quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the fact is that there are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to. The problem is, is that we don't have good schools, public schools, for all kids.
The first step is him sending his kids to the local public school as an example.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, this sort of thing happens on both sides of the aisle.
Right now, the governer of New York is claiming that the refrences in Palin's speech to Obama being a "Community Orgainzer" were coded refrences to his being black.
That's just silly.
I do not believe that Obama intended his comments as sexist. I do not believe that Palin intended her comments as racist. To believe that your opponent would be that dumb in a presidential election is to wish for unicorns to dance on your lawn.
But in the case of the attack on Palin as a racist, that's grasping at straws. In the case of Obama's comment--honestly, if he'd have thought about it for two seconds, he'd have known how it would be taken.
It was a gaffe. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being silly.
ETA: And I mean that towards both sides. Anyone who is acting like Obama would intentionally make a sexist remark, and anybody who pretends they don't know how people could take it that way.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then, maybe. Right now he'd be insane to send his kids to a public school. Were I him I'd be worrying less about my children's education and more about their safety and privacy.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron Paul had decided not to endorse any candidate, and instead will be urging his supporters to vote third party. Not sure what effect that will have on the election. Generally Libertarians like Paul would suck votes away from Republicans, so I'm wondering if this will increase Bob Barr's potentcy in being a spoiler. Hard to say. If Paul lends his name and fundraising to Barr, that could make him a serious factor (though he still has zero chance of winning).
quote:It was a gaffe. Anyone who pretends otherwise is being silly.
I don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
But what about the lipstick makes it sexist? What about it implies that women are inferior to men?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Please, docmagik, stop being reasonable. There are two wars going on, our economy is tanking, several time-honored financial institutions are failing, our national reputation is being ruined, the rule of law is being undermined, the balance of power in our government is being tilted... We have to stop and argue about meaningless media distractions! Don't you understand?
I mean, if we stuck to the facts, the Republicans might lose. Can't have that.
posted
Chris, is it your contention that Obama, whose rise to popularity is mostly based on speeches given by him, would not realize how those two comments, lipstick on a pig after Palin's joke, and old fish referencing McCain's age would be viewed as completely innocent? Do you honestly believe Obama is that naive?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have a problem with a politician sending his kids to a private school is it's the best place for his kids -- which it often is. I would think less of a man who would send his children to a bad school for his own political ends.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But what about the lipstick makes it sexist? What about it implies that women are inferior to men?
I never claimed it was sexist. It is a personal insult against Palin as well as the old fish is against McCain. People keep dropping the old fish remark.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shared Sacrifice, Christine. It means that sometimes you don't do what's in the immediate best interest of your children.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Huh? A pit bull isn't a pig. I don't see how that follows at all, let alone follows clearly enough that you can be so certain of the thoughts of everyone in the audience.
Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
In context, the pig and the fish both correspond to the policies of the Bush Administration. A shared noun between one of the metaphors and Palin's joke last week doesn't change that.
As far as I can tell, in order to take Obama's paragraph as direct comparison of McCain and Palin to a fish and a pig, you have to misinterpret it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I would be more willing to believe that he thought better of his audience. More to the point I don't know why he chose those words, and neither do you. Maybe he did choose those words for that reason, and I'll think less of him if he did. Still a ways to go before he sinks as low as McCain has this campaign.
But you're right. He should drop the metaphors completely and just say outright that McCain is just Bush with a military record and Palin was added solely as a stunt to get the women and religious right voters. Would that work?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: i don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Had this been a different analogy against Obama I do believe you would be strongly denouncing McCain and the Republicans instead of providing an excuse for them. I do not believe you have been so generous for people who have implied Obama is a liar.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lipstick is more the key to equate the two. Palin made the joke about the difference between a hockey Mom and a pitbull being lipstick. Obama knew this so he knowingly made the pig and lipstick remark hoping for the a little firestorm.
That's a huge stretch.
Google: "lipstick on a pig -Obama".
Number of hits: 167,000
Including this gem:
quote:Nov 2, 2004 ... "As we say in Wyoming, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," quipped Vice President Dick Cheney in a stump speech yesterday, ...
AND
quote:In Iowa last October, McCain drew comparisons between Hillary Clinton's current health care plan and the one she championed in 1993: "I think they put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." He used roughly the same line in May, after effectively claiming the Republican nomination.
Why, if I were less charitable, I might suggest certain people were trying to play the sexism card...
