I am now officially suffering from Primary fatigue. After last night's fluffy back-and-forthing between Hillary and Obama, and ABC's transparent fetish for bull**** "character" issues, I'm ready not only for Pennsylvania to vote but for the convention to get here already.
It's pretty obvious now that it isn't the candidates -- or the candidates' supporters -- who want this primary season to continue. It's the MSM, who've decided to milk the conflict for as much cash as possible, and who're stoking the fires with "controversies" that reflect at worst, mis-steps, mis-statements, and mis-remembered history.
Does anyone need another Pastor Wright to make up their minds? Does anyone need Bosnian snipers to help them decide? Can we seriously contend that this information makes deciding how to vote easier?
This primary has officially jumped the shark. So sayeth Wevus.
/tired and rantish this morning.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
I am now officially suffering from Primary fatigue. After last night's fluffy back-and-forthing between Hillary and Obama, and ABC's transparent fetish for bull**** "character" issues, I'm ready not only for Pennsylvania to vote but for the convention to get here already.
It's pretty obvious now that it isn't the candidates -- or the candidates' supporters -- who want this primary season to continue. It's the MSM, who've decided to milk the conflict for as much cash as possible, and who're stoking the fires with "controversies" that reflect at worst, mis-steps, mis-statements, and mis-remembered history.
Does anyone need another Pastor Wright to make up their minds? Does anyone need Bosnian snipers to help them decide? Can we seriously contend that this information makes deciding how to vote easier?
This primary has officially jumped the shark. So sayeth Wevus.
/tired and rantish this morning.
Are you kidding me? It's just now gettin' good. Obama came off last night as expected, an empty suit that when he gets off message sounds like a blabbering moron. Hillary has shown us what I think we have known all along, willing to do or say anything to get elected. The democrats are eating themselves alive, which is really what this country has not seen since probably the 1980 primary season.
Wevus,
I think voter turn-out will be very good come November, but voter turn-off will be at an all-time high.
I don't think most voters will have much of a notion on issues, because the election cycle will have been approximately 22 months long at that point. It's exhausting. A lot of people are getting so disgusted with it, they are starting to tune it out.
The deck was stacked heavily in Hillary's favor last night. I mean you've got a former White House employee of her husband asking the questions. I wondered about the placement of the candidates as well. Anyone else notice that Obama was positioned to the left of Hillary?
Politics has become entertainment, we keep tuning in, so it sells advertising. I hope candidates for 2112 will realize the disadvantages of running for nearly two years prior to an election. I'm weary too, Wevus (but I have to say I am getting some pleasure in watching the cat-fight between HC and BO [;)]).
I think we should pick elected officials with scratch-off lottery tickets. Winners could be president/governor/mayor for a day.
Might raise some money and the change could do us good.
Anyone know a video stream of the debate? I forgot to set the DVR.
That really was the worst debate ever. Learned nothing substantive. I guess ABC thought it needed some mindless entertainment to compete with American Idol and Big Brother. Personally, I think we should vote for our presidents via text messaging. Or maybe we can put them in the Whitehouse together, and vote one of them out each week.
I missed the debate, but the New York Times guy thinks it went well.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/no-whining-about-the-media/index.html
No Whining About the Media
By David Brooks
Three quick points on the Democratic debate tonight:
First, Democrats, and especially Obama supporters, are going to jump all over ABC for the choice of topics: too many gaffe questions, not enough policy questions. I understand the complaints, but I thought the questions were excellent. The journalist's job is to make politicians uncomfortable, to explore evasions, contradictions and vulnerabilities. Almost every question tonight did that. The candidates each looked foolish at times, but that's their own fault.
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It's legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
The middle section of the debate, meanwhile, was stupendous. Those could be the most important 30 minutes of this entire campaign, for reasons I will explain in point two:
Second, Obama and Clinton were completely irresponsible. As the first President Bush discovered, it is simply irresponsible statesmanship (and stupid politics) to make blanket pledges to win votes. Both candidates did that on vital issues.
Both promised to not raise taxes on those making less than $200,000 or $250,000 a year. They both just emasculated their domestic programs. Returning the rich to their Clinton-era tax rates will yield, at best, $40 billion a year in revenue. It's impossible to fund a health care plan, let alone anything else, with that kind of money. The consequences are clear: if elected they will have to break their pledge, and thus destroy their credibility, or run a minimalist administration.
The second pledge was just as bad. Nobody knows what the situation in Iraq will be like. To pledge an automatic withdrawal is just insane. A mature politician would've been honest and said: I fully intend to withdraw, but I want to know what the reality is at that moment.
The third point concerns electability. The Democrats have a problem. All the signs point to a big Democratic year, and I still wouldn't bet against Obama winning the White House, but his background as a Hyde Park liberal is going to continue to dog him. No issue is crushing on its own, but it all adds up. For the life of me I can't figure out why he didn't have better answers on Wright and on the "bitter" comments. The superdelegates cannot have been comforted by his performance.
Final grades:
ABC: A
Clinton: B
Obama: D+
Campaign year is like Olympics year. A huge profit making opportunity. Many of the best athletes don't even compete for lack of money or visibility, and the results of the judging are always politically tainted.
Wevus you are prescient. We are practically back where we started two years ago. The whole thing seems designed to build expectations up, then destroy them with glee.
A limit to one year for the whole process would be hugely popular.
From the Washingtonpost:
In Pa. Debate, the Clear Loser is ABC:
quote:
At the end, Gibson pompously thanked the candidates -- or was he really patting himself on the back? -- for "what I think has been a fascinating debate." He's entitled to his opinion, but the most fascinating aspect was waiting to see how low he and Stephanopoulos would go, and then being appalled at the answer.
I found it a total waste of time. Obviously, I am an Obama supporter, but I found the questions of Clinton's Bosnia story just as unnecessary. And the question about the two on the same ticket has already been asked. Ultimately, I am sure people who had already chosen a candidate heard only what they wanted to hear, and those who were undecided heard nothing substantive.
The New York Times has an interesting article, explaining how we view these sorts of debates:
quote:
If you're a Democrat, your candidate won in Wednesday night's presidential debate — that was obvious, and most neutral observers would recognize that. But the other candidate issued appalling distortions, and the news commentary afterward was shamefully biased.
So you're madder than ever at the other candidate. You may even be more likely to vote for John McCain if your candidate loses.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html?ref=opinion
Hillary Citton was not wearing a flag lapel pin last night, yet no questions about her patriotism. Isn't that interesting.
Is it because Obama has the "funny name"? Or the false rumors about his religion?
Flag pins and patriotism -- relevant to all the candidates or just Barack Obama?
