. I'm not terribly fond of niceties for the mere sake of niceties. This gets old and contrived. But respect is always good.

TP spoke of flaring tempers in the post. It seems that our honored Senator McCain seems to have quite a temper. Perhaps roots of being in that awful war that took the lives of so many brave young (and I mean young) men. I honor his service and bravery as the other 600 or so POW's of this war.

Senator McCain's service is something that we all honor, Republicans and Democrats alike. I might also say in speaking of civility and hardhitting politics that Senator Obama has a fine line to walk--that of not beating up on the old guy (I guess I could have said senior) and manhandling the chick. (I guess I could have said woman.)

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 8, 2008 11:38 PM

Tom,
Yes! Yes! Yes! Please.

Posted by Rob at September 9, 2008 12:32 AM

I'm reminded of my all-time favourite TV show, "The West Wing." In the final series, with President Bartlett ending his second term and 2 new candidates running for president, they had to face a choice about going negative on each other. In the end, after they both launched ads against each other, they reconciled. Finally, the winner, recognising the skills and abilities his opponent had to offer, asked the loser to take a place in his cabinet - which he accepted. Would that art reflected life, eh?

I'm never comfortable with this, "You're either for me or against me" attitude. I know from UK elections I'd like to cherry pick policies, candidates and ideas from most parties and form my own ideal composite. Why oh why do we persist with confrontational politics and not constructive politics in the 21st century?

Posted by Mark JF at September 9, 2008 1:54 AM

Civility yes.
Passion Yes
Balance Yes
Openess Yes
Honesty, always!

Posted by patrick at September 9, 2008 2:57 AM

One thing I've noticed more and more is a tendancy for people to confuse passion and strong beliefs with uncivility. Resorting to uncivility when people are not responding to your passion by not delivering for you, not seeing it your way, or downright disagreement is not a reason to resort to personal assasination.

It rarely get's you anywhere and always leaves a trail of damage and destruction.

Posted by JonT at September 9, 2008 3:06 AM

'I know from UK elections I'd like to cherry pick policies, candidates and ideas from most parties and form my own ideal composite.'

Mark - We agree on this. Quite often it seems to me there is more bickering WITHIN parties than BETWEEN parties. The shameless, backdoor, underhand way that John Major was shafted by the Tories comes to mind immediately as a prime example also of incivility.

Actually the 3 leaders of the main parties in the UK at the moment are boringly identical – they must go to the same image, speech, posture, clothing advisor I think. All three are white, middle class, middle aged men … how boring is that??!!! At least 9.9 on the Richter scale I suggest

I can't even remember the name of the Liberal Leader! ...

Where are the likes of Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Dennis Skinner and Ken Clarke? Have such characters gone for ever in the obsession with spin and (very poor) acting whilst the image consultants are laughing all the way to the bank.

Seems to me all politicians in UK in 2008 are frightened of their own shadow so they won’t step out of line and say something remotely interesting just in case it becomes a blot on their CV in their never ending quest for purer than pure status.

Given a choice of politics in the UK at the moment versus being forced to watch Big Brother 24 hours a day 7 days a week on TV I would be tempted to choose the latter!

Posted by Trevor Gay at September 9, 2008 4:22 AM

Bravo, Patrick. I really like your list.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 9, 2008 8:48 AM

There's a huge difference between standing up and sounding off.

I do write about politics on my blog since - well - it's my blog - and politics is such a fascinating example - in most cases - of how NOT to do marketing and conduct business.

Watching Senator McCain saddens me more than anything else.

As for all the screaming, petty politikin' I wonder how much people are really paying attention any more? Wasn't there a study published recently that there really is no such thing as "undecided?" They say negative campaigning works - but wouldn't it have been a glorious thing if McCain had meant it when he said he wanted to run a civil campaign? Wonder what would happen if we had a civilized election? Bet people would still vote.

And those polls - it's the age-old problem with any kind of market research - people lie; people tell you what they think you want to hear; they want to look smart; or...you ask the question in a certain way to get a certain answer. (I almost always am a bad survey responder since there is almost always a "yes/no" or multiple choice question that doesn't fit my opinion or experience.)

