The MSM is starting to sense their overreaction, and walk it back a bit:
A front-page story in The New York Times on Tuesday and articles in other news media reported that Ms. Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party for two years in the 1990’s.
The information in the Times article was based on a statement issued Monday night by Lynette Clark, the party’s chairwoman, who said that Ms. Palin joined the party in 1994 and in 1996 changed her registration to Republican.
On Tuesday night, Ms. Clark said that her initial statement was incorrect and had been based on erroneous information provided by another member of the party whom she declined to identify. The McCain campaign also disputed the Times report, saying that Ms. Palin had been registered consistently as a Republican.
After checking the party’s archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party.
Oops.
Unlike some people, Sarah Palin does nothing to make me more likely to be enthusiastic about John McCain, mostly because I've been saying for some time that this election isn't really about McCain, and I stand by that.
But the media's idiotic reponse to her selection (Meme: "It's the vetting." Really? Do you want to put some more thought into that?), echoing that of the worst elements of those on the left and in the Democratic Party, is making me absolutely more enthusiastic about supporting McCain. And I'm starting to sense I'm not the only one.
I doubt Palin, or the overblown and transparent media bloviation surrounding her, will seriously impact the dynamics of the race - it's still Obama's to lose, as it has been all along. But I wonder, as I have for a while, if at some point the public tide will turn on this obvious and over-the-top media worship of Obama. Will it happen before November? Or will it happen after, during the first scandals of an Obama administration, when the public starts to ask, "Why didn't we know more about this stuff when this idiot was running?"
The MSM may very well win this election for Obama - they certainly won the Primary for him - but I also wonder if they're hastening their own decline into irrelevancy in the process.
You are absolutely not the only one thinking this. As an independent voter it is making me take a good second look at McCain. Anyone who can drive a party establishment and the MSM into a hysteria and panic like this gets an A+ in my book.
If the media had done any of this type of vetting of Obama, he wouldn't have gotten off the ground. If Jeremiah had gone mainstream in November 2007, Hillary would be the nominee.
How about this one. Three front page stories about a daughter of the veep nominee. How many front page stories do they have on the McCain adoption?
"How about this one. Three front page stories about a daughter of the veep nominee. How many front page stories do they have on the McCain adoption?"
How many about Biden's son lobbying for a credit card company which benefitted greatly from a bankruptcy bill pushed by Biden?
The examples are endless, and that's what I mean about the media's transparent efforts on behalf of Obama. I wonder when the pushback will start, because most people will not indefinitely tolerate this sort of obvious crap being shoved at them. At some point the worm turns...
What happened to two media source's for a story, seems it's the media that should be doing some vetting?
"Don't get me wrong - it is worth it. *Believe me* it is totally worth it to see conservatives lose power." (D. Boon, today)
Thought for today: if Sarah Palin is successfully destroyed, expect the process to repeat for every candidate from here to eternity. Much less every female candidate who does not politically piggyback on her husband.
This should be about McCain and Obama. It is no longer. It is about whether Daily Kos and Huffington Post get to go on driving national debate, not with private details of candidates, but with private details of candidates' families.
I do not want to see Sarah Palin's and Barack Obama's children turned into campaign liabilities any more than Chapin Rose's and Michael Frerichs's. Do you?
You are absolutely not the only one thinking this. As an independent voter it is making me take a good second look at McCain. Anyone who can drive a party establishment and the MSM into a hysteria and panic like this gets an A+ in my book.
See, this is the kind of commentary I really enjoy. It's not always as insightful to hear/read analysis from people who've already made up their minds (i.e., the majority of commenters on this blog.) That's not to say that that our commentary is uninformed or useless (in fact, quite the contrary), but our positions are too predictable.
Basically, every presidential news story falls into two categories: pro-Obama/anti-McCain, or pro-McCain/anti-Obama. Yeah, it's great to hear that Run4cvrlib and RSW think that the latest news/scandal/speech hurts Obama and helps McCain, or hear from Sandefur or Boon that the latest news/scandal/speech hurts McCain and helps Obama. Many of these decided voters will make intelligent concessions to the other side, but it's never enough to change their vote. McCain could make a great speech, and Kevin or Boon will acknowledge it, but it doesn't change their vote. But it's very refreshing to hear the opinions of undecided voters.
