Moderates, Independent
And Intellectual Honesty

The election is less than a month away, and I've got a few random thoughts to share with you.

First of all, I am absolutely tired of the word "partisan." Wikipedia defines "partisan" as:

In politics, partisan literally means organized into political parties. The expression "Partisan politics" usually refers to fervent, sometimes militant support of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea. Although this is typically an appellation with negative connotations, some supporters embrace the term.

The Liberal media, and the "conservatives" who want to be liked by the Liberal media, have come to accept the term as a negative one applied to obstructionist Conservatives. Rarely will you hear it applied to a Liberal. When was the last time you read in the New York Times: "Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security was blocked by partisan politics"? Never.

Frankly, I'm looking for partisanship in my leaders. Those who do not seek to adhere to the U.S. Constitution are no friend of America. Bluntly, they are part of the enemy. There is no benefit to bipartisanship when it comes to matters of national security, foreign policy, and building a future for our children. I'm all for bipartisanship when it comes to building roads or deciding where to put a military base, but not when it comes to drafting legislation regarding when life begins, how to punish terrorists (both domestic and foreign), or whether or not we should defend ourselves against our enemies.

Secondly, I'm tired of hearing folks say, "I'm an Independent," or, "I'm a Moderate." What does this mean? Too often it means one of two things. Either the person is saying, "I don't have a world view that guides my philosophy and opinions." Or they are saying, "I don't want to publicize my philosophy because I'm afraid of being labeled a partisan." The former needs to get a brain, and the latter needs to take a stand.

Are there true Independents who may, for instance, consider themselves socially Conservative but economically Liberal? Sure. The problem is that there's one camp that calls themselves Independents because they're a mix of Democrat and Republican. On the other hand, there is a population that calls themselves Independents because they don't want to declare themselves. The comments that follow relate to the latter group.

I've shared these first two points in tandem because they are closely linked. Because of the politically correct culture that we've allowed ourselves to inhabit over the past several decades, only those of the most strong will have taken firm positions. The weak among us are fearful of being labeled "intolerant," "racist," "bigot," "insensitive," "homophobe," "sexist," and on and on. The result is that some have taken on labels that insulate them from these labels. The Independent and the Moderate cannot be any of these things because they have an open mind. They consider the issue at hand in a fair, honest and deliberate manner. Not like a Conservative. Not like a Republican. Those folks have their mind made up before they even consider the topic.

Not only have the weak among us taken on insulating descriptors, the Liberals among us seek to conceal their philosophy by changing the terms. Liberals are now Progressives. And the difference is? The underlying philosophy has not changed, the advocacy has remained unchanged, the world view no different. Certainly terms evolve. The Democratic-Republicans became the Democrats... Classical Conservatives are now Modern Liberals, while Classical Liberalism describes modern day Conservatism... I get it. But today's evolution of terms has as its primary goal to fool the electorate.

What do I mean by this?

• Barack Obama has not run on a platform of raising taxes across the board. While he insists that no one making under $250,000 will see their taxes increased, there can be no argument that the small business owner (hardly the CEO with the golden parachute) will see his taxes raised... and how is this not a tax increase on the middle class?
  
  
• Barack Obama has not run on a platform of infanticide. But this is what he supported when he refused to grant personhood to babies born alive after failed abortions. He later supported the same bill in the US Senate that he opposed in the Illinois State Senate, and it's a good thing, too, because in the Statehouse, he was even to the left of NARAL, who favored the legislation from the start.
  
  
• Barack Obama has not run on a platform of military defeat. He speaks of ending the war, but he doesn't speak of winning. In wars, there are winners and there are losers. If you don't win...
  
  
• Barack Obama has not run on a platform of American bashing. He has befriended domestic terrorists. He has attended worship for decades at the feet of a "pastor" that can find no shortage of condemnations for America. He has worked for and supported organizations (e.g. ACORN) that do little to conceal their Socialist and Marxist tendencies. He has praised Chinese infrastructure as better than American. He has gone overseas and criticized America. None of these are what makes America great, and it doesn't sit well with "middle America."
  
  
• Barack Obama has not run on a platform of bigger government. Do I really need to analyze this? Is there anyone who doubts that Obama will vastly increase the size and scope of government? (Even more than Bush! Ha! Ha!... Ha. Ha... Ha... Crap.)

Changing the subject, I'm ready for the American media to take a four week vacation. This way they could stop poisoning the well and leave us alone. ~OR~ In lieu of a vacation, might I suggest that they actually do their job. The double standard that exists in modern journalism is incredible. For instance, how can Sarah Palin be inexperienced for the Vice Presidency yet at the same time Barack Obama is adequately experienced for the Presidency? I haven't yet heard this explained in a sufficient manner. Or how is it that we know more about a trooper's firing in Alaska than we know of Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers? The press has had 5 weeks to investigate Palin and 18-plus months to investigate Obama, yet the mainstream media has spent more time and energy looking into Palin than into Obama. We're supposed to believe that the mainstream media is practicing journalism? The very definition of journalism is evolving. It used to be about "who?" "what?" "when?" "where?" Not any more... now it's about changing the world. XEKE.com longs for the days in the past when journalists held to an ethical code.

A classic example of the lack of journalistic integrity is the current mortgage/financial mess. There are real answers to the questions that are being asked.

• "Who is at fault?"
• "What decisions in the past created today's scenarios?"
• "Did the problem start in Washington or in New York?"
• "Is there anyone who has made financial gain during this process?"
• "What can be done to prevent it from happening again?"

I must say that I though Gwen Ifill was fair in the VP Debate. Having said that, can anyone imagine Michelle Malkin moderating a VP Debate? This would strike anyone as illogical. So why is it that Bob Shieffer gets to moderate a debate? Or Brokaw? Or any of the mainstream media? Their biases are no more hidden than Malkin's. Why the difference?

rg

10/4/2008