Change you can't believe in

David - well written and very well said.

Bravo, David! Thank you for not letting pride in your team get in the way of good sense.

Mr. DavidK, I think the sky is falling.
I have been reading your pieces as part of my "know thy enemy" discipline for a while now and then you come out with something like this. While I may not have made the parallel to McCarthyism, I can see your point, and ... agree.
I hope everyone can see a bit of themselves in what this article exposes and can become more discerning as we approach November 4.
Cheers Mr. Karlsruher.

I'm surprised that Newspaper Tree, of all media, keeps publishing this person's opinion. The cynicism, hopelessness and petty sniping in this article are not only unbecoming but insulting to those of us who still hope and dream that our country has a good future. I don't think Mr. Karlsruher was watching the same debate I was watching and I don't appreciate being insulted for believing that Senator Obama offers something decent and right for America. I don't agree with everything he says but his demeanor is certainly more presidential than the pitiful old man who might as well have been in a rocking chair spouting off about the good old days. He has been "serving" our country for over a quarter of a century and look at how well we're doing on his watch. This article will be the last I read at NT - I am opting out. Sorry, Sito.

David is right.
You could see it in the eyes of the audience.
Their eyes were blank. They might as well been speaking a foreign
language. You could see it in their faces.
If Obama does not win, there WILL be riots.
Better go ahead and arm the GREETER at Walmart.

Unless you're brain-dead, which many Americans seem to be these days, your vote for a candidate is a vote for their political system, Democrat, Republican, whathaveyou.. Are we unclear on the concept here? It's only been that way since the founding of this nation so stop whining. Here's some news for you: It has always been and always will be a "team sport," here, and everywhere in the world. You obviously don't understand politics.

There are no black and whites, no yeses or nos. It's all a complexity of peoples and beliefs and issues, of compromises and deals, of classes and religions. If this is too complicated for you to understand, then I suggest you stay out of the kitchen.

Like a typical conservative, you write a lot and say nothing meaningful. But that's ok because brain-dead Americans like that sort of thing. Oh, and only a conservative would conflate pride and football and politics.

Bye Kathy - nice knowing you!

Kathy, NPT is a forum for multiple viewpoints, as you can see from the comments above this. Specific to this piece, Jaime Abeytia wrote something about the debate, which is linked via the editor's note on top of this piece (and Abeytia's piece is linked back to this one). Hope you'll stick around.

There is no question that I am pro Obama and I do think he won the debate. However, I think your article makes an excellent point. Our country is in great danger of practicing politics as Mexico does. Voters are given black and white choices (no pun intended) while the people are left wanting gray.

The leader of the PRI (which is the conservative party) makes the rules and all affiliated must follow or suffer the consequences….the same goes for the PAN (more closely linked to the American Democrats). I can remember working on the Hill when “The Hammer,” as Tom Delay was called, would give Republicans the ultimatum.

Unfortunately, he, Governor Perry, Tom Craddick, and certain Democrats - who will remain unnamed - redistricted Texas! The problem with power is some people become intoxicated. I do not believe Obama would become intoxicated, and that is why I will vote for him.

Academically, I do not believe in a blue or red Texas. The people lose too much money and political clout when a state is “safe”.

p.s. – it really burns to think of those politicians that would sell the state to a majority red for simple scraps when a contested or still blue congress could have offered them more in the long run. Power truly intoxicates good reason.

Well said!!! I cringe at both candidates... For me it will still be McCain as the lesser of two evils.. At least McCain is an honorable person. Barack is a communist of the worst kind.

"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are" goes the old Mexican saying, and it's so true. Obama is such a cynic it's frightening. God help us all if he gets elected. I can deal with McCain and his half-hearted socialism. At least he is not nuts like Obama.

David K, father of Refuse the Juice, has done it again. Refusing the sweet bait and the opportunity to swing away in the same ol' same ol' way the post-debate commentators and partisans do, he declines to play the game. Cynical? I don't think so. Contrary? Definitely. How American!

