Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Biden Wins
In scoring these debates I try to remember not just what the expectations were beforehand, but what the goals were. When Barack Obama picked Joe Biden, what did he want? A safe-sounding (white) old hand who'd convince people that Obama understood them. When John McCain picked Sarah Palin, what did he want? An instant star who'd blow up the electorate, peel off Hillary voters, and purloin the "change" message from Obama.
On those terms there's no question that the Democrats won tonight. Biden spent the night attacking John McCain's record and building up (with detachable honesty) Obama's. Palin spent the night re-selling Sarah Palin. For her it was the day after the Republican convention ended, before the Couric interview, before the Saturday Night Live parodies, when she was still a hockey stick-swingin' shitkicker who got things done. When she wasn't attacking Obama she was re-packaging herself. I don't know how that moved the McCain ball forward.
Both of them had their "on" moments. Here's one of
Biden's.
Here's one of hers.
I didn't expect Sarah Palin to melt down, no more than
conservatives should have expected Obama to implode without the
aide of a teleprompter. You don't get elected governor if every
public performance is a Katie Couric interview. But for her to
recover the spotlight and the momentum of early September she
needed to prove that she knew more than talking points and Wasilla.
She didn't. For Biden to implode he needed to lose his cool, invade
her space, or talk past the audience. He didn't. Notably, Biden
talked about people he knew in Delaware. Palin talked about
herself.
As entertaining as the Palin sideshow is, ask yourself: Are people voting on the drama of Feisty Sarah and her battle with the Evil Media? Or are they voting on something else? I'll have to play like a vice presidential candidate for a moment: I'm from Delaware. Many of my best friends still live there. My parents and their friends live there. And I hear them talk about whether they can afford having a kid right now, and joking about the stock market, and fretting over their home values. I don't think they care quite as much about whether the media's mean to Sarah Palin as the average blogger does.
UPDATE: I thought "Bosniak" was a Biden gaffe. I'm dumb: He's right.
Lester Hunt|10.3.08 @ 12:28AM|#
David, I think you are wrong about this. Joe won if it was a college-style debate about the issues, but Sarah won if it was about making emotional contact with the audience. I think the latter might be the right interpretation.
jasno|10.3.08 @ 12:31AM|#
I find her looks and mannerisms - smiling while talking with
lots of eye movement - to be hypnotic, alluring, and yet
offensive.
I feel like she's trying too hard to look cute - now maybe it's not
her fault - but I feel like I'm watching a Tony Robbins convert. It
makes me distrust what she's saying, like she's trying to pull one
over on me.
Elemenope|10.3.08 @ 12:37AM|#
Joe won if it was a college-style debate about the issues,
but Sarah won if it was about making emotional contact with the
audience.
Was this a debate, or a Dr. Phil appearance?
C'mon.
|10.3.08 @ 12:39AM|#
Every time Palin accused Obama of voting for the wrong thing, Biden countered that McCain voted the same as Obama. I don't know if its true or not, but if you're trying to link McCain to George W. Bush, does it really help that Biden kept saying that McCain voted the same as Obama?
|10.3.08 @ 12:41AM|#
I find her looks and mannerisms - smiling while talking with
lots of eye movement - to be hypnotic, alluring, and yet
offensive.
It's funny to see Democrats and Republicans reverse sides on the
"but, she's such a bitch!" issue.
Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is laughing her ass off.
|10.3.08 @ 12:44AM|#
"It's funny to see Democrats and Republicans reverse sides
on the "but, she's such a bitch!" issue."
Assuming there's no distinction between cunning bitch and dumb
bitch.
Elemenope|10.3.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Somewhere, Hillary Clinton is laughing her ass
off crying.
Fixed that for you. I think, actually, the SNL skit got it
spot-on.
|10.3.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Was this a debate, or a Dr. Phil appearance?
Judging by what a debate is in most other western democracies, it
was a Dr. Phil appearance.
|10.3.08 @ 12:47AM|#
Assuming there's no distinction between cunning bitch and
dumb bitch.
Aren't they both cunning bitches?
|10.3.08 @ 12:51AM|#
that whole thing about the toxic mess on Main Street affecting
Wall Street is probably a gaffe, and she's probably get hammered
for it. But not only is it kinda true, there's probably a lot of
people on "Main Street" (such as it is), who will agree with that
assessment.
I can't tell you the number of stories I've heard lately about
people's no-good relatives who bought houses they couldn't afford
and are getting foreclosed on. Just about everyone knows (or knows
of) some jerk who was trying to house flip to make a fast buck and
is counting on a bailout from the government.
The media vastly underestimates the ability of ordinary people to
recognize corruption in their own class, not just on Wall
Street.
|10.3.08 @ 12:55AM|#
Pardon my sexism. You guys know when you're fightin with the ole
lady? The argument is over something where she is obviously wrong?
You know how she turns at that point into a mean little ball of
nastiness? Gonna win at all costs?
That's how Palin came across tonight. A smug, condescending, self
righteous twit, in a nice outfit with a big smile and great
hair.
|10.3.08 @ 12:58AM|#
As party politics go, I think her biggest gaff was the answer on
rights for same sex couples. The foundation of the party is the
Southern Baptist Convention. Southern baptists hate them some
homersexuals. That dog won't hunt.
Someone said earlier today on a thread here that they thought the
fundies would just stay home. I think this reinforces that
prediction.
SIV|10.3.08 @ 1:01AM|#
The Obama campaign, partisans and the Media(to the extent they
are separable at this point) in "destroying her" set the bar so low
she couldn't help but exceed expectations.She easily defied her
image by performing competently, confidently and connecting.McCain
is now the only drag on his own campaign.Palin's performance should
be enough to put the focus back where it always is in Presidential
contests, the top of the ticket.
I'd call that a win.
|10.3.08 @ 1:03AM|#
"Southern baptists hate them some homersexuals. That dog
won't hunt."
She was talking about long time friends or roommates who enter into
contractual relationships, you know, after your wife tragically
dies or the elderly who don't have sex anyway.
OK, eff all that. How bad did Gwen Ifill suck?
jasno|10.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
Sheesh.. I didn't mean to start a bitch-fest.
I wouldn't use bitch to describe Palin... I wouldn't mind downing
some Alaskan Amber and capping a few moose with her someday. She
just seems... empty and deceptive... maybe a tad manipulative? I
don't think 'bitch' is the right word to describe that.
|10.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
Pardon my sexism. You guys know when you're fightin with the
ole lady? The argument is over something where she is obviously
wrong? You know how she turns at that point into a mean little ball
of nastiness? Gonna win at all costs?
That's how Palin came across tonight. A smug, condescending, self
righteous twit, in a nice outfit with a big smile and great
hair.
There seems to be a theme emerging here.
In the debates, both McCain and Palin seemed to show a contempt (or
level of contempt) for their opponent that Obama and Biden did not.
It, also, seems that the public is punishing them for it.
It makes me wonder if Obama and Biden have found a way to campaign
by being less mean and calculating than the other guy. How
calculating.
|10.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
"Palin's performance should be enough to put the focus back
where it always is in Presidential contests, the top of the
ticket.
I'd call that a win."
One part of me wants to say that this is an interesting spin on a
candidate not knowing what she's talking about, but the cynical
part agrees with you.
doesn\'tmatter|10.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
I'm from Delaware. Many of my best friends still live there.
My parents and their friends live there. And I hear them talk about
whether they can afford having a kid right now, and joking about
the stock market, and fretting over their home values.
How the hell is this relevant? I just watched two politicians spoon
feed me sentimental bullshit and now I have to read it here? The
name of the magazine is Reason, not Emotionally Appealing Logical
Fallacies.
There's a lot of implications to sort out from that comment. The
most obvious one is that the Vice President has some kind of affect
on what actually happens to regular people. Since when? Maybe
McCain croaks early, but I think that's kind of a stretch
regardless.
Lastly, since when did libertarians start voting based what is best
for people looking to have kids? I guess I may only be speaking for
myself when I say it's not right to punish the rich for the
failures of the less rich. That's putting aside so many possible
objections about government intervention in the economy, as if the
real moral problem inherent in redistribution of wealth isn't
enough to make libertarians skeptical.
Maybe I'm reading too much into that comment, but when you start
using class warfare arguments that you see real socialists making
then you need to be aware of the implications. I thought this would
be obvious to libertarians.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.3.08 @ 1:06AM|#
Bidet wins?
I don't think so.
Not that it matters that much to me, I'm still not voting for
McCain or Obama.
I think when you couple the expectation that Palin would do a stage
dive into incoherence with Bidet's vast experience in Foggy Bottom,
she did quite well.
Worst case a draw. Best case, Palin by a couple of lengths.
|10.3.08 @ 1:08AM|#
I wouldn't use bitch to describe Palin... I wouldn't mind
downing some Alaskan Amber and capping a few moose with her
someday. She just seems... empty and deceptive... maybe a tad
manipulative? I don't think 'bitch' is the right word to describe
that.
First, I don't think that Palin is any more or less of a bitch than
Clinton. They are both bitches in my book.
Second, being a bitch is not always a bad thing. My wife is a
bitch, but she's MY bitch.
Joe Sixpackmericanmainstreet|10.3.08 @ 1:11AM|#
By golly, I think it was clear that Palin rolled up her sleeves, went a-rufflin' some feathers, winked a few times, was a maverick something something and is not from the East Coast. That's good enough for me to think she can handle the job.
|10.3.08 @ 1:11AM|#
Given the lack of interesting ANYTHING to come out of either one
of them, I am totally mystified why the media seems to lap up this
silly "R v. D" drama crap.
No answers of substance. Nothing new. Yet people are enamored by
all this. WTF?
|10.3.08 @ 1:13AM|#
Way to stack the deck for the messiah there, David; if Biden doesn't faint and fall off the stage he wins.
|10.3.08 @ 1:14AM|#
The governor didn't answer the question about deregulation because she doesn't even know her strong points.
|10.3.08 @ 1:21AM|#
The government from the president on down has sold joe sixpack
on the story that the economy is dead.
The dems are promising what they always do: feel good stuff for the
working man. Their platform is basically the same.
The repubs are in a bit of a pickle. They talk about the tax
incentives for the top earners. Not poular with everyone scared of
the economy. They don't appeal to their base at the foot of the
cross. They can't swerve farther left or they lose even more
hardliners.