Posted by Mary Schmidt at September 9, 2008 9:08 AM

To MarkJf's question of "why oh why do we persist with confrontational politics and not constructive politics in the 21st century?" It's simple: ego, arrogance, and power. One of the most distressing things that I have heard in this election was by Rick Davis, Senator McCain's campaign manager. This is a direct quote. He said, "this election is not going to be about issues." Is this not demagagory? (And, speaking of demagagory, I still can't shake this Country First as Diety. Who can challenge God?) Inciting the crowd with passionate rhetoric and fearmongering is not addressing issues. There is also the matter of the spirit of the law and the law itself to consider here.

Pray tell, if this election, our any presidential election, is not about issues, then what? (The necessity of connection with the audience notwithstanding. This too is importance. Enter: the gun toting elk eating seemingly self-righteous Bible belt spewing governor of Alaska. Is this uncivil? I beg your pardon.) Imagine your boss telling you that issues are not important when there have been consecutive loss quarter after quarter for eight years. Insanity, eh? Imagine a CEO having been such for eight years declaring himself to be an agent of change. Is this not ludicrous? The biggest distinction between government and private enterprise is this issue of accountability. Well, at least in small business and perhaps on a larger scale as stock holders have to be answered to.

Politics often get in the way of needed answers and accountability. I'm thinking now of a TP quote that goes something like "if you don't love politics don't claim to be a leader." While I understand politics is something that we undoubtedly have to deal with in our private and public environments, we must also consider that politics is government can be a deadly game. The lives of people are in the balance (young men and women of the Armed Forces, children, seniors) as well as, the necessity of unity and peace worldwide.

Politics will be. Diplomacy is essential. War is sometimes necessary. Peace is far better.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 9, 2008 9:38 AM

We can always follow the example of Dr King, who left us with the advice that we can turn our anger into constructive channels.

Just recognize the original, cynically contrived source of the incivility, and not the mugs, as I might be one, who forgets in a moment the democratic code of behavior.

Posted by wmmbb at September 9, 2008 11:23 AM

Judith: "The biggest distinction between government and private enterprise is this issue of accountability." I disagree, but with the most gracious English civility of course!!!

So often in business we see people routinely "massaging" the facts, numbers and their own achievements, as well as generally taking a pretty short term view. Unfortunately, many western politicians are exactly the same: while business is focused on the next quarterly report, politics is focused on the very next opinion poll and subsequent election.

We often talk of leadership, servant leadership and setting an example but if the President / Prime Minister can't set an example, I fear we're stuffed.

Mind you, I also fear that we have become a society that lacks not just civility but also patience. We want results, we want them now, we don't want to have to work hard to get them and we'll blame anyone but ourselves for any problems. Maybe we're getting the politicians we deserve?

Posted by Mark JF at September 9, 2008 1:35 PM

This is the civil truth: John McCain may be a patriot, but no maverick. Consider this definition of a maverick by Jan Jarboe Russell in a recent article in the San Antonio Express:

"By definition, the leader of any political party is not a maverick. Mavericks are loners and more often than not are defined by lost, principled battles."

To read a civil heartbreaking yet inspiring story on the original maverick, Samuel Maverick, and the impossibility of the honorable John McCain being so, go to this link:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/Any_San_Antonian_can_tell_you_McCain_is_hardly_The_Original_Maverick.html

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 9, 2008 1:51 PM

There is no doubt that your words are true, MarkJF, hence my emphasis on small business which directly affects the purse and somewhat larger businesses that have to directly answer to insistent conservative stock holders or investors. When YOU have to meet that hurdle rate, massaging is not even in your vocabulary.

Your loose analysis of business and government is also undoubtedly true, but it does not have to be so. We MUST insist on change with that change beginning with us. You know the quote...the one about being the change you wish to see in the world. Would this be the change needed? What a thought!

I do believe in civilty...really. But I may believe MORE in revolutionary thinking that spark innovative ideas, and needed action. The US would be non-existence without such revolutionary thinking! Yes, We Can! By the way, the shameless confiscating (Is that a more civil word than stealing?) of campaign slogans is definitely not revolutionary thinking. There's no originality here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 9, 2008 2:19 PM

This from a former employee of the Drug Tzar William Bennett? You helped launch the culture wars, Tom.

Posted by gilbert at September 9, 2008 4:46 PM

Judith,
You have critized the speakers at the Republican Convention as being uncivil. In this blog you have called Sarah Paylin--Bitchy, gun toting, elk eating, self righteous, and a Bible belt spewing governor. Is that civil? Is that productive?