You can fool many most of the time. Through repetition, they are counting on it. Fortunately for us, the constitution does not give the President the powers these clowns claim or we would have a monarchy.

DK, your comments convey your deep seated understanding that McCain is a loser. Instead of standing up and stating that, you blame the two party system. How juvenile. That is typical of Rs in El Paso. R candidates ask voters to vote for the person and not the party. If they were genuine, they would run as independents.
Back to your article. It would have been an excellent article for the 2000 or 2004 election when the races were close. It was obvious the R was not a mental giant but true to the words you wrote, he was elected. I hope you are adult enough to remember that things got worse in eight years and "your foolish pride put you" and this nation in the worst crisis of its history.

Mr. Yanez - Just a quick observation; you have the American equivalents of the two major Mexican political parties reversed. The PAN, whose base consists of very Catholic, wealthier Northern Mexicans is actually the conservative party, and hence the equivalent of the Republican Party. Conversely, the PRI’s strong traditional anti-church stance, coupled with more liberal social and economic views equate them to the Democrats.

While there are very few things that I agree with David, I must acknowledge that this election has turned into a sniping contest where both parties vow for peoples' votes by having the loudest cheerleader (e.g. Palin vs. Biden) or to borrow a term from the porn industry, the best "fluffer" to get the crowd excited and whipped up into a frenzy before "the star" takes the stage (e.g. Bill Clinton during the Democratic National Convention; Guiliani for the GOP) and begins the truly pathetic contest of vying for the sound bite (aka “zinger”) of the day so that the media can catch it and put it in the evening news. While I will reluctantly cast my lot with Obama, I long for truly substantive campaigns where there is less focus on a person’s personal appeal, physical attributes, or whether we “relate” to them – I for one actually want my President to be a true leader who is actually blessed with great intelligence, wisdom, and a notion of what’s right or wrong, hence a better man than “Joe Six Pack” (or more a local analogy “Jose Cuervo”). We have learned to settle for less and have actually become accustomed to accepting the dog and pony show that candidates have used to hide their mediocrity. Moreover, while should expect more from our so-called leaders, we should also look within ourselves and do some serious soul-searching. Where we really want to go as a nation and most importantly, how do we get there? Only after doing this, will we really have a sense of which direction to take as a nation to not return to the “good old days”, but rather to find a place as responsible, respected stewards in the world stage.

More than two major parties would solve all of the problems. Also, restricting the amount of money that these campaigns can raise would allow more parties to come to light, thus better ideas, and people who actually stick to their guns. Unlike the flip flopping that both of these candidates are displaying. They both have their "Di-di-di" moments, clearly.

@ maleducado

I'm strongly liberal and I think pride, politics and football can be deeply interconnected. Be wary of broad strokes.

Also, I recently saw a TED talk about the link between team behavior and politics. You should check it out.

I don't feel this article makes an excellent point.

The reality is if we were to teleport back to 1946, a person that isn't white wouldn't even be on the debate, let alone the audience. I don't see this country's past as having anything to do with great tradition. I see a lot of mistakes and ignorance. To consider that we're going to have a "first" presiden that isn't white, is beyond me. But understanding this country's twisted tradition, I'm able to see past it and take it for what it is. If anything this election reinforces traditions that I'm sure these republicans were hoping they'd never have to defend. How can we not root for Obama when he's up against one of the most ignorant, old fashioned, racist, coniving candidates of our time. And I say in our time, because at this point, we're supposed to be beyond that but we're not. Which is why I'm very, very confused as to why the Republicans would select this sort of person to represent them. The kind of person that carries the undertones of an old mentality you could find ever present in news sources like Fox.

The only thing the public can accept, is what we see at face value. We know the president has influence, but they don't call all the shots. We know this, or should. This is basic knowledge for folk that are out there getting by. But why would we not go for someone who is intelligent? What about Obama did you not understand? What was not clear? I don't know much about politics and I understood everything he was saying. I didn't have a blank face. What do you want him to say? Was he not speaking English? Was he speaking too fast? Or was it just too hard to concieve that we actually have someone that isn't white running for the most important position in the entire world? Do you want him to lay out a plan that will help each and every American understand what it is they have to do to make things work? Would you be able to do that? Of course not.