I don't know what McCain/Palin can do to pull this thing out. The
only thing that comes to mind is a 9/11 size domestic attack or an
escalation to war in Pakistan or Iran.
|10.3.08 @ 1:23AM|#
When Biden says that the rich will pay the same that they will under Reagan, only a blind devotion to talking points counters with "I take exception to that wealth redistribution" without addressing the Reagan statement. Was Reagan in favor of wealth redistribution? Has the right's love affair with Reagan been a sham? How do you let Biden claim the mantle of Reagan? I guess the theory is that thinking people know better, but somehow I suspect thinking people haven't been impressed with Palin's performance (unless you factor in low expectations).
Carl Spackler|10.3.08 @ 1:25AM|#
"I don't know what McCain/Palin can do to pull this thing out.
The only thing that comes to mind is a 9/11 size domestic attack or
an escalation to war in Pakistan or Iran."
So they got that goin for 'em, which is nice.
Jeffersonian|10.3.08 @ 1:28AM|#
No he did not win. Reason writers are the type of beltway libertarians that I am just about done with. I am going to start calling myself conservative because of their stupidity and eagerness to blow Obama, while attacking the one candidate in this race who actually represents principles that they supposedly agree with. Her record is 100X more libertarian than either Obama or Biden's and 50 X more libertarian than Mccain's. Instead the fucking leather coat, look at me I'm independent types here rip her down.
Jim|10.3.08 @ 1:29AM|#
Um, Dave, I am not sure why Hit & Run spends so much time
analyzing the debate from a conventional horse race standpoint.
Please leave that nonsense to TNR and the Corner.
It would serve your blog much better to analyze the debate from a
LIBERTARIAN perspective. Which of these tickets is better or worse
from a libertarain perspective? Did this debate help us answer that
question?
|10.3.08 @ 1:30AM|#
Palin was good enough to negate Biden's supposed "war/foreign
policy" domination.
Biden is a career politician...yet he did not dominate a
youngster...another impressive point for Palin.
I get a kick out of both of them almost ignoring the moderators
questions, so they can spew forth their memorised talking
points.
Typical crap.
~Lance
Dagny T.|10.3.08 @ 1:37AM|#
Say it aint so, joe
Even that was as obviously scripted as everything else she said,
but at least it wasn't especially off-putting.
Their apparent race to agree on lots of douchebaggy issues
notwithstanding.
"I want to spend more money."
"No, I do. Plus I love the troops and Israel more."
"Do not."
"Do too."
"MAVRICK!"
|10.3.08 @ 1:52AM|#
I saw Biden once at the Home Depot, where he hangs out a lot.
Engaging in a lot of toilet plunger comparison, I suppose.
Weigel, are you the new Andrew Sullivan or something?
|10.3.08 @ 1:56AM|#
This debate lacked in almost every catergory. It was repetitive,
boring, and mostly the same crap we've been hearing about Obama and
McCain for the last year.
What was interesting was Palin's ability to look at the Camera, to
connect to middle America. She didn't connect with me, nor did
Biden, but I think a lot of pundits (East and West Coasters, myself
included) forget that most of this election is decided by people
who for some reason "want to connect with their candidate." (See
Bush 00, 04 is the guy they want to have a beer with). Palin
connected, Biden was more techical, but didn't connect.
While for the purposes of this blog, I would prefer more on the
contrast of nearly everything BOTH PALIN and BIDEN said vs.
Libertarian ideas, I can also see where Palin "might have" scored
some points for not being an utter disaster.
Remember folks these facts:
The encumbent party has had...
1) 9-11
2) Enron
3) Katrina
4) Iraq
5) Afghanistan
6) Credit-Crisis
All on their watch and they are still pulling like 40-45 plus in
the polls. I'd say they (GOP) are doing pretty damn well
considering the crap on their plate (both of, and not of their own
making). Surprising, when you think about it...
[Voting 3rd party is the only option that makes sense. These two
were clowns up there...nothing made sense, nor was much of anything
they said true.]
|10.3.08 @ 1:57AM|#
Not to sound anti-semitic or anything, but why do Jews in
America need that much ass-kissing on Israel?
Wouldn't it be less embarassing to just have people say "I support
Israel's existence", and leave it at that?
Who wants to be covered in worshipful drool all the time?
|10.3.08 @ 2:00AM|#
emotions?
we are electing a VP who can take us to WW3 if need be, not kiss
your boo boo!
|10.3.08 @ 2:12AM|#
I disagree with your stated premiss: McCain chose Palin to shore up the base. The tax cutting, Christian, gun loving, pro life but mostly liberatian parts of the party, that he didn't have. The fact that Palin was a good looking and a woman was just gravy.
|10.3.08 @ 3:18AM|#
Her record is 100X more libertarian than either Obama or
Biden's and 50 X more libertarian than Mccain's.
This suggests that Mr. "So-called First Amendment rights" is twice
as libertarian as Obama or Biden. Color me skeptical.
|10.3.08 @ 3:34AM|#
Well, if nothing else, tonight's little wingding should (hopefully?) put to bed any notion that Palin is in any way, shape or form a libertarian...
Franklin Harris|10.3.08 @ 4:05AM|#
Her record is 100X more libertarian than either Obama or Biden's and 50 X more libertarian than Mccain's.
You do realize that any number times zero is still zero, right?
JMR|10.3.08 @ 4:15AM|#
A vote for a third party candidate this time is a vote for more interesting "debates." (And I'm also in shock Radley's question for Biden went unasked.)
|10.3.08 @ 4:34AM|#
Even FOX news is saying Biden won with their polling. It's
available on their website.
Didn't everyone kind of expect Biden to win anyway?
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 7:57AM|#
Her record is 100X more libertarian than either Obama or
Biden's and 50 X more libertarian than Mccain's.
The problem with this statement is that Palin has yet to describe a
single facet of the Bush record or the McCain record that she
doesn't agree with. On the contrary, she has endorsed them
wholeheartedly. Even when she doesn't know what the Bush record is
[like when she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was] she makes
sure to endorse it.
This more than cancels out whatever rhetoric she may have employed
during local Alaska elections.
You may discount her endorsement of the current GOP establishment
as a necessary lie she's telling to secure the VP slot - and it may
very well be just that. But I am entitled to take her at her word
and accept her Bush lovin' as sincere. And it doesn't speak well of
her attachment to libertarian values that she is willing to spit on
them to advance herself.
And in any event, her record in Alaska seems to mainly consist of
seeing how much she can extort from oil companies to buy popularity
for herself. "Hey, let them drill everywhere!" is balanced out by
"Hey, send all my constituents another $1000 each so they'll like
me!" It seems to me that her record only appears quasi-libertarian
because being in Alaska limited who she could steal from and how
much.
|10.3.08 @ 8:30AM|#
"No answers of substance. Nothing new. Yet people are enamored
by all this. WTF?"
Well TAO you have to admit it has the appeal of a car accident or
the like or an episode of Telia Tequila, awful but hard to look
away. And, sadly, one of these two will be the VP of this
nation...
"Not to sound anti-semitic or anything, but why do Jews in America
need that much ass-kissing on Israel? " I think Jews in America,
and especially Jews in Israel are more receptive to criticism of
some of what Israel's government does than our politicians would
every be willing to express on camera. I think the fawning has more
to do with Christian Zionists and their juvenile beliefs.
|10.3.08 @ 8:44AM|#
But I am entitled to take her at her word and accept her
Bush lovin' as sincere
She may very well have libertarian tendencies. But I think,
overall, she is an opportunist. This is an opportunity to jump from
"good" (governor) to "great" (first female VP). She's a politician,
for fuck's sake.
|10.3.08 @ 8:50AM|#
"SIV | October 2, 2008, 10:50pm | #
MNG,
I like Palin more than the other candidates because she is more
"outside" the system.She is a popular governor of a very free
State"
Palin: "And Alaska-we're set up, unlike other states in the union,
where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in
the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." And she
said, "Our state constitution-it lays it out for me, how I'm to
conduct business with resource development here as the state C.E.O.
It's to maximize benefits for Alaskans, not an individual company,
not some multinational somewhere, but for Alaskans."
Sentence below Palin quote in the same article in which quote
appears: "Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist
state, because of its collective ownership of resources-an
arrangement that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend
on the state's oil royalties."
I get what SIV is saying, but the above is hard to square with
Alaska as some type of libertopia (all the federal money they rake
in also complicates that image imo)
|10.3.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Clearly Palin won. The fact that someone at REason has to admit
that Palin is not retarded says as much. Could Weigel be more full
of shit? "You don't get elected governor if every public
performance is a Katie Couric interview." Oh really? You sure as
hell were not saying that last week or any other time. For over a
month now it has been nothing but how Palin is a disaster. How she
is an ignorant fundie who can't do an an interview and so forth.
Now she does well and it is "well everyone knew she was good."
Weigel that doesn't even pass the laugh test.
I don't think Palin did that well as much as Biden is just a
buffoon. I honestly don't think his IQ is much above 100. If he
were a Republican he would be a national joke. It is astounding
that someone that dumb could end up in the Senate for so long and
may end up being VP.
Jay|10.3.08 @ 9:04AM|#
Sarah Palin showed herself to be the candidate I want to vote
for- someone from outside the beltway who has actually lived in the
real world and run something.
Certainly a step up from Biden or Obama.
|10.3.08 @ 9:06AM|#
"Even when she doesn't know what the Bush record is [like when
she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was] she makes sure to
endorse it."
That is because there is no such thing. The "Bush Doctrine" is an
invention of the media. It has about four different meanings. It
has never been articulated by Bush or the US government in any
interview or official communication. It is a dumbshit meaningless
term thrown around by journalists who don't have anything
intelligent to say about international law or foreign policy. It
either means, "promote democracy and go after the root causes of
terrorism" or "premptively attack terrorists" or "attack states
that support terrorism" depending on stupid point the journalist is
trying to make. I don't think Gibson knew what he meant when he
asked her. She could have given any of the three answers above and
the media would have said "but it is not that it is this, she
doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is". What a fucking joke.
|10.3.08 @ 9:08AM|#
I don't think Palin did that well as much as Biden is just a
buffoon
John, you are on the money here. Palin is mediocre, Biden is an
ass. Everybody wins.
|10.3.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Episariarch,
Palin was totally out of the spotlight and thrust into the most
insane media spectacle maybe ever. The entire establishment went
after her and tried to destroy her. It was really just the Katrina
trick tried again. In Katrina the media learned that they can do
real damage to Republicans if they all get together and go after it
as hard as possible. If they do that, facts and complications don't
matter. They tried the same thing with Palin and almost succeeded.