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: i don't think it was a gaffe, but I don't think he meant it in the way some people are taking it. I think he meant for the full force of the phrase to be used, with a subtle reference to who he was talking about. In other words, I think he was calling her a liar, and nothing else, and I think that's perfectly fair, though people can still wrangle with how strong the wording is. I don't think it was sexist, and I don't think he was calling her a pig specifically.
Had this been a different analogy against Obama I do believe you would be strongly denouncing McCain and the Republicans instead of providing an excuse for them. I do not believe you have been so generous for people who have implied Obama is a liar.
Specificity matters, so it's hard to answer a non-specific hypothetical, but I think you're wrong. I've called out Obama on what I think are some misleading statements before. Generally I give people some latitude on poetic license. My bigger aims are policy, and fact versus lies, rather than he said/she said. On the goofy hypothetical you came up with earlier: I probably wouldn't have said much about it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you scroll down in the link that Threads posted, Sen. Obama is criticized for his sexist imagery for using the word "periodically" with regard to Sen. Clinton.
That is just hilarious. Or really sad.
There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness"). The level of sensitivity about subtext is off the charts, no matter where you look. In the campaigns, in the media, everywhere. People are just aching to take offense.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Paul lends his name and fundraising to Barr, that could make him a serious factor (though he still has zero chance of winning).
I am listening to the national press club release. It seems categorical that he will NOT endorse any particular candidate, however he is supporting third party candidates. He doesn't care who you/we vote(s) for as long as we start the process of breaking up the two party system.
The focus seemed to urge his supporters (and anyone else listening) to pick anyone but the two party candidates. He wants more debates for the third party candidates.
I will have to re-listen to the broadcast since I couldn't focus while I was at work. I am waiting for a downloadable mp3. There was a neat little section on how debates should be moderated--very anti parallel interviews by news anchors. I can't remember the specifics, as I was distracted.
Bob Barr didn't go to the press conference and went so far as to say it "just wasn't worth it." A lot of the third party supporters, particularly Ron Paul supporters, are disappointed in Barr and are denouncing him.
Overall the press release seemed to be VERY ANTI TWO PARTY SYSTEM. I am not sure if there was a specific plan or strategy, as I missed most of the re-broadcast.
EDIT: Ironically Paul said he was staying Republican since he has been elected a republican 10 times. He also joked that this time around (so far he is unopposed) he will probably get a third party contender he has urged his voters to vote for.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
posted
The main problem I have with claiming the old fish is McCain is that it says it will stink after 8 years. What about McCain is he referencing with the the 8 years. Much more likely he is referencing Bush's policies.
Also, McCain used the line twice, once in October and then again in May.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
Wow. That's incredible.
It was a bit more specific than what I remembered, since it was actually about a single article, but I remembered it because my boss came to my office the next day talking about how reasonable it was. He also pointed out the subtext of the "Celebrity" commercial as further evidence that subtext was being used against Obama.
I think it's true that a focus on physical appearance may equate to "blackness" on some subcognitive level, or that simply using the word "old" (or "pig") may be prejudicial, but the effect is so small as to be unimportant. For a campaign to expend the effort to introduce subtext or to take umbrage when the other side does it, is simply silly IMO.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the lipstick comment, I'm not sure if Obama intended for this storm of media attention or not. Either way, I think he did make a good answer to the controversy. Video with his response.
The complaints we're making about how we ignore the issues to talk about distractions (Chris' comic comment) is exactly what Obama talks about. I don't know if seeing the video makes the case that he intended this so he could make this statement or if it was an accident.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I think: Did Obama pick that Lipstick reference because of Palin's reference at the convention--Yes.
Did he do it to imply that she was a pig, no. Why on earth would he? The sub-text is supposed to connect her to what he considers a failing strategy.
Did he try to connect McCain to and Old Fish? I didn't see it until some McCain defenders brought it up.
What about the 8 Year reference? Its a reference to Bush, who's been in office for 8 years and who Obama wants to blame for the problem. The subtext is saying McCain is just 4 more years of Bush corruption, mistakes, and bad policy.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness").
Wow. That's incredible.
I wonder if this could be unpacked a little bit. This is kind of a pilot case for a black politician with a real national profile that is transcending the "race issue" in many ways.
We are exposed to few high profile black people in popular culture that don't attempt to identify themselves with black culture or black stereotyping. I can't off the top of my head think of a single black person, in fact, who isn't involved in the national discussion of race in some way, either through his/her portrayals of racially charged characters in movies, or involvement in music that is specific to black culture. I have known a greater number of not-nationally known black people who are not called upon as "representatives" of black culture, but I can't think of a national figure that isn't, either voluntarily, or by sheer momentum.