So many polls, news stories, and commentary are constructed to tell us things we already know: Obama supporters are voting for Obama (regardless of the news/scandal/speech), and McCain supporters are voting for McCain. Great - but so many people are undecided, or have only minor leanings towards one candidate. I'm always curious what those undecided voters think (since that decides the election), but their opinions are the most difficult to find.
Oh, and I hope nobody mentioned takes this personally - I'm just using your comments to illustrate a point. It's not that I don't value your comments (in fact, your viewpoints and knowledge are quite profound), but your votes have already been cast. It's still extremely useful to have the party/candidate faithfuls speak up, since they provide insight into the other aspects of campaigning (i.e., fundraising, party support, voter turnout, and activism). By all means, keep it up - I just hope to read more comments from the undecided voters, to get a better view of how these events impact the election.
I do not want to see Sarah Palin's and Barack Obama's children turned into campaign liabilities any more than Chapin Rose's and Michael Frerichs's.
The problem, though, is that the candidates will often bring their children into the spotlight to help their cause. And it's not their fault - I mean, what parent doesn't think their kid is great? I'd be wary of any candidate that doesn't talk about their kids.
But then their opponent's supporters inevitably dig up some dirt to try to counteract how great the kid is, and it becomes an arms race.
It's tragic that the kids get brought into the spotlight in this way - they didn't decide to have their parent run for office. They become paparazzi targets overnight, for reasons entirely beyond their control. Let's not forget that the kids will forever live in their parents' shadows, dealing with whispers about privilege and getting jobs/positions/education purely because of their last name.
However, this isn't an exclusively American problem - just look across the ocean to Europe, where leading news stories revolve around whose kid did what.
On a lighter note--the postings since the announcement of Governor Palin for VP have taken on the tone of a durge along with the media commentary in all of its forms. I juxtaposition all of this to sitting in the Virginia theater last night watching Mamma Mia and listening to the audience respond and laugh at the story of a single women raising a child, albeit not nominated to be USA VP, and admitting that one of three men invited to the child's wedding might be the father. This story/musical has been playing in the theater rather successfully. I nominate Donna, the main character, for president.
Pattsi Petrie
ABBA leads to sin.
This is infinitely more important than anything about Sarah Palin's kids: http://blog.islandpress.org/155/elizabeth-grossman-mccain-and-palins-environmental-policies
I will wait with baited breath for the MSM to spend any significant time/ink on this.
<pedantic>
"I will wait with baited breath"
Did you eat worms lately? Or grubs? The word you are looking for is bated.
<end pedantry>
Otherwise, I agree completely that candidates' stands on environmental issues are far more important than who slept with whom, who aborted what, and when they stopped beating their spouses.
"ABBA leads to sin."
As a victim of secondhand-ABBA (thanks Mom!) growing up I can personally vouge for this. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Anyone who runs for public office that thinks their privacy and family are off limits to the media must have had a frontal lobotomy. Espcially when you go around thumping for "family values" and attacking the Democrats for being "unpatriotic and immoral." If you are going to dish it out you better be able to take it. I think I remember the media destroying Gary Hart, VP Candidate Thomas Eagleton, and VP Candidate Geraldine Ferraro...or is only horrible for the media to do this to Republican candidates?
Hart lied and dared them to dig up dirt on him. McGovern sold out Eagleton. Ferraro did nothing wrong, and her son should have been off limits.
Ooooh the media! It's the media's fault! OOOOOooooohh that dadblasted media! Why can't they just roll over and play dead like they did when George Bush was lying his way into a trillion-dollar war?
IP - if the so called mainstream media are so irrelevant, then how did they win the primary for Obama? You contradict yourself. And let me get this straight: you are going to base your vote for the leader of the free world on revenge against the media? You know, I've been reading this blog through this election season, and I can't remember one of you giving a reason you would vote FOR McCain. Everything is criticisms of Obama. I know exactly why I am voting for Obama, and it has nothing to do with the media or McCain (who I used to like, by the way).
