PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

[roymond]

Someone needs to be neutral and present relevant news about current issues, including digestible references via these kind of clips, but preserving context. Charlie Rose and a few others, don't present "news" but rather lovely relevant commentary in the interview form. There needs to be a news show again. The networks are out. CNN is basically FOX (although they've both pissed-off McCain recently...maybe there's hope?). But all of them present opinions, and not news. Who the fuck cares what they think? I don't want what they think, I want some news.

Why doesn't TV news appeal to people anymore? It's a distinct form from printed newspapers, and can be very effective. But damn...

[Hoblit]

JB: I think that The Daily Show does poke Liberals with a stick here and there but I can't help but notice that they are USUALLY tearing apart the GOP.

Roy: I hate what the news has become. I used to be a big CNN fan. In fact I still watch Headline News every morning. But not because I like it. (Because Robin Mead ((though married)) is hot?) TV news has become an entertainment show just like any other, drama. When there isn't enough drama to keep it hot, they 'elaborate' with opinion to 'create' drama. I absolutely HATE that. Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, and some of those others are just that. Drama. Opinions and outrage to entertain our own opinions and outrage. I read most of my news these days but even still I have to read more than one story on a subject just to make sure that I haven't read a story to make sure its objective and all the information is present. Most of the time you're still only getting one side of the story.

Fox = CNN = MSNBC = yadda yadda = sensationalism.

Don't get me started on their own self promotion. Half of what they are saying these days is just crap to get you to buy into more of the crap they are offering. Do I really need to be on The Morning Express's frickin' mailing list so I know what color panties Robin will be wearing this morning? (well, yes if they were really offering that information)

[roymond]

- What will Nancy Grace do when they find that girl?
- Glenn Beck treats pretty much anyone as fair game, which would be nice if he wasn't the opinion-jock he is.

I have to search out the remotes in hotel club breakfast rooms to turn one of the 3 or 4 frickin' wide screens OFF so that I can eat without all the talking heads barking at us. The look on the club girl's face is like "you actually want to turn a TV off? Gee, I don't know if we're allowed".

oops...thread hijack in progress...

[jb]

JB: I think that The Daily Show does poke Liberals with a stick here and there but I can't help but notice that they are USUALLY tearing apart the GOP.

The Daily Show is obviously biased in favor of the left- they are artists, after all, and artists, especially writers and actors which is who makes these shows, typically have great empathy, and empathy generally leads one to the left.

Although it's probably MY liberal bias that makes me want to say this, I'll say it anyway-- maybe the reason The Daily Show and Colbert seem to skewer the Right more effectively is that the Right is more brazen and disgusting in its corruption than the left.

Conservatism in America has always seemed to me to consist of an "I've got mine" mentality, which isn't a bad thing and can be used for good-- "tough love" is effective, and a conservative idea, whereas spoiling children, which would seem emblematic of a "soft-hearted" style, is not. There's a balance to be struck, of course.

But the "I've got mine" idea, to me, reduces the empathy one has for one's fellow man. If you are focused on what's good for you, and encouraging everyone else to focus on that as well, then you have a lot less care for whether they are successful or not-- you're using your ideology to protect yourself, which is your ideology.

So it strikes me that the corruption on the left is going to have a much different tenor than that of the right, if the lefties are following true to form. It'll be corruption that pays lip-service to liberal ideals, or corruption that was with the best intentions, or which is a result of individual and personal weaknesses. Like getting blowjobs from interns. There's a difference between encouraging systemic abuse on behalf of corporations and liking blowjobs, and I think that difference is a key indicator of the divide between right and left.



JB

[erik]

I can't wait to quote myself calling it for Barack at the beginning of the primary season.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-75975

I wonder how many people out there are feelings things like this woman is. It's a mindset that I just completely cannot understand. Not that voting Republican is something I can't understand, but to decide to vote for either political party based on things that have nothing to do with politics, like whether or not you own a snowmobile. That seems very bizarre to me.

[Paco Del Stinko]

Ha! I just noticed that this thread is titled Presidential Debates. I'm looking forward to those much more than these conventions. The DNC had me squirming a bit, what I watched of it, but geez...looking at the GOP stuff is like standing in hot coals or something. I'd just start burning up and running!

