Apparently John McCain’s campaign manager is contending that Palin is being shielded from the media, not because she can’t handle an interview, but because they’re gonna be mean to her:
“Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children?” he asked. “So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment,” he said.
Three things occur to me:
1) If McCain’s people were taking this position with a male candidate, the perception would be that he’s weak and inept. So McCain’s people are banking on the concept that her being a woman will preclude that criticism, because anyone who says that will be tagged as being insulting and anti-feminist.
2) This sounds unbelievably patronizing to her and monumentally arrogant to the media. They’re saying she can’t handle tough questions, or at least shouldn’t have to, and they are endeavoring to dictate terms as to how the media has to treat her in order to rate an interview.
3) Someone who needs this much handling and protection doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in contemplating her being toe-to-toe with various foreign dictators and strong men, particularly if a stilled heartbeat thrusts her into the presidency anytime after January 2009. Golda Meir didn’t need insulation. Neither did Margaret Thatcher, to whom Palin has ludicrously been compared. Well…NOW Thatcher needs insulation, because she has dementia. So basically Sarah Palin needs as much protection as a former world leader who has trouble recalling her husband is dead. Make of that what you will.
PAD
• 
Oh, and the “huge jet on eBay” scandal that you’re spending so much time decrying, Timothy? Old news; I haven’t heard it mentioned or read anything about it in days. At most, it’s an issue of a pattern of misrepresenting the facts; at least, it’s a bit of a silly gaffe on McCain’s part. If anybody thinks that particular issue is or should be a deal-breaker, they’ll get the government they deserve.
TWL
Me: “3- Just so you know… I dislike Obama and have been sharply critical of him.”
Timothy Butler: “3)Apparently, not as much as Palin. What don’t you like about Obama?”
Two things with this.
“What don’t you like about Obama?”
On this blog, in my own blog and elsewhere I’ve criticized his lack of experience, questionable judgment on some issues and questionable judgment in regards to his past relations with some people.
“Apparently, not as much as Palin.”
You don’t really pay attention to much when reading a thread, do you? My first post in this thread can be found above at September 8, 2008 07:31 PM. It posts a link to Factcheck.org that debunks a number of the wilder falsehoods thrown against Governor Palin by the more questionable sources on the web and in the fringe.
See, unlike you it appears, I don’t judge facts based on whether or not they’re supportive of or damaging to people who politically or ideologically disagree with me. I don’t throw of straw dogs like your MSM and Kos remark to simply brush aside facts. If something is a documented fact then there’s not a lot you can do about it but (1) accept it, (2) cover your ears and eyes and pretend that there’s a reason to dismiss it or (3) simply lie. I grew tired of being around large groups of people who enjoyed options 2 & 3 some time ago.
I don’t want to be one of the blind faithful for either side. I dislike Obama and have said so. But I will defend Obama against complete fabrications such as the garbage that comes from guys like Rush, Hannity and Corsi. I dislike Palin. But, as the evidence above in this very thread shows, I will defend her from the dimmer fringe smears and lies. Likewise, I will call a foul on lies from Obama-Biden just as quickly as I will on McCain-Palin.
If you simply want to dismiss facts because you don’t personally like what they say about the person you support; it’s your right to do so. But don’t expect others to not point out that you’re as much one of the blind, clueless faithful for Palin as some of the dimmest of the left are blind, clueless faithful supporters of Obama.
Do I have a perfectly clean record in this regard? No, but I try to not simply be a blind partisan for either side. Just above today’s string of posts you’ll note where I mentioned the Mindless Right’s use of “Socialist” and “socialism” and what I thought of it. As harsh as I was I should have countered it out a bit by pointing out that it is the Right’s version of the Mindless Left screaming “Fascism” at every opportunity. Mulligan ended up pointing that out and I agreed with him after the fact. But no one here should doubt that I believe that the Mindless and Extreme Left has been as dumb and shrill as the Mindless and Extreme Right since I’ve made those comments, including referencing the lefts use of “fascism” and it’s throwing around the Hitler comparisons a little too easily and wrongly, a number of times before on this blog.
Again, say what you want and believe what you want. It’s your right to do so. But you should realize when your making a fool of yourself with claims of bias and your Kos/MSM remarks and be prepared to have it pointed out to you when you’re acting every bit the blind faithful who’s in denial about what the person you support is really like.
Tim Lynch: “Oh, and the “huge jet on eBay” scandal that you’re spending so much time decrying, Timothy? Old news; I haven’t heard it mentioned or read anything about it in days.”
He was responding to me. I brought it up as an example of the overall pattern of lies and distortions about her past, her credentials and her accomplishments that have come straight from her mouth or the mouths of McCain and the McCain camp about her since she was introduced as his running mate.
Whoops; you’re right, Jerry. Sorry about that. I’d still say that it’s an “at worst” situation — it’s arguably indicative of the way the campaign is working, but it’s hardly the be-all and end-all.