Posted by Paul Thornton at September 9, 2008 5:46 PM

Paul - My brother many years ago, when he was 20, preached an awesome sermon that struck me then as profound and has continued to have a lasting impression on me. It was entitled, "Same Thing to One, Something Else to Another." You see my words as uncivil. I see them as necessary truth. (I, however, respect your opinion.) Regarding producitivity and word choice, I am more interested in unearthing that which lies beneath than covering that which may later be destructive.

This brings up another point...that of self-righteousness and obfuscation. I grew up in my uncle's church of 10,000 people in the late 70's. Among many members were seemingly pleasant very devout people, many of whom as a kid I did not like to be near. Oh, they were plenty civil, but even then I was more concerned about what they weren't saying. They never cursed, never raised their voices, dressed modestly, and was against abortion. But boy were they mean and self-righteous, hiding behind many secrets I later came to discover. They loved their families and excused the sins of their children, but looked down on those of others.

It was not by accident that Christ said of the Apostle Peter, who said a few bad words and flew off the handle more than a few times, that "upon this rock I will build my church." Revelation knowledge does not come through benignity, nor does truth through self-righteousness. "Our righteousness is as filthy rags." Now, the opposite could also be said. Those who are mannered and safe may also bring change. The Apostle John was such a one. Maybe it's all about the heart and we should listen carefully. But then again maybe not. Wasn't it our President who looked into the eyes of Putin and saw his soul, one that could be trusted? I guess judgement is also necessary. This is my biggest problem with the Republican VP choice.

So, Paul, I do not take back my words. I think they are most relevant to the mirage that we are all experiencing in a choice that could be quite dangerous. In these terms perhaps my words can indeed be seen as productive.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 9, 2008 8:06 PM

Judith - re the use of the word maverick, I'm with the San Antonio Express deploring the mis-use of the word but disagree with their assertion that a maverick is a loner. I use the definition: "a person of independent or unorthodox views." It strikes me that any change-agent has to have at least a maverick streak in him to see, expound and deliver a change. A maverick doesn't have to be radical either: it could be that you agree with the broad thrust of a policy but you have maverick ideas about certain applications of it.

Posted by Mark JF at September 10, 2008 4:59 AM

MarkJF - I appreciate your comment. Often the person who is of "independent or unorthodox views" are not usually in life, but perhaps after death, the most accepted one among us. Such a person usually speaks against the crowd, thus alienating him from it. It's funny the separation from being a maverick to having a streak or maverick traits. I think often the reason for such distinction, especially for such a word, is the obvious -- the separation from the pain or stigma associated with it.

The application about which you spoke is often a genteel way of obsfuscating what really needs to happen. But I agree that there may be various ways to address a problem. But as history shows us until the problem is magnified, usually by a maverick, nothing is done and we go right on as if the problem does not exist. An agreeable distinction, however, may be between the peaceable philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr, and the taking up of arms philosophy of Malcolm X. Both were espousing change. Both radical.

Change is radical. Do you know any real change that isn't? Change is an action word. Is there any other kind? For me, the kind of change that makes a difference, is always radical, even if it's been around for a while and we finally decide to DO IT! Mavericks bring change, the kind that propels us to action and transforms our way of thinking and being. I'm sorry to say, however, that most mavericks are often loners who fight through much to make things happen. Often time in their lifetimes they do not see the change brought. Make God bless their efforts continuously, generation after generation, even when their names are not spoken, through the actions of us all, consciously or unconsciously.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 10, 2008 6:23 AM

"I'm Barack Obama, and I approve of Judith's ad." (fade out commercial).

Posted by Bruce at September 10, 2008 8:27 AM

Bruce - Now, that's too funny!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 10, 2008 8:45 AM

Decorum is a forgotten value in America.

Posted by Andrew at September 10, 2008 12:07 PM

Hmmm? There is plenty of decorum as I've observed watching the British Parliament, but ooh what lies beneath! I used to occassionally watch Parliament speakers with interest, not only from a policy standpoint, but from one of how to stick it to the opposition with the utmost decorum and decency. Polite chaps, they were. Being polite is a start, but it is not the end all.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 10, 2008 12:37 PM

best canadian viagra prices online If the person TP was talking to was upset at
the republicans, he has a right to be angry.
The national republican party filled with rotten people.
TP is half right. No one listens to angry people. But when it comes to those guys, no one listens to civil people either.