On September 3rd, 2008 at 08:00 PM, Jay Rosenstein (not verified) said:
Everything is criticisms of Obama. I know exactly why I am voting for Obama, and it has nothing to do with the media or McCain (who I used to like, by the way).
Go right ahead and vote for the "Messiah" Chicago corruption on a National level not to mention the terrorist buddies of BO, Bill Ayers, He's one of Your pals isn't He Jay?? Tony Rezzko convicted felon and neighbor of the anointed one, and His nut job preacher. Bigger government and higher taxes are on the way!!
That just proved Jay's point.
Gregg - you are so tied up and consumed by your hatred of Obama, you can't even have a civil political discussion. how sad. and yes, Bill Ayers is one of my "pals". He broke the law many years ago, faced and completed his debt to the American judicial system, and since has had an accomplished career as an educator and education advocate. Pretty amazing guy.
Jay is the drive by media! Isn't He a professor at the U of I??? Journalism filling the young heads full of mush with His style of biased reporting. Along with guys like Kaufman and Boyle, famous Indian killers, Wrapping themselves in the 1st. Amendment. How long before Jay recruits Ward Churchill to come to the U of I ?? He would fit right in with Jay and His band of misfits.
Let me tell you Jay I know Obama, I have known Him for about 4 years, He is the wrong guy for the job. I have about as much use for Obama as I do for McCain, This BS from these two, "We're just like you" is just that, They are so removed from everyday life it's not even funny. It's too bad the media takes sides and digs the dirt, but why would they do any different??? the candidates are just as guilty. I think Obama will win the election, so in a year lets get back on here and see what has changed, More government and much highr taxes!!!
"IP - if the so called mainstream media are so irrelevant, then how did they win the primary for Obama?"
Because Democratic Primary voters still listen to them. Just ask Hillary supporters how they feel about the media's role in the Democratic primary.
And I just saw some blowhard commentator (yes, I'm one too) on CNN claim that McCain has no right to complain about media coverage because no politician in America had ever gotten more favorable coverage. Yes, it was said with a straight face.
"And let me get this straight: you are going to base your vote for the leader of the free world on revenge against the media? You know, I've been reading this blog through this election season, and I can't remember one of you giving a reason you would vote FOR McCain."
I agree with John McCain on few philosophical grounds. I agree with Obama on no philosophical grounds. Given that indifference, I see few better reasons on which to base my vote than as my personal testimony on the putrid state of our political media.
And, the last time I checked, it's not my job to give you a reason to vote for John McCain. I've been a pretty severe critic of his, to the point where his local coordinator (a friend of mine) has been needling me about it. Despite all my disagreements with him, the media coverage of his running mate has absolutely infuriated me, to the point where I'm willing to vote for him just as a way of flipping off those sanctimonious jackasses who are being so unbelievely disrespectful to Palin while trying to simultaneously shove Obama down our throats.
Yes, it's coming down to spite, and I suspect that I'm not the only one.
"and yes, Bill Ayers is one of my "pals". He broke the law many years ago, faced and completed his debt to the American judicial system,"
I'm curious as to why you think Ayers has "completed his debt" for his crimes.
Ayers blew up an important statue to celebrate the execution of workers. He should get the gas chamber. Also, unions are evil. Killing nuns is good. Vote Republican!
"Also, unions are evil. Killing nuns is good. Vote Republican!"
Example #14,735 refuting the silly notion that somehow disgusting incivility on IP.com is only directed towards liberals and/or Democrats.
Thank you for making my point for me.
If you can't refute the facts, tar and feather the media that reports the facts. That's always been the GOP's way.
I think now people are going to be voting for Palin, not against Obama. Should make for a close race.
Thanks for that link to the blog post about McCain and Palin's environmental policies. It led me to this interview.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=300668510518137
Palin: "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices."
???
This is just factually incorrect. Putting aside climate change concerns, increasing demand from China and India will utterly overwhelm any increase in supply from Alaskan oil fields. We cannot be self-sufficient in fossil fuels and therefore we will be subject to the world price.