For those who missed the debate, here's a good summary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eP-8zX7Yno
Here's the whole thing with a great 'jump to' feature:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04/16/us/politics/20080416_DEBATE_GRAPHIC.html#video
Campbell Brown covered Texas Polygamy last night. My partner and I missed the debate completely. Didn't even remember it was on. Hillary said Obama can win. I guess we have just about exhausted all the fight left in us. Has Hillary named Obama her running mate yet? Wake me when they're in the White House.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html
ABC Hosts Heckled After Debate: "The Crowd Is Turning On Me"
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956
"...Asinine questions - abysmal debate. Fire these silly moderators NOW. They insult the intelligence of the American people."
SNAP!
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
You assume the responses were from obama supporters?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
Looked like he handled it just fine to me...
Can you say luck guess? O supporters are the only ones that frequent these smear sites anymore. Clinton got bit in the donkey a few months ago by one of these smear sites like huffinton and most of her people disengaged from these blogs completely.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
Looked like he handled it just fine to me...
I'm sure it did to you. For the rest of us watching without our rose colored glasses on it looked unimpressive to say the least.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
Looked like he handled it just fine to me...
I'm sure it did to you. For the rest of us watching without our rose colored glasses on it looked unimpressive to say the least.
Rose colored glasses - nice one. Haven't heard that one before.
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by jne
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gasp! O supporters were pissed off at the moderators last night. If I was O I'd be pissed off too. How DARE they expect me to answer direct questions and then demand an answer when I don't give a response that's on point!
If he can't handle what he got last night I feel sorry for him when he's really under fire.
At least the Clinton camp doesn't go around pissing and moaning about how dey witty feewings were hurt last night.
Looked like he handled it just fine to me...
I'm sure it did to you. For the rest of us watching without our rose colored glasses on it looked unimpressive to say the least.
Rose colored glasses - nice one. Haven't heard that one before.
Yeah. It's as trite and old as a democrat who can't who can't admit when their candidate stinks on ice in a debate. He'd best step it up before the real fireworks begin.
Calling that a "debate" was a stretch to begin with. That was more of a "forum".
O will shame McSame in the main debates.....
McSame will have few meaningful bullets.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
O will shame McSame in the main debates.....
McSame will have few meaningful bullets.
That's about the 10th time you've said that today. You must be squirming at this point after last night.
The worst news for O is that a good majority of his support comes from people like you and the rest of the hate spewers at the dailykos and their ilk.
Corny names and misplaced analogies don't work in big boy politics.
POOR STUPID AMERICANS! THEY TRULY THOUGHT THE DEBATE WOULD DEAL WITH ISSUES OF
'SUBSTANCE' SUCH AS:
1. America's loss of its CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS & CIVIL LIBERTIES to BUSH!
2. The currently DISASTEROUS Housing Foreclosure impact on the Economy & Nation!
3. How the 'SUBPRIME FIASCO' evolved & wasn't STOPPED BEFORE it killed DREAMS!
4. What should happen to BUSH'S NEXT REQUEST FOR 'WAR FUNDS'?
5. What is 'VICTORY' in the never-ending 'WAR ON TERROR' & 'WAR ON DRUGS?'
ABC News Presidential Debate Scores an "F"
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6763/1/329/
"Why can't a televised debate foster serious discussions about the issues, rather than promoting racist divisiveness and slash and burn hostility?"
ABC'S approach was purposefully 'unprofessional' and 'incompetent'!
I've always thought Charles Gibson was a bumbling idiot... oh goody, more media soundbites, gaffes, gotcha games, phony issues... yeah, George Stephanopoulis's and ABC's attempt at being "fair and balanced"...
People are sick of it.... they really are.
BARACK OBAMA:
"They like stirring up controversy and they like playing gotcha games, getting us to attack each other," he said. "Senator Clinton looked in her element. She was taking every opportunity to get a dig in there. That's her right to kind of twist the knife a little bit ... that's the lesson she learned when Republicans did it to her in the 1990s."
"Last night I think we set a new record because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people," Obama told the North Carolina crowd. "Forty-five minutes before we heard about health care, 45 minutes before we heard about Iraq, 45 minutes before we heard about jobs, 45 minutes before we heard about gas prices."
From The Guardian:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/niall_stanage/2008/04/the_dumbest_debate_in_america.html
The dumbest debate in America?
US elections 08: The hosts on last night's ABC Democratic debate were shameful: don't they realise America is sick of their junk food?
Niall Stanage
What is it about Philadelphia? The city last month hosted one of the most impressive moments of the presidential campaign to date: Barack Obama's forthright speech on race. But last night, the very same venue - the National Constitution Centre - witnessed one of the worst events: the dismal ABC News debate between the Democratic candidates.
The contrast could hardly have been starker. Obama's March 18 speech was sophisticated, honest and, above all, respectful of the intelligence of his audience. Last night's debate - or, more specifically, the performance of its moderators, Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos - was by turns superficial and disingenuous.
The trouble started early. Gibson began with an utterly fatuous inquiry about whether each candidate would pledge to ask the other to be their vice-presidential nominee if they won, and agree to accept the veep slot if they lost. Tired questions about the Jeremiah Wright affair and Obama's remarks regarding voters in Midwestern states who "cling" to religion and social issues followed.
About half the time set aside for the debate had elapsed - and seven flimsy or already-exhausted issues had been raised - before the first serious question of the night, about troop withdrawals from Iraq, was asked.
The relentless triviality was only one problem, however. The more serious failing was the willingness of Gibson and Stephanopoulos to volunteer as water-carriers for a conservative attack machine that, fearful of Obama's crossover appeal, is already working overtime to tarnish his reputation.
Gibson placed ABC's imprimatur on one of the more obviously silly stories - the suggestion that Obama's disinclination to wear a stars and stripes flag pin could render him unelectable.
"As you may know, it is all over the internet," Gibson intoned earnestly, as if hoping this might absolve him from any responsibility for raising such a gaseous point during a critical prime-time debate.
"I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins," Obama - who had, in fact, donned such a pin when it was given to him by a veteran on Tuesday - said in response.
"This is the kind of manufactured issue that our politics has become obsessed with and, once again, distracts us from what should be my job when I'm commander in chief, which is going to be figuring out how we get our troops out of Iraq and how we actually make our economy better for the American people."
That response provoked the audience to break the night's ground rules by bursting into applause. But Stephanopoulos, undaunted, immediately took up the baton to investigate what he absurdly categorised as "the general theme of patriotism" - or supposed lack thereof - in Obama's personal life.