Last night showed she survived and is just okay as a candidate but
getting better. How much better will she be in four years? Think of
it this way, Biden has been in the Senate and running for President
since 1988 and still can't win a debate against a rookie governor
from Alaska.
|10.3.08 @ 9:14AM|#
[like when she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was]
did you miss that part Joe or does my internet in a different
universe than yours?
stuartl|10.3.08 @ 9:15AM|#
Maybe it was because he was more coherent, but Biden was much scarier. Has the man ever seen a problem not caused by the free market, or one that can't be solved by the government? Is there a military intervention he won't support?
|10.3.08 @ 9:16AM|#
joe,
Actually, I don't agree. The appearance of impropriety was the
issue, not whether she actually steered things in Obama/Biden's
favor. The issue for me, anyway. I'm sure GOP partisans see it all
as some master plot.
Ifill should've bowed out or never taken on the responsibility in
the first place. It corrupts the process and, from your
perspective, it may have limited her ability to really rough up
Palin, too. I hesitate to say her remaining in the role was
unethical--she wasn't judging them, after all--but it was
improper.
|10.3.08 @ 9:16AM|#
Republicans shouldn't whine but Ifill deserves a large heaping of abuse. If you want to write a propeganda book for Obama good for you, but don't masquerade as a journalist while you are doing it. How can you expect an honest opinion from someone who has a book deal riding on the election?
|10.3.08 @ 9:17AM|#
John, if you misspell my name again I will hunt you down and
teabag you. Or maybe gorilla mask you.
I don't really care about Palin's performance. All media is biased,
first of all, and even if "THE MEDIA" are after Palin, then she
will have to deal with that.
Who said politics is fair?
|10.3.08 @ 9:19AM|#
Fluffy,
In Palin's defense, you read over the statements she made prior to
being selected VP, and it seems clear she was against the surge and
highly skeptical of the war itself. I think that's a pretty
substantial difference from either Bush or McCain. Obviously she's
humming a different tune now, but that's a reflection of our absurd
convention that VP's are supposed to merely parrot the top of the
ticket's views instead of revealing their own (which makes the VP
debates themselves utterly pointless).
The bottom line is that whoever wins, we're going to have a
dangerous idiot in the White House. All other things being equal
(and they are) I'd rather somebody who is pretty. I just wish Palin
would have worn something last night that highlighted her yams a
little better.
|10.3.08 @ 9:19AM|#
>>>It is a dumbshit meaningless term thrown around by journalists who don't have anything intelligent to say about international law or foreign policy
|10.3.08 @ 9:20AM|#
Gorilla mask: shaving off your pubic hair and then gluing it to someone's face while they are sleeping/passed out.
|10.3.08 @ 9:21AM|#
Wow, you've read the book, John?
That's odd, because it's not finished.
We know she's biased, because she wrote a book about him. We know
it's a "propeganda book for him" because we know she's
biased.
Uh huh. That must be why her bias shone through so clearly last
night.
|10.3.08 @ 9:21AM|#
brotherben,
Golrilla
Mask
SFW, Urban Dictionary (has some variations on Epi's
definition.)
...|10.3.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Didn't have the chance to watch the whole thing, but Christ I just don't understand how anyone can listen to her 8th grade run on sentences and not want to vomit. Her answer on the global warming question made absolutely no sense, from a basic English language skills point of view.
|10.3.08 @ 9:22AM|#
Or, rather, wrote a book with his name in the title. Apparantly, there is one chapter about him.
|10.3.08 @ 9:23AM|#
John,
What would it have taken for Palin to lose? An anxiety attack? I
guess you're saying that she won because she was expected to be a
total idiot, and she was merely a babbling idiot. One second she's
going to reel in the Wall Street bastards, then three seconds later
she's going to get the government out of the way. They ask her
about the middle east and she talks about energy. They ask her
about energy and she talks about taxes. She name-drops a general to
seem 'in the know' and bungles it. I can't think of a single issue
where she showed any understanding.
And if Palin had a clue, she would have given the answer about the
Bush Doctrine that you just gave. Don't you find it disturbing that
you are more qualified than she is?
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Nope, John, sorry, no way.
I bet Monroe never said the words, "I am today promulgating a
doctrine I will call 'The Monroe Doctrine'," but you know what?
Anyone who doesn't know what the Monroe Doctrine was is a fucking
idiot.
This entire dodge about the ambiguity of the Bush Doctrine is a
post-hoc rationalization made up by people desperately trying to
cover for the fact that Palin is a fucking idiot.
Palin's performance last night didn't change my mind a bit. The
more I see of her, the more I know who she is:
She's a pretty girl who went to a state school and majored in
"journalism", although I'll bet it was secretly just a pimped-up
Communications degree. She was supposed to be a weathergirl or
sportsdesk girl somewhere, but because of a series of freak
accidents and because Alaska is a tiny state with a shallow pool of
political talent, she ended up first as governor of the state and
then a VP candidate.
And I can tell you this much: I went to a top tier school, and
even there the pretty girls who wanted to be weathergirls
were vacuous nonentities who would, in fact, stare blankly at you
if you used an expression like "Achilles' heel", and would stutter
at you and say, "Gosh, lots and lots!" if you asked them what books
and magazines they read.
Palin isn't quite Chauncey Gardiner, but she's the 21st century
equivalent. Her current position has more to do with the fact that
she has a big head and is therefore subject to the Merv Griffin
rule than it has with any intellectual acumen she might have.
**I don't give a shit if the above sounds sexist. I don't apologize
for the expression "weathergirl" one bit, and I don't apologize for
chalking a good part of Palin's success up to her looks. Her life
story clearly shows that her looks have always driven her career
path. When you enter beauty pageants and then go to school to get
Hannah Storm's job, I'm entitled to draw this conclusion.
|10.3.08 @ 9:24AM|#
I'm not interesting in understanding what caused global warming,
I just want to know how to solve it. Did I mention that dinosaurs
walked with man?
Alaska is America's only arctic state, so when the global warming
really kinda starts to rear its head up into America's airspace,
where is it?
Alaska.
|10.3.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Yeah Joe,
I am sure the book is going to be so critical of Obama and will
sell so well if Obama loses. Come on. Stop denying reality. Maybe
Ifill really is writing a hard hitting investigative book on Obama.
Maybe I will be voting for Obama and becoming a liberal sometime
soon to. You never know, but I doubt it.
|10.3.08 @ 9:27AM|#
Her current position has more to do with the fact that she
has a big head and is therefore subject to the Merv Griffin rule
than it has with any intellectual acumen she might have
Fucking great. I just want to break in and say that. "Merv Griffin
rule"; I love it.
|10.3.08 @ 9:28AM|#
Oh, boy, a "Yeah Joe" comment.
Let me guess - did I used to be a reasonable person, but now I'm
become all mean and partisan and stuff?
Maybe Ifill really is writing a hard hitting investigative book
on Obama. Or maybe it's a book about how black politics and
politicians are different now than they were during and immediately
after the civil rights era, and one can discuss such a topic, and
even notice that Barack Obama is a pretty good example of that, and
still do a fair and professional job moderating a presidential
debate.
|10.3.08 @ 9:31AM|#
And dammit, Bosniak sounds like a made-up word! It
should be a made-up word.
But it's not, and that's just not fair.
|10.3.08 @ 9:32AM|#
If you think Palin won, then you are using a standard under
which Palin could not have lost. If all she had to do to win was
not cry and run off the stage, then yes, she won. If all she had to
do was show conservatives that she can read from a list of tired
talking points instead of, say, crying and running off the stage,
then she won.
But if we're talking about even bets, I don't see how not knowing
anything substantive helped her.
|10.3.08 @ 9:34AM|#
Fluffy,
The Monroe Doctrine was articulated in Monroe's 1823 inaugural
address. Unlike the Bush Doctrine, it meant one thing and was
stated clearly by the President in an important address. The two
are just not comparable.
I spent a lot of the last 10 years thinking and working in
international law and the law of war. I am not an renown expert or
anything, but I know the basics and talked to a lot of people who
are experts. In that entire time, I don't remember the "Bush
Doctrine" ever coming up in a class or a discussion. I don't ever
remember hearing about it that much in the media until Palin's
alleged gaffe. In fact, the Corner had an excerpt from an interview
with the head of the Wilson school and when some idiot reporter
asked her the same question her response was the same one I would
have had which was "what do you mean by the Bush Docrtine". The
idea that it was some established term that everyone used and knew
what it meant like the Monroe Doctrine is a myth invented by people
who either don't know any better or just want to play gottcha with
Palin.
|10.3.08 @ 9:34AM|#
At this point, the bar has been set so low for Gov. Palin, that
young Trigg uses it as a therapeutic aid. Reminds me of the scene
in "Porkys: the Day After" where the kids lead the kkk into a gym
full of seminole indians. The repubs are tryin real hard to keep
supportin her, but it's gettin tougher every day.
Question: if McCain dumped her from the ticket today, replaced her
with Huckabee, would the Jesus Lemmings© that make up the
foundation of the party come flocking to the polls?
|10.3.08 @ 9:38AM|#
You can keep flailing, John, but on Gibson's third try, he told
her "It's a docrtrine of pre-emptive war articulated in September
2002."
Still nothing. A complete cipher.
She didn't fail to recognize the name; she doesn't know the issue
existed.
|10.3.08 @ 9:39AM|#
Joe,
If Obama loses the election, no one will read Ifill's book or care
about it because there will be no "Age of Obama." Ifill has a
direct rooting interest in the outcome of the election. Maybe she
can put that aside and be fair. I don't know and I don't care. What
matters is that because she has a direct financial interest in the
outcome, you will never know if she is giving you the truth or her
spin to help Obama. It disqualifies her as a journalist on this
subject. If she wants to write the book, she ought to stop covering
Obama and just write it and not mediate debates.
|10.3.08 @ 9:40AM|#
"Still nothing. A complete cipher."
And she just kicked Biden's ass in a televised national debate.
What does that say for him? You would be a little more credible on
Palin if you would admit what an obvious embarassment Biden is.
|10.3.08 @ 9:41AM|#
if McCain dumped her from the ticket today
Instant suicide, it will never happen. I can't think of anything
that would make him look weaker. Well, besides him trying to hit a
pinata or something else requiring him to raise his arms above his
head.
|10.3.08 @ 9:43AM|#
"The idea that it was some established term that everyone
used and knew what it meant like the Monroe Doctrine is a myth
invented by people who either don't know any better or just want to
play gotcha with Palin."
"The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive
actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security.
The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and
the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and
place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile
acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act
preemptively." - The National Security Strategy, 2002.