T. Boone Pickens is absolutely right. We've just plain got to get off the sauce. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Obama understands this and that's an excellent reason to vote for him. If we don't get the transition to a new energy economy right, none of the rest of it will matter.
Another oddity about Sarah Palin that I haven't seen mentioned on illinipundit... the sermon given at her church by David Brickner about 2 1/2 weeks ago. This was not his first appearance there... he had been invited back.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/09/palin-the-jewish-vote.html
"Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real.
"When Isaac was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment--you can't miss it."
That deranged Palestinian was executing God's will to punish Israel? Now I'm just a mealy mouthed Unitarian but if someone got up in my church and said this, I would walk out.
And perhaps it is guilt by association, but surely if it's good for the gander (Jeremiah Wright), it's good for the goose.
Hey Michael,
Didn't the Hockey Mom herself speak at an Assemblies of God Church in Alaska recently and tell the members present that the war in Iraq was part of God's plan for America?
I about gagged tonight when she spoke of her son being sent to Iraq--I'm willing to lay money on the idea that he will either not go for some reason or be pulled off the front lines very quickly, a la Prince Harry.
That's funny it took Obama 20 years or more to walk out of his church.
Let’s see drilling for and producing more oil will have no impact on the oil price? I guess we should stop pumping oil out of the wells we have right now and save the costs of pumping and see if that loss of oil production has an impact on price?
Sorry after all the lying that has been going on in the news media the last couple of days, I really don't believe any negative stories about the Palin’s.
One who hopes to prove it-I heard Obama once voted for a bill rather then vote present can you believe it, I think they have video, my brothers friends dog told me so.
Actually, Run, he voted for and against several bills, and perhaps someday we'll get to dissect the voting record of your favorite member's time in the Illinois Legislature. Will you give the same explanation for present votes that Obama's people gave for his?
And really--
your brother's friend's dog?
I believe you can do much better than that, my dear.
Hoping you'll be back in top form soon!
One who hopes-I am quite happy with where McCain/Palin is. You and you're friends are the ones coming up with the bazaar attacks that do more to make the Obama supporters look loony then Palin to the swing voters, but go ahead keep it up.
He is a cute dog if he was real. :-)
You know, first of all I should say that I withdraw my comment about Palin's church. On further reflection, I see that it is just plain guilt by association, no ifs, ands or buts about it, and that's not an honest way to examine someone's character, judgment and positions. My apologies.
"Let’s see drilling for and producing more oil will have no impact on the oil price? I guess we should stop pumping oil out of the wells we have right now and save the costs of pumping and see if that loss of oil production has an impact on price?"
Wait, what? I didn't say that it would have no impact. I said that the effects of an increase in supply would be overwhelmed by the effects of an increase in demand. Nor did I suggest that we should stop pumping oil. We've got to build the new system before the old one breaks down.
But when Palin said that we can drill our way out of this problem, that implies either that she is not looking to new sources of energy or that she defines the problem too narrowly. We don't have enough oil. Even if we did have practically unlimited supplies and oil remained cheap, it would be a bad idea to keep using it because we would screw up our climate. Recognizing that basic fact is one of my key tests for any leader. As I said, if we don't get energy right, none of the rest will matter.
I'm new here, so I'm hoping that this kind of mischaracterization is aberrant. I use lots of quotes and citations specifically to keep myself honest and avoid straw men because having to spend time clarifying one's position after it's been exaggerated or distorted just wastes everyone's time and energy.
Dear Run:
Don't you mean: "look bizarre" (because we all know that a bazaar is an open-air marketplace) and "than", not "then"?
And for some reason, dear, you're double- and sometimes even triple-posting.
Are we dealing with the real "run4cvrlib", or has his identity been hijacked?
Feltas-You comments about Palin’s oil drilling is a mischaracterization of her policy. She has said that it is only a short term fix and then goes on to say we need Nuclear, Clean Coal, Natural Gas, conservation and the rest. You and many others seem to only accept jumping straight to conservation; I believe that would be cleaner. You seem to want to leave the oil in the ground but the American people and the technology are not there and the poor can't afford your preference and its effect on gas, food and their cost of living.