It is too bad that the news is more sensationalistic entertainment than it is news. Molesters! Weather! Shocking footage! Jim Lehrer is pretty good, but I'm sure he's considered too left as well. I like the idea of conservatism, as when applied to fiscal issues. But that's a quaint idea to be sure.

[Sober]

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-75975

I wonder how many people out there are feelings things like this woman is. It's a mindset that I just completely cannot understand. Not that voting Republican is something I can't understand, but to decide to vote for either political party based on things that have nothing to do with politics, like whether or not you own a snowmobile. That seems very bizarre to me.

I heard "I loved Mike Huckabee" and stopped.

I like the idea of conservatism, as when applied to fiscal issues. But that's a quaint idea to be sure.

I agree, but 'fiscal conservatism' is a joke.



Clinton was a "tax and spend liberal," and he managed these numbers with Kosovo. Oh, but Democrats are the 'irresponsible spending' party. Republicans for the last 30 years have been acting like a 17 year-old with their first credit card.

As far as media outlets go, I am irked by sensationalism, even if I agree with the points being made. My dad and his wife, on the other hand, eat O'Reilly and Limbaugh up.

By that token, obviously Fox is the mouthpiece of the right. MSNBC is the counter, and though I'm often really annoyed by Olbermann's antics, they at least attempt to have balanced panels (Pat Buchanan, Peggy Noonan, Mike Murphy), etc. I am really stoked that Rachel Maddow's getting her own show. She's aggressive, extremely intelligent, and has yet to do anything over-the-top to turn me off.

CNN recently has struck me as somewhat more centrist, but mind-numbingly stupid. Seriously, they're reporting on a kindergarten level over there. AC and King are ok, but I honestly can't handle Blitzer or that guy with the mega-jaw.

[Sober]

*Funny thing about that graph: In the time since it was published, the deficit spending has resumed, nearly to the previous low. If the next president were to drastically bring up the budget, Bush will have left a gigantic "W" on the national budget graph. Talk about leaving your mark on history.

[HeuristicsInc]

What is *wrong* with this lady? I'd be angry at anyone who made these decisions at the expense of their children, but don't classic right-wing religious values require her on pain of damnation to take care of these people in her life at the expense of career ambitions?

Well, I thought you were on to something, but when I mentioned it to M she said that her husband is a stay-at-home dad, so there is somebody with the kids full-time.
-bill

[Billy's Little Trip]

Bush will have left a gigantic "W" on the national budget graph. Talk about leaving your mark on history.

Dude! Fax that to Jon Stewart!

[jb]

What is *wrong* with this lady? I'd be angry at anyone who made these decisions at the expense of their children, but don't classic right-wing religious values require her on pain of damnation to take care of these people in her life at the expense of career ambitions?

Well, I thought you were on to something, but when I mentioned it to M she said that her husband is a stay-at-home dad, so there is somebody with the kids full-time.
-bill

I figured that was the case, but consider-- Governor of Alaska is a big job, but not as big as Governor of California. Vice President? Full Time +

So these kids aren't going to see *any* of her for a long time. Now, I disagree with that on some principle of my own, but almost of equal concern is that her behavior defies her own ideology-- which marks her as a hypocrite and untrustworthy, if not outright dangerous.

Expedience is the byword of most political campaigns, but the McCain troup kind of takes the cake.

[jack]

you know, i had the same thoughts as JB. she's got 5 kids and a grandkid on the way (or 4 and another grandkid on the way, depending who you believe), one of which will require ALOT of attention, and she's punting all that to follow her own ambition. that is hypocritical to all the BS the GOP has been spouting about "hockey mom" and "family values".

[Billy's Little Trip]

But, for women, she stands for mothers with full careers. She stands for "women can be the vice president". She stands for the mom next door that can kick ass in the political ring. Like Eric said, It's not about what she knows, it's what she stands for. That's what many are gravitating towards. Just like African Americans are for Obama. This race has become a symbolism game, not a political game.