One would have thought Stephanopoulos might have acquired some perceptiveness about the methods of rightwing smear merchants in his previous job as a senior advisor in Bill Clinton's White House. Apparently not.
Having already asked Obama a risible question about his former pastor ("Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"), Stephanopoulos now pressed him on his "relationship" with Bill Ayers.
Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois and a fixture on the liberal edges of Chicago's political scene. As such, it is hardly surprising that one local meet'n'greet, when Obama was beginning his run for the Illinois state senate took place at Ayers' house. The two men also served together on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago for a time. Ayers, however, is also a former member of the Weather Underground, and remains unapologetic about that organisation's crimes.
When his name surfaced in February, Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod was asked about the two men's relationship.
"Bill Ayers lives in his neighbourhood," Axelrod told Politico.com's Ben Smith. "Their kids attend the same school. They're certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together [would]."
In fact, Axelrod had his facts slightly askew. Though Ayers' children had once attended the same school as Obama's daughters, they had left before the much younger Obama girls began.
The quote was nevertheless fairly innocuous in context. But it has been pared down in the more Obamaphobic parts of the blogosphere to one word: friendly. From that, all manner of bizarre theories about Obama's alleged sympathies for Ayers have been extrapolated.
The febrile hypothesising had been confined to the farthest fringes of the national conversation until Fox News' Sean Hannity lent his weight to the cause. Hannity has done his best to amplify the issue on radio and TV.
There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever that Obama harbours even a smidgen of sympathy for Ayers' radicalism or the Weather Underground's worldview. And, more generally, if the views of every person with whom a presidential candidate has ever interacted are to be judged as possible disqualifiers from office, America's political future would look very impoverished indeed.
Obama struggled to restrain his frustration when Stephanopoulos injected the phoney issue into the debate.
"The notion that ... me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense, George," the Illinois senator noted dryly.
When a presidential debate in a nation roiled by two wars, an economic crisis and a seven-year onslaught on civil liberties revolves around questions about flag pins and casual friends, it would be easy to despair.
But there are reasons to believe that Obama's claim last night - "the American people are smarter than that" - may be proven true this year.
His thoughtful response to the Wright controversy last month stopped his poll decline dead in its tracks and restored his dominant position over Clinton. Despite the media hubbub over his "cling" remarks, the most recent polls suggest the furor has had virtually no effect.
And, most encouragingly of all, the public response to last night's awful performance by the debate moderators was immediate and vociferous. As heckling erupted at the debate's end, Gibson smiled wanly and said, "The crowd is turning on me." Within three hours of the debate's end, the ABC News website had received over 7,600 comments about the evening's events. The overwhelming majority were negative.
Stephanopoulos and Gibson deserve every bit of opprobrium being thrown their way. They delivered a noxious blend of smear, innuendo and diversion.
But it looks like the same old political junk food no longer satisfies an electorate hungry for real change.
I don't see how anyone could come away from watching the forum last night and honestly say the media doesn't exercize bias when it suits them.
I'm not sure if they stacked it for Hillary because a Sr. exec at Disney or ABC wants her to be President, or if they are wanting this circus to continue on for another five months to Denver so it will keep attention on it and therefore ad revenue.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I don't see how anyone could come away from watching the forum last night and honestly say the media doesn't exercize bias when it suits them.
I'm not sure if they stacked it for Hillary because a Sr. exec at Disney or ABC wants her to be President, or if they are wanting this circus to continue on for another five months to Denver so it will keep attention on it and therefore ad revenue.
You sure read different after the evening news.....you're not watching Countdown these days are you? That would be out of character Conan.
Seriously, y'all. Can we keep the FOTD-against-the-world on one thread maybe? These personal attacks are stinking up the entire politics forum.
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One wizzy watch'n tha bias being displayed is preempted by tha McCain/Rice ticket possibility that wizzle include genda, race, n war time experience in tha present war time environment. Nizzle thing ta wiznatch is what is back of tha smoke screen. The campaign'n has not even begun . N***a get shut up or get wet up.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I agree Wevus, things are getting a but attack-ish lately. The return of AOX and now Shadows has pushed me over the limit I'm afraid. AOX for drive by posts and a failure of logic and Shadows from a shear frustrating incoherency standpoint (see above, "One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted... Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen." I'm not a grammar Nazi, but man.).
But I would like to say that until at least next Tuesday the politics forum is pretty well a lost cause anyway. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
That's just racist and sexist. You should be ashamed.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
That's just racist and sexist. You should be ashamed.
More examples of how far removed from tolerance you seem to be. No racism in that comment what so ever. I would not want to have a 50+year old virgin as president. That's not sexist. It could apply to a man too.
CF, to say that old devilish poster AOX is a drive by and failure in logic is unfair. FOTD keeps this board fair and balanced. AOX retired. We devils operate in the Fourth Estate....
Don't try to shame me either. That and when Iplaw get his whips and chains out does not work.
Why would he need to shame you? You do a fine job with bringing that on yourself.
If you need debates to understand where the panderers stand, based upon questions devised by the media, then you are cognitively challenged.
Do your RESEARCH, and look at their voting records, their history. Debates are nothing more than a media show for effect.
Geez. I can't believe you sheep are willing to believe what a candidate says in front of the camera rather than what they do!
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
QuoteOriginally posted by shadows
One wizzy watch'n tha bias being displayed is preempted by tha McCain/Rice ticket possibility that wizzle include genda, race, n war time experience in tha present war time environment. Nizzle thing ta wiznatch is what is back of tha smoke screen. The campaign'n has not even begun . N***a get shut up or get wet up.
Is "trolling" the purpose of the above quote?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
If you need debates to understand where the panderers stand, based upon questions devised by the media, then you are cognitively challenged.
Do your RESEARCH, and look at their voting records, their history. Debates are nothing more than a media show for effect.
Geez. I can't believe you sheep are willing to believe what a candidate says in front of the camera rather than what they do!
"Bitter... party of one... your table is ready..." [xx(]
'Gotcha' politics: Meanwhile, the war goes on and the economy tanksSaturday, April 19, 2008
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08110/874752-35.stm
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
That's just racist and sexist. You should be ashamed.
More examples of how far removed from tolerance you seem to be. No racism in that comment what so ever. I would not want to have a 50+year old virgin as president. That's not sexist. It could apply to a man too.
CF, to say that old devilish poster AOX is a drive by and failure in logic is unfair. FOTD keeps this board fair and balanced. AOX retired. We devils operate in the Fourth Estate....
Don't try to shame me either. That and when Iplaw get his whips and chains out does not work.
You are a sad little man. Now you refer to yourself in the third person and call the most visibly successful black woman in America (next to Oprah) a failure. Graduated high school at 15, professor and provost at Stanford, foreign policy advisor to Gary Hart in his run for President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, on the board of numerous corporations...