Posted by zed at September 10, 2008 4:15 PM

hmm. Judith calls Sarah and McCain every name in the book, and then turns around complaining about people not being civil?

Now that's funny stuff.

What's even much funnier than that is the idea that it's "scary" if McCain wins.

Nope. The more scarier scene would be if Barack Husain O'bama wins. I pity the USA if that ever happens. I really do. God help us all.

I pray every night that McCain wins in November. He knows how to fight. O'bama knows how to sit down and have "tea" with Dictators.

Posted by Doug Heil at September 10, 2008 7:37 PM

Doug - Prayer is good!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 10, 2008 10:13 PM

I guess the question to ask is, "Who wants to be governed by rude people?" An election is a job interview...if only management (that's us!) understood its role. Personally, I would not want to hire someone running attack ads against another candidate for the job, nor would I want to get rude with other people on the selection committee.

Posted by David Leonhardt at September 11, 2008 10:42 AM

My brilliant minister brother of whom I spoke, who is also a non-boring VP banker, corrects me on the title of his sermon. It was: "One Thing to One. Same Thing Something Else to Another."

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 11, 2008 4:30 PM

David - By your response you seem like a good guy and you have made a nice try to refocus candidates and make campaigning more genteel. But it ain't happening! Politics is the name of this game and fighting is its intermittent aim. Pointing out your apponents record and insufficiencies, however, is fair game. The problem for me comes when their are blatant lies. The new ad with Barack pointing out the fact that, by is own admission, McCain does not know how to send an email is fair and relevant. How can this be in our fast-paced technological global age??? There appears to be no curiosity there. Now, do we really want such a president? This says a lot about how McCain will lead.

Seniors, by the way, are among the fastest growing Internet users and we have a presidential candidate that doesn't even know how to send an email?! C'mon! What does this say about his willingness to change, to explore, to see new means of solving old problems? His age isn't necessarily the problem, but his lack of curisoity and poor VP choice should he become incapacitated or sequestered, is. And speaking of age, have you noticed how much presidents age just after a few years into the presidency? Barack has matured just in his two years in the Senate.

Embedded in politics seems to be the necessity to fight hard and sometimes dirty. Fighting isn't always fair, but if you don't put your dukes up and punch like the Brown Bomber, you're doomed! Remember the Willie Horton ads that won the first Bush the Whitehouse? And, let's not talk even about the swiftboat ads! (Perhaps it had more to do with the lack of response than the ads themselves, though they were as dirty as they get. You better have some scrap in you, even if it's the prop of others, at least for the gamming part of politics.) After these ads Dukakis and Kerry, both gentleman-like men, appeared weak and inadequate. You better fight! Put 'em up and fight like the Brown Bomber!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 12, 2008 11:13 AM

Judith,
O'Bama proclaims he's the agent of change. His first big decision--selecting a VP--he stuck to the status quo. Nothing new, nothing innovative, nothing creative in selecting Biden. Change agents must be willing to take a risk! McCain showed his willing to change and take a risk. Also, we know having a vision is one thing--implementing it is another story. And the only candidate who has successfully implemented change is Sarah.

Posted by Paul Thornton at September 12, 2008 2:38 PM

If we're going to call for civility, let's extend the plea beyond politics. It is troubling to me to live in a time where we call people we disagree with "evil."

viagra for free Posted by Wally Bock at September 12, 2008 3:55 PM

If McCain chose a Forrest Gump type as his VP, would you praise him for taking a risk?

Posted by zed at September 12, 2008 4:29 PM

Paul - McCain's risk is irresponsible, putting the whole country and the Free World in a dangerous situation. With this choice, we are ALL at risk. I agree with Matt Damon when he said this seems like a really bad Disney movie. Now, no hating on Damon, OK? He is, after all, a Hollywood actor AND a citizen. He's also quite bright, although he dropped out of Harvard. How many schools again did Palin attend again? She attended 6 schools in 5 years before receiving her diploma. WOW!

You are mistaken, Paul, when you say that Palin has brought change. Here are a few facts:

THIS IS WHAT CHANGE ISN'T:

*Being against the Bridge to Nowhere when she was at first for it.
*Keeping the millions for pet projects after the bridge was canned.
*Misrepresenting selling that government plane on email when in fact the plane was not sold on ebay.
*Being paraded around by the male establishment.(Olympia Snowe and Kay Bailey Huthison are awfully quite. Now, they're formidable. But they're also over 50. Perhaps too old? No parades or pageantry there! NO DISRESPECT TOWARDS THESE WOMEN INTENDED AT ALL! NONE!)
*Charging tax payers for staying in her own home.
*Asking for over 200 million dollars in earmarks with the help of a hired lobbyist.