So, when our news media, and all media generally, as so accustomed to physical or character or taste descriptions that are "black owned" if you will, that are specific to black people or uniquely colored (to use a literary and not a racial term) by a person's blackness, how can we describe any black person without calling on the stereotypes and cliches that are embedded in the culture?
What I could say about Obama, white or black: He's educated, he's articulate, he's a leader, he's well-read, he's tall, he's thin, or he's skinny, he's smart, he's ambitious, he's ethical, he's artistic, he's shy, he's friendly, etc.
Of those, "articulate," "educated," "well-read" and "skinny," are probably the most racially charged. I didn't add "clean," as Joe Biden was censured for saying, but I did say "ethical." It would seem that some of these imply a negative opposite: if not well-read, then "illiterate," if not "clean" then dirty, if not skinny, then "well-fed," if not "educated," then maybe dangerous, or a burden to society, or unemployable. These are all associated with black stereotypes, so using the positive is still an implication of the underlying negative.
I think the press should conscientiously avoid the evocation of negative stereotypes by using less racially charged descriptions. I would say, do this whether or not you believe in them, out of simple sensitivity to those who do. There are still legions of words untainted by a history of rhetorical use by both white and black people.
I will say, that my uncle (who has two master's degrees and is black, and works in government) and I will joke about being "articulate," and "clean" following the hubub about Biden. His living for so long within a white extended family in San Francisco gives him an interesting view of racial issues, since he was born and raised in black neighborhoods in New York, and went to school in Chicago.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If you scroll down in the link that Threads posted, Sen. Obama is criticized for his sexist imagery for using the word "periodically" with regard to Sen. Clinton.
That is just hilarious. Or really sad.
There was a Slate article about how referring to Obama as "skinny" (specifically, within the media) was code for "black." The premise was, IIRC, that any reference to his physical appearance was meant to draw attention to his skin color (and hence his race and his "otherness"). The level of sensitivity about subtext is off the charts, no matter where you look. In the campaigns, in the media, everywhere. People are just aching to take offense.
quote: All Countries in BBC Poll Prefer Obama to McCain
All 22 countries in a BBC World Service poll would prefer Democratic nominee Barack Obama elected US president instead of his Republican rival John McCain. Obama is preferred by a four to one margin on average across the 22,000 people polled.
...
The countries most optimistic that an Obama presidency would improve relations are America's NATO allies - Canada (69%), France (62%), Germany (61%), United Kingdom (54%), Italy (64%) - as well as Australia (62%) and the African countries Kenya (87%) and Nigeria (71%).
...
GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller comments, "Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack Obama represents.
"Given how negative America's international image is at present, it is quite striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush Administration's relations with the world."
One odd tidbit that might be interesting to explain, why are (non-NATO allies) China and India among the few that think McCain would improve relations?
quote: In no country do most people think that a McCain presidency would worsen relations. But the view that he would actually improve relations is the most common view in only three countries and in all of them it is by a modest margin: in China (31%) feel this way, India (35%), and Nigeria (31%).
Of course, this international popularity may bode badly for Obama's chances
quote: A similar poll conducted for BBC World Service by GlobeScan ahead of the 2004 US presidential election found that, of 35 countries polled, 30 preferred to see Democratic nominee John Kerry, rather than incumbent George Bush, elected president. At the time, the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland were among the few countries to favour Bush's re-election. All three now favour Barack Obama over John McCain.
posted
A friend suggested today that McCain's campaign strategy now is just to hold Palin in front of him while saying "You wouldn't hit a girl, would you?"
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ha! That's about right.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MattP: A friend suggested today that McCain's campaign strategy now is just to hold Palin in front of him while saying "You wouldn't hit a girl, would you?"
posted
Regarding Ron Paul's press conference today.
I just read the statement that Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, and Nader signed.
quote: We Agree - Paul, Baldwin, McKinney, Nader Statement
The Republican/Democrat duopoly has, for far too long, ignored the most important issues facing our nation. However, alternate candidates Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader agree with Ron Paul on four key principles central to the health of our nation. These principles should be key in the considerations of every voter this November and in every election.