Yeah, that's smokin' failure Aox. I'm sure your life has been far more of a blooming success than hers.
FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political but am of the opinion that the Pres/Sec of State's open trade agreement is screwing the American people out of its previous world industrial standing of at the tune of a $250 billions dollars yearly loss in balance of payments.
We don't even make many of our flags or footballs any more.
After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?
After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all? Closed party primaries? Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?
Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span. I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.
I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats. Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.
I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out. However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.
Conan, I honestly do not know how aox can keep coming back here and expect anyone to take him seriously. But you have to give him credit, he will not take "you are banned" for an answer.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political
He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before. I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political
He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before. I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.
FOTARD would.
John Stewart's take on the dem. primary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zi6mP6l6nBI
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Conan, I honestly do not know how aox can keep coming back here and expect anyone to take him seriously. But you have to give him credit, he will not take "you are banned" for an answer.
Ever have a cardinal (bird) that keeps repeatedly running into a plate-glass window. I had one outside of my office last year. Just kept flying into the window all day long until it had no feathers on its head. That's a familiar analogy. I think of the little red bird with the self-inflicted retardation every time I see a FOTD post.
Here he comes again!(http://livingindryden.org/images/birds/cardinalA04052004B.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One when watching the bias being displayed is preempted by the McCain/Rice ticket possibility that will include gender, race, and war time experience in the present war time environment. Next thing to watch is what is back of the smoke screen. The campaigning has not even begun.
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
That's just racist and sexist. You should be ashamed.
More examples of how far removed from tolerance you seem to be. No racism in that comment what so ever. I would not want to have a 50+year old virgin as president. That's not sexist. It could apply to a man too.
CF, to say that old devilish poster AOX is a drive by and failure in logic is unfair. FOTD keeps this board fair and balanced. AOX retired. We devils operate in the Fourth Estate....
Don't try to shame me either. That and when Iplaw get his whips and chains out does not work.
You are a sad little man. Now you refer to yourself in the third person and call the most visibly successful black woman in America (next to Oprah) a failure. Graduated high school at 15, professor and provost at Stanford, foreign policy advisor to Gary Hart in his run for President, National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, on the board of numerous corporations...
Yeah, that's smokin' failure Aox. I'm sure your life has been far more of a blooming success than hers.
Anyone know if OTASCO is still open anywhere....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?
After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all? Closed party primaries? Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?
Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span. I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.
I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats. Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.
I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out. However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.
Most of these rules in the primary process are just party rules. They are not law, they are bylaws of the parties themselves. The only way to change the process for the next election cycle is to be a delegate during this cycle. When the delegates meet at the conventions, they vote on all the party bylaws. So, if there were to be a major overhaul in how the party chooses to select it's nominee, actual people who hold this view would need to be making their way up the delegate process right now to do so.
In a nutshell, the nomination process is whatever the hell the party wants it to be. The primary votes cast really have nothing to do it, the actual party members and active participants in the Republican/Democrat partys decide everything. The delegates could pass a new rule saying that the nominee is decided with a dartboard with different names on it.
As far as coordination (getting them to hold the primaries in a more compact timeframe), this is difficult, because each state has its own Republican/Democrat party. They all decide on their own what to do. The National Committee can try to make decrees, or punish state parties to get them to submit, but we all saw how well that worked this year with Florida and Michigan. Each of these states are vying for a better position, because most of them want to be first and get all of the attention. I'm not sure what the ones with the super late primaries are thinking :)
I'm more interested in figuring out what laws and schemes make it so impossible for there to be more than two big parties to have an easy time to get ballot access. I understand the media aspect is totally seperated from the law, but I keep hearing it is impossible to get fair ballot access anywhere unless you have Ross Perot's money.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political
He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before. I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.
FOTARD would.
Your pronouncing it incorrectly, it's FOTURD, the "s" is silent...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
FOTD quote
No possibility of Rice on a ticket. Besides being a virgin, she's an absolute failure. Her record would kill their small chance.
I am not aware where preference to participate in the sex revolution sweeping the country is political
He was referring to her as a political virgin, as in she has not run for office before. I don't think anyone is, or wants to, talk about Condi's sex life or lack thereof.
FOTARD would.
Your pronouncing it incorrectly, it's FOTURD, the "s" is silent...
lol. Is that from Family Guy?
Nooooocuuulaaar. Why yes it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?
After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all? Closed party primaries? Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?
Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span. I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.
I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats. Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.
I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out. However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.
I'd like to see the primary season shrunk by a couple of months. There's just no reason for us to have drawn this out as long as it has. Other than to allow time for more money to be raised.
I'd like to see the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine%22) for cable and network TV channels and for radio channels as well (essentially, over all the spectrum that the government owns). This might help encourage news outlets to back away a bit from inflammatory, entertainment style reporting, and at least reconsider more balanced journalism.
But unfortunately, I think most reform efforts are doomed to failure, mostly because, at core, spending money has been ruled free speech by the SCOTUS, and that informs everything about our modern political system. And if political speech = money, then money will define the system.
Note: I'm not against "political speech = money" on its face, but I think we're seeing the unintended consequences of that ruling in our increasingly warped election process.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
After this election marathon, which is still more than six months from conclusion, what changes to the next Presidential election cycle would any of you recommend?
After the two month wait from Super Tuesday to Pa, should primaries be changed to a one-day winner take-all? Closed party primaries? Should candidates be required to resign from other Federal Gov't posts?
Personally, I'd like to see it all condensed into no more than a year and get all primaries moved into a one month span. I think there's adequate time for candidates to get their message out three months prior to the primaries.
I'm also of the opinion that McCain, Clinton, and Obama should have all been required to give up their Senate seats. Not only has it resulted in spotty job performance in their elected duties, but it's had to have influenced how they have voted on some issues because now they are being judged by the entire U.S. constituency, not just their home state.
I do believe the turbulent times we live in and potential election of a minority will result in record-high voter turn-out. However, the long election span is going to result in all-time voter turn-off.
I'd like to see the primary season shrunk by a couple of months. There's just no reason for us to have drawn this out as long as it has. Other than to allow time for more money to be raised.
I'd like to see the FCC reinstate the Fairness Doctrine (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine%22) for cable and network TV channels and for radio channels as well (essentially, over all the spectrum that the government owns). This might help encourage news outlets to back away a bit from inflammatory, entertainment style reporting, and at least reconsider more balanced journalism.
But unfortunately, I think most reform efforts are doomed to failure, mostly because, at core, spending money has been ruled free speech by the SCOTUS, and that informs everything about our modern political system. And if political speech = money, then money will define the system.