Now you know.
|10.3.08 @ 9:44AM|#
If she so completely kicked his ass in the debate, then I scream
foul on Gwen. She was obviously concerned about the appearance of
bias and was way too hard on Biden to compensate.
Yeah, that's the ticket.
|10.3.08 @ 9:44AM|#
"You can keep flailing, John, but on Gibson's third try, he told
her "It's a docrtrine of pre-emptive war articulated in September
2002."
That says more about Gibson's ignorance than Palin's. Why didn't he
just say "it was a doctrine of preemptive war I made up for this
interview."? It would have made as much sense. It was a stupid
question asked by a stupid interviewer. It is not surprising it
illicited a stupid answer. Palin has had gafes. The Couric
interview was terrible. But the "Bush Doctrine" just isn't one of
them.
dhex|10.3.08 @ 9:44AM|#
why the hate for gwen ifill? the news hour is just about the
only watchable evening news show left on tv. cnn is for zombie
idiots who think newsweek is hard-hitting journalism and fox is for
zombie idiots who think newsweek is hard-hitting propaganda for the
gay liberal agenda.
the news hour actually assumes you know how to read without bullet
points outlining what the pretty person on screen just said. it's
refreshingly basic, if a little sad. (morning call on bloomberg
gets props for asking decent questions at the same clip as the
micromachine man)
dhex|10.3.08 @ 9:46AM|#
ps john, ifill's book is about black politicians in america. i don't think it's called obama's really great and stuff but perhaps you have an advanced copy somewhere.
|10.3.08 @ 9:46AM|#
John, WTF? Why the hell are you defending Palin? She's out of her depth. You're not a stupid guy; so I just don't understand this.
|10.3.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Lamar,
That is called national strategy and pre-emption, but where was it
ever called "the Bush Doctrine". Further, some people refer to the
"Bush Doctrine" as the need to spread democracy and stop the root
causes of terrorism. If a month ago, you had asked me the question
that is what I would have thought of as the "Bush Doctrine". I
don't consider the paragraph you quote anything new in US policy.
The idea of spreading Democracy is and can rightly be called
something that Bush has injected into foreign policy.
|10.3.08 @ 9:47AM|#
Omigosh, joe, you mean Gibson was referring to the same document
I just quoted, and it isn't just some gotcha game made up in 2008
to scramble the brains of a hockey mom?
John, read the darn document. I knew what it was, joe knew, you had
a vague clue, and now you say Gibson made it up for an
interview?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2002/index.html
|10.3.08 @ 9:48AM|#
If Obama loses the election, no one will read Ifill's book
or care about it because there will be no "Age of
Obama."
Really? If the first black person to get a major party's nomination
for the presidency (by beating the Clinton machine, btw) only gets
49.6% of the vote, his candidacy isn't going to be a symbol of the
changing role of black politicians in our political culture?
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that, John.
Maybe she can put that aside and be fair. I don't know and I
don't care. No, you don't care. For all of this whining about
her bias and how the debate was going to be skewed in Biden't
favor, neither you nor anybody else pushing this bullshit actually
cares about whether or not she was fair. It's just a talking point
to help spin the debate and advance a "poor persecuted Republicans"
political line.
|10.3.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Epi, I went to a titty bar the other night. It was amazing. All the dancers were in love with me and they really really wanted to have some nasty sex too!
|10.3.08 @ 9:49AM|#
"John, WTF? Why the hell are you defending Palin? She's out of
her depth. You're not a stupid guy; so I just don't understand
this."
I don't think she is any more out of her depth than Joe Biden,
Barney Frank, Chris Dodd or about 90% of Congress. It is not that I
think that Palin is that great. It is that I realize how awful most
policians are and I would like people to either hold them to the
same standard people hold Palin or get off Palin's back.
|10.3.08 @ 9:49AM|#
And she just kicked Biden's ass in a televised national
debate.
Sure she did, John. All the national polling says otherwise because
they're biased like Gwen Ifill.
Why can't I just be nice and admit that whatever you say to make
the Republicans look better is true? Bad joe. Bad!
|10.3.08 @ 9:51AM|#
Epi, I went to a titty bar the other night. It was amazing.
All the dancers were in love with me and they really really wanted
to have some nasty sex too!
That's my experience every time. It isn't yours?
|10.3.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Why didn't he just say "it was a doctrine of preemptive war
I made up for this interview."?
Because he didn't make it up, John. Are you really so completely
ignorant about your chosen profession that you don't even realize
the 2002 National Defense Strategy articulated a novel doctrine of
pre-emptive war?
|10.3.08 @ 9:53AM|#
It is that I realize how awful most policians are and I
would like people to either hold them to the same standard people
hold Palin or get off Palin's back.
Who cares? Fuck her. Beatdowns on politicians are great, I enjoy
them all. Sure, I'd like to see more on McCain, Biden, and Obama,
but you have to take what's offered.
|10.3.08 @ 9:54AM|#
Lamar,
No one that I ever dealt with in the international law community,
and I dealt with a fair number of people, ever referred to the idea
of pre-emption as the "Bush Doctrine". That it ever meant that in
any meaningful way is a figment of people's imagination and it
means any number of things besides pre-emption to any number of
people. If Gibson wanted to know what she thought of pre-emptive
war, he should have asked that.
|10.3.08 @ 9:54AM|#
"That is called national strategy and pre-emption, but where
was it ever called "'the Bush Doctrine'"
And Monroe's national strategy led to the Monroe Doctrine.
President Monroe never said, "and henceforth this policy shall be
known as"....Monroe said it in a speech, and Bush said it in his
National Security Strategy (as well as a lot of speeches).
|10.3.08 @ 9:55AM|#
That is called national strategy and pre-emption, but where
was it ever called "the Bush Doctrine". Further, some people refer
to the "Bush Doctrine" as the need to spread democracy and stop the
root causes of terrorism.
So he tells her that it was the doctrine of pre-emptive war
articulated in September 2002, and...nothing. A complete cipher.
She didn't know anything, even in the aftermath of the Iraq War,
about a change in our doctrine of pre-emption.
Totally, let's swear THAT in if bin Laden blows up the White
House.
|10.3.08 @ 9:55AM|#
No Joe, it is just not called the "Bush Doctrine". It is called preemption. Only boobs in the media who don't know any better refer to it as the Bush Doctrine. I am frankly even they referrred to as that until they realized they could say something bad about Palin.
|10.3.08 @ 9:55AM|#
If Gibson wanted to know what she thought of pre-emptive
war, he should have asked that.
HE DID!!!
ben tej|10.3.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Didn't anyone notice that Palin only noted 3 policy
areas she would oversee as vice president, and one of them was
mental retardation?
Seriously, the "most libertarian" candidate is going to spend 1/3
of her time expanding the federal government's role in mental
retardation?
|10.3.08 @ 9:58AM|#
God damn it, John, as much as it pains me to agree with joe, he is correct in this situation. Just stop, dude.
|10.3.08 @ 9:59AM|#
John, we had a discussion, you and me, about this. I explained
to you, and you acknowledged, the Bush Doctrine articulated in the
September 2002 National Defense Strategy was a particular
doctrine of pre-emption, one that is different from previous
doctrines of pre-emption, one that authorizes the use of military
force not just against imminent threats (as we've always done) but
against what Bush and Cheney spent several years calling "gathering
threats."
We've had this conversation already. You acknowledged that point,
and then went on to defend it. You are not being honest here.
What are you doing? Are you trying to pretend to be as ignorant as
you can so Sarah Palin looks better by comparison?
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Further, some people refer to the "Bush Doctrine" as the
need to spread democracy and stop the root causes of terrorism. If
a month ago, you had asked me the question that is what I would
have thought of as the "Bush Doctrine".
You would have been wrong.
And I think this only highlights the issue.
When the United States adopted the position that it would wage
preemptive wars not just to prevent imminent attacks, but to defuse
potential threats, it was major news everywhere else in
the world.
It wasn't major news here, because the media was too busy
cheerleading for Bush to actually examine the content of anything
he was saying. But to every other nation on Earth, the fact that
the most powerful nation in the world had announced that it was
taking upon itself the right to attack any nation it considered a
potential threat was chilling and frightening.
Basically you're arguing that because you weren't paying
attention and didn't notice it and were not concerned about the
issues involved anyway, that makes it OK that Palin wasn't paying
attention either. And that's BS.
|10.3.08 @ 9:59AM|#
"If Gibson wanted to know what she thought of pre-emptive
war, he should have asked that."
He did!!! Here's a quote from that Gibson interview: "The Bush
doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of
anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive
strike against any other country that we think is going to attack
us. Do you agree with that?"
|10.3.08 @ 10:03AM|#
As entertaining as the Palin sideshow is, ask yourself: Are
people voting on the drama of Feisty Sarah and her battle with the
Evil Media?
I know of one voter (not me) who is for sure, and a couple others
for whom the Palin nomination is probably 70% of their
interest.
And as far as who won, I'd say Biden did pretty soundly. I justify
that by the fact that he repeatedly put forth specific details,
while Palin repeatedly had to retreat to rehearsed generalities. I
thought McCain won the first debate by a length. I'd say Biden won
by a lap.
Still, I thought Palin vastly outperformed her recently televised
self.
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 10:04AM|#
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=10873479
Here's the Economist talking about it back in May.
Here are Economist articles talking about the Bush Doctrine back in
2003.
http://www.economist.com/search/search.cfm?google_rv=2&cx=001087441947416295956%3Al-gk8r9zm4i&cof=FORID%3A9&qr=%22bush+doctrine%22&area=1&keywords=1&frommonth=01&fromyear=1997&tomonth=10&toyear=2003&rv=2
|10.3.08 @ 10:05AM|#
dhex,
Personally, I think these debates are a waste of time, but they
still shouldn't be tainted in any way. Whether Ifill likes, hates,
or is indifferent to Obama is beside the point. She has a vested
interest in his success and it really wasn't entirely proper for
her to be the moderator.
Maybe this is one time being an attorney overly influences me,
because it's not that I'm accusing Ifill of any actually
articulated bias. I just think it's better that these things are
totally above board. In some respects, she's better than other
moderators, who've been former employees of one party's national
committee or worse.
I guess I'm just old fashioned.
John,
I don't think Palin's quite as awful as she's being made out to be,
but the Bush Doctrine wasn't a completely made up thing, either.
There's a good argument that the term has changed meaning multiple
times during the administration, so Gibson probably should've just
asked her opinion about preemptive war up front (joe's right, he
did after a couple of tries), but it wasn't some huge non
sequitur, either, like asking about the airspeed of an African
swallow.