We Agree
Foreign Policy: The Iraq War must end as quickly as possible with removal of all our soldiers from the region. We must initiate the return of our soldiers from around the world, including Korea, Japan, Europe and the entire Middle East. We must cease the war propaganda, threats of a blockade and plans for attacks on Iran, nor should we re-ignite the cold war with Russia over Georgia. We must be willing to talk to all countries and offer friendship and trade and travel to all who are willing. We must take off the table the threat of a nuclear first strike against all nations.
Privacy: We must protect the privacy and civil liberties of all persons under US jurisdiction. We must repeal or radically change the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and the FISA legislation. We must reject the notion and practice of torture, eliminations of habeas corpus, secret tribunals, and secret prisons. We must deny immunity for corporations that spy willingly on the people for the benefit of the government. We must reject the unitary presidency, the illegal use of signing statements and excessive use of executive orders.
The National Debt: We believe that there should be no increase in the national debt. The burden of debt placed on the next generation is unjust and already threatening our economy and the value of our dollar. We must pay our bills as we go along and not unfairly place this burden on a future generation.
The Federal Reserve: We seek a thorough investigation, evaluation and audit of the Federal Reserve System and its cozy relationships with the banking, corporate, and other financial institutions. The arbitrary power to create money and credit out of thin air behind closed doors for the benefit of commercial interests must be ended. There should be no taxpayer bailouts of corporations and no corporate subsidies. Corporations should be aggressively prosecuted for their crimes and frauds.
It will be interesting to see if this siphons off any of McCain's independent votes, ensuring a victory for Obama. I hope it does because I hope the power and influence of third party candidates grow. It feels good to no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I am one republican that isn't voting for McCain.
I don't think it will take as many votes from Obama because most of the frustration I see is from democrats against the republicans or republicans from the republicans. However I don't know any Hillary supporters, so I missed that drama with Obama.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hooray for Ron Paul. I'm another Republican that will be voting third party this election. I wish Ron Paul were running third party, but I appreciate his integrity for sticking by his promise not to.
I'm not a big fan of Bob Barr, and if I thought there was any chance he would win I might reconsider which third party to vote for. But Libertarian is my traditional third-party of choice, and it's a good voting block to join, as a way to collectively send a message to the major parties and the rest of the country.
I've noticed since moving to a swing state that most people here are less likely to vote third-party, even if they don't really like any of the major party candidates, because not voting for the lesser of two evils is considered "throwing your vote away."
I, however, am more excited to vote third party here than I was back in my red state. If I wanted McCain to win, I'd vote for him. But I don't and hopefully if New Mexico tips in Obama's favor because of a small block of angry Republicans, the party will take notice. Better still, if enough elections are changed by a third party, maybe the "throwing your vote away" mindset will be changed, critical mass will be achieved, and the political cartel will crumble. That's a movement I'd be proud to be part of.
I'm sure it won't happen this time around, but maybe we can make a step in the right direction.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Living in a fairly red state, I would be willing to vote third party if someone in a toss up state would vote for Obama for me.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of third parties, I'd have been way more likely to vote for McCain if he had run as an independant (and consequently not spent the last year or two reaching out to the far right and fundamentalist parts of the republican party). And actually, that makes me the kind of voter his campaign seems to be going for now. All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
posted
Enigmatic, I think you're spot on. Even his Palin pick was meant to reinforce that--he was trying to pick someone who had taken on Republicans. An actual history of it.
His message was meant to be, "Do you want to vote for someone who talks about change, or do you want to vote for people who go out and try to change things, not matter whose toes they step on."
McCain is hated by the conservatives for the Gang of 14, the immigration reform bill, and some other stuff in his history, where he put finding solutions above party loyalty. The question has always been whether he did it out of a sense of self-promotion or a genuine desire to do the right thing, but nobody can argue he hasn't done it.
He meant for the Palin pick to emphasize that divide, since she'd taken on the Republican establishment in her state, but instead, red state America is just looking at her and seeing someone after their own heart.
She's not succeeding for the reasons he intended her to, but we'll see if his original intentions end up swinging some independents who don't necessarily identify with her as much, personally.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Show is all it is. Third parties will never be major political players without a fundamental change in American democracy. Historically, third parties have only been able to get into Congress as either a single issue oriented party, like the various incarnations of Know Nothings in the 1850's, or as a precursor to a major political shift, like when the Whigs collapsed and were replaced by the Republicans in the 1850's. The only way they've had a shot at the presidency is when a major political player from an established party has broken ranks to form his own party, of which only one I can think of has had a serious shot, and that was Teddy Roosevelt when he broke with I think the Republicans to form the Bull Moose party, in an attempt to unseat his own handpicked successor. But even he failed, and in fact handed victory to the Democrats by splitting the vote more dramatically than anything we've ever seen.