Note: I'm not against "political speech = money" on its face, but I think we're seeing the unintended consequences of that ruling in our increasingly warped election process.
Just because somthin has a nice name, "fairness" doesn't make it a good thing. If you examine the Fairness Doctrine it goes beyond simple election law and limits first amendment rights.
For instance, If I call into a radio or TV show and in my commentary I mention that I support/do not support Hillary Clinton, they would be required by law to give equal time to the opposite opinion. Sounds fair enough, right?
Well, the origional purpose of the Fareness Doctrine dates back to 1927 and was premised on the notion that electromagnetic frequencies, being "scarce," needed to be rationed through a government-granted license. (It took economist Ronald Coase to note, three decades later, that airwaves are no more scarce than pulp and printing presses.) Station owners were thus periodically licensed as "public trustees" and obligated to either air different points of view, or return their spectrum. Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.
This has nothing to do with Equal Time, which is still granted to candidates, but the reach of the fairness doctrine was limited and eventually dismantled by the Reagan administration because candidates were successful in arguing outrageous claims to gain network time and politicize what would otherwise be simple news stories, editorials, and even documentaries and syndicated TV shows, claiming that they deserve the time because their opinion differed from what ever media was being produced.
The only thing the Doctrine was successful in producing was a fearful, litigious media, and as a result, an ill informed public. It was a socialist measure that could not stand up to the constitution of our representative republic.
Additionally the fairness doctrine would now put an end to all forms of talk or opinion on the radio or TV. Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise.
Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.
[/quote]
I may agree with your conclusions but this part is not a good comparison. Airwaves are public property. One of my law professors assured us that the public owns not only their land but the air above it. Thus a newspaper or magazine is using their own capital and resources to influence your opinions which you pay to receive, while broadcasters use your airspace without personal permission. Even cable uses your land through an easement. Being accountable through a "trust" relationship seems reasonable, not Socialist.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Hence the nascent broadcasting medium was never allowed to develop with the full panoply of First Amendment protections for opinion, commentary, and outright partisanship, as were newspapers.
quote:
I may agree with your conclusions but this part is not a good comparison. Airwaves are public property. One of my law professors assured us that the public owns not only their land but the air above it. Thus a newspaper or magazine is using their own capital and resources to influence your opinions which you pay to receive, while broadcasters use your airspace without personal permission. Even cable uses your land through an easement. Being accountable through a "trust" relationship seems reasonable, not Socialist.
You are correct, you choose to receive the newspaper. However the analogy stands because you cannot see or be influenced by the airwaves above your property unless you make the conscious choice to turn on the radio or TV and tune to a specific channel of your choice. The supreme court took this into great consideration.
The Fairness Doctrine also creates a slippery slope in todays world that cannot be ignored. Various religious organizations have attempted to revive it because it would be required to apply, in today's world, to the internet, thus destroying the free and sometimes anarchistic nature of that media. Personal blogs, corporate web-pages, even MySpace would be subject to analysis and dismantlement.
Our information and communication systems would be crippled and subject to an ever-increasing amount of government regulation and review. Huge amounts of resources and bureaucracy would have to be established to monitor and police speech. If that's not fascism bordering on (and eventually disintegrating into) socialism, I don't know what is.
Not arguing your conclusions, just the logic of some oversight of public interests/properties by government. Yes, I can change the channel or turn off the tube but with that argument access to free speech using my airwaves is limited as well. Eventually you just succumb to mediocrity and conformity of opinion.
I cannot buy into your slippery slope assertions. Every system seems to have elements of fascism, socialism, capitalism and a host of other ism's. They morph into each other when deemed acceptable to the majority such as the aftermath of 911. If you want purity in governmental systems I'm afraid you will always be dissatisfied. I don't mind the government spending some time to make sure that I am not unduly exploited by the likes of Fox, CNN, ABC et.al. and their insipid executives. I have watched over the last thirty years as editorial content dropped from 25 minutes per half hour to about 15minutes. And have become dizzy from a blurring of lines between opinion, fantasy and provable facts all to improve their bottom line. Even sports coverage is infected. I really don't think there is a socialist behind every decision to protect my public interests.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Not arguing your conclusions, just the logic of some oversight of public interests/properties by government. Yes, I can change the channel or turn off the tube but with that argument access to free speech using my airwaves is limited as well. Eventually you just succumb to mediocrity and conformity of opinion.
I cannot buy into your slippery slope assertions. Every system seems to have elements of fascism, socialism, capitalism and a host of other ism's. They morph into each other when deemed acceptable to the majority such as the aftermath of 911. If you want purity in governmental systems I'm afraid you will always be dissatisfied. I don't mind the government spending some time to make sure that I am not unduly exploited by the likes of Fox, CNN, ABC et.al. and their insipid executives. I have watched over the last thirty years as editorial content dropped from 25 minutes per half hour to about 15minutes. And have become dizzy from a blurring of lines between opinion, fantasy and provable facts all to improve their bottom line. Even sports coverage is infected. I really don't think there is a socialist behind every decision to protect my public interests.
Agreed! I just view the Fairness Doctrine as senseless in todays world. Liberals want to use it as a weapon against anyone that says anything negative about them, and Conservatives want to use it as a means for moral and religious regulation. It has no place in our government. Even the most liberal-socialist leaning supreme court judges see it as unconstitutional.
I'm glad it existed, because in the 60s through the 80s it taught people how dangerous FCC regulation could get! Once it was eliminated, the airwaves exploded with free thought, diversity, and exchange.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Additionally the fairness doctrine would now put an end to all forms of talk or opinion on the radio or TV. Liberal, Conservative, or otherwise.
You say it like that would be a bad thing... [;)]
You know, I keep hearing all this stuff in the media about dems playing the "race" card, the "gender" card, the "victim" card........ but somehow when republicans play the "socialist" card against the democrats, it's hard to find anyone from the
Clear Channel dominated media to call them on it...
Hmmm.
Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.
Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?
If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time? What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?
On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective. Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?
Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million. Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media? YouTube videos?
As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate. If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?
Who is entitled to equal time? Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -
It just doesn't make sense. The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair." Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society. Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.
If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented. A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.
Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?
If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time? What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?
On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective. Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?
Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million. Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media? YouTube videos?
As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate. If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?
Who is entitled to equal time? Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -
It just doesn't make sense. The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair." Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society. Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.
If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented. A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.
CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated. There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.) There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech. There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.
It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).
I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.
Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior. And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what? How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?