If anything Obama speaks for and empowers people to be able to rely on the fact that we have an able bodied and minded candidate. As individuals we have to take on the responsibility too to figure things out for ourselves. But at least we'll know and understand that we're not being represented by an idiot. Did you not hear McCain's jumbled jibberjab nonsense coming out of his mouth? Did you not hear what he was saying? His ideas of "I can do everything and fix everything" bullcrap. He's lying. He's a snake. If anything the blank stares were there out of disbelief that someone like McCain made it to this point and is pulling the stuff that he's pulling. He's taking Obama to trial for things he didn't do, as is Palin. They're accusing him of being a terrorist? Are you serious? But then again, this isn't too far from the truth. I don't know how much people (mostly Black) were released from prison last year on account to the lies of power. What kind of power? Exactly.

The American people have two choices in this election. Thats it. And what I hope is that our old traditions don't prevent us from selecting someone thats capable of addressing this nations problems. He's not going to fix everything, but at least he'll be able to TALK! Can we get a president in office that is capable of communicating! Please!

Obama won't pull the race card, but I will. If he doesn't win this has everything to do with racism in this country. If Obama doesn't win I'll proudly dissassociate myself from being identified with this country's traditions. This country shouldn't be having any more firsts. We should be past that. And there is no reason why Obama shouldn't be president. There are too many reasons why McCain shouldn't. Like when you apply for a job and have your interview, the guy isn't going to win based on qualifications. He's going to win based on him being white. Plain and simple.

I repeat, PLAIN. And SIMPLE.

And for the record, I'm not a racist person. Even though I know we gotta get past that, we won't and this election is proof, enough.

What we gotta do is acknowledge intelligence when we see it. We can't let this happen for another 4 years. We just can't. If we do, this is just as bad as when this country first allowed schools to be disegregated. Getting Obama is the first step, just imagine the backlash, right? I pray that Obama gets in. Hopefully his presence will help us understand what the world looks like when we turn on our television to watch politics and actually see leadership that isn't headed by old segregated traditions.

Like I said, there shouldn't be anymore first.

David, while i dont agree with some of the nuances of your article, i have to say that you are correct. We have blinded ourselves into supporting "our guy". We have failed to look at who will actually do what is needed for our country. Its sad to say that America has turned its government into the WWF, or NFL we are more interested in the show of the candidates and not on their substance.

Mr. Paydirt Pedro:

With all due respect, I understand that at first glance the PAN may seem to be the Republican Party because of the voter base but you are incorrect. Party platforms are the main issue here while party voters is another. The PRI platform is conservative while the PAN established itself as centrist to win more votes. If you recall, the PRI had an internal revolution because the liberals of the party wanted more voice, hence the creation of the PRD. But since the PRD is not going to win the presidnecy you are left with two major parties contesting and that is why PAN is more closely associated with the democrats. Why the PRD will not win th presidency? Because they have already conceded they need to team up with PRI or PAN and is currently looking to negotiate. Let me add that I am an International Studies Major focussing on Latin America, specifically Mexico where I recently finished an internship with Chihuahua's Justice Dept.

If I were an active partisan supporter of a candidate who was running as dishonorable and embarrassing of a campaign – and one who was as far behind in the polls and had done as poorly in the debates – as David K’s candidate of choice is running I suppose I might resort to the “Aw you can’t believe any politician” ploy as well.

McCain supporters have picked up on a tactic that failed to work for Sen Clinton during the primaries – dismiss supporters of Obama as hopelessly naive dreamers who foolishly think that Obama is going to magically change the world. Every one of the many people I know who plan to vote for the Democratic presidential ticket next month are fully aware that Obama too is a player in a system that is intrinsically compromised, but at least he isn’t running a low-brow campaign that is promoting the failed Republican policies that have left the United States bogged down in an unnecessary war abroad and with a broken infrastructure, a destroyed city, a looted treasury and a bankrupt economy at home.