Jumping back a bit: In the novel Telempath, Robinson supposed that consistent sensory overload can lead to autism. This at least had some data to support it, in that most autists do display one or more senses that seem incredibly acute (often one’s sense of hearing or touch); it has been demonstrated since the novel was written (in the mid-’70s, don’t recall the exact date) that Robinson’s hypothesis was more a case of putting the cart before the horse. The sensory sensitivity would seem to be a side effect of the autism, rather than a cause.
As for the specific reference, it was to the idea that the Hyperosmic Virus, once it removed every human’s ability to filter their sense of smell, caused the vast majority of humans to either go insane or retreat into autism. (If one were to propose a change to make it fit the modern day, besides changing dates, it might be good to change all the references to “autism” to “catatonia” instead – severe sensory overload can cause a patient to retreat into a catatonic state to avoid the input.)
I now return you to your regularly-scheduled illogical rancor toward those who try to point out that Emperor Palin has no clothes…
Timothy Butler: She’s more qualified for the job she’s running for than Obama is qualified for the job he’s running for.
Luigi Novi: I seriously wonder if the people who assert this about Obama have actually looked into his record. I did some checking, and he has a few Wikipedia articles devoted entirely to his early career, his state senate career, and his U.S. Senate career, that branch off from his main article, and his list of achievements is quite impressive. I listed a summary of some of them near the end of my September 7, 5:27pm post in Peter’s August 29 “Sarah Palin” thread. The list includes things that lend themselves to his foreign policy knowledge.
By contrast, Palin has no such article pertaining to her early career. The article on her mayoralty appears to consist more of her conflicts with other officials and corruption scandals than of her accomplishments. The article on her governorship fares slightly better, with such conflict only appearing further down in that article, though it’s obviously there. I see nothing in those articles that qualifies her to be V.P., much less President. Obama has actually foreign policy experience, and has met with foreign heads of state. Palin says that you can see Russia from the coast of Alaska.
So on what basis have you concluded this? Have you actually looked at Obama’s record?
Timothy Butler: I can say that getting one’s news from Daily Kos and/or even the mainstream media outlets is not advisable. The amount of “information” that has been fabricated to attack this woman and her family is staggering. I’ll stick to the truth.
Luigi Novi: And where do you glean this “truth” from, if not from such media sources? You’re saying that you just ignore all documented information on Palin that is not favorable to her? If so, which sources did you consult in order to conclude that Obama doesn’t have the necessary experience?
Timothy Butler: You obviously put a lot of effort into that list of smears.
Luigi Novi: By calling them smears, you’re indicating that they’re untrue. Can you demonstrate or explain how each of them is untrue?
Timothy Butler: Posted by: Timothy Butler: What “facts” did you present? I missed them. All I saw was a rehash of the same Palin smears that have been circulating.
Luigi Novi: If you’re going to dismiss legitimate criticism as “smears”, then you’re going to have to explain how/why those assertions are smears. Jerry did indeed mention things for which Palin has been legitimately criticized, including her record with regard to earmarks, the “Bridge to Nowhere”, her use of state funds, the nature of her firings of city officials, her lack of openness with reporters, her cronyism, etc. If you want to assert that these are smears, you have to provide evidence or reasoning that illustrates how they are smears. Not responding to them, except with such a simple, blanket dismissal, only serves to demonstrate that you know you can’t.
Timothy Butler: By the way, any thoughts from your end on the news that Obama asked the leadership of Iraqi to resist agreeing to troop deployment timelines until after the election?…… Obama seems to confirm much of the report in this NY Times story……Check yesterday’s NY Post….
Luigi Novi: First of all, don’t those constitute “mainstream media outlets”? I wondered if you’d abstain from using such articles yourself when they tell you what you want to hear, and here you are citing two of them. Why do you advise people not to use them when they criticize Palin, but use them when you think they say something unfavorable about Obama?
Nothing in that story says anything about Obama asking the Iraqi leadership anything about resisting troop deployments, at all. It says that he spoke to the Iraqi foreign minister, and said that U.S. must begin gradually withdrawing troops. No mention is made about deploying any, and the only mention of the election was his statement that should he be elected, he will continue with the progress that’s been made in Iraq, and move to end the U.S.’ presence there. The closest thing I could see—which Jerry assumed was what you were referring to—was Obama referring to an attempt by Bush to rush an agreement by which the foreign minister agreed the next administration would not be bound. This is not about “resisting troop deployments”, but about the “long term security accord”. Where do you see anything about troop deployments?
So let’s review:
–You claim Palin has more experience to be VP than Obama has to be President, without explaining what it is about their records that caused you to conclude this.
–Any criticism of Palin, even legitimate criticism, is a “smear”.
–You are not required to make a distinction between legitimate criticism and “smears”, or to explain how mention of some of her record constitutes one but not the other.
