While we’re on the topic of healthcare, I’ve been struck by some dissimilarities I’ve noticed between the approach to blogging about healthcare by Andrew Sullivan (conservative) and Ezra Klein (liberal).  The former has been posting numerous dispatches from various individuals on the front lines of the American healthcare system, which is valuable information, but it really shouldn’t be dispositive.  The latter has been posting studies that provide data, which I would consider to be more valuable information, because it represents a much larger picture of what is occuring.

Then it struck me that this is somewhat typical of Conservative vs. Liberal debates.  Conservatives bring anecdotes, philosophy, and logic.  Liberals bring data.  This is perhaps the major reason I side with liberals on most issues.

NARAL and NOW are salivating.

Those darn women concerned about their “health” and “equal pay.”

(On a more personal note, it’s a good thing Jackie was working tonight.  If she saw that, I might not have a TV anymore.)

McCain’s befuddlement makes me chuckle a little bit.

Question:

MR. SCHIEFFER: All right.

We’re going to move to another question. And the topic is leadership in this campaign. Both of you pledged to take the high road in this campaign. Yet it has turned very nasty. Senator Obama, your campaign has used words like erratic, out of touch, lie, angry, losing his bearings — (audio break). Senator McCain, your commercials have included words like disrespectful, dangerous, dishonorable, he lied. Your running mate said he palled around with terrorists.

Are each of you tonight willing to sit at this table and say, to each other’s face, what your campaigns and the people in your campaigns have said about each other?

Dangerous = erratic.  Dishonorable = out of touch.  Palling around with terrorists = losing his bearings.

This is complete horseshit.  This absolute love affair with equivalence in political reporting must end.  It must.  Sometimes one side really is worse than the other.  I mean, it is actually conceivable that one campaign might actually be more negative and ridiculous than the other, right?  There isn’t some awesome Balancing God out there that reaches down with a guiding hand and automatically enforces the Equally Negative Corollary in American politics, is there?  So, you know, there might actually be a time when one side is actually worse than the other.  In fact, the American people seem to have formulated an opinion on this subject.  Let’s take a look:

The survey was conducted after McCain and running mate Sarah Palin had hit Obama for days for his relationship with William Ayers, a 1960s radical who’s now a Chicago university professor and whose ties to Obama are slight.

Voters noticed the attacks: Fifty-three percent said that McCain was engaging in more attacks; 30 percent said Obama was.

HOLY SHIT!  ONE GUY IS MORE NEGATIVE THAN THE OTHER!  OMG!

Btw, I just saw CNN snap poll results:  Who spent more time attacking his opponent?  M 80% O 7%.

This false equivalency is a disease.  It’s a disease that has been utilized by President Bush specifically, and conservatives in general.  This is the disease that wrought “enhanced interrogation techniques” and “serve at the pleasure of the President.”  Sometimes one side lies way more than the other.  Way more.  And to treat them as the same does a serious disservice to the American public.

In fact what this disservice sows is the false equivalency argument in lunch table discussions.  I have a new political theory that I have sort of been developing this year, and it’s based on the fact that people need to be able to defend their candidate.  They need to be able to sit with their cooworkers and be able to easily remember the talking points and not be embarrassed by their candidate at work.  (More on this later, maybe this weekend)  But more specifically to this topic, is that it breeds a whole class of false equalizers.  These are the guys that go “Well, both sides are really to blame here”  or “All politicians lie” or “I don’t think either candidate has really given any specifics.”  You know, there may actually be a time when this stuff is true, but most of the time it’s a giant fucking cop out.  This is an exercise in laziness.  It’s the “Well, I don’t actually want to spend the time figuring out who has the better plan or who’s been more negative, so I’m going to attempt to sound like an intellectual by taking no one’s side.”  To me, this is worse than being a wingnut, because at least they try to inform themselves (it’s all wrong, but they try).

So basically my message is:  Do your homework.  Grow some balls.  Make a decision.

Man, Obama is just so naive.  I mean everybody knew it was a failed state.  Except maybe the US ambassador to Pakistan during the takeover, William Milan Milam, and a bunch of other experts on the subject:

There are a number of interesting books, including a forthcoming one by me, that cover the 1999 coup by the Musharraf-led army. You might want to look at those already published by Steve Cohen, Hasan Abbas, Hussain Haqqani (long before he became the present Pakistani Ambassador), and especially Ian Talbot’s updated history of Pakistan.

I think that all of them would agree that, while there were a lot of things wrong in Pakistan during the years leading up to the 1999 military takeover, Pakistan was not a failed state as we normally define such states. I am on record as stating publicly that, having come to Pakistan from Liberia a year before the takeover, I had a pretty good idea of what failed states look like, and it was not one.

I guess there’s a lot of people that just don’t understand.

Alright, let’s break this one down.

(more…)

McCain is back in (and looking hotter than ever).

Look at that hunk of a man.

CNN, 8 PM Eastern Time.