I did not intend to set up straw men, merely implying what government regulation entails. You (they) have to determine where to draw the "fair" line. I doubt they will go as far as I suggested, but in all seriousness someone needs to say "no, that's too far" within the "Government Media Fairness Board." And if that concept does not cause concern, you trust government much more than I.
quote:
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what?
Nothing. People, and even corporations, have freedom of speech. Political speech above all else. The press has guaranteed freedom to report as they see fit. The government should not, in any way, dictate or even suggest what items should be covered nor how.
While I share your concerns with media pandering to government officials, there is always someone to buck the trend. No one was more beloved to the Media than Bill, until Drudge launched a media career reporting negatively on his relationships. The news gets out, perhaps not always as efficiently as one would hope - but good reporting by the smallest source forces the "major" outlets to talk about it.
I guess what I'm saying is that news is business. The BBC, CBA, NPR, and Deutsche Welle Radio have the luxury of serving the public good first - but CNN and Fox do not. The system is not perfect, but in the history of the world our current system delivers more information than ever before (and most of its crap). I guess we rely on activists like Bates to do the hard reporting if it comes to that...
And consider this: under the current system the governments message in compliantly filtered through the media, under a "fair" system the governments message is dictated - at least in part, to the media. Lest you think the government is going to force negative reporting on the government, or against whatever party is in power, or not turn corrupt and bureaucratic - you're damned if you do...
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wevus, apply the "fairness doctrine" for me.
Would Rush, Hannity, and their ilk have to reverse their view points or just get off the air whole sale?
If Obama's preachers cursed out America would they have to report then then pick on Hillary about something for an equal amount of time? What if they were meaner to Obama than Hillary, does the level of meanness have anything to do with the allotment of time?
On Hannity and Colmes the issues get about equal time, but Hannity is far more effective. Does Colmes get an extra 5 minutes to make up for his ineffectiveness?
Hillary has 31.3 Million Google hits, Obama has 27.2 million. Would Google have to redirect 500,000 hits to make sure they had fair media? YouTube videos?
As a private citizen, I can pay for air time to advertise whatever I want. Including for or against a political candidate. If I paid for a "John McCain is a liberal" commercial, would they have to run a commercial the other way even if no one wanted to pay for it?
Who is entitled to equal time? Just Republicans and Democrats or the communist party, the Nazis, and everyone else on the ballot?
- - -
It just doesn't make sense. The government telling everyone who, what and when to say things in order to keep it "fair." Not only is it not workable, it goes against the basic tenants of our society. Telling station owners, hosts, and guests what to represent and telling consumers what they will listen to doesn't sound "fair" to me.
If people did not like what they heard, or demanded other outlets and points of view - it would be represented. A government mandate of "fairness" just isn't a workable concept.
CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated. There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.) There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech. There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.
It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).
I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.
Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior. And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what? How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?
I'll take this one. . .
Ok, first of all, when you say "the market" what you are really saying is the American People (because we are the companies and individuals that vote with our dollars and comprise the market). Therefore when you refer to "us" in your statements you are referring to a group that is separate from the american people (YOU and those that think like YOU).
So lets look at what you said:
. . . the AMERICAN PEOPLE are incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I prefer using THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.
Since THE AMERICAN PEOPLE value profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior. And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what? How do you encourage THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?"Civic Good" is not for you to decide. We are a nation of people that vote politically AND economically. These things are separate. If you rely on government to regulate business then you have Fascism. Fascism is only popular among groups of people that realize that they have no power to sway opinion except through the exercise of government. This elitist attitude has never and will never work as long as we live in an open capitalist environment (because the "Government" and "The Market" are the same people).
Many who share this elitist attitude, that it is the government's duty to impose civic good, outside of a mandate of the people, fail to recognize that they must first dismantle capitalism for their government imposed framework to stand (and therefore the government must be comprised of people outside of "The Market" I.E. fellow elitists).
Air America is an excellent example. Their biggest push was in the enforcement of what they branded as "civic good." They attempted humor, but it disintegrated into angry talk, finger pointing, and assignment of guilt. . . thus alienating the very people necessary for the support of their elitist causes (the sponsors). At that point they attempted to argue that it was the government's (the tax payers) duty to fund them in the name of equal time. They pushed "The Fairness Doctrine" like it was the savior of mankind, but their dwindling hand full of listeners had no power to make that happen.
I understand that you may not share my views but when you attempt to demonize using terms like "the market," you are doing the same thing as saying
"the American People are stupid, so how can we use government to limit their choices and decision-making power."People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran
I (heart) Gaspar.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
CF, you've set up some pretty heavy straw men up there, none of which accurately reflect anything about how the Fairness Doctrine historically operated. There were never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- tit for tat time swaps (ie. Rush gets 3 hours so Franken gets 3 hours.) There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- government evaluating the effectiveness of Colmes vs. Hannity, and applying handicaps to the better speaker to bring down the level of speech. There was never -- and I'm not suggesting there should be -- a way to apportion floating Google hits to the deficient candidate.
It's also not about granting mail-bombers or pedophiles or cannibals a free podium for talking about healthcare or crop subsidies (though it might have helped Ron Paul during the primaries, as well as Biden and Dodd and Richardson, etc).
I brought it up because I think that one of the major lessons of the Bush years is that corporate media is much more acquiescent to the government than we ever expected it to be, and there should be an effort to find ways to re-separate the two. IMO, the market is incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I'd prefer using the market to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.
Since the market values profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior. And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what? How do you encourage the market to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?
I'll take this one. . .
Ok, first of all, when you say "the market" what you are really saying is the American People (because we are the companies and individuals that vote with our dollars and comprise the market). Therefore when you refer to "us" in your statements you are referring to a group that is separate from the american people (YOU and those that think like YOU).
So lets look at what you said:
. . . the AMERICAN PEOPLE are incapable of encouraging civic values, which is a shame, because I prefer using THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to get us to fairer representation, tougher questions for the government, and much more in-depth and skeptical reporting.
Since THE AMERICAN PEOPLE value profit only - and not amorphous "for-the-good-of-the-country" crap -- we're never going to see a change in behavior. And among other things, that's what our democracy needs.
So, if not a Fairness Doctrine, what? How do you encourage THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to reflect the civic good if it doesn't do so naturally?
"Civic Good" is not for you to decide. We are a nation of people that vote politically AND economically. These things are separate. If you rely on government to regulate business then you have Fascism. Fascism is only popular among groups of people that realize that they have no power to sway opinion except through the exercise of government. This elitist attitude has never and will never work as long as we live in an open capitalist environment (because the "Government" and "The Market" are the same people).