–You advise not using mainstream media outlets concerning Palin, but have no problem doing so yourself with regard to Obama.
–You assume that conclusions or arguments you disagree with must necessarily come from Daily Kos, without establishing that first as a question of fact.
If this is the best you can do to argue your position, then you’re not doing a very admirable job, Timothy.
Timothy Butler: Oh, if I thought the concerns being expressed were legitimate issues about “methods of governance and fitness for the job,” I’d be interested in spending more time. But they’re not. Honestly, they read like a list of petty complaints about a popular governor who’s had an excellent record of reform over the past couple of years.
Luigi Novi: And how you do define the distinction between the two? I have only heard about the ebay thing recently, and have no interest in it, but the other things for which she has been criticized are indeed legitimate. Misuse of federal funds, cronyism, and lack of transparency with reporters, are legitimate points of criticism with regard to politicians. If you cannot explain how they are not, or how they do not pertain to one’s fitness to be a leader, then you’re essentially admitting that you can’t, because you know you’re wrong and can’t admit it. (Here’s a hint: the fact that she’s popular or has a high approval rating does not mitigate legitimate criticism.) It is unlikely that the GOP would consider these things “smears” if it they were mentioned regarding Obama instead of Palin.
Timothy Butler: In the abstract, I agree with you. However, hypothetically speaking, visiting a foreign country, meeting with their leaders, and trying to interfere in their negotiations with our government would seem to be a violation of the Logan Act.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that Obama spoke by phone with the Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, and did not meet with them personally (way to show that you really read the source that you yourself cited), nothing he did constituted interfering in negotiations. Obama merely said that he opposed Bush’s insistence that an agreement on the long-term security accord be made before the two conventions (the article is from June), which is a reasonable, since such a timetable seems more favorable to Bush than to Iraq or the U.S., and that Zebari agreed that the next administration would not be bound by an agreement currently made. Merely talking with someone in this manner does not constitute “interference”.
Timothy Butler decides that the jet on ebay story doesn’t matter. “Is it really that critical to the campaign that she ultimately couldn’t sell it on eBay and did so through a broker???”
No, what’s critical is that she and McCain continue to talk about it. They say she a)sold it on eBay and b)for a profit.
They did neither. IT’S CALLED LYING.
It’s a minor lie, yes. It’s not even a needed lie. BUT IT’S A LIE. A lie that’s been called out, so it’s not even “wrong information”. IT’S INTENTIONALLY LYING.
It’s really just that simple.
Timothy–Jerry’s right, while there are some people here who will never deviate from the expected positions of the party faithful there are also plenty who are more than open to a valid argument. You just have to make it.
And at the very least, try to put yourself in the position of those you disagree with, see where they are coming from. Nobody is voting for Obama because they expect him to institute socialism.
“You’ve made it pretty clear: no media sources are to be trusted, and there are apparently no legitimate criticisms that can be made of Sarah Palin.”
It’s pretty incredible that I’ve made that perfectly clear since I don’t agree with that statement and have never implied that that’s the way I think.
“And at the very least, try to put yourself in the position of those you disagree with, see where they are coming from. Nobody is voting for Obama because they expect him to institute socialism.”
Nor did I say that they were.
Ok, let’s level set here for a second. Jerry throws up a list of charges against Palin. There is no citation of evidence to substantiate one wit of what he says. I respond with a dismissal of those charges. Again, I don’t take the time (like Jerry) to cite evidence in claiming that these charges are not true. The only thing that I do point out is the (sorry to say) silliness of the “eBay scandal”.
Fine.
What follows is a litany of posts aimed at me, many of which profess to read my mind, delve into my motives, and personally attack and insult me. I’m told I don’t read so well, I’m infatuated with Sarah Palin, I don’t bother to read the articles I cite (Luigi, the NY Post article I referenced stated that Obama tried to interfere with troop level negotiations while he was visiting Baghdad in July.), I’m an unreasonable fanatic with blind faith who looks like a crazy person, and a blind fool.
And in the middle of all of this, Jonathon says, “I now return you to your regularly-scheduled illogical rancor toward those who try to point out that Emperor Palin has no clothes…”
Rancor from me? Where? The only rancor I see is coming from my critics. I challenge anyone here to quote any posts that I’ve made today that states anything approaching rancor. Further, I challenge anyone here to justify the rancor that’s been aimed at me.
And what started all of this? I had the audacity to offer up the opinion that Sarah Palin is more qualified for the job that she is running for than Obama is for the job he is running for. (And for EVIDENCE, I cited a statement from Barak Obama himself that’s readily available on YouTube.)
I’m cool with all of that. Really, I am. To be honest, I didn’t expect any different. I’m just pointing it out.
By the by, National Review has picked up on Obama’s little problem with his trip to Iraq in July:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDBjZjQ5YjM3Y2M0YmY1OTQ0ZjAzNTA1ZmQ2ZTc0MzU=
Hi Bill,
We essentiallly agree. you missed the poiint in my proginal post where i said it was hurting Obama.