Incidentally, I used Gibson's questions to Palin as fodder for a
fake interview with VP candidate George Takei at Urkobold. I
took a little liberty and changed a couple of things to make it
make sense in context, but those are pretty much the questions he
asked in the interview.
|10.3.08 @ 10:08AM|#
Can't every journalist be said to have "a vested interest in the success" of any candidate they write about, using exactly the same logic?
|10.3.08 @ 10:11AM|#
I dunno, joe. I have to agree with ProLibs here. If she wrote a chapter in a book about one of the candidates, then she should be out. Maybe she biases towards Biden, maybe she overcompensates to avoid that perception, or maybe it doesn't affect her questioning either way. Doesn't matter, because its the perception that matters. Palin slung a lot of dumb, nonsensical answers, and Ifill never really asked her what she meant. Conflict?
|10.3.08 @ 10:14AM|#
joe,
Not for any one candidate, no. Look, I'm not asking you to agree
with me, I'm just saying that I'd prefer that these kinds of
conflicts not occur. They weaken the integrity of the process. .
.whatever integrity is left in it, anyway.
My take on the debate is that we have incredibly weak VP candidates
to match our incredibly weak presidential candidates. Perfect
symmetry! America can't win!
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:16AM|#
For a party that says "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!", talks about "personal responsibility", and professes that they hate victim politics, the Republicans sure have done a lot of whining, bitching, moaning, and victim card playing in the last month.
|10.3.08 @ 10:17AM|#
Lamar, political journalists write about politicians. That's
what they do.
I don't think the standard for judging the appearance of
impropriety should be "Can the Republicans come up with a way of
accusing a journalist of bias?"
BTW, I resigned from the board of my local Habitat for Humanity
chapter because they were going to be doing a project in a town I
was working for, so I understand this conflict stuff. Being a
political journalist who wrote about a candidate doesn't come close
to failing any kind of ethical standard.
|10.3.08 @ 10:17AM|#
America can't win!
Dude, we're America. We always win, even when we lose.
ROCK, FLAG, AND EAGLE.
|10.3.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Was this a debate, or a Dr. Phil appearance?
It's about garnering votes from a very intellectually diverse
electorate. Thus, it was both.
|10.3.08 @ 10:20AM|#
joe,
Like I said, I don't expect you to agree, but I do think it
matters. Like Lamar said, she may very well have been biased in
fact against Biden to avoid the appearance of bias, so it's not
just a matter of who she really favors.
I think we could probably find a moderator who had less of a
conflict. Like a former POW or something ☺
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:22AM|#
How about we just say fuck it and get Sean Hannity to host the next debate? It'd be worth it just not have to hear conservative bitching about how TheMedia is out to get them.
KT|10.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Even libertarians, who are supposedly non-partisan, are unable to have their minds changed about who won. Hmm.
gmatts|10.3.08 @ 10:25AM|#
"You can keep flailing, John, but on Gibson's third try, he told
her "It's a docrtrine of pre-emptive war articulated in September
2002."
Still nothing. A complete cipher.
She didn't fail to recognize the name; she doesn't know the issue
existed."
Be fair. The Bush Doctrine wasn't covered in all of the newpapers
and magazines that Palin reads that are put in front of her. But
the ones that are put in front of her, she's read them all. She
especially likes "Highlights Magazine". She's a master of the
"Hidden Pictures" section.
|10.3.08 @ 10:27AM|#
BDB,
Oh, please. I'm not a conservative. I'm voting for Babar. It
is a conflict of interest, and I don't blame any great
media plot for it, either. I actually agree that there's nothing
wrong with a journalist writing a book on someone. However, when
they're called to act in the role of moderator, their objectivity
should be largely unquestionable. There are journalists who clearly
wear they're politics on their sleeve--they should be excluded,
too.
Like I said, I'm old fashioned when it comes to stuff like this.
Why not allow conflicts? Shoot, they should let Stevens off, too,
'cause he didn't really do anything wrong.
dhex|10.3.08 @ 10:29AM|#
prolib, i see your point, if only in terms of avoiding the
appearance of the appearance of an appearance of impropriety.
on the other hand, if you're writing a book about black politicians
in america, etc etc and so forth...
|10.3.08 @ 10:30AM|#
I don't appreciate your condescention, gmatts.
Sarah Palin knows more about energy than anyone in America. There
are, like, 310 million people in America. Some of them are, like,
physicists and shit.
I don't see why it's so implausible that someone like that would
read all the newspapers.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Whats more, the book was announced in July.
They had MONTHS to request another moderator, but for some reason
waited until 48 hours before the debate to complain about it, like
it was some kind of surprise.
It's so damn transparent it's ridiculous.
|10.3.08 @ 10:33AM|#
BDB,
You arrived with a conclusion without paying attention to what I'm
saying.
dhex,
I don't think it's that tenuous, but I don't want to come off as
joining the Hannity crowd, either. I don't think it mattered that
much as far as the execution of the debate went, but it was
improper. Think about this--what if Ifill had done something that
really tripped up Biden? What would the left be saying now? They'd
be saying that Ifill went overboard trying to overcome any
appearance of bias.
|10.3.08 @ 10:36AM|#
If Gwin Ifill has an appearance of impropriety for writing about
a politician running for president this year, we have to exclude
every political journalist in America on the same grounds.
That's nuts.
BDB, I don't think this was just the normal conservative
ref-working about the media. Palin's lack of recognition of the
term "Achilles Heel," and her habit of completely ignoring the
question, and her little speech about "I'm not going to answer them
maybe the way you or THE MODERATOR would like" suggest something
else.
They needed to give Palin an excuse to ignore the questions and
turn right to talking points, because the campaign realized that
she was likely to pull another "Bush Doctrine." They knew she was
going to not know what Ifill was talking about at least once, and
needed to plant the idea that she was ignoring the question and
talking about something else for some other reason.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Pro L--
I know you're not drinking the Kool Aid on this, I'm just really
tired of hearing people like John complaining about TheMedia, when
that is not why they're losing.
They're losing because they have a crappy candidate running a
ridiculous, non-strategic campaign in a toxic environment for
Republicans. And they can't admit that. It's like the leftists four
years ago that blamed all their troubles on Diebold and
TheCorporations, even though they lost because Kerry sucked as a
candidate.
|10.3.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Reversibility, kids.
If a Fox News reporter writing a book called Breakthrough:
Politics and War in the Age of McCain moderated the debate,
would Democrats being howling with indignation?
Of course they would. And they'd have every right too.
|10.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
For a moment, lets consider why we hear all the paeans to "Joe
Six-pack".
From the
CDC
Binge drinking is a common pattern of excessive alcohol use in the United States. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that brings a person's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.08 grams percent or above. This typically happens when men consume 5 or more drinks, and when women consume 4 or more drinks, in about 2 hours. [emphasis added]
Why don't these Joe Six-pack binge drinkers get off their fucking
asses and start contributing to society? :-)
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:37AM|#
In the 1980 debate, there was a moderator who was writing a book about Reagan, SF.
|10.3.08 @ 10:39AM|#
BDB,
Under conflict of interest laws (and their equivalent professional
standards), one needs to avoid not just impropriety, but the
appearance of impropriety. For example, when you're on the zoning
board, and your brother applies for a permit, you don't just make
super duper extra sure you're being fair; you remove yourself from
the case entirely. That way, no one can accuse you of being biased
in his favor if he wins, he can't accuse you of going extra hard on
him to protect your image if he loses, people can't accuse him of
getting special treatment, and the general public can be confident
that the process is fair. The point isn't to answer the question
"Were you fair?" correctly, but to make it impossible that anyone
could even ask that question.
That said, there is no appearance of impropriety here.
|10.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
"That said, there is no appearance of impropriety
here."
It appeared improper to me. What am I, mincemeat?
|10.3.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Not to sound anti-semitic or anything, but why do Jews in
America need that much ass-kissing on Israel?
They balanced it out buy bashing the Jews on Wall Street.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 10:42AM|#
If they thought this was improper, why didn't they bring it up
back in July?
There was even a Time Magazine story about this book the first week
of August.
|10.3.08 @ 10:42AM|#
If a Fox News reporter writing a book called Breakthrough:
Politics and War in the Age of McCain moderated the debate, would
Democrats being howling with indignation?
I would object to any Fox News reporter moderating a debate. I
don't think they have a straight journalist in the entire
crew.
But political journalists write about politics, and they write
about contemporary politics. That's what they do.
|10.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Lamar,
Being able to imagine a scenario where an individual could be
biased is not the standard for judging there to be the appearance
of a conflict.
Heck, John imagines that Katic Couric was being biased. We see
charges of bias thrown around every time a reporter writes
something unflattering about a Republican.
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I am not 100% sure where I stand on the Ifill conflict question,
but who would you use in her place?
If you give me enough information I bet I can find a conflict of
some kind that would disqualify virtually every "name" TV
journalist out there.
Should we use somebody who regularly relaxes at one of the McCain
barbecues instead?
Political news coverage is an incestuous world.
|10.3.08 @ 10:45AM|#
I would object to any Fox News reporter moderating a
debate
Dude, some of their news bitches are hot. Why deprive
yourself of something to look at? Palin's OK, but not great.
|10.3.08 @ 10:47AM|#
John is totally right. Who gives a shit about Ifill's book? After all, Palin so clearly won the debate that the moderator's obvious bias was completely nullified.
|10.3.08 @ 10:51AM|#
I don't think they have a straight journalist in the entire
crew.
And that's what a lot of the right thinks about PBS.* That's my
point.
It's OK to argue Ifill is not biased, but it is a hypocritical
stance to dismiss concerns about Ifill's bias as automatically
illegitimate.
I think she did OK. It was a thankless job and anyone who really
wanted to tear Palin apart could have with ease and gotten away
with it. Clueless babbler.
*Except for Dobbs and his BrownMenace obsession, of course.
|10.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Epi, if you reference It's Always Sunny one more time, so help me God, I'm going to go America all over your ass!!!
|10.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#
but who would you use in her place?
The president of that college, for one. Yes, they could be bias as
all hell, but it doesn't take a journalist of any stripe to ask
fairly softball follow-ups and clarifications.
How Did I Get Here|10.3.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Can anybody direct me to a site that is discussing the debate from a libertiarian viewpoint?
|10.3.08 @ 10:54AM|#
"Alaska is sometimes described as America's socialist state,
because of its collective ownership of resources-an arrangement
that allows permanent residents to collect a dividend on the
state's oil royalties."