No unfortunately you have the real one but I am dealing with some computer issues. I am ready for bed, although it has been nice to talk to you. Good night.
No, Run, she said, "pipelines, nuclear plants", and then she added the rest of the list, ending with conservation measures.
I was offended because she feels conservation is the last strategy we should try, not the first.
Or should we be ignoring the fact that her husband works for British Petroleum?
What is the amount of campaign donations she has received from oil, gas, pipeline, and other natural resource companies during her time in politics?
Take care yourself, dear. Really should be getting to bed myself.
Ok, one last one only because it’s you, One who Hopes. I think everyone realizes we have to conserve not just oil but water. I think you are right, I don't know but I would guess she would want to see the citizens of Alaska get all of their payments from the sale of oil from ANWR. There is no doubt like Pickens has said there has to be a plan to move us off of oil. I guess I don't remember when she said conservation but why should we leave the oil in the ground unused? The high gas prices have a heck of an impact on the economy.
I watched the speech last night and loved it. As for the media, they should get over themselves--they're not nearly as smart and important as they think they are.
"I about gagged tonight when she spoke of her son being sent to Iraq--I'm willing to lay money on the idea that he will either not go for some reason or be pulled off the front lines very quickly, a la Prince Harry."
I'll avoid the rest of the nonsense posted in here, but wanted to address this. McCain's son has seen combat in, I think, Afghanistan. Numerous other children of elected officials have also seen combat. I don't imagine Palin's son will be pulled out of his tour in Iraq just because of who his Mom is.
I watched the floor of the Republican Convention come alive as America's Mayor spat out the word "organizer" as though it were a racial epithet and then as the woman who would be a melanoma away from the Presidency reprised the performance, Oh, I admit that the ex-CEOs of E-Bay and Hewitt-Packard don't need to have anyone organize their communities organized except perhaps by the guard at the gates. only "those people" need someone to organize their communities when the CEOs close the factories and ship their jobs to China.
For good or for bad, Palin has completely changed the dynamics of this race. I watched CNN last night and even the normally critical talking heads were complimentary--I believe that Wolf Blitzer used the term "grand slam home run" to describe the speech.
Before this I was a lukewarm supporter of McCain, but I admire Palin's energy and tenacity in the face of what has been a firestorm of protest, led by the media. Today, the best that one of the Boston papers could come up with is that her hairstyle is old-fashioned. Please, are we asking Joe Biden whether he got hair plugs and where?
Obama supporters keep talking about his accomplishments--I've lived in Illinois all my life, and I can' recall any such accomplishments. What legislation did he author, either at the State or the federal level? What committees has he chaired--what did they accomplish? Has he conducted any hearings on anything? I'm certainly willing to consider them, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what people mean when they're talking about his accomplishments. Voting present doesn't take much courage and doesn't equate to any accomplishment.
So, I'm willing to be educated on the subject: what are Obama's accomplishments that render him the best Presidential candidate?
IP - this is now off topic, but you asked about Bill Ayers. He was charged with some crimes (not sure which or how many), but my understanding is that the case was either thrown out by a judge or dropped (again not sure exactly which, or how they're different) due to severe government misconduct. So, he was freed by the American Judicial System. You might not agree with the result, but he went through the system, and that was the system's final decision regarding his crimes. So he is done with the court system regarding his past.
Again, you may not like the final result, but it is what it is.
I don't necessarily agree with his past actions, but the courts have wiped his slate clean and so have I. Had he harmed a single human being, I wouldn't feel the same way. But he didn't, and I think property crimes committed 40 years ago can be forgiven.
he went through the system
Actually, he went around the system. He was a fugitive until the charges were dropped - he didn't go through the system.
I think property crimes committed 40 years ago can be forgiven.
I'd agree, if he felt any bit of remorse about it. He doesn't.
