It actually hurt me to watch this.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Even with Blayne's recent thread on how the Daily Show correspondents obfuscate where they're from, I'm still surprised that they manage to pass as unknown so easily (although on second thought, I wonder how often they do get recognized and have to cut the footage)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
In situations like this The Daily Show could have still run the story using footage and interviews from other news media who would undoubtedly be covering the RNC, even if theyre intent was not to point out how ludicrous the "working vacation" was. It really does tell volumes about a situation when the fake news drops the joke, towards the end Oliver is just looking at the camera baffled at how hypocritical the woman was being and ignored at the risk of making her stop her foolish rant.
Elitist democrats and thier silver spoon youth spent in hoity-toity cities like Chicago.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Even with Blayne's recent thread on how the Daily Show correspondents obfuscate where they're from, I'm still surprised that they manage to pass as unknown so easily (although on second thought, I wonder how often they do get recognized and have to cut the footage)
There is honestly no way I can make this not sound incredibly, smugly partisan, but the types of people you are going to run into as ingratiated connected-circle attendees of an RNC 'working vacation' are the sort of people that will EASILY feed the greatest possible desires of a false-flag media op like the Daily Show.
They are also trained by their political culture to disdain and avoid exposure to the 'mainstream media.' The signs that would tip someone off in time to the fact that they are talking to, say, John Oliver .. are not ones they are particularly well informed of.
This isn't even very hard to do in the first place. TDS has the advantage of cherrypicking whatever soundbites work the best for absurdity.
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Cherry picking is great, and I take their comments on things like that with a grain of salt.
But dang, the particular scene referenced above, where John Oliver just broke cover and started saying "wow" to the camera over and over as the woman spoke with such immense hypocricy, is a pretty strong piece.
In other words, they got to take advantage of a wonderful bit there, regardless of what percentage failed. The camera lies with every frame, sure, but she did still say those things...
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
The Daily Show does have the benefit of not actually being the news, and therefore not having to be balanced at all... or even factual if they really dont want to.
But Michael Steele put on the tourist shirt and lei himself, no coercion needed.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Meh. Yeah, spending money while encouraging "fiscal responsibility" is potentially hypocritical, but it isn't necessarily. If they spent their own money to go to Hawaii, and had the money to spend...then who cares.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Did they spend their own money to get to Hawaii?
And a private submarine? Seriously?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Um, the submarine is the property of the resort. It's an example of being at a lavish resort, but the attendees aren't to blame for the existence of that particular excess.
I don't know how the conference was funded, but it wasn't with money that would otherwise have fed the poor or paid down the national debt. *shrug*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It's not even really a big deal. The RNC is doing something which should really be anticipated for such a high-level political event. There's really nothing wrong with the spending, per se. It's not like they or the Democrats are going to check into a Westin for an event like this. And Hawaii is pretty relaxing. Why not?
I mean, the piece is funny because it catches some spokespeople giving some flat talking points without nuance or regard for appearances, but that's a function of the rhetorical devices the party engages upon in general, not the event.
I mean, I hope this makes sense. Making fun of the RNC's ritzy digs is like saying "Obama talks big on global warming and then gets in HIS BIG JET"
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:The Daily Show does have the benefit of not actually being the news, and therefore not having to be balanced at all... or even factual if they really dont want to.
They also lambasted the Copenhagen conference for driving people around in individual limos.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It was a riot.
Keep in mind that if this had been the DNC, it would have been just as funny.
Of course, in that case it would have been the R's making the comments about the DNC being out of touch and thriftless.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If you are trying to persuade people that your party is more in touch with the average american who is struggling to buy food and get braces for their kids, then meeting at an expensive resort in Hawaii is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I don't care where the money came from or how else they would have spent it. To the average American, a trip to Hawaii is a luxury vacation and a working trip to Hawaii is a boondoggle. Its exactly the wrong thing to do if you want people to think you are in touch with the average working American.
The fact that this woman could babble on and on about how out of touch the Democrats while relaxing at luxury beach resort isn't really Hypocrisy but it sure doesn't demonstrate being in touch. Maybe clueless would better describe it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It was a riot.