I nmust stress again, that the biggest issue is the post election dialogue does get compromised.
Timothy,
Fine. I’ll give you a source for a number of debunkings of the Palin myth as well as citing McCain-Palin lies and distortions in general. And this source cite numerous credible sources of their own.
A McCain ad comparing Palin to Obama isn’t all above board.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
FactChecking McCain
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html
McCain-Palin Distorts Our Finding
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccain-palin_distorts_our_finding.html
A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being “disrespectful” of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Thanks, Jerry. I’ll take a look at those.
Wow, Timothy. A National Review link that uses a lot of single word “quotations” to paint a picture that’s more biased opinion than solid fact. And what does it offer as proof of the statement that “Tuesday, the Obama campaign essentially confirmed the details of Taheri’s reporting” for us to check up on?
Why, it sources as its proof an article from Hot Air that claims that “Obama responded by essentially confirming” their version of events. And what do they offer as their proof. A quotation and a link to that quotation.
The quote that proves that Obama admits that this charge that “he had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November’s election” is accurate?
“Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri’s article bore “as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial.””
“In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.”
Yeah, there’s a big difference between “troop withdrawals” in the near future and agreements that govern our use of troops and our general course of operations in Iraq for the next several years or decades to come.
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. You’ll make comments about others believing the MSM’s reporting, but you source conservative opinion pieces that are laughably transparent as factual reporting to be relied upon.
Ooooookay.
Timothy Butler, it may surprise you to learn on last week’s “Jim Lehrer News Hour,” conservative columnist David Brooks stated, “I think the McCain campaign has been more misleading and exaggerating.”
Brooks wasn’t giving Obama a free pass, by the way. He pointed to some of Obama’s distortions, such as taking McCain’s remark about having a U.S. peacetime presence in Iraq for 50 or even 100 years out-of-context.
He could have been speaking to us on this board when he went on to say, “I mean partisan people — this is the narcissism of partisan. You get furiously outraged at the other campaign’s lies, and you love your own. Nonetheless, I do think it is fair to say that the McCain campaign has been more egregious than the Obama campaign.”
I think he summed things up pretty neatly, so I’ll leave it at that.
Brooks isn’t the only one. Karl Rove, of all people, said a couple of days ago that several of McCain’s ads aren’t passing the truth test.
Well Jerry, sorry you didn’t like that article. I didn’t exactly endorse it either. I just pointed it out to say that the story was getting some more play. I had already cited the New York Times and the New York Post, as well.
The only thing I’ll say about this story is that if it were McCain or Palin, Hëll’s fury would have been unleashed. In the end, the story’s probably not going to matter much to anyone except those people who already don’t like Obama. It’ll be interesting to see if FactCheck.org has anything to say about it at some point…..
(Sorry to see your rancor hasn’t diminished, though. All I did was point to the article and you ended up making it about me.)
Bill,
Thanks for those comments. If you ever find an honest politician, let me know. As far as I know, both Obama and McCain have stretched, mangled, and broken the truth. Probably, if a genuinely honest person ran for office, they probably wouldn’t have a chance.
Having said that, I’m impressed with those quotes from Rove and Brooks. I’ll have to keep my eye on FactCheck.org as well as pay some closer attention to the ads put out by the McCain camp.
It’s not rancor. I genuinely find it hilarious. You called criticisms of Palin “smears” when many of them are documented facts. You also admonished others for repeating “smears” and stated your preference for facts with this line.
“I can say that getting one’s news from Daily Kos and/or even the mainstream media outlets is not advisable. The amount of “information” that has been fabricated to attack this woman and her family is staggering. I’ll stick to the truth. Thanks.”
But when you post sources for it they’re from MSM sources that don’t actually support the charge you’re making or they’re editorials trying to pass themselves off reputable news while being as intellectually dishonest as a demented Randi Rhodes screed.
Again, I hold no rancor here. I just find it hilarious.
I must stress again, that the biggest issue is the post election dialogue does get compromised.
I agree that it’s vital that everyone come together after the election. I’m afraid that will be very difficult for many to do.
What follows is a litany of posts aimed at me, many of which profess to read my mind, delve into my motives, and personally attack and insult me. I’m told I don’t read so well, I’m infatuated with Sarah Palin, I don’t bother to read the articles I cite (Luigi, the NY Post article I referenced stated that Obama tried to interfere with troop level negotiations while he was visiting Baghdad in July.), I’m an unreasonable fanatic with blind faith who looks like a crazy person, and a blind fool.
Maybe some of the replies were a bit over the top but I think your interactions were needlessly antagonistic. That may not have been your intent and your last few posts show a willingness to see other people’s points so…look, this board has more folks to the left of the political spectrum than to the right. Doesn’t mean you aren’t welcome, but you should take that into consideration when it comes to tone and how things might be taken.