THESE THINGS MAY CHANGE:

*Women's right to choose
*More conservative judges to the Supreme Court.
*Hampering of religious freedom and others through the courts.
*Continued destruction of our planet by HUMANS.
*DRILLING! DRILLING! DRILLING!
*Disregard for other living creatures.

THIS IS WHAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME.

*Poor education system, rendering our children non-competitive in the global economy.
*Poor health system that favors the rich and super rich.
*Our troops in Iraq for maybe one hundred years
*Billions of dollars weekly to run two wars
*Body bags of our young men and women. (Have we forgotten about them?)
*Thousands of deaths of innocent mothers, fathers and children. (Do we not care because they are non-Americans?)
*Strained relations with our allies and potential ones.
*Tax cuts for the rich and superrich.
*The lack of responsibility for our increasing deficit.
*Increasing high unemployment.

No wonder Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, said that "this election is not about issues."

Paul, can you please answser Zed's astute question?

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 12, 2008 7:48 PM

best online viagra

Paul - Regarding Biden, Obama could not have chosen a better running mate. Biden is savvy, knowledgeable, and has been out of the country more than one time meeting with world leaders. Palin went out once and I don't think it was a meeting with world leaders.

The Obama/Biden ticket is a great one, quite complimentary indeed. Now what does Palin bring to McCain outside of pageantry? Palin herself coyly suggested in no uncertain that Obama is kicking himself right now "for not choosing Hillary," as if such a choice is purely political. She understands her role better than any of us. She's playing it well. But the curtain will come down eventually.

It was only a few months back that Palin asked in an interview what the vice president did everyday. She hadn't a clue. Regarding implementation, Obama has certainly run a hell of a campaign with funds in the millions of dollars daily. I'd say he's done pretty well with the implementation part.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 12, 2008 8:06 PM

Zed,
Let's be real--no I wouldn't praise McCain if he chose Forest Gump.
Judith--I guess we need to agree to disagree. We each see things very differently. Early November--one of us will break open the champagne to celebrate. In the mean time we (all of us) need to be civil and respectful in our discussions about politics, religion, and other sensitive topics.

Posted by Paul Thornton at September 12, 2008 9:54 PM

OK, Paul, let's. I'll take you up on that champagne come November. But let me also say that one can't reasonably disagaree with facts. Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it; she did charge the State for sleeping in her own home in Wasilla instead of staying at the governor's mansion in Anchorage; and she did hire a lobbyist to garner more per capita per resident than ANY other state. You can choose to disagree if you'd like but these are simply the facts. Yes, Obama is my man! But if he is not the presidential choice come November, I'll still take you up on that champagne in honor of the country I love most. May God forever bless America from sea to shining sea. And best to you, Paul.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 12, 2008 10:42 PM

Did you see the Sarah Palin/Chalie Gibson interview? C'mon! This is really wild! Palin is nice, attractive, charming, tenacious, and probably a good mom. But presidential? Absolutely not! This is truly absurd! Kafkaesque!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 12, 2008 11:06 PM

I bet that if a fictional movie had come out a year or two ago where a character running for President on the Republican ticket picked a VP who was anything like Palin, the conservative talk shows and columists and so forth would quickly condem the movie as lousy liberal satire.

The whole 'pit bull/hockey mom' thing is wierd. What is she doing, fighting with the referees at the hockey rink all the time? If so, how is this in any way good?
She doesn't believe that global warming is due to human activity. There is only one way she could come to that conclution - have contempt for science. Do we need a vice-president who has contempt for knowledge?
Do we need a President who would choose someone like that to be his vice president?
Why is it good that she's like a regular person. Why would we want an average everyday person to be President?
If that's all we need, why not just choose the President using a lottery. We could all go and get lotto tickets and then instead of election night watching returns, we'd all go home on what was election night and watch a drawing on TV to see who wins and becomes President. That way there would be no more phoney smarty pants cosmopolitan elite presidents.
In fact, why not do it with everything. Why should only elite athletes get to play on pro sports teams. Why shouldn't anybody with 10 working fingers be able to be a brain surgon?
Why should airplane pilots need to know how to fly? Those pilots and surgons are no better than us - but they think they are. Especially those pilots who live in San Fransico or New York City.