Keep in mind that if this had been the DNC, it would have been just as funny.
Of course, in that case it would have been the R's making the comments about the DNC being out of touch and thriftless.
Not necessarily, liberals and progressives are always claiming that republicans are wealthy elitists who are out of touch with the needs of the average american.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In fairness, what average American wouldn't jump at the chance to go to Hawaii on the company's dime? It's just game theory. Maybe you could get something better for everyone if you said no, but you're guaranteed something good if you say yes.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Where would be a better place? Rhode Island? Washington?
Do you know how much they paid? Maybe the owner of the resort is a supporter of the Republican Party and is giving comps to them?
I agree that complaining about this is silly.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
While part of it was the hilarity of spending so much money cluelessly, it was also the frequent commentary by media and politicians previously on how Obama can't be in touch with the average american beacuse he's from Hawaii, an exotic and out of touch place filled with lavish expenses. Or something.
Somewhat related: I went to that conference center in October for a conference (Child/Adolescent Psychiatry). It's a huge complex of hotels that cater to conferences. It has stupid expensive restaurants around it to profit from people who don't want to travel outside the center. The lagoon's kinda cool but not that crazy -- just a large pool with sand. So I wasn't sold on the lavishness of the hotel. It's not particularly expensive for a hotel, either. I think it's around $200/night.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it's tit for tat. Dems know they can score points off this because it looks bad, and Republicans have been digging their own grave with their attacks and their rhetoric for the last year. There's something noble about ignoring something that really doesn't matter when you know not ignoring it would score you points. But I don't see anything particularly noble in letting yourself get shot repeatedly without fighting back, especially when you feel so much is at stake.
quote:From Rabbit: Not necessarily, liberals and progressives are always claiming that republicans are wealthy elitists who are out of touch with the needs of the average american.
Yeah, but it almost never sticks.
Plus, Democrats don't spend anywhere near as much time trumpeting the common man thing. The difference I think is that Republicans and Democrats both call each other elitists and upper class, and frankly, in the Senate anyways, they're both right. In the House, you really do find a lot of somewhat regular people, but regardless, they both sling it. The difference is that Republicans always pair "you're an Elitist" with "And I'm a real American."
Dems say "you're rich and out of touch" whereas Republicans say "you're rich, an intellectual and not an American because of it." It's the same but completely different.
quote:From AvidReader: n fairness, what average American wouldn't jump at the chance to go to Hawaii on the company's dime? It's just game theory. Maybe you could get something better for everyone if you said no, but you're guaranteed something good if you say yes
Different rules in politics. These guys aren't average Americans, and they spend so much time excoriating each other for not living up to the higher standard that we've come to also expect of them, that they can't really use the "everyman" defense. Besides, it really is a stupid idea to hit a particularly expensive vacation spot when unemployment is hitting a new high, an you just spent the last election talking about how Hawaii wasn't really part of America an excuse for attacking Obama's out of touchness. It's maybe not a big deal in an of itself, but when you combine it with other factors, it becomes hypocritical, as well as stupid from an image perspective.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In fairness, what average American wouldn't jump at the chance to go to Hawaii on the company's dime?
That's not the right analogy. The question isn't why the indivduals chose to go to a meeting in Hawaii, its why the RNC chose to hold the meeting in Hawaii. If you are concerned about looking professional, in touch with the average guy, and fiscally conservative, you don't hold your meetings in a posh resort in Hawaii. I've been involved in planning meetings where Hawaii was rejected as a site to avoid the impression that it was junket rather than serious business. I know of situations where companies refused to send employees to business meetings because they were in Hawaii or similar locations.
I'm the chair of scientific meeting that will be held in April at a resort here in Trinidad. Some of the people we invited to attend, can't because their company thought it looked too much like a vacation. One of the conference sponsors expressed concern about holding meetings at a Caribbean resort for the same reason.