Many who share this elitist attitude, that it is the government's duty to impose civic good, outside of a mandate of the people, fail to recognize that they must first dismantle capitalism for their government imposed framework to stand (and therefore the government must be comprised of people outside of "The Market" I.E. fellow elitists).
Air America is an excellent example. Their biggest push was in the enforcement of what they branded as "civic good." They attempted humor, but it disintegrated into angry talk, finger pointing, and assignment of guilt. . . thus alienating the very people necessary for the support of their elitist causes (the sponsors). At that point they attempted to argue that it was the government's (the tax payers) duty to fund them in the name of equal time. They pushed "The Fairness Doctrine" like it was the savior of mankind, but their dwindling hand full of listeners had no power to make that happen.
I understand that you may not share my views but when you attempt to demonize using terms like "the market," you are doing the same thing as saying "the American People are stupid, so how can we use government to limit their choices and decision-making power."
People who create things nowadays can expect to be prosecuted by highly moralistic people who are incapable of creating anything. There is no way to measure the chilling effect on innovation that results from the threats of taxation, regulation and prosecution against anything that succeeds. We'll never know how many ideas our government has aborted in the name protecting us. – Joseph Sobran
The Market does not equal the American People. That's a dishonest substitution that twists my meaning.
Your habit of trying to label my arguments as fascist is getting old real fast. Nothing I'm suggesting comes anywhere near fascism. Government regulation of something does not immediately make it fascism. Dictionary.com defines fascism as:
quote:
fas·cism 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
I am explicitely talking about levels of corporate regulation, not complete and utter control of every economic move you make. Would you call the modern US a fascist state? Because we sure do regulate the economy in all kinds of ways right now, and current crises notwithstanding, that's worked pretty well so far. And if not, then let's ease up on the name-calling, because I'm arguing for levels of the same stuff, not for anything new.
I also don't have any contempt for market economics but I don't think it accomplishes certain tasks well at all, while it is exceptional at accomplishing certain other things. One thing it is good at is making lots of people money. One thing it is not good at is valuing something for other than profit. One good reason for a degree of government regulation is to encourage the free market in directions it might otherwise not go because of lack of profit, but in directions that are otherwise good for our society. (And I'm not talking about "good" in the elitist-pinko-commie-liberal sense; I'm talking "good" in the "desirable direction to aim our country as decided upon by our elected representatives-sense.) But once again, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FASCISM OR TOTAL GOVERMENT CONTROL. I'm talking about how democracy and capitalism interact.
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press. Check with the Founding Fathers on that one; they were big fans. I believe that one of our biggest problems with the press is that news divisions are profit centers first, and news divisions second. You may see that as an ideal situation, but to me that that takes away the "independent and adversarial" part of the press that we need, and makes them beholden to interests other than the People. It makes them beholden to their Shareholders only, and that, I'm sure you'll agree, does not represent the whole country.
I'm actually betting you've never seen the movie "Network." You should. It's absolutely worth a viewing. You might understand better what I'm talking about.
So, we don't have to talk about the Fairness Doctrine as written in 1967, but we should talk about ways to give the press some breathing room, a way to not have to be in pursuit of the bottom line all the time. I have no desire to tell journalists what to write, or pundits what to say, but I do have an interest in helping them say things more clearly.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
. . . One good reason for a degree of government regulation is to encourage the free market in directions it might otherwise not go because of lack of profit, but in directions that are otherwise good for our society.
Not government's job.
quote:
I have no desire to tell journalists what to write, or pundits what to say, but I do have an interest in helping them say things more clearly.
Not your job.
We have unbridled free media. We have strong liberal network broadcasters, and strong conservative voices, and have libertarians like Boortz that use logic to make fun of both of them.
To propose that it should be the government's job to decide what is fair is beyond ridiculous.
Yes these programs are funded by sponsors that in many cases have an interest in what is said as it affects the sale of their product. If the sale of their product is dependent on an ever increasing listening group, they tend to agree with whatever brings the people to that market.
If the the programs go in a direction that alienates the public or decreases listenership the sponsor will drop the program, and the broadcaster risks decreased profit.
So once again, the rains remain in the hands of the american people who listen to or watch the programs. My example of Air America saying "sponsors be damned and therefore "listeners be damned" is still the perfect example of why government should stay out of it.
Ideas, news and culture must be allowed to stand on it's own!
quote:
Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press
On this, we are in 100% agreement. I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink). But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press
On this, we are in 100% agreement. I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink). But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.
Then how does the situation change? Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it? And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?
Gaspar, I sometimes think you're writing from somewhere deep in a Dickens novel. Your political views are like 1800's retro; your laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor. It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Wevus wrote
A working democracy needs an independent and adversarial press
On this, we are in 100% agreement. I also agree that the press is too cozy with the government, and the government often tries to keep it that way (you won't get on Hillary's nor McCain's bus by being mean to them in ink). But I fail to see how the government will remedy this situation when it stands to bennefit from it.
Then how does the situation change? Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it? And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?
Gaspar, I sometimes think you're writing from somewhere deep in a Dickens novel. Your political views are like 1800's retro; your laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor. It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.
No we just see the world differently. When I see a company like Phillips Petroleum or Microsoft, or OneOak I see success, employment and prosperity. You see corporate greed.
When I see successful people, I think good for them! How can I learn from that example.
When you see successful people, you envy their wealth and think "how can I make them share that with the rest of us?" Government regulation is your only hope.
It's just a different world view. I respect both sides, I just recognize what works and what does not.
As for your comment about "more poor" that is ridiculous! The more freedom from government regulation in a community, the less poor. It proven, measurable and you can see the examples in communities across the country and around the world!!!!! (that would be 5 exclamation points).
The pattern is as old as human life. The new rulers use more and more force, more police, more soldiers, trying to enforce more efficient control, trying to make the planned economy work by piling regulations on regulations, decree on decree. The people are hungry and hungrier. And how does a man on this earth get butter? Doesn't the government give butter? But government does not produce food from the earth; Government is guns. It is one common distinction of all civilized peoples, that they give their guns to the Government. Men in Government monopolize the necessary use of force; they are not using their energies productively; they are not milking cows. To get butter, they must use guns; they have nothing else to use. – Rose Wilder LaneIn order to prevent democracy from becoming a tyranny over minorities, individual rights must supersede all democratic voting and all regulations. Rights must come first. Laws should come second, and only to protect those rights; nothing more. – Stuart K. HayashiSimple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex, intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple, stupid behavior. – Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of Visa CorpThe beneficial effect of state intervention, especially in the form of legislation, is direct, immediate, and so to speak, visible, while its evil effects are gradual and indirect and lay out of sight ... Hence the majority of mankind must almost of necessity look with undue favor upon governmental intervention. – A. V. DiceyThere is nothing new in state interventionism. It is as old and reactionary as societal organization itself. Always, when it permeates the body politic, it kills the nation. – Spruille BradenWhenever there is some trouble in any area of the economy, the simplest solution to many people is "Let the government fix it." Yet ... every time the government uses its money or its power to favor this group or that ... the net result is such a web of supports, subsidies, interventions and controls that it is almost impossible for a nation to find its way back into a dynamic system of really free enterprise. – Lawrence FertigAnd finally the best lesson of all:
The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. – Henry Hazlitt in Economics in One LessonI could go on for ever! What lessons has strict government regulation ever taught us that are good? Any?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
Then how does the situation change? Do we sit back and hope that the market swings around sometime to address it? And if it doesn't . . . then it wasn't important anyway?