Posted by zed at September 13, 2008 12:01 AM

viagra from canada Zed - I agree with your comment. Thank you for such clarity. Bravo! Below is a post I wrote entitled: Being Prepared to Lead II. It addresses the sentiment included in your comment above:

My beautiful sister of eight children, with the youngest born with birth defects, is a proud Republican soccer mom who is deeply religious. She is one of the strongest moms I know and probably fits well in that pit bull lipstick reference. She is beautiful and tough.

In fact, in some regards, my sister reminds me of Sarah Palin: her faith, her ease, her beauty, her charm, her politics, her service, her tenacity, her motherliness, and her draw. My sister is a soccer mom; Palin is a hockey mom. But do these things in and of themselves mean that either is prepared to lead the Free World? I don't think so.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 13, 2008 12:10 AM

I read your comment again, Zed, and I'm laughing hysterically! It's so true and too funny!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 13, 2008 12:21 AM

"I will not use this blog for political purposes. Period. What follows is not political." A very sound principle in my view, and an example to us all. Plenty of web space elsewhere for people to go and duke it out at length over their political differences.

Posted by Rob at September 13, 2008 4:25 AM

Thank you, Rob, for reminding us to stay on that desirable narrow path. Let's not be controversial. Differences are such bad things! Not! The mere mention of what TP desires and what ensued is probably what is to be expected. In fact, I took the post as a challenge to express my passionate political beliefs while being civil. I'll leave it up to you decide if I succeeded. But whether I change? Well, we'll have to see about that. :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

Amen Rob. Thought I was at CNN.com

Posted by David Porter at September 13, 2008 12:36 PM

What follows is an accurate assessment of what happening with the Palin pick if we are to be honest with ourselves. No more ragging on the liberal media. Can you say FOX? Plus, I don't care who's reporting what. I'm in search of truth and change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/opinion/13sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Thanks to the editor and to the brilliant one who comments here occassionally who advised me of this article though he lives half way across the world. It's appreciated.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 13, 2008 2:04 PM

Better CNN than FOX. Better yet C-Span!

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 13, 2008 8:56 PM

The civility issue was raised using politics as an example.
Polititics is exactly where most of public incivility arises. Rush Limbaugh has made whole industry that is driven by being uncivil.
TP must be apolitical on this blog because it would be bad for business. That is an astute politcal move.

Posted by zed at September 14, 2008 1:19 PM

What an uncivil cynical r*^shing joke! I would that others wouldn't take him so seriously though. Unfortunately many do.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 14, 2008 1:37 PM

Having grown up in a country where any comment against the President could mean disappearing in the night and death, I welcome all arguments - even with a swearing, foaming at the mouth extremist like Tom's friend. I would not have hung up the phone as I suppose politics fascinates me and I can not grow weary of all these people so engaged with the future of their country. Tom’s friend believes he has power to vote and can sway friends and acquaintances - even with his over the top vitriol. How wonderful and what a privilege.
Being tired of the ranting and the "lies" or falsehoods or whatever you want to label points of contention all are a heck of lot better than total silence and fear of that knock in the middle of the night.
As for the VP choices - McCain knows that social issues are key and has chosen a rush on a focussed beach head of voters with his choice of Palin. Let's see how his customer segmentation works. I would say as a strategist, he's brilliant. Obama should have gone with Hillary but set very clear rules about Bill (I sense he lost Hilary's campaign).
So I would say to America - let those hotheads keep on yelling because you also have many, many more interesting, thoughtful, well researched ideas coming through all those other voices and your passion builds your country.

Posted by Jacoline Loewen at September 19, 2008 6:16 PM

Great comment, Jacoline. Thank you. The only disagreement for me is that Obama should have chosen Hillary Clinton. It seems that he made his choice based not only for political reasons but rather on the kind of administration he, as the presidential candidate, chosen by the people, wanted. The same does not seem to be true for McCain. His VP choice seems purely political. Besides Palin's obvious inability to serve as president (Republican Senator Hegal agrees too), another problem with this choice is that she was chosen by one man. Millions of others, men and women, chose Obama. Thanks again for your words.

Posted by Judith Ellis at September 19, 2008 7:11 PM