[jack]

well, hopefully, most women will be smart enough to keep the court out of their womb come november. there's really only one choice there.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Very true, Jack. I do think a lot of women are pro choice, and for good reason. BUT, there are a lot of very right wing Christians that are not. This is a big break for them. That sector is very powerful these days. Again, the symbolism plays a huge part. The golden cow comes to mind.

[Caravan Ray]

WTF is it with this bloody woman and her children's names?

Bristol, Willow, Piper Indy, Trig Paxson Van and Track CJ!!!! WTF!!?!?!

That is child abuse right there.
Don't you have laws over there about what bogans can call their children?

(OK - we don't have laws here about what bogans call their children either - but when the revolution comes, by golly there will be - I'll make sure of it, and all of the Taylahs and Jorjas and Merecdes and Porches and Trigs and Tracks and Willows will thank me for it)

[Billy's Little Trip]

I'm starting to wonder if she shaves her arm pits.
.........Oh don't judge me, you were thinking the same thing.

[Sober]

But, for women, she stands for mothers with full careers. She stands for "women can be the vice president". She stands for the mom next door that can kick ass in the political ring. Like Eric said, It's not about what she knows, it's what she stands for. That's what many are gravitating towards. Just like African Americans are for Obama. This race has become a symbolism game, not a political game.

The difference on this point is that Obama has said to that (paraphrased) "That's ridiculous. I can't wave a picture of me in front of a crowd of black people and suddenly they'll vote for me. It just doesn't work like that."

The GOP and Palin are actively trying to portray her as a woman's champion. Obama doesn't want to be seen as a black champion, because he'd quickly become a black martyr.

[erik]

Just like African Americans are for Obama. This race has become a symbolism game, not a political game.

1. Obama doesn't play the race card. Not like Palin is playing the woman card. Sure, he talks about race, but he has about a bajillion DECENT reasons to vote for him.
2. Black Americans tend to vote for Democrats, regardless of what color their skin is.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Just like African Americans are for Obama. This race has become a symbolism game, not a political game.

1. Obama doesn't play the race card. Not like Palin is playing the woman card. Sure, he talks about race, but he has about a bajillion DECENT reasons to vote for him.
2. Black Americans tend to vote for Democrats, regardless of what color their skin is.

True on both points. But my point is that there's going to be many on both sides that will come out and vote based on the image being sold to them, that have no clue about the political issues. On the plus side, it's bringing out voters that would never have voted in the past.

But let me ask you two questions:
1. If Obama was running for the republican party, do you think it would bring African American voters to the republican side?

2. Do you think Palin can draw women away from the Democratic fold?

If you answer yes to both, it solidifies my point. If you answer no, than I'm way off base.

[Hoblit]

Just like African Americans are for Obama. This race has become a symbolism game, not a political game.

1. Obama doesn't play the race card. Not like Palin is playing the woman card. Sure, he talks about race, but he has about a bajillion DECENT reasons to vote for him.
2. Black Americans tend to vote for Democrats, regardless of what color their skin is.

True on both points. But my point is that there's going to be many on both sides that will come out and vote based on the image being sold to them, that have no clue about the political issues. On the plus side, it's bringing out voters that would never have voted in the past.

But let me ask you two questions:
1. If Obama was running for the republican party, do you think it would bring African American voters to the republican side?


2. Do you think Palin can draw women away from the Democratic fold?


If you answer yes to both, it solidifies my point. If you answer no, than I'm way off base.

1. Maybe in 200 more years. This theory is so far out that it's hard to make a case at all either way.
2. Yes and this only proves how stupid Americans can be if you average it out in whole. (which may be your point actually)

[Billy's Little Trip]

1. Maybe in 200 more years. This theory is so far out that it's hard to make a case at all either way.
2. Yes and this only proves how stupid Americans can be if you average it out in whole. (which may be your point actually)

1. Let's hope sooner.
2. I didn't want to say stupid, but yes. The problem is the way it's fed to the American people. We're brainwashed into buying what we see on the screen. The American people on average just don't know any better.

By the way, there was a bit about a month ago on the Daily Show that had me pissin' me knickers, so I went and found for all to enjoy. It's a bit biased, but funny. Dick Move of the Week.