. . .
[The]laissez faire economics get us nothing but Robber Barons, monopolies, widescale labor riots, and legions upon legions of poor. It's Gilded Age stuff, pretty straight away.
I don't know, and am not that concerned about it. Currently many media outlets are buddy buddy, but not all . Huffington, Drudge, several major newspapers and a litany of other media outlets do investigations and are open to "leaks," they are more than happy to run with stories. Even CBS recently was more than happy to run with news against the administration - even without verification.
The relationship is tenuous, but I don't think the press is totally out. Certainly not to any intervention point. And of course the market point about people not wanting to pay for hard news as much AND the idea that the government is not likely to do a good job forcing the media to be critical of it.
- - -
Also, laissez faire economics transformed the United States into the worlds economic super power. It has made more no-ones into rich here than elsewhere. What do you think caused the internet boom to happen in the United States instead of elsewhere? Why are oil jobs booming in Tulsa (just contracted a $3mil tank made in Tulsa to go to Korea)?
The hands off approach leads to more economic disparity than other methods, but 'have nots' in capitalist system have more than the average person elsewhere.
Also worth noting, your notion of Robber Barons and monopolies is not in line with Smith's laissez faire economics. Government intervention is proper to correct market errors - which includes manipulation, imperfect information, and abuse. So robber barons, monopolies, coercive employers (ie. company towns) should face recourse from the government to correct these flaws.
Corruption and abuse is a danger in any system. In fact, it manifests itself more strongly in less open, less free systems. So the fact that it exists in capitalism should not be held against it to the exclusion of all other economic systems.
Gaspar...I think I have my first Internet crush...[:I]
Adam Smith would be so proud of you right now...
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Gaspar...I think I have my first Internet crush...[:I]
Adam Smith would be so proud of you right now...
Awww! [:I]
I'm also one of the few people on earth that thinks Ayn Rand is hot!
(http://home.ca.inter.net/~grantsky/rand.jpg)
She has a sexy brain!
WevsUs, FOTD, and a host of others. I have the ultimate website for you. It makes me laugh, but it could help you to strengthen your arguments rather than just raise your voices.
http://www.governmentisgood.com/index.php
It is basically the opposite of how I believe so I give it to you as a gift. It seems to fit your clumsy but passionate arguments.
You're welcome!
P.S. CF it's good for a laugh!
And I thought Helen Thomas was hot!
You whack job Anne Coulter from the looks of the avatar, Ken.[^]
Chelsea packing 'em at a North Carolina "rally"
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/slideshow/photo//080505/photos_wl_afp/f2ee160380ad4cd547eecd3ce3b5e6c6/
She needs a better outfit. Was this some Puritan convention?
The end is near.....for Hilldog and then for McFlintstone......
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/operation-anti-chaos-the_b_99965.html
"I turn on the TV, read the political columnists (and a significant number of analytically-challenged bloggers, too) and all I hear is a bunch of white folk prattling on about their favorite narrative: "Obama's losing white voters!"
They've swallowed the Clinton racially-obsessed spin, hook, line and sinker. Some, because they are gullible, haven't an original idea in their little pea brains, and follow the pack of what everybody else is talking about. Others, because they like to toss around knowing falsehoods. Nary a superdelegate can go on Fox News without being berated by an anchorperson screeching (this is pretty close to an exact quote): "But your duty as a superdelegate is to select the most electable and that's Hillary Clinton!" That these anchorpersons are Republican partisans openly cheering for Senator Clinton is our first clue of the game afoot. One of the major successes of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos is that it has got all the right-wing pundits and reporters marching lockstep behind the effort to give Clinton enough oxygen to keep slashing away at Senator Obama, who remains the prohibitive likely Democratic nominee.
And when Clinton wins state primaries that, because of demographics, she was always going to win - last week, Pennsylvania and next week, Indiana - they then wave that event up like a blood-soaked flag as proof of their narrative: See? See? We told you so! White people won't vote for Obama!
So imagine my pleasant surprise this morning to see a New York Times columnist, Charles Blow, who did what none of these chattering lunkheads have done. He looked at the hard data of how voters, white and black, view the two Democratic candidates - favorably or negatively? - and how those views have progressed over time. The data is based on multiple CBS-New York Times polls (among the most respected survey outfits among competing pollsters) over two years and more. Check it out: (go to link)
Nobody - not blogger, nor superdelegate, nor cable news anchor - should open their mouths with another word about this contest until they've studied those graphs and the numbers upon which they are based. Blow explains:
Since January, the Clintons have pummeled Barack Obama with racially tinged comments and questions about his character...
The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.
Wait. The numbers show that the cynical effort to turn the 2008 campaign into a race riot has hurt the popularity of one candidate among an important demographic, and it's not Barack Obama:
On the other hand, black Democrats' opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).
So, to sum up: Look at the damn graphs. You can see that Clinton is in a staggering free-fall among African-American voters, her favorability is down 36 points while 17 percent view her more negatively than before, while Obama's favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. You can even see the small dip - about two percentage points - in his popularity among whites that can be attributed to the news cycles about his ex-pastor, and see that it has leveled out and is now on a straight horizontal line (meanwhile, Clinton's numbers among blacks continue on an extreme downward precipice). The greater context is that even including Obama's slight dip, he's more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.
Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That's what is meant, in politics, by the term "Teflon."
Those facts won't stop many media (and Internet) talking heads from continuing - whether out of gullibility or intentional dishonesty - to prop up the "white voters" narrative, but it ought to inoculate you, kind reader, from believing it.
Don't let yourself get upset when some idiot repeats the false media narrative. Don't plead with them to tell the truth (they won't; remember, they're either stupid or dishonest). Mock them. Ridicule them. Expose them as the lightweights they are showing themselves to be, with all the confidence that understanding the hard data ought to provide you.
Let Operation Anti-Chaos begin!"