But we haven't seen anything even close to that historical standard in nearly the last 100 years. I do however think that we could be coming back around again, and the reason is the internet. Part of the reason, though not nearly all of it, that the 1820-1850 timeframe had a window in which new groups could crop up quite easily was the rapid and incredible increase in printing technology. Presses were coming out that could ever faster produce more and more material, and at the same time, paper was cheaper and more accessible than ever. I don't have the numbers handy (I'm at school right now, but I can get them later), but the number of newspapers in some states went from the hundreds to the tens of thousands in just a decade. Anyone could start their own newspaper with relatively little capital. This allowed for an incredible diffusion of ideas across the population.
Over the next hundred years however this trend greatly reversed itself, and eventually the power of the press largely reverted to the control of a relatively small group of people, and thus the ability to disseminate information to the masses was also restricted. Ever since, the two party system has had an iron grip on politics.
However, the reason I see this possibly (theoretically) changing over the next couple decades is the internet, and an increasingly net literate society. American 20 somethings and everyone born from now on will be internet literate and will probably be avid users, even if it's just for email and checking the news. As time goes on, the percentage of our population that regularly uses the internet will only increase as older Americans die off. Combine that with 2008, which I think will go down in history as a landmark year for how the internet can be used to spread information, organize support and gather funds, and you've got the beginnings of what could be national grassroots campaigns to elect relatively unknown candidates to office. That kind of organization got Obama the ticket of a major party, and vaulted Ron Paul into national stardom, despite his eventual failure. If we look at 2008 as just the beginning of what the years to come have to offer, and look at the increasing number of people who will pay attention to the medium, I think you have the makings of a window similar to that in the 1850's for what could be a chance for third parties to gain access to the national political stage.
posted
I think you have a sound theory Lyrhawn. I do dread the onslaught of craziness from both parties when or if they attempt to hold onto their power.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest problem with a third party is that the majority of Americans refuse to get their news from any but a small number of outlets, most of which are controlled by the same people. I think the media is one of the biggest problems with democracy today. The internet may or may not prove to be a vehicle for change in the coming decades, but I see one serious problem with it: participation. Most people would rather just sit in their dark holes and let the world shout at them from a few very loud sources. In order to get information about third parties you have to seek it out. That involves work.
I know we're all here chatting politics but I think we're an exception, not a rule. Most of the time when I hear people talking politics in the real world all I get is feedback noise from NBC, Fox, or CNN.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
The trouble is, even though he used to have a record of acting like a maverick, he's pretty much thrown that out the window in the past few months. If he was really independent of the Republican establishment, he'd have picked Joe Lieberman to be VP, who seemed to be the candidate McCain wanted and fit the criteria of "Ready to become President" that McCain had previously said was important. Instead, he picked someone extremely unexperienced, very conservative, and with a borderline unethical history in her brief time in office - all things that conflict with what McCain had previously seemed to value. That's a pretty strong indicator that he's no longer following his own personal compass.
Similarly, just look at the sort of campaign he is running now compared to his previous "straight talk" campaign in 2004. Instead of straight talk, it's all about spinning the public - his campaign has rarely mentioned real political issues since the convention ended. It is all very reminiscient of the way the Bush team played politics over the past eight years. It's all so un-McCain-like.
So, while I'd like to see an independent-minded McCain, everything he's doing (or at least allowing his campaign to do on his behalf) contradicts that message.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: The biggest problem with a third party is that the majority of Americans refuse to get their news from any but a small number of outlets, most of which are controlled by the same people. I think the media is one of the biggest problems with democracy today. The internet may or may not prove to be a vehicle for change in the coming decades, but I see one serious problem with it: participation. Most people would rather just sit in their dark holes and let the world shout at them from a few very loud sources. In order to get information about third parties you have to seek it out. That involves work.
I know we're all here chatting politics but I think we're an exception, not a rule. Most of the time when I hear people talking politics in the real world all I get is feedback noise from NBC, Fox, or CNN.
Well, keep in mind just how new the internet really is, especially in its current format. The major news networks have had a monopoly on media in this country for 100 years. You don't break that kind of hold overnight. Independent news, be it blogs or actual investigative journalism being performed independently and posted online, is in its infancy as far as the internet goes. But I think already you can see a sort of 21st century muckraking going on in the online news community. I think the problem has more to do with the percentage of the population looking for the information that is out there than with the number of people providing it. The internet is a boon to accessibility, but a lot of people don't take advantage of it, and choose to look through whatever narrow lens that the national media services portray national and world events.
