Ok, raise your hand if you enjoy being lied to...hmmm, OK...now raise your hand if you enjoy being placated...hmmm, well seeing that no one raised their hand, I'm going to recommend that you stop listening to Colin Cowherd's radio program; moreover, stop listening to any radio or talk show host that says, "I don't have a dog in this fight," as Cowherd said yesterday, referencing the presidential race between Obama and McCain. No one bought that argument when Micheal Vick said it, and we certainly aren't going to now.
As Jim Rome would say, "Look, we get it. (5-10 seconds of dead air) You don't want to admit who you're voting for because it could skewer your ratings, but don't lie to me and tell me that you don't have a dog in this fight. Unless you are an idiot, a recluse, or a corpse, everyone has a pick and they know who that pick is going to be...(more dead air) so cut the crap and tell it like it is."
In general, the effectiveness of Colin's show, in particular, is that he is completely objective and unbiased when it comes to talking sports...he doesn't get passionate about this team over that team, and I can buy that, because, in the end, the winner of a football team is just that: the winner--and nothing more. They are not going to decide on important matters like tax, foreign, domestic, or civil rights policy. The win a game, or lose a game, and they may get a pay day in so doing.
On the other hand, to suggest, as Colin did yesterday, that the country will be fine either way with either guy as president, is not only on the face of it absurd considering that it has been preceded by 8 years of Bush, but also totally without substance. The difference between candidates is viscerally palpable, and the difference between the motivation of their supporters could not be more stark.
To address the first point, McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely, whereas Obama wants to end our occupation as soon as is safely possible. McCain wants to tax health care benefits in order to allow people to pay absurdly high premiums to health insurance companies that are already bloated with mismanagement and corporate malfeasance. Obama want to move toward universal coverage for all U.S. citizens. McCain wants to continue to allow corporate loopholes so that most corporations can avoid paying taxes, and to cut taxes for the most wealthy Americans. Obama wants to cut taxes for the middle class and restore Clinton era taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year. McCain's answer our energy crisis is to build more nuclear power plants and to "drill, baby, drill!" Obama wants to invest in green technology and alternatives to fossil fuels. So, to suggest the country is going to be fine either way is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the candidates.
It is also an insult to either side's supporters, whose election rationale and motivation could not be more philosophically divergent. If you are voting for McCain, you are fundamentally motivated by fear and greed: Obama is a terrorist, Obama is going to raise my taxes, Obama is going to take away my guns, Obama is black, Obama is a socialist, Obama is (insert spurious allegation here), etc. If you are voting for Obama, then you are likely motivated by hope and change: better educational and vocational opportunities, a solution to our health care and energy crises, a foreign policy that will center on peace and restore our reputation to the rest of the world, and a domestic policy that focuses on the middle class rather than the upper class. Clearly, neither side believes that everything is going to be just fine if their candidate is not elected, so to suggest that either way the election is going to be a wash is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the supporters of both parties. And when you consider that we are on the brink of an economic depression, it is downright incindiary.
Furthermore, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that presidents have a sizeable impact on the nation's direction. Bush's legacy should need no explanation, but anyone who would argue that his administration has not had a tremendouse effect on the direction of this nation's economy, polity, and society is simply not to be taken seriously, because they are clearly either joking or a raving psychotic. One could argue that Bush 1 and Clinton had little effect, but that would be ignoring our first war in Iraq, the telecommunications act of 1996 (which has allowed for a monstrous consolidation of both radio and television affiliates), and the insertion of tabloid tactics into mainstream politics. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that Reagan was not a transformative president, good or bad, and think of some of the other president's we've had in the somewhat recent past: Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. All of them had a significant impact on the face of this nation, so again, to argue that the country will be just fine either way is ludicrous, intellectually lazy, and quite franky, wrong.
Yes, maybe it is irrelevant to someone that is as rich as Cowherd, who will, either way, still be able to afford to shop at Whole Foods, drive a nice car, and make a lot of money talking about something that is largely unimportant, namely sports. But before we carry that logic too far, remember, that even the rich have a consideration to make, and that is that on the cusp of a revolution, the rich rarely recognize the danger of their good fortune. If McCain is elected, and the country continues to slide into economic trouble, the chance that a revolution could occur becomes much more likely, because the fact is that the fundamentals of U.S. society are broken, from health care to education to energy to the economy. When you couple this with a quickly eroding middle class and an ever widening gap in the distribution of wealth in this country, a president that is in all likelihood going to exacerbate these problems could spell a disaster--even for the wealthy. Historically speaking, when a society reaches an economic tipping point, a simple crisis or panic can trigger a sweeping revolution, especially when those at the bottom feel they have no other recourse, as they obviously will if McCain is elected in what now looks to be an unlikely win, after two previously questionable elections in 2000 and 2004. And in any revolution, it is the rich, fat aristocratic class that finds their houses torched, their families taken, and their necks stretched or severed.