MNG,
Off shore oil leases, grazing and timber leases, etc. etc.
etc.
Granted, because the feds couldn't balance a budget with double the
revenue they receive now, these revenues are not sent bacvk to the
American people. Instaead they are tossed into the government
revenue stream. Compared to Alaska's distribution of mineral
revenues, that is a distinction without a difference.
|10.3.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Having worked around journalists for part of my career, it was
pretty obvious that as a group they tend to lean left, and that the
bias does tend to show through on their reporting.
However, if we assume that it's a commonly known fact that the mass
media leans left and is generally more critical of Republicans than
Democrats, what does it say about the Republicans when they opt to
pick someone who's a total lightweight?
|10.3.08 @ 10:57AM|#
SugarFree,
And that's what a lot of the right thinks about PBS.
Funny, I thought this had something to do with a particular book
this particular journalist was writing. So this really is just
about the whole "Teh Media is Democrat!" thing. OK, if you say
so.
Lou Dobbs works for CNN.
|10.3.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Epi, if you reference It's Always Sunny one more time, so
help me God, I'm going to go America all over your
ass!!!
That's it, I'm faking my death. Do you have any beans?
|10.3.08 @ 11:00AM|#
The president of that college, for one.
Hey, if you want to say that political journalists as a class
should be excluded from moderating these things, I'll have to think
about that.
My point is that there is no detectable difference between Gwen
Ifill and any other political journalist going on here. The whole
kerfluffle was a canard to give Palin an excuse if she
failed.
Gwen Ifill writes about Barack Obama in 2008. Yeah, no kidding.
|10.3.08 @ 11:03AM|#
"The whole kerfluffle was a canard to give Palin an excuse
if she failed."
Well that's obvious. But let's at least distinguish a book deal
from a broadcasting gig.
|10.3.08 @ 11:04AM|#
joe,
I never argued it was all about the book. I was only responding to
the fact that you discredited all of Fox News, and I was pointing
out a similar "guilt by association" on the right against
PBS.
Dobbs: I ignore him so completely I think I might have mixed him up
with Jim Lehrer. My apologies to Mr. Lehrer.
|10.3.08 @ 11:07AM|#
Jim Lehrer: Beady-eyed and kind of stiff.
Lou Dobbs: Wide-eyed and cah-rah-zeeee!
|10.3.08 @ 11:08AM|#
No, you didn't argue that, SugarFree. I acknowledged that.
But the McCain campaign and their media allies, like NRO and Fox,
have been hammering the book, and making a case quite different
from the generic "reporters are Democrats" line.
|10.3.08 @ 11:08AM|#
I broke my broadcast/cable news addiction the day I watched Columbine unfold. Turned it off and never went back.
|10.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
joe,
OK, if you say so.
That makes it seem you were responding to me, not a amorphous
McCain campaign.
|10.3.08 @ 11:12AM|#
Can't every journalist be said to have "a vested interest in
the success" of any candidate they write about, using exactly the
same logic?
I don't see how. Ifill will make quite a bit more money if Obama
wins the election, and the title (something something "The Age of
Obama")and release date of her book (inauguration day) are
calculated to maximize her return if he wins.
Reporters don't have that kind of direct, and intentional,
financial gain from the outcome of an election. Their financial
stake is mcuh more indirect (they are on salary, and will gain
sometime later if their employer does well financially).
Whether their employer does well financially is probably only
weakly affected by who wins; indeed, a publication with a
Dem-leaning readership may do better if the Repub wins; outrage
sells better than cheerleading.
If you give me enough information I bet I can find a conflict
of some kind that would disqualify virtually every "name" TV
journalist out there.
I don't think you could, if you limit yourself to the hard core of
financial conflicts of interest. That's what is so extraordinary
about Ifill - she will profit directly from Obama's election. Very
few journalists can say that.
This isn't "the appearance of impropriety" as that term is used in
analyzing conflicts of interest. This is a direct conflict of
interest that would be disqualifying to, say, a corporate board
member or officer.
|10.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
SugarFree,
And that's what a lot of the right thinks about PBS. Just
how much of the right do you consider yourself to be?
|10.3.08 @ 11:15AM|#
BDB,
Fair enough. I'm old enough now that I'm sitting here wondering how
much worse our candidates are going to get before we hit bottom.
The last president we had who probably should've been elected was
Old Man Bush. I still can't believe that GW Bush was the nominee in
2000. Let alone the winner. I honestly feel the same about
Obama--not yet ready for prime time, yet he's the nominee. And
McCain, well, we know all too much about him--and he couldn't even
beat Bush.
As for past improprieties and the timing of the objections, they
don't change anything. Past wrongs remain
joe,
Of course there is. This doesn't rise to the level of a judge
needing to recuse himself, but I'm not concerned about something
hopelessly ethereal, either. There is an appearance of
bias, whether or not she behaved like Solomon and threatened to cut
the candidates in half or not. Wait, that might've been a good
idea.
|10.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#
OK... can anybody actually point to Ifill being biased. Since
when can use the job she did as opposed to the job she might
do...
It seems to me that Ifill could have destroyed Palin simply by
making her answered the questions that were asked.
mr simple|10.3.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Biden may have won this thing if it were an actual debate.He did
actually answer more questions and had a greater sense of ease. Of
course his answers mostly varied between wrong and dihonest, but he
sure made his points with conviction.
However, since these "debates" are really more about giving
candidates a platform to spew platitudes at each other, Palin may
have "won" in her ability to connect with viewers and give
uncomplicated answers that people could relate to and remember the
next morning. Is that an elitist view? Maybe, but who cares.
|10.3.08 @ 11:18AM|#
joe,
None at all. I am libertarian.
You comment on the mindset and beliefs of the the right and
conservatives all the time. Are you, therefore, a conservative?
dhex|10.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Think about this--what if Ifill had done something that
really tripped up Biden? What would the left be saying now? They'd
be saying that Ifill went overboard trying to overcome any
appearance of bias.
yeah, i see what you mean. my kneejerk is to say that you'll always
have a john or a joe getting mad about the small things to help
cover up the larger things, but that's probably irrelevant too.
|10.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
I've a challenge for anybody who's game.
Describe the "Bush Doctrine" in twenty five words or less.
An example using the well known "Monroe Doctrine" -
Europe, keep your troops out of the this hemisphere. If you have a problem, talk to us.
Have at it, you foreign policy and political wonks.
|10.3.08 @ 11:20AM|#
"Barack Obama's candidacy wouldn't be a story if he doesn't
win?"
Yes, and Ifill would cover that story, just like every other
journalist. But Ifill, just like every other journalist, would also
have a story to cover if McCain won. But then if McCain wins, her
book tanks and she loses a lot of money, so the theory goes.
|10.3.08 @ 11:21AM|#
"Describe the "Bush Doctrine" in twenty five words or
less."
Look at us funny and we will f*ck you up.
|10.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
SugarFree,
If you aren't "a lot of the right," then why would you suppose I
was talking about your personal opinion, rather than that of "a lot
of the right," when I responded with "if you say so" to your
characterization of "a lot of the right?"
Urkobold™|10.3.08 @ 11:22AM|#
THE URKOBOLD WATCHED THE DEBATE. THIS WOMAN, THIS SARAH PALIN,
KEPT STARING AT THE URKOBOLD. WINKING. LICKING HER LIPS. THE
URKOBOLD THINKS SHE WANTS HIM.
THE URKOBOLD MUST LEAVE THIS THREAD TO VISIT HIS BUNK. PLEASE
CONTINUE YOUR POINTLESS, INANE CONVERSATION.
|10.3.08 @ 11:24AM|#
my kneejerk is to say that you'll always have a john or a
joe getting mad about the small things to help cover up the larger
things, but that's probably irrelevant too.
Uh, excuse me. I wrote that John McCain won the presidential debate
a few days ago. Your knee is jerking when you put me in the same
category as John.
|10.3.08 @ 11:26AM|#
J sub D,
The Bush Doctrine: We will attack countries that might pose a
future threat, even if they do not pose one now, instead of
pre-empting only imminent threats.
gmatts|10.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
"Describe the "Bush Doctrine" in twenty five words or
less."
Blindfold yourself, throw darts at a map of the Middle East, insert
Army. If the shit hits the fan, hand out medals to the
architects.
|10.3.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Before I read this article I didn't know that, by reading it, I
would be wasting my time. What surprised me is that I willingly and
knowlingly wasted my time by reading all of the comments when I
knew that I would be wasting my time, all the while thinking that
nothing important is being discussed. The only way I felt like I
could justify wasting my time was by participating in this
conversation, which is wasteful itself, but I felt like I had to
represent all of the people who might feel as I do--but didn't ask
for my representation in the first place. Nonetheless, some people
will like what I've said even though they didn't ask for that
representation, some people won't because I've spoken at all--about
nothing. And yet, I feel like I just summed up what most political
arguments and campaigns focus on . . . Let's keep the discussion of
non-essential topics going.
I feel like I'm reading content from The View, albeit with a bit
more testosterone.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.3.08 @ 11:30AM|#
My wife is a bitch, but she's MY bitch.
Sleep on the couch last night?
|10.3.08 @ 11:30AM|#
joe,
Yes. However could I imagine that the word "you" was directed at
me?
You are a idiot, joe. But see, by "you" I don't mean joe the
person, I mean some abstract group that you were commenting on. Not
"you," but "you." Why can't "you" see the difference, joe?
Anymore semantic abortions you'd like to perform this morning?
|10.3.08 @ 11:31AM|#
"I feel like I'm reading content from The View, albeit with
a bit more testosterone."
Give me a freaking break. Everybody says their piece in their first
comment or two, then everybody sort of riffs off of the
conversation. Welcome to every message board ever.
The Wine Commonsewer|10.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Can anybody direct me to a site that is discussing the
debate from a libertiarian viewpoint?
No.
Drink!
|10.3.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Yes. However could I imagine that the word "you" was
directed at me?
It was directed at you. You made a statement about what "a lot of
the right" felt, and I disputed your characterization of what "a
lot of the right" felt.
I don't think you accurately characterized their argument, so I
wrote "If you say so."
This is not hard. If you don't want me to have to explain semantic
points to you, try not to be so obtuse.
|10.3.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Why Certainly,
You're metawasting. I think my discussion of essential topics ended
when I started talking about either major party's candidates, who
will help further expand the reach of government and are otherwise
inadequate in pretty much anyway I care about. And they'll trash
America with the connivance of Congress. Wonder how easily the
House bailout bill will pass now, with all of the yummy pork thrown
in?