David K makes it clear he would like to return to the imaginary good old days when Sen Joseph McCarthy wrongfully and deceitfully accused American politicians and soldiers of treason for his own political gain. His temporary reign of terror began to unravel when Joseph Welch, counsel to the United States Army, asked the eventually disgraced McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, Sir?” David K might want to learn a little history before he tries to cite it.

Gee, sounds like you would LIKE McCarthyism to come back... sooo American, yes...root out those "very scary" commie pinkos, eh?

Richard B,

Read my piece before commenting. You didn't seem to understand it if you did read and then comment.

I expect more from a guy like you. You're supposed to be the smartest guy in the entire world so says NPT. Act like it.

David K, I agree on most fronts with your article. As usual you are well written and obviously well read based on the number of comments in this post.

Interestingly, no one caught either candidates call for taxes on Health Care. Either Obama's 50% tax credit to small businesses who provide group health coverage for thier employees or McCain's lack of a response to this "proposal" which PROVES that both candidates are out of touch with the real world.

Currently, there is a 100% tax deduction for premium paid, available to employers that provide healthcare benefits to thier employees.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a candidate who actually understood what it meant to be middle class instead of just talking about it?

MB,

great point. one candidate also promises to lower taxes for 95% of Americans. That's impossible given that nearly 30% of American pay no federal tax.

Simple math David K: If 30% don't pay taxes, then you don't count them in the 100%. So then 95% still don't have to pay taxes. Not rocket science buddy. And if you really want to take it further then that means MORE people in real numbers will not have to pay more taxes.

Getsamni,

My 5th grade math teacher just called. He's going to need you to stay after class. You are apparently not getting it.

David K:

Wow! If you're this much fun sober, I can't wait to see you drunk!!!

Mr Karlsruher,
I know some of you Republicans feel there's no where to turn, but this guy isn't it. Neither is Barr. Go on though, send your message. I hear you man, politics sucks right now. The thing is that Obama is a move for progress. I'm not talking about very specific progressive political views. I'm saying that he is ushering in a political climate that we may one day call respectable. It's making my political conversations in public better. It's making some politicians follow his campaign style based on information and finesse rather than mythology and fear-mongering. If you are Republicans who fear how badly your party has been hi-jacked, Obama signifies a move towards future-statesmen like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. You don't have to vote for him, but I am saying that if you're trumpeting how similar the two major candidates are, you're not seeing the opportunity you have. This isn't going to be easy. Just stick around and do try to work with the Democratic party under Obama's lead. I know they've got some major pettiness and other huge problems, but I don't think they're too much for him. I don't think they're very much at all actually. Just don't let testosterone or Vodka or Red Bulls feed your neuron pouch so much that you completely miss what's going on here and what ways it could go depending on which leaders the libertarian party selects. You'llsoon have a great opportunity to break out of "team politics" as you say, and I sense it is going to fall consequence as a Republican party split. Good luck man.

Kinda ironic that when someone complains about the bitterness and whiney nature of the article (Kay) that author of the editorial responds with sarcasm! But really what do you expect from the debate. The notion of a "knock-out" punch is exactly against the concept of a debate, a forum to exchange views. Other than not being honest about some of the hardships coming up, both candidates expressed their platform. The problem is most voters are not capable of any critical thinking. Their platforms have been know for months, so for any informed individual the debate will only reinforce their opinions. But that is to be expected. Only those who base their vote on emotion and lack of information would really be swayed by a debate "knock-out" punch.

David,

Although I believe that your analysis about party affiliations is spot on, I believe that there is a merely a fundamental, important issue that is being undermined with the pitfalls of the economy. Initially, both candidates have been given new options in how America must adjust to a 21st century economics. We either one, fix our current understanding of the economy. Or, two, we fix the framework of our economic practices. We are at a pivotal point in understanding the American economic dream and as a 23 year old graduate from college, I do not see Roosevelt, Reagan or Bush economics as answers to the needs of the future. Both candidates need to address this if any of them want real change in America and preserving the dream.

Was this written by a freshman at EPCC? Sure seems like it.