Again though, I think this will change as time goes on. Younger generations are far more likely to surf the internet and find information independently, rather than watch the nightly news and get all their news there. We're talking about a shift in information gathering mediums that's dramatically different across generations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:All of his "Maverick" and "I've bucked my own party" seems to be a way of trying to say "Hey, I'm not really a republican."
The trouble is, even though he used to have a record of acting like a maverick, he's pretty much thrown that out the window in the past few months. If he was really independent of the Republican establishment, he'd have picked Joe Lieberman to be VP, who seemed to be the candidate McCain wanted and fit the criteria of "Ready to become President" that McCain had previously said was important. Instead, he picked someone extremely unexperienced, very conservative, and with a borderline unethical history in her brief time in office - all things that conflict with what McCain had previously seemed to value. That's a pretty strong indicator that he's no longer following his own personal compass.
Similarly, just look at the sort of campaign he is running now compared to his previous "straight talk" campaign in 2004. Instead of straight talk, it's all about spinning the public - his campaign has rarely mentioned real political issues since the convention ended. It is all very reminiscient of the way the Bush team played politics over the past eight years. It's all so un-McCain-like.
So, while I'd like to see an independent-minded McCain, everything he's doing (or at least allowing his campaign to do on his behalf) contradicts that message.
Exactly. It is astonishing to me that more people don't seem to notice this.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if either "Troopergate" or the "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco will stick. It seems- understandably- that Obama's camp is trying to take some of the bloom off the rose of Palin's pick, but I wonder if it's just too soon. People are seeing in her what they want to see, not necessarily what's there. (An assertion I recognize could be made of Obama as well.)
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I realize McCain is moving right because he perceives he *has* to in order to get elected. This is ticking off some people and encouraging others.
In one sense we may view it as hypcritical, but in another sense pragmatic political compromise is almost inherent in the job description of a Congressperson and President. Some do it better than others. Obama is probably the only person who can claim he hasn't on a national scale, and let's face it, it's partially because his time in the U.S. Senate hasn't been long enough to necessitate it in "greater-good" type legislation.
I guess with this "waffling" of McCain we don't really know where he stands. Yes, he chose Palin as a running mate. It was a very pragmatic political decision. Old age clearly played a part,he obvously knows that after this election cycle he probably doesn't have a chance due to his advancing age. Some postulate that the beginning of senility is why he is making these pragmatic compromises and if he had his full faculties he'd never do what he is doing now. It is possible.
I'm theorizing that if McCain does get elected he will be a 1-term president. I think he will tick off the Right-wing base that he knows he needs to get elected and they will abandon him like they never did with Bush. They already have more doubts about him. If he doesn't tick of his right-wing base, the moderates that lean his direction now, because they think he is just making these pragmatic compromises to get elected, and will be back to his "former self" if he gets elected, are going to be disappointed, and they will vote for Obama in the next election.
I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time. He's always been a far more palatable vote than Gore. I believe that a significant portion of the previous Bush voters disliked him but figured the known loathesome was better than risking the country on Gore. Even then, Gore nearly won.
By comparison, I don't think that Palin stands a chance against Obama, head to head, even if she is V.P. for the next four years, because I don't believe she can ever capture the moderate vote on her own merits, even if she is female.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: I think Obama, if he is defeated in this election will run for president again in 4 years, and unlike Gore, he will win next time. He's always been a far more palatable vote than Gore. I believe that a significant portion of the previous Bush voters disliked him but figured the known loathesome was better than risking the country on Gore. And even then, Gore did nearly won.
I doubt that he would run again, actually. Neither major political party is prone to rerun candidates who have previously lost elections.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They did with Gore. I think they are more likely to go with a 1-time loser a) when attempting to unseat an incumbent president and b)when the vote in the previous election is extremely close. Remember the Hanging Chads?? I expect Obama to meet those criteria, if he loses.
Obama's political star is still on the rise even if he loses this election. He's still a freshman senator. Given IL voters, he's probably got decades in the Senate to look forward to, and even 16 years from now he could possibly be a viable presidential canidate if he doesn't screw up too much in the mean time.
If he lost, I could see him personally choosing not to run again in 4 years, but I suspect he would in 8-12 years.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