Look, when you come right down to it, there is no “right” answer on who is the “best” choice. We can’t see the future and the past is open to interpretation. Anyone who thinks their choice for president is the only valid choice and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, crazy or evil is simply displaying their own shortcomings. Even then they may be otherwise nice people, just someone you have to avoid certain topics with.. With some folks it’s politics, others, religion. Some people you just say the word “zombies” and there’s no shutting them up.
“Maybe some of the replies were a bit over the top but I think your interactions were needlessly antagonistic.”
I would like to hear examples of things that I said that are “needlessly antagonistic.”
Also, this is my personal opinion – personal attacks go beyond “over the top.” I don’t think you can attribute anything that I said as being justification for the tone I got back.
Doesn’t sound like you’re using the same yardstick when you measure my responses vs. other people’s responses, Bill.
“Look, when you come right down to it, there is no “right” answer on who is the “best” choice. We can’t see the future and the past is open to interpretation. Anyone who thinks their choice for president is the only valid choice and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, crazy or evil is simply displaying their own shortcomings. Even then they may be otherwise nice people, just someone you have to avoid certain topics with.. With some folks it’s politics, others, religion. Some people you just say the word “zombies” and there’s no shutting them up.”
Thanks for the advice. I think it’s quite valuable. We’ll see how it goes from here on in, but if the insults continue, I’ll just conclude that some of the folks on this forum are best not to discuss politics with.
“But when you post sources for it they’re from MSM sources that don’t actually support the charge you’re making or they’re editorials trying to pass themselves off reputable news while being as intellectually dishonest as a demented Randi Rhodes screed.”
Again….. I was just pointing out that the story was getting a little play for people who say they hadn’t heard it. I didn’t endorse the article or use it as evidence that Obama did as the NY Post piece reported.
Sorry my citing the article caused so much confusion.
“Again, I hold no rancor here. I just find it hilarious.”
Glad you enjoyed it.
I doubt if it’s possible to have a political discussion without at least some flaring of emotions and a feeling of insult or rancor, no matter how much one is committed to calm reasoned discussion. Bill Mulligan has been able to come closest to this ideal, but it probably helps that he likes both candidates to a degree. Although he seems always to be as calm as a zen monk on morphine 🙂 which is quite amazing.
The kind of discussionn about how Palin did A, Obama said B, McCain said C which therefore proves that D, never seem to go anywhere. I personaly prefer laying down the issues and discussing them, rather then the politicians. But their personality and record definitely are an important part of the discussion too. So what can be done?
I’m not sure I agree with the assumption that executive experience like Palin’s trumps Obama’s experience for the job of president.
I appreciate the tone of your response, Micha. Thank you.
“I’m not sure I agree with the assumption that executive experience like Palin’s trumps Obama’s experience for the job of president.”
First of all, let’s get on the same page here. Obama is running for president. Palin is running for vice-president. Optimally, both should be as experienced as possible. But if Palin scares people because she’ll be a “heartbeat away,” Obama should terrify everyone. He wants to plop down in the big chair on day one. And when stacked up against McCain, Obama doesn’t even get out of the starting gate. He himself believes that. He said it on video. He picked Joe Biden to add that experience to his ticket at the cost of his “Change” theme.
We could line up their resumes and debate them. Would that be helpful? I don’t think it’s going to change anyone’s mind. Obama has excellent academic experience. He was a community organizer. He served in the Illinois state senate before getting his seat in the US Senate less than one term ago. Palin was serving in public office five years before Obama was elected to anything. She’s actually led things, not been a legislator. (Note: I do give credit to McCain for his many years in the Senate as leadership experience. I would do the same for Obama if he had more experience in the Senate. I don’t knock Joe Biden for lack of experience. And when it comes to leadership outside government service, again, no comparison between Obama and McCain.) When confronted with Palin’s experience, Obama pointed to his current campaign as an example of his leadership. Ok. But I don’t think that trumps Palin’s experience.
And to say it again – Palin’s running for VICE-President. Even with her better experience, she’ll have time to learn and grow into her role. Like Joe Biden said, the presidency isn’t the place for on the job training.
Of course, a lot of people here will disagree with me…….
Doesn’t sound like you’re using the same yardstick when you measure my responses vs. other people’s responses, Bill.
That may be. Don’t forget, I know some of these folks and when I read them I “hear” it in their voices and what (I think” is their intent–something that is harder to do with someone who is relatively new. Bill Myers always calling me up and saying he was sorry if I took something he said as an insult and I point out that, having broken bread with the guy and his lady love, he would have to seriously and explicitly insult me for it to be taken as such. he could call me “Tard-spazz” and I’d think it was just a term of friendship when, in fact, he was calling me a tard-spazz.
it probably helps that he likes both candidates to a degree.
yeah, that helps. Whoever is elected I shall sleep well that night (or morning, which is probably how long it takes to figure out the winner.)