Bush Doctrine: We may invade.
|10.3.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Your knee is jerking when you put me in the same category as John.
You're smarter, can spell, and probably wear glasses, but you are a
partisan.
|10.3.08 @ 11:36AM|#
One of those partisans who scored the other party's candidate
higher than the general public did, I guess.
Like the complaints about Gwen Ifill, this charge that what I write
is skewed or biased runs up against the facts.
|10.3.08 @ 11:37AM|#
I'm not a Democrat by any stretch, but Biden had facts and
figures in his answers, while Palin said, what, that she's from
Alaska, an energy-producing state. And she smirks. I am so sick of
politicians smirking.
BTW, if she'd said the word "Maverick" one more time I was going to
throw something heavy through my TV set, which I will never be able
to replace, because no one on the face of the planet can possibly
get any sort of loan, ever, ever again, unless we flush $810
billion down the hole.
|10.3.08 @ 11:42AM|#
Here's a point to ponder: Tina Fey, who may be worshiped as a
goddess by the left before this is all over and who almost
certainly is a leftist herself, undoubtedly prays nightly for a
McCain victory. If only my self-interest were tied to a particular
candidate--I could vote with a smile. As it is, even the kinda
sorta libertarian candidate (in fact, the Libertarian candidate)
gives me a headache.
joe,
You may enjoy the political gamesmanship enough to score it, but if
you aren't a partisan, then the word has no meaning. Take a moment
for self-analysis and contemplation. And stop touching yourself
[ed. Normally obscure movie quote except on this blog; not
intended as personal insult or suggestion that politics serves joe
in any sexual manner--unless he has a desire to grudge fuck Gov.
Palin].
Bush Doctrine: Obey.
Sam Grove|10.3.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Palin is new to the federal scene.
She appears unfinished, that is, not yet comfortably conversant
with the federal dialog.
Perhaps improvement is in her future.
Who cares about foreign policy EXPERIENCE?
All that means is that one is conversant with current U.S. foreign
policy...and supports same.
That is a big negative in my book.
|10.3.08 @ 11:45AM|#
"Give me a freaking break."
A handout? How democratic! ;)
"You're metawasting."
That was my point--and thank you for noticing. And since Lamar was
the first one to bitch about my bitching, he should be the first
one to receive an unnecessary break, not because he deserves it,
but because he said, "Give me." :P
Did I mention that I was wasting my time? My discussion of
essential topics never existed . . .
|10.3.08 @ 11:47AM|#
joe,
Once again. And I'll go real slow this time.
You dismissed all of Fox News as an illegitimate choice for debate
moderator.
I would object to any Fox News reporter moderating a debate. I don't think they have a straight journalist in the entire crew.
I pointed out that is the same thing the right does with PBS.
And that's all I did. I wasn't commenting on the book at all. You
read something in my comment that wasn't there. I know it's a
favorite bullshit tactic of yours, but I didn't say what you wanted
me to say so you had to make something up.
Since I can't make it any clearer to you, that's all I'm going to
say about. I am sick of giving you remedial reading classes for
free.
Do your little dance and think you've "won."
BDB|10.3.08 @ 11:47AM|#
There are two kinds of partisan:
1)The Joe/John type partisan (favoring their side but don't go THAT
far in denying reailty)
2)The Guy Montag/TallDave type partisan (experts at setting up
strawmen/giving non-answers, if the other side said the sky was
blue they would spam with links to War Blogs saying the sky is in
fact purple)
|10.3.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Joe-
And you're possessed of a higher-than-average level of
honesty.
I wasn't trying to accuse you of being a troll. You're one of two
Democrats I interact with on a regular basis who's capable of
presenting Democratic ideas in a reasonable way.
|10.3.08 @ 11:48AM|#
The Bush Doctrine: We will attack countries that might pose
a future threat, even if they do not pose one now, instead of
pre-empting only imminent threats.
Contentious to the point of being flat out wrong.
As formulated, the joe doctrine would require the US to attack
every single country on the planet, because every country "might
pose a future threat, even if they do not pose one now", and so "we
will" not might, but will "attack" them.
When talking about the pre-emptive attack version of the Bush
Doctrine, I think its more accurate to say something like:
"We reserve the right to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country
that poses a threat to the United States, even if that threat is
not yet imminent."
Matt and Trey|10.3.08 @ 11:51AM|#
Bush Doctrine:
[Cartman voice]Wha'evah, I do what I want![/Cartman voice]
Fluffy|10.3.08 @ 11:56AM|#
RC,
The only difference between what you posted and what joe posted is
desire.
I think the doctrine if applied literally and unhypocritically
would in fact require or allow the US to attack every country on
the planet. That's why it's a shitty doctrine - because it is
protected from being ludicrous only as long as it isn't taken
literally.
|10.3.08 @ 11:58AM|#
Pro Lib,
Partisan does have a meaning, and it is not "has observable
political opionions." It's usually used to refer to someone whose
opinions and statements are observably skewed in a partisan
direction. You know, sort of like someone saying his party's
candidate clearly won a debate when the rest of the universe says
the opposite. It is not usually used to refer to someone who says
his candidate LOST a debate when the rest of the universe says he
won.
I don't come on these threads and say that everyone whose opinions
reflect a libertarian point of view is partisan hack, because that
would be foolish. Merely having an point of view is not bias.
SugarFree, don't talk down to me. You characterized the opinion of
right-wingers about Ifill's moderation, and I disagreed with you.
They were not complaining about general PBS bias, they were making
a specific complaint about Ifill and her book. You mischaracterized
their argument. Is that slow enough for you?
Since I can't make it any clearer to you, that's all I'm going
to say about. Please please please please please please please
please please please let that be true.
mediageek, thank you.
|10.3.08 @ 12:01PM|#
RC,
There is nothing in my statement requiring an attack, or stating
the level of potential threat that would trigger an attack, any
more than saying "I will drink beers that have a richy, hoppy
flavor" commits me to drinking every beer.
|10.3.08 @ 12:02PM|#
RC,
I'll note that the Monroe Doctrine is in full effect, and we did
not take military action against Britain when they launched the
Faulklands War.
|10.3.08 @ 12:06PM|#
joe,
I think you tend to have blinders on about your views, but not
always. I'll grant that it's easier for a libertarian, who has no
real representation in either major party, to stand outside of this
and sit in judgment. However, I think you do have substantial bias
to defend Democratic positions, right or wrong. At least you don't
do it every time, which would be really annoying. And you
definitely enjoy the gamesmanship of politics, which gives you an
outsider's position on occasion (like saying that McCain won the
debate).
I don't mean to offend you with this. Besides, it's not like I
don't have biases--I tend to trust the market and "civil society"
more than I do government. I think that's the right position to
have, but it is a bias against government nonetheless.
I feel like I just wrote a Match.com entry for joe, who also enjoys
sailing, blogging, and watching teams from Massachusetts lose when
it matters the most.
|10.3.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Does anyone think that Ifill's questions were, in actuality,
biased? I didn't. I thought her questions were decidedly vanilla.
Could it be inferred that asking for her to choose not to moderate
the debate be a microcosm of the idea of pre-emptive
attacks--because she had the potential of being biased?
Never mind who won the debate . . . if anyone did "win," what was
won?
|10.3.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Here's a
debate transcript. I don't think Ifill showed any actual bias,
incidentally.
Palin won by not failing, as did Biden. America lost, however.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Did anyone else catch her talking about "General
McClellan"?
I half expected her to say, "We'll whip those rebs at Antietam, by
golly!"
|10.3.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I'll grant that it's easier for a libertarian, who has no
real representation in either major party, to stand outside of this
and sit in judgment.
I think that's bullshit, and leads to even greater political
blinders.
Democrats and Republicans at least realize that their political
leanings can lead to bias, whereas you are claiming that your
political orientation is, itself, an innoculation against bias.
This fallacy makes it difficult to recognize when one is falling
into confirmation bias, because the fact that a statement about
parties or politics fits the "non-partisan partisan's" preconceived
notions is taken as evidence of a lack of partisan bias.
For example, joe must be comparable to John in his perceptions of
who wins debates, because joe is a Democrat and John a Republican.
Except, hey, look at that, joe said the Republican won a debate
that most people think the Democrat won, while John is claiming
that a Republican won the debate most people said the Democrat
won.
Everyone has "blinders about their views," to one degree or
another. I'd say mine are less than most people's, and the fact
that I hold a minority political opinion on these threads doesn't
make me any more biased.
|10.3.08 @ 12:16PM|#
"Partisan does have a meaning, and it is not "has observable
political opionions." It's usually used to refer to someone whose
opinions and statements are observably skewed in a partisan
direction."
OK, but I DO remember seeing this:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124239.html#870636
|10.3.08 @ 12:24PM|#
You know, that would make a humdinger of a debate question.
"Please defend some aspect of the South's position in the Civil
War." Some candidates might faint at having to answer something
like that. A smart candidate would talk about tariffs, of
course.
joe,
I probably shouldn't have said anything. I will say that I don't
think you and John are mirror images. In his defense, I've seen him
turn on the GOP more than I've seen you turn on the Democrats, but
he has odd blind spots, too. Oh, good, now I'm insulting John.
Sorry, sorry, I'll shut up now.
|10.3.08 @ 12:28PM|#
However, I think you do have substantial bias to defend
Democratic positions, right or wrong.
Most positions aren't objectively right or wrong. IMHO joe defends
Dem positions not becuase they are Dem positions, but because the
positions he thinks are right tend to be the Dem positions.
That isn't partisan, that is just having a belief system.
|10.3.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Thank you for the link, Lamar:
joe | January 6, 2008, 11:47am | #
Randall, I am a liberal Democrat who wouldn't vote for the, ahem,
racial traditionalist Ron Paul if you put a gun to my head, and
might not even vote for him if you replaced the gun with Hillary
Clinton.
Nonetheless, Ron Paul has done more to advance libertarianism's
appeal and familiarity among the American public than any other
person in my lifetime. And that will remain true even if he doesn't
win a single delegate.
My two statements do indeed show the difference between having a
political orientation (the first sentence) and being able to
perceive objective reality despite that orientation (the second
sentence).
See, the key is the self-awareness that comes from understanding
that one does have a political lean. It allows you to realize that
your own response to people or events isn't the objective measure
of all things.
|10.3.08 @ 12:29PM|#
Most positions aren't objectively right or wrong.
I forgot to add:
Except for the positions I disagree with -- those positions are
always inherently wrong! :-)
|10.3.08 @ 12:30PM|#
ChicagoTom gets it.