So look, Cowherd, the fact that you say, as I am listening to you this morning (yeah, I know, I can't take my own medicine), that you are in the middle, and not sure who you are going to vote for mean that you're either lying, or a complete moron. Now the fact is, I know you aren't a complete moron, so that means you are lying, and that is the worst thing that you can do to an intelligent listener. What I like about you is your clear, logical thinking, objectivity, and ability to tell the truth in the face of rabid fans (fanatics as you call them) that don't want to hear it. Your political stance is none of the above, and that is my biggest complaint with the media in general. Sitting the fence between day and night is not objective--its foolish, and patronizing. Oranges and apples don't taste the same, and everyone knows it, so stop lying, or apply for a job on Fox News--their viewers enjoy being lied to.
And if you can't tell me the truth about politics, stick to sports. We'll both be better off.
It is also an insult to either side's supporters, whose election rationale and motivation could not be more philosophically divergent. If you are voting for McCain, you are fundamentally motivated by fear and greed: Obama is a terrorist, Obama is going to raise my taxes, Obama is going to take away my guns, Obama is black, Obama is a socialist, Obama is (insert spurious allegation here), etc. If you are voting for Obama, then you are likely motivated by hope and change: better educational and vocational opportunities, a solution to our health care and energy crises, a foreign policy that will center on peace and restore our reputation to the rest of the world, and a domestic policy that focuses on the middle class rather than the upper class. Clearly, neither side believes that everything is going to be just fine if their candidate is not elected, so to suggest that either way the election is going to be a wash is to completely ignore easily understandable differences between the supporters of both parties. And when you consider that we are on the brink of an economic depression, it is downright incindiary.
Furthermore, there is considerable historical evidence to suggest that presidents have a sizeable impact on the nation's direction. Bush's legacy should need no explanation, but anyone who would argue that his administration has not had a tremendouse effect on the direction of this nation's economy, polity, and society is simply not to be taken seriously, because they are clearly either joking or a raving psychotic. One could argue that Bush 1 and Clinton had little effect, but that would be ignoring our first war in Iraq, the telecommunications act of 1996 (which has allowed for a monstrous consolidation of both radio and television affiliates), and the insertion of tabloid tactics into mainstream politics. I don't think anyone on either side would argue that Reagan was not a transformative president, good or bad, and think of some of the other president's we've had in the somewhat recent past: Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt. All of them had a significant impact on the face of this nation, so again, to argue that the country will be just fine either way is ludicrous, intellectually lazy, and quite franky, wrong.
Yes, maybe it is irrelevant to someone that is as rich as Cowherd, who will, either way, still be able to afford to shop at Whole Foods, drive a nice car, and make a lot of money talking about something that is largely unimportant, namely sports. But before we carry that logic too far, remember, that even the rich have a consideration to make, and that is that on the cusp of a revolution, the rich rarely recognize the danger of their good fortune. If McCain is elected, and the country continues to slide into economic trouble, the chance that a revolution could occur becomes much more likely, because the fact is that the fundamentals of U.S. society are broken, from health care to education to energy to the economy. When you couple this with a quickly eroding middle class and an ever widening gap in the distribution of wealth in this country, a president that is in all likelihood going to exacerbate these problems could spell a disaster--even for the wealthy. Historically speaking, when a society reaches an economic tipping point, a simple crisis or panic can trigger a sweeping revolution, especially when those at the bottom feel they have no other recourse, as they obviously will if McCain is elected in what now looks to be an unlikely win, after two previously questionable elections in 2000 and 2004. And in any revolution, it is the rich, fat aristocratic class that finds their houses torched, their families taken, and their necks stretched or severed.
So look, Cowherd, the fact that you say, as I am listening to you this morning (yeah, I know, I can't take my own medicine), that you are in the middle, and not sure who you are going to vote for mean that you're either lying, or a complete moron. Now the fact is, I know you aren't a complete moron, so that means you are lying, and that is the worst thing that you can do to an intelligent listener. What I like about you is your clear, logical thinking, objectivity, and ability to tell the truth in the face of rabid fans (fanatics as you call them) that don't want to hear it. Your political stance is none of the above, and that is my biggest complaint with the media in general. Sitting the fence between day and night is not objective--its foolish, and patronizing. Oranges and apples don't taste the same, and everyone knows it, so stop lying, or apply for a job on Fox News--their viewers enjoy being lied to.
And if you can't tell me the truth about politics, stick to sports. We'll both be better off.
