i cringe every time i see a campaign ad full of platitudes that amount to ‘i want to make the country more better than my opponent, who is wrong about everything’. even the debates are recycled quips engineered to sound the best when quoted.

i was talking to justin at lunch the other day that in the future, there should be a ban on any politician or political interest group buying media of any kind. it doesn’t inform, only obscure the debate with accusations and obfuscations. it’s kind of disgusting. ideally they would only be able to give detailed interviews, release full-fledged position papers with all the ins and outs of their opposing policies, and it would be the job of the news media to analyze, talk to experts, and present a fair picture of the differences.

so thank god for the occasional truly in-depth piece we get this election cycle, without having to wait for that ideal future, like this one from the NY times:

how obama reconciles dueling views on the economy

it’s really long but should be the kind of thing required reading for intelligent voting purposes. it goes into history, nuances, influences, opinions from academics, and detailed comparisons from neutral parties. its analytical instead of praising or damning, relying on, imagine that, facts and figures instead of passionate pleas. here’s the bit that really got me excited, because in all my following of the campaign, even i had not had a position explained this plainly to me yet anywhere else:

The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population — those households making $118,000 or less — McCain’s various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama’s proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.

…

He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center’s comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush’s tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners — those making an average of $9.1 million — by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.

It’s hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it’s also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama’s tax increases on the wealthy — about $500,000 of that $800,000 — would simply take away Bush’s tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn’t nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.

imagine that, spelling out details for people to judge on their own merits? it’s crazy, but it just might work.

i’d love to see another piece that focuses more on mccain, and then similar reporting specific to things like health care, foreign policy, national security, and on and on. maybe we can get people to vote for the best ideas this time around instead of the best drinking buddy.