How many times have you attacked the libertarian position, Pro
Lib?
|10.3.08 @ 12:32PM|#
How many times have you attacked the libertarian position,
Pro Lib?
He once said that Picard was better than Kirk, and that's FUCKING
BLASPHEMY, dude!
Weigel sucks|10.3.08 @ 12:34PM|#
Anyone else remember when David Weigel wasn't a partisan
hack?
When Biden gets something wrong, it's an accident- a genuine
mistake.
When Palin gets something wrong, it's because she's of the
mouth-breathing bucolic, a retard, a bumpkin, an idiot, a fool, an
empty pantsuit, a trophy VP, a simpering wench who opens her legs
and flaps her gums with equal enthusiasm.
Right, David Weigel?
|10.3.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Actually, that's not a very good question, because 1) Pro Lib isn't terribly dogmatic and 2) every libertarian is a party unto himself, and happy to explain why his position is, in fact, the libertarian position.
How Did I Get Here|10.3.08 @ 12:36PM|#
"No.
Drink!"
Thanks, I will. Not this early in the day though, that's how I
found this little coffee klatch to begin with.
But I take your point, so let me try again.
The philosophy of "fairness" re: taxation was espoused last night.
Personally as an amateur libertarian any time a member of the
aristocracy uses the term fair, someone is about to have something
taken from them, be it life, liberty, or property, by force if
necessary. Maybe I am overly sensitive to the term, and perhaps its
been discussed to death elsewhere on this site, but the lack of any
commentary on the concept in the discussion is.... strange.
|10.3.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Honestly folks after last night I would take her over the other
3 jokers anyday for President. At this point my hope would be for a
McCain win and then a few weeks after swearing in he kicks it and
she takes over.
She would be the closest thing to a REAL AMERICAN that has been
even close to being President. Everyone says oh experience this and
knowledge about that. Well let me ask what has all this experience
and knowledge gotten us over the past 36 years that Biden has been
in office. If he and the rest of these professional politicians is
so damn smart and knowledge filled shouldn't we already be riding
on easy street and not be 10 trillion plus in the hole and
growing?
Give me a real American woman that hunts and fishes over any of
these other fools anyday. Their "experience" fails to impress me
and their real experience is in getting re-elected time after time.
They are the problem with everything and the solution to nothing.
Unless of course your interpretation of success is 10+ trillion in
the shitter and diving deeper by the minute.
Perhaps a plain ordinary American is just what we need to get the
people to see just how out of touch Both houses of Congress are
with the people that make this country go.
IMO if that was the best Biden could do with all that coveted
experience he has she being new to the whole experience spanked him
pretty good.
So experience in sinking a country is not something I want to get
behind. Also if Biden has a kid going to Iraq why would he not be
upset that Obama voted against providing our troops with funds.
Sorry but if your against the war that is fine but our military is
all volunteer and if you have them in harms way fighting a war you
sent them to fight you should provide them with the needed tools to
stay alive and do the job you ask of them. Otherwise just bring
them home, after all they didn't choose to go there on their
own.
|10.3.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Personally as an amateur libertarian any time a member of
the aristocracy uses the term fair, someone is about to have
something taken from them, be it life, liberty, or property, by
force if necessary.
The question was whether to give a tax cut to large corporations or
to middle class individuals and couples.
Why, exactly, is one of these force and the other not?
BDB|10.3.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Does anyone find it just a LITTLE disturbing that the Republican base is voting for McCain while openly wishing he would die the first year in office?
|10.3.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Actually, I am dogmatic. Kirk is totally superior to
Picard! Damn you and your damned lies, Episiarch!
What saves me from being a libertarian dogmatist is that I have a
strong utilitarian streak. I can even tolerate our imperfect
system; I just want it freer and wealthier. With cooler technology.
Probably the strongest single bias I have is a distrust of
government. That is the starting point of most of my
analyses, but I think I'm right to operate that way. In fact, I
wish more people thought that way, too, even if their politics are
completely different.
How Did I Get Here|10.3.08 @ 12:52PM|#
"The question was whether to give a tax cut to large
corporations or to middle class individuals and couples.
Why, exactly, is one of these force and the other not?"
Well for starters the "give" in that statement isnt really giving
anything, is it? It's really "taking" less of what belongs to the
corporation or incividual, isnt it? I belive that force would
manifest itself fairly quickly where the corporation or individual
delcine the invitation to taken from.
|10.3.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Damn you and your damned lies, Episiarch!
Sorry, dude, I have had WAY too much caffeine AND a Vicodin and I'm
making shit up as I go right now.
|10.3.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I'll ask you again, How Did I Get Here: how is lowering taxes on
middle class individuals rather than on large corporations/rich
people more or less of a use of force?
Is it just more forcey when you do it to rich people?
|10.3.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Well for starters the "give" in that statement isnt really
giving anything, is it?
Is it giving exactly as much when the tax cuts go lower on the
income scale as when they go higher.
What makes tax cuts for the middle class more forcey than tax cuts
for the wealthy?
|10.3.08 @ 1:10PM|#
Pro Liberate-
Well, you can count on me as a person who starts with the reality,
not just the premise, that government and its agents and its
supporters can not be trusted.
|10.3.08 @ 1:13PM|#
Dee-
A real amercian woman? You mean the type that blindly supports
Zionism? The kind that says we should continue to take the bread
out of the mouth of labor in order to give it to the zionist
apartheid state of Israel?
No thanks.
|10.3.08 @ 1:15PM|#
Does anyone find it just a LITTLE disturbing that the
Republican base is voting for McCain while openly wishing he would
die the first year in office?
It's disturbing that a major party could put forward such a flawed
candidate. It's understandable to hope for a William Henry in this
case. Some find Obama completely unacceptable and simultaneously
find McCain the worst GOPer possible.
I expect almost no Dems pray for a Biden presidency. I know only 26
have ever voted for one.
How Did I Get Here|10.3.08 @ 1:18PM|#
joe,
The use or threat of force comes in at the taking of taxes which is
where the whole merry-go-round starts. I do not claim that taking
less from one individual than another necessitates the use of
force, though the individual on the smelly end of that stick would
almost certainly experience it were they to resist the reformulated
rate of taking. My point is rather that the use of the concept of
"fairness" to justify taking more from one that another seems to be
a decidedly un-libertarian concept.
gmatts|10.3.08 @ 1:24PM|#
"I half expected her to say, "We'll whip those rebs at Antietam,
by golly!"
Actually, I'd expect her to be on the other side of the Union in
that one.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Nah, she's a yankee. Listen to her accent for God's sake. Unless she would have been like that traitor Governor from Ohio (I forget his name).
gmatts|10.3.08 @ 1:26PM|#
"So experience in sinking a country is not something I want to
get behind. Also if Biden has a kid going to Iraq why would he not
be upset that Obama voted against providing our troops with funds.
Sorry but if your against the war that is fine but our military is
all volunteer and if you have them in harms way fighting a war you
sent them to fight you should provide them with the needed tools to
stay alive and do the job you ask of them. Otherwise just bring
them home, after all they didn't choose to go there on their
own."
Just admit it: you like Palin because she shares your affinity for
run-on sentences.
gmatts|10.3.08 @ 1:28PM|#
"Nah, she's a yankee"
But she's had a little bit of seccessionsit in her on at least 5
occasions.
BDB|10.3.08 @ 1:29PM|#
"But she's had a little bit of seccessionsit in her on at least
5 occasions."
Ah, I forgot about the AIP thing. You're right!
|10.3.08 @ 1:34PM|#
You don't need to explain to me anymore that tax collection
involves force.
Round three - why is collecting taxes on wealthy people
more forcey than collecting them from middle-class
people.
More. That's the word here. You're making an argugment that cutting
the taxes of middle class people instead of the wealthiest means
that more force will be used - that by arguing for
this tax cut instead of that tax cut, Joe Biden is arguing for more
force by the government on taxpayers.
The word is more. Why would there be more force? The people "on the
stinky end of the stick" are having exactly the same force brought
to bear on them. The people who get the tax cut are having less
force brought to bear on them.
BTW, do you think talking about fairness in taxation is
unlibertarian when the issue is the flat tax?
Asharak|10.3.08 @ 1:48PM|#
These libertarians (especuially "Jeffersonian") going gaga over
Palin and trying to convince themselves that she is one of them are
a pitiful bunch. The Republican Party is now more un-libertarian
than its ever been and Palin is no exception.
Here's a news flash for you guys: No matter how much you continue
to suck up to Republicans, they're never going to accept you or see
you as anything other than a pothead liberal who just happens to
hate paying taxes (or a pro-bestiality, pro-terrorist anti-Semite,
if one believes LGF troll Underzog).
And it isn't just "Beltway libertarians" who don't like Palin. Go
check out the LewRockwell.com blog.
Not supporting Palin doesn't automatically mean being in the tank
for Obama or the Democrats, either, so just stop it with that
already.
|10.3.08 @ 1:48PM|#
Epi-
Blasphemy? Okay, I'm wading into waters that I could not possibly
navigate as well as you, but what about THAT VOICE?
Urkobold™|10.3.08 @ 1:52PM|#
QUERY: DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT PALIN WILL NOT BE OFFERED AT
LEAST $1 MILLION TO POSE NUDE AFTER THE ELECTION?
THE URKOBOLD BELIEVES THAT PALIN IS LIBERTARIAN, IN THAT SHE WILL
FREE HER BOSOM FOR HIM AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. FREEE-DOM!
|10.3.08 @ 2:02PM|#
There is nothing in my statement requiring an
attack,
Generally speaking, the word "will" means "will", not "may." If you
want to amend your statement so that it says the US "may" attack,
etc. Go right ahead. Using the word "will" is contentious and
misleading, which was my point all along.
or stating the level of potential threat that would trigger an
attack,
No you didn't. You said we will attack them regardless of the level
or imminence of threat they pose. Contentious and misleading, is
all I'm saying.
|10.3.08 @ 2:15PM|#
I will drink beers from my fridge this evening. Will I drink all
of them? Dunno. You can't tell from the statement.
You're just being contentious for the sake of being contentious,
RC.
JB|10.3.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Biden sure is stupid. His ticket wants to put NATO in
Lebanon?
Holy crap he makes Bush look good.
|10.5.08 @ 10:34AM|#
Goobers, wink-wink click~ Gotcha!
UUuuh? Uuuh? What about that Sarah Palin, Uuuuh? UuuuH?
What a big fat JOKE!
It's like America can get no more backward as it is right now,
RIGHT?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245