Where lies the truth?

Therein lies part of the problem. No one should, IMHO, wait until the election season to figure out where they stand. Yet everyone does...then they have to wade through many issues trying to find the truth.

OK, you can't do anything about that now, do the best you can then simply stay current. How do you stay current? Read from a variety of information sources, both conservative and liberal. I read the daily newspaper, the Economist, the Limbaugh letter, I listen to Christian radio and to Sean Hannity a little. I listen to others at work (not just argue). In the end, I realize no one candidate is perfect, but some have more qualities than others that fit my positions.

Voila', a much simpler time during elections AND, I can actually tune out in the last 30 days when it is ALL B.S.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Oct 13 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]332530[/snapback]</div>

I've found both of these sites quite useful, especially Project Vote Smart. Vote Smart can be very useful if you're having a hard time figuring out which candidate best represents the way you think. But that's only useful if the candidate has answered Vote Smart's National Political Awareness Test.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 13 2006, 09:43 PM) [snapback]332555[/snapback]</div>

Finding out where I stand is rarely the problem. The only time I need to do that is if there's a new issue or new wrinkle in an old one. The hardest part is finding out where the candidates actually stand. It can take a lot of weeding through media to find out what they actually believe, and even then some of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Trying to read from a variety of sources is a good idea, as long as you trust the source. I don't listen to talk radio (Hannity, Limbaugh, Randi Rhodes, etc) because it's partisan. I can't trust what they're saying.

 

Thanks for the links. Very helpful.

 

Good sites. I've also been checking into the Columbia Journalism Review Daily at http://www.cjrdaily.org/ from time to time ... they do a good job of analyzing how the various media outlets are presenting a story. They may have a bias, but I haven't really been able to find one yet. They seem to be trying to be objective and fair.

The problem with bias is that it is often "hidden" to the person with the bias. So a fact may be left out to make a story "more readable" or, more often, more "popular" (as in "shocking", "unbelievable" or any other adjective you want to use). The CRJDAILY site is about the media, and you get to see a little bit behind the curtain of daily reporting.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 14 2006, 08:02 AM) [snapback]332665[/snapback]</div>

You do not need to trust ALL sources. And what is your definition of trust? I am looking more for perspective. Every word coming out of these "parttisan" places is not a lie. Everybody has spin...even you and I.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 14 2006, 03:46 PM) [snapback]332799[/snapback]</div>

I agree completely. I just try to skip the obvious spin. The Limbaughs & Hannitys spin hard to the right. Air America spins hard to the left. They "preach to the choir" and give their respective audiences what they want to hear.

If the partisan commentators actually engaged in reasonable debate I'd trust them. But they don't ... they subscribe to the "I'm right, you're wrong" school of debate. I don't have time for that and, quite frankly, as a thinking person, I find it insulting.

For local & state politics, I trust my newspaper. They may lean one way or another, but it hasn't been obvious to me. For national, I'll check the big boys (CNN, Fox) and use resources like Fact Check & Vote-Smart to double check. And then I'll make my own decisions.

 

The problem is when the candidate does not tell you what he or she really believes or how he or she will vote on issues, but instead tells you what the pollsters have told him or her that the electorate wants to hear.

An incumbent will have a voting history that you can examine to learn where she/he really stands. A challenger might not. And both will make campaign promises with no intention of fulfilling them.

99% of the time the candidates are lying to us about what they actually believe and what they actually will do if elected. Yeah, I know: people will criticize me for that figure. I'm sorry. But I'm feeling charitable today and decided to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume (without any real justification) that one out of a hundred may be honest.

Still, non-partisan election sites are useful when they analyse the candidates' history, and not just digest the candidates' statements and promises.

Debunking false ads is useful, in that it shows us some of the lies; but it does not tell us where the candidates actually stand on issues.

Thanks for the links.

 

Ohio Senate- DeWine ® and Brown (D)

On the way to work a DeWine radio ad says Brown voted 5 times against boy armor for troops. At work (during lunch break) a Brown TV ad says DeWine ignored body armor issue and he (Brown) got the troops body armor.


GGGGGAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jmccord @ Oct 14 2006, 11:17 PM) [snapback]332902[/snapback]</div>

I agree, and I wish there was an answer...I'm sure I might think of one in the next 20 years, then I wouldn't have enough life left to convince anyone.

I am really feeling the "lesser of two evils" on the Brown/DeWine race. Sherrod is a proven liberal (by my definition) but I consider that DeWine has become the "career politician" and is leaving his conservative roots.

Again...GACK!!!!!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Oct 14 2006, 07:02 AM) [snapback]332665[/snapback]</div>

I agree with Schmika.... its not about what they say for the future.... look at what they've done in the past.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Oct 14 2006, 10:28 PM) [snapback]332896[/snapback]</div>

I bet Foley voted for "boy armor" (badump-bump!)