If these RNC members don't recognize that attending a meeting in Hawaii makes them look like they are on a junket and out of touch with the average American, they are really out of touch with the average American.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Alternatively, it could be possible that the majority of Americans are out of touch with the average American.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Maybe they decided that if they could afford a luxury hotel in Hawaii but chose someplace else cheaper to appease the "average Americans" it would be unfair to themselves and condescending to the average Americans.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I wonder if Hawaiians think going to say Montana denotes a vacation, and is out of touch with what is really Hawaiian.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Vacationing in Montana is out of touch with reality.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
That can be a valid vacational aim.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
As well as a valid vocational aim.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Meh. Yeah, spending money while encouraging "fiscal responsibility" is potentially hypocritical, but it isn't necessarily. If they spent their own money to go to Hawaii, and had the money to spend...then who cares.
Clearly not you, but to attempt to push a message of conservation and fiscal responsibility while enjoying a resort conference in Hawaii strains one's credibility rather thin, in my opinion. Oliver's point here is that surface level of hypocrisy- not anything much more profound. That these particular people are most likely being fed these lines at the conference itself, taking place on a remote tropical island at a fancy resort, reflects rather poorly on those who fail to catch on to the irony of it all, especially after having John Oliver blurt it in their faces 5 times.
That they are going to Hawaii at this time in the financial crisis? Meh. That they are seemingly totally unaware of the incongruity between their message, pretensions, and surroundings? Less forgivable. And this is piled on masterfully by Oliver, who lets them commit to blind criticisms of Obama for his "privileged" existence, thus showing either their *total* cluelessness, or their hypocrisy in that criticism.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
In fairness, I don't feel the Republicans have been doing more than talk about fiscal responsibility for some time. It used to work for the party, and somehow they still get points for it without having done it in better than a decade now.
Does anyone still think the GOP actually cares about anything but getting theirs?
If they're aiming for the vote of the guy who really just wants what he wants without caring how it looks or what it does to someone else, I think they could still tap into a vast number of votes. But I have little faith in the American people these days.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
AvidReader: I think the Tea Party movement in large part is a manifestation of the people's frustration with Republican's failure to be truly fiscally conservative. Of course some in the party just hate the Democrats and President Obama's policies, but alot of the people they listen to like Glenn Beck tell them to not shill for the Republican Party, nor let them co-opt it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I think the Tea Party movement in large part is a manifestation of the people's frustration with Republican's failure to be truly fiscally conservative.
This isn't really it. The most notable mechanism behind the tea party's rise is conservatives who are terrified at being culturally and politically overshadowed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think the Tea Party movement in large part is a manifestation of the people's frustration with Republican's failure to be truly fiscally conservative.
The fact that it has risen to prominence only once the republicans no longer control congress nor the presidency seems to contradict this idea.
If it were really a frustration with Republicans, I'd have expected to pop up more when the Republicans were calling more of the shots.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: It was a riot.
Keep in mind that if this had been the DNC, it would have been just as funny.
Of course, in that case it would have been the R's making the comments about the DNC being out of touch and thriftless.
Not necessarily, liberals and progressives are always claiming that republicans are wealthy elitists who are out of touch with the needs of the average american.
I know....yet the R's claim the D's are snobby, over-educated elitists.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Porter:
quote:The fact that it has risen to prominence only once the republicans no longer control congress nor the presidency seems to contradict this idea.
If it were really a frustration with Republicans, I'd have expected to pop up more when the Republicans were calling more of the shots.
I see it more as the Republicans helped create it, but the current Democratic administration gave it critical mass.
I'm just one person, but alot of the time I hear tea party goers, calling into shows like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, they often talk about how they explicitly don't identify with the Republican party. They don't cast themselves as moderates either though. I do feel their creed is a bit disjointed, but most new political movements are that way until certain charismatic leaders find a way to shape and focus it.
It's hard for me to describe what happened, or even what is happening. Obama's presidency for fiscal conservatives is almost the worst thing that could have happened, and it happened on the heals of a Republican who spent us into the ground. For those people, the issue is truly bigger than which party is in power.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)