I participate in a number of Internet forums, most of them moderated to keep the personal attacks at a minimum. One in particular, Talk Delaware, does a superb job at doing this.

 

I enjoy TD because the core of regular posters, unlike scads of posters on myriad other forums—Delaware Online in particular—always maintain an environment of mutual respect wherein intellectual curiosity naturally trumps mindless fury.

 

Recently we discussed the effects of negative ADS in political campaigns. Someone had referred to a commentary by Campbell Brown of CNN: Stop the negative campaigning.

 

Here’s a quote from one of the posters. “The sad part is we can only blame ourselves. They say negative ads work... if they didn't, then they wouldn't use them. The public just loves a train wreck.”

 

As I wrote above, most of the regulars on TD provide copious amounts of evidence in support of vigorous levels of intellectual curiosity and the fact that their respective IQs fall comfortably above the 3-digit mark.

 

The quote above hit the proverbial jackpot. This particular poster’s replies always do. Nevertheless, I had to add my 2-cents—paraphrased below—to the digital conversation.

 

Another of the regulars on TD (seemingly not a member of the intellectual majority) loves to use the term, “Kool-Aid,” a term with a condescending negative connotation ever since Jim Jones and his followers ingested massive amounts of a lethal substance with similar aesthetic characteristics.

 

So, whenever people disagree with a point he’s trying to make, he becomes quite lavish in accusing them of drinking too much of it.

 

The problem with this practice is that all of us—me included—partake of this “Kool-Aid” on occasion. Mostly, though, the amount we ingest isn’t lethal; it just makes us look a wee bit silly.

 

We do it because we sometimes overlook the fact that ALL of us are part of the population of well-meaning folks that can be fooled SOME of the time. Sadly, a few people fail to acknowledge this. It’s a large part of what makes them insufferable bores.

 

Generally, people laugh the most at those who think the least. We should all keep this in mind the next time we think we hear some muffled giggles originating from behind our backs.

 

Human nature has always been at the root of the seemingly perpetual love affair between each of us and our preconceived notions. It’s nothing to worry about, though, because those notions are mostly social misdemeanors, a type of benign social malfeasance.

 

It becomes a more serious problem, however, whenever people become so obsessed with their notions that they begin to search out, and quote, only those of similar bias or prejudice—fact or fantasy.

 

Some of the more fanatical types even go as far as restating the “facts” to suit their purposes, sometimes even making “facts” up from scratch. This, at least to me, explains a great deal of the social popularity associated with negative political campaigning.

 

Another part of the problem is that there is an ample number of double digit IQ dummies out there who either do not know how or lack the requisite intellectual capacity to verify ANYTHING—no matter how apparently stupid.

 

Much of the time, I like Campbell Brown’s reporting style and demeanor. I don’t agree with, nor do I take all of what she says at face value, but I respect her professionalism and dedication to her craft.

 

In her commentary, though, she fails to mention that the reporting media should hold itself accountable for a generous portion blame for the sustained popularity of political negative advertising.

 

I don’t mean to imply that the news outlets are responsible for human nature, but they have an obligation to debunk the negative stuff instead of analyzing it for weeks on end after an initial report.

 

Mark Twain, in the mid-1890’s delivered a talk he titled, Advice to Youth. During his talk, he said this: “The history of our race and our individual experiences, are sown thick with evidence that truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.”

 

More than any other endeavor, political campaigns substantiate the veracity of this statement with all too frequent regularity.

 

Add to all of this the fact that the current campaign cycle began shortly after long, long ago, and it’s amazingly understandable why the electorate has begun to act so damn cranky.

 

Both sides have used negative campaigning. Both sides, at various times, have used lies and more lies. Both sides have claimed to use negative campaigning to offset that of the other side.

 

I must tell you, though, that the McCain Camp seems to have gone to a new level of personal, unsubstantiated attacks against Obama. Regardless, there are reliable sources on the Internet to check the facts.

 

The four sources I use are FactCheck, Politifact, Fact-Check, and the Congressional Record.

 

The last one, the Congressional Record, only covers official, session-related congressional proceedings (ALL of them). Unfortunately, its search engine requires specifics—meaning that you need to know what you're looking for.

 

It can be tough to find things, otherwise. But, once you get used to using it, it's a cakewalk.

 

I use the first three as counter-checks. If the three of them do not agree on the facts, I ignore all of them. I've yet to see this happen, though.

 

In matters legislative, unmistakably, the Congressional Record is the Holy Grail of verification. Both houses of Congress employ official recorders—similar to those found in our nation’s courtrooms.

 

Additionally, it’s all backed up with digital recording devices in case the humans miss anything.

 

They then post all of it to the government's site, verbatim, irrespective of who said it or what was said. But, as I said above, it's limited to national legislative sessions.

 

Instead of news reporters bombarding us, ad nauseam, with silly, mostly irrelevant gotchas, why can’t they contrast the differences in the candidates’ respective approaches to campaign strategy? I wonder how many of us have noticed this on our own.

 

I don’t know if John McCain OR Barack Obama will make an effectively good president. Nor, are we going to find out if all we hear on the daily news amounts to nothing more than that day’s gotchas.

 

On the other hand, determining whether a candidate is short-term goal oriented or long-term tells us so much more about potential effectiveness as a United States President.

 

For example, John McCain’s entire campaign has always appeared, and ever more so now, to be hit and miss. He seems to change his strategy according any particular day’s end poll.

 

He’s been a lifelong Conservative. The Congressional Record unquestionably belies his claims of “maverickhood.” He’s preached, almost exclusively from the Cathedral of Deregulation. Now it seems he’s changed religions.

 

He’s Pro-life. No! Hold on a minute. Maybe he might now be Pro-choice. I’m not sure; is it possible that he’s BOTH?

 

His campaign has gone from flush with funds to dead broke and back to some level of solvency. He’s had public falling-outs with campaign managers and other high-level staff members.

 

On the other hand, Barack Obama began his quest for the White House with a few specific goals and a game plan for winning his party’s nomination and, ultimately, the Oval Office.

 

I’m sure that his campaign staffers have had internal squabbles at some levels. For the most part, however, they’ve managed to keep them private. His campaign appears to speak as a single, united voice.

 

Regardless, Barack Obama seems to have stuck with his game plan, thus demonstrating a long-term goal oriented consistency and vigorous level of determination.

 

He’s an unapologetic Liberal. He’s not tried to change it. His long suit is not necessarily solving the problems HIMSELF, but rather getting opposing sides talking so that THEY can solve the problems.

 

As stated above, I don’t know if Obama will make a good president. I do know that if he stays on his long-term course for this country, setting a few achievable goals in his first term—if elected—his chances are very good.

 

I’m a lifelong Republican but I confess to you that I’m growing more unsure about John McCain with every passing moment.

 

There is ample blame on both sides of the political aisle for most of our woes over the past 18-years. But, I’ve had it up to my eyeballs with the current crop of Republicans—especially the ones in the White House.

 

I may well be on my way to giving Obama/Biden a chance to prove their metal. I don’t think they can screw things up any worse than they are right now.

 

I don’t know about all of you, but I think I’ll have a glass of “Kool-Aid,” now.

 

Joe Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. You may comment on his column by clicking here.