Although he seems always to be as calm as a zen monk on morphine 🙂 which is quite amazing.
Yeah but you never know when I’m going to do something crazy with a can of gasoline.
Sorry. If you’re saying that you’re merely pointing out the article purely as a “what do you think of this” thing rather than, as I thought you were doing, trying to present it as a factual accusation of substance against Obama then I misunderstood your position and what you were trying to do.
As far as what I think of it in that way and why I think it’s not getting tons of play…
I’m not very impressed with it. There’s not a lot of there there. It’s probably not getting the traction that other nothing stories about Obama used to get because he’s not “new” to the national political scene anymore and some nothing stories won’t stick the way they would a year or more ago.
Sorry. If you’re saying that you’re merely pointing out the article purely as a “what do you think of this” thing rather than, as I thought you were doing, trying to present it as a factual accusation of substance against Obama then I misunderstood your position and what you were trying to do.
As far as what I think of it in that way and why I think it’s not getting tons of play…
I’m not very impressed with it. There’s not a lot of there there. It’s probably not getting the traction that other nothing stories about Obama used to get because he’s not “new” to the national political scene anymore and some nothing stories won’t stick the way they would a year or more ago.
And when stacked up against McCain, Obama doesn’t even get out of the starting gate. He himself believes that. He said it on video.
In terms of the quantity of his experience, that’s undeniable.
In terms of the quality of his experience as it relates to relevant issues, the jury is still out. I don’t plan to discuss the Obama-Palin divide with you again, but certainly we can agree that the two of them have done very DIFFERENT things. Which ones are better qualifiers for the presidency are up for discussion. Ditto Obama and McCain: absolutely McCain has done a great deal more, but to what end? (That’s not meant to be a dig or a gibe, honestly; it’s a summation of what I think is really at issue.)
And, IMO most importantly, what should be at issue here is the quality of both men’s POLICIES, not their particular life experiences.
I mean, yes, experience is certainly an asset — but it’s not the SOLE asset required for the presidency, and the presidency is not a Lifetime Achievement Award.
Right now we have the country mired in an Iraqi civil war and involved in other conflicts. We have a potential foreign policy crisis in Georgia. We have the markets going into a tailspin and a housing market that is decidedly unhealthy. We have a real need to fundamentally shift energy policies, both for reasons of foreign policy and for environmental reasons. We have economic challenges, diplomatic challenges, and environmental challenges that are likely to shape at least the next generation of the human race if not more.
Ask yourself what should be done. Ask yourself which candidate understands what should be done, and if they’re prepared to do it.
THAT is what should be under discussion. The Palin Scandal Parade is, frankly, an insignificant bûllšhìŧ sideshow. Questions about character and experience are certainly valid — in context. This election cannot turn on trivialities — because if it does, then IMO we’re all screwed regardless of which candidate wins.
Anyone wants to talk real policy questions, I’m totally up for it as time permits. But the tit-for-tat namecalling that’s passed for political discourse lately (nationwide, not necessarily here) has more than worn out its welcome.
TWL
it probably helps that he likes both candidates to a degree.
yeah, that helps. Whoever is elected I shall sleep well that night (or morning, which is probably how long it takes to figure out the winner.)
VS me who dislikes both options and will only end up voting on the one that annoys me the least.
If life seems jolly rotten,
There’s something you’ve forgotten,
VS me who dislikes both options and will only end up voting on the one that annoys me the least.
If life seems jolly rotten,
There’s something you’ve forgotten,
And that’s to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you’re feeling in the dumps,
Don’t be silly chumps.
Just purse your lips and whistle. That’s the thing.
And…
Always look on the bright side of life.
[whistling]
Always look on the right side of life,
[whistling]
And as a contribution to a more substantive discussion, I’d suggest this:
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40
The page I’ve linked to is discussing what the point of the site is, but overall you’ve got both candidates giving semi-detailed answers to 14 questions about science policy. Well worth a look.
TWL
Well, thanks a lot, Tim! I only scanned those pages, skimming some of the answers to the questions that I care about the most. And from some of what I read, I’m scared of both of these guys.
No doubt though that Obama writes a better paper.
If life seems jolly rotten…
I’ve actually got that as a ringtone on my cell phone.
What would be amazing would be a Zen justification for following McCain’s leadership. You’re talking about the kind of people who would set themselves on fire before acting on any urge to kill people from the sky.
Speaking of Spider Robinson.
It’s been some years since I’ve read Telempath. Incidentally, it’s my favorite of Robinson’s books I’ve read (I’ve also read the one with the star dancers, and two Callahan books), but Robinson isn’t really one of my favorite writers. In fact, I sorta gave up on him after these 4 books.
There is something… I kinda know what writers mean when they say there needs to be real pain and real trouble and real danger to craft good drama. Many genre fans lose sight of that and get so attached to specific characters that they don’t want any bad things ever happening to them.
I think that ultimately this kills drama. And I feel Spider Robinson is one of those writers that craft… feel-good tales. Now, I’ve got nothing against happy endings or happy resolutions, but his books almost always feel so cozy and friendly… too much in fact.
Telempath was sort of a exception, in that it had some real nastiness and conflict in there.
Oh well, maybe it’s me that am a depressing bášŧárd. It’s just that a place I’d like to live in isn’t necessarily a place that has the most interesting stories. That is also why I don’t see the appeal of Star Trek, where they all get along fine and everyone seems to be having a grand time. I much prefer Babylon 5 or the new Battlestar Galactica, with the complicated relationships and intrigues.
The Callahan books sort of look like Star Trek to me. And I don’t care much for this sort of escapism.
Tim, thanks for the link. Nice answers from both, wish I believed they could really follow through. We’ll probably be spending too much money bailing out companies that are “too big to fail” to afford much of it.
(Not that there are any good alternatives at this point but isn’t it a bad precedent to set? I mean, if you were a CEO who wanted to ensure your company’s survival, what better way than to just make it so dámņ big that the government can’t let it fail?)
I wonder how economic Conservatives reconcile this apparent contradiction, Bill. They’re always saying how wonderful free market is, and that all our troubles can be solved by it, when it’s the little guy that is at stake. But whenever a big bank or company is about to take a fall due to the same free market forces, Conservative politicians are the first to spend taxpayers’ money to help the big guy.
It’s the same thing here in Brazil. Seems like the little guy must weather any difficulties and console himself with the promised “long-term” benefits of capitalism that sometimes seem like they’re never coming, while big companies reap the immediate benefits whem the going is good and are rescued when things are bad. Rescued by tge government when things are bad… sounds like Socialism!
Obviously, the explanation is that a big company falling will negatively impact the whole economy, so the government is justified in helping out. But THAT is already admiting that “free market” isn’t the wonderful, omnipotent medicine some claim, since the government must come to the rescue when things are dire, for the good of all.
Those are the very same contradictions that happened when economical crisis hit South America in the 1990s, and they proved a fertile field for demagogues like Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales and their raving against the fat cats, paving the return of these true socialists (no, the Democrats aren’t) to power.
Timothy Butler: Luigi, the NY Post article I referenced stated that Obama tried to interfere with troop level negotiations while he was visiting Baghdad in July.
Luigi Novi: Two points:
First, you expressed skepticism with citing “mainstream media” sources. I asked you why, therefore, did you cite the NY Times and the NY Post. I don’t recall seeing an answer from you. You also complain that Jerry didn’t cite any sources with the list of criticisms aimed at Palin. Putting aside the fact that not every single thing said in every single post on this blog is usually accompanied by footnotes (this isn’t Wikipedia), since it isn’t necessary to do so with items of common knowledge, isn’t a bit contradictory to admonish others not to cite mainstream media sources, and then complain that their assertions aren’t sourced?
Second, the New York Post is a tabloid owned by Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp. I wouldn’t put much stock in it, especially where it concerns politics, unless its assertions can be corroborated by other sources. The National Review is similarly slanted towards the right.
Timothy Butler: Well Jerry, sorry you didn’t like that article.
Luigi Novi: He didn’t say anything about “liking” or “not liking” the article. He questioned its reliability. By distorting his statement about accuracy into one about personal aesthetics, you demonstrate your dishonesty, Timothy.
Timothy Butler: I didn’t exactly endorse it either. I just pointed it out to say that the story was getting some more play.
Luigi Novi: Mmmm…..no, that’s not what you did. Your original statement was:
By the way, any thoughts from your end on the news that Obama asked the leadership of Iraqi to resist agreeing to troop deployment timelines until after the election?
You then followed up with:
Obama seems to confirm much of the report in this NY Times story…
And:
However, hypothetically speaking, visiting a foreign country, meeting with their leaders, and trying to interfere in their negotiations with our government would seem to be a violation of the Logan Act.
So please don’t backpedal now and claim that you weren’t presenting the story as true.
Timothy Butler: And when stacked up against McCain, Obama doesn’t even get out of the starting gate. He himself believes that. He said it on video.
Luigi Novi: Again, why are unsourced criticisms of Palin—even when they are common knowledge—“smears”, but unsourced accusations like this not? This is the sort of assertion that actually does call for a citation. So can you provide the video in question?
Timothy Butler: She’s actually led things, not been a legislator.
Luigi Novi: Since when are the two mutually exclusive? Obama has indeed “lead things” in his career. If you were interested in basing your conclusions on actual fact, you might’ve tried actually researching his career. If you did, you’d be forced to acknowledge that in addition to taking leadership roles, and boasting a far more honorable character as a leader than Palin, you’d acknowledge that he has experience in matters like foreign policy that she does not.
Timothy Butler: When confronted with Palin’s experience, Obama pointed to his current campaign as an example of his leadership. Ok. But I don’t think that trumps Palin’s experience.
Luigi Novi: No one said it did. But his full record, and not just his campaign, clearly does. Again, you can talk about that, or just ignore the specifics of it, the way everyone who parrots the GOP line about his record does. You are free to do the latter, but if you do, you’re not distinguishing yourself from the typical propaganda crowd.
Timothy Butler: And to say it again – Palin’s running for VICE-President. Even with her better experience, she’ll have time to learn and grow into her role.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that she does not have “better experience”, she will not have a lot of time to learn and grow into the role if McCain is incapacitated or dies in office, especially early in his tenure, an issue that is more crucial with regards to McCain than with any other recent President, given his age and numerous serious ailments.
Hmm. Just the latest from the ‘liberal’ media…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/palin_troopergate
Republicans suing to get the Democrats removed or delaying it until after the investigation? People who appear to be more concerned about their loyalty to the governor and thus refusing to testify in a bi-partisan approved investigation?
Sounds to me like the investigation is more tainted by the Republicans who are refusing to allow it to proceed now more than the Democrats they accuse of trying to target Palin.
And I thought Palin welcomed an investigation? After all, she’s got nothing to hide, right?
Tim Lynch,
Mea culpa accepeted. Sometime this century – or at least by this weekend – I will give you my reasons why we are winning Iraq, why I do not feel McCain’s comments contrasting himself with Obama egarding the subject are out of bounds and what I feel constitutes “winning” in the first place.
Luigi,
Sorry I still have not responded to your long-ago points about Palin, etc. It really aggravates me. But I would like to briefly respond to your comments about the New York Post.
I feel comparing it to National Review is a bit extreme. While it tilts a bit to the right, I feel it is a slight exaggeration to compare it to National Review. Does it regularly publish columns by conservatives like George Will and William Kristol? Sure, but so does the Scranton Times, which is a very Democratic paper here. One thing the Post has done is obviously serve what was considered an underserved audience. Of the Top 50 papers in America, it is one of only two, if the last reports I saw were correct, that are actually gaining circulation.
So maybe Murdoch is just a smart businessman who saw a way to get a different voice out there and be successful at the same time.
I rate the 3 main New York papers this way.
New York Times = liberal
New York Daily News = moderate
New York Post = conservative
And while I do hope for corroboration, if the story mentioned is true, do you consider that to be a significant revelation and, if so, to what extent?
I wonder how economic Conservatives reconcile this apparent contradiction, Bill. They’re always saying how wonderful free market is, and that all our troubles can be solved by it, when it’s the little guy that is at stake. But whenever a big bank or company is about to take a fall due to the same free market forces, Conservative politicians are the first to spend taxpayers’ money to help the big guy.
We’re trying to take the sting out of failure, whether it’s people who bought a house (or two) that they couldn’t afford, or companies that gambled for big returns, safe in the notion that the government would cover any losses. I wish I could get those odds in Vegas.
And of course, one should follow the money. Some of these very same companies have managed to find the cash needed to contribute to politicians of both parties. Some of the former heads of these companies are touted as economic advisers. You’d think that either McCain or Obama would be making a HUGE deal out of this but they probably both wish they could talk about something else.
Oh, and PAD, to answer your rhetorical question:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_go_pr_wh/palin_mccain_operatives
No, Sarah may not come out and play. She must not be questioned because to do so would show that she is not only not ready to lead, but just as corrupt as any other politician. Thus, her image as the right-wing’s rock star would be ruined.
Yeah but who takes Ted Rall even a little bit seriously?
Apparently the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists does: he just became their president last week.
TWL
Apparently the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists does: he just became their president last week.
Yikes. Well, with only a few hundred members I guess a lot of people will get their turn eventually.
Jerome, I never compared National Review to the New York Post. I simply said that I was skeptical of both because they lean to the right.
Luigi,
Well, you said it was “similarly slanted to the right”. That led me to believe you meant in tone and content. I hope you can appreciate how it came off that way, to me at least.
Luigi,
Saying you “would not put much stock in it, especially where it concerns politics” and then mentioning NATIONAL REVIEW as “similarly slanted toward the right” would seem to be an unfavorable opinion of the Post, compared to the “National Review” which obviously has a Right-wing slant.
And you still did not answer my question, namely, if the Obama story by the columnist in the New York Post was indeed true, would you consider that a significant issue? And would that affect your vote for him?
Has anybody heard everything about a possible conflict between Russia and Canada and US in the arctic? Here is irony for you. Global warming is opening parts of the arctic which contain oil.
Has anybody heard everything about a possible conflict between Russia and Canada and US in the arctic? Here is irony for you. Global warming is opening parts of the arctic which contain oil.
Yeah, well, according to a lot of what I’m reading, the sun is going into a period of relative dimness (though it is still not recommended that you stare at it for extended lengths of time) so things might get a mite nippy up there again. The Russians may freeze their осел off.