"IP - this is now off topic, but you asked about Bill Ayers. He was charged with some crimes (not sure which or how many), but my understanding is that the case was either thrown out by a judge or dropped (again not sure exactly which, or how they're different) due to severe government misconduct. So, he was freed by the American Judicial System. You might not agree with the result, but he went through the system, and that was the system's final decision regarding his crimes. So he is done with the court system regarding his past."
I think that's accurate, but I don't think that "done with the court system" is the same as "completed his debt."
"I don't necessarily agree with his past actions, but the courts have wiped his slate clean and so have I."
Again - "wiped his slate clean" isn't accurate to me. The courts did not declare him innocent of the crimes he was charged with, and in fact he has openly admitted some of them, and expressed regret they didn't do more along the same lines.
And unrepentent self-confessed terrorist is still a terrorist, regardless of the prosecutorial misconduct which prevented him from going to jail. In order for him to be rehabilitated, I would first hope for some measure of remorse for seeking to achieve political goals through violence against civilians.
Clearly you (and Sen. Obama and many others) have a different standard, and that's disappointing to me.
"Had he harmed a single human being, I wouldn't feel the same way. But he didn't, and I think property crimes committed 40 years ago can be forgiven."
Property crimes?
Disappointing.
Blowing people up is not "property crimes."
IP, so I may follow the thread discussion, who are you quoting in the 1:18P posting?
Pattsi Petrie
Jay Rosenstein, from 1:02 PM - two comments above mine.
He was responding to a question I asked way up in the thread.
Well, Run, if we could use less of what we already have, the gas prices would fall. This, however, would require adjustments I don't think most people are willing to make. For example: I was in the supermarket the other night. Remember how just a few years ago the supermarkets would be so cold you would have to bring a jacket to go shopping in July or August? It was noticably warmer in the supermarket; probably closer to 78 degrees than 68 degrees. How much money is Jerry's saving by running their store that way? I don't know, but if it keeps my prices down and helps me not freeze to death (in addition to reducing demand on the power grid), I'm all for it.
If you can find a way to drill in the ANWR that won't tear it up or pollute it, I'd be more willing to let it happen. Until then, I guess we'll just have to let the oil sit, and try to get it out of other places in the U.S. (like Southern Illinois, or the shale area of Colorado). I realize this offends economists, but I can find alternate sources for fuel. I can't pull a caribou or other creature out of thin air, and cloning has lots of issues...
Pretty balanced article by Krauthammer - Palin is a game changer and a big risk
So apparently Ms. Palin has a problem with the facts in her speeches. In her speech, she touted her frugality and her support of small entrepreneurs by selling an Alaska corporate jet on eBay. Turns out, she didn't sell it there. What's that IP always says, Just Another Politician?
But that's ok, it's just a little slip, right? I mean, we never crucify ANY politician here for little slips, right? Surely we should grant her the same pass that was granted to Obama on his minor slips, right? We would NEVER continue to laugh at him about 57 states when he meant 57 primaries, right? Oh wait...
How do you spell "hypocrisy"? G.O.P.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
Arvid... she said she put it on ebay. She did. The point is she sold it off, though eventually it sold otherwise. It was a luxury item that was unnecessary and she got most of the money back for it and no more maintenance and usage costs associated with it.
I think you're a bit guilty of your own complaint there. But otherwise I do agree on how the gaffes are jumped on too seriously. That should be late night humor, not serious political debate points. But sometimes they work, so politicians and pundits alike use 'em. What can you do?
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I think you're a bit guilty of your own complaint there. But otherwise I do agree on how the gaffes are jumped on too seriously. That should be late night humor, not serious political debate points. But sometimes they work, so politicians and pundits alike use 'em. What can you do?
I am only in the context that turnabout is fair play, and if you can't take it, don't dish it out. I'm glad you agree the gaffes are jumped on way to seriously, and that's my point. The signal-to-noise ratio with this election is almost unbearable, and it's perpetuated with crap like this, or whatever conspiracy theory AnF has about Obama's birth certificate, or that he's a secret muslim who will turn control of the United States over to "teh evil doers", or
What can "you" do? Not you personally, but "you"[1] could realize that there's all kinds of pointless cruft like this out there, and "your" candidate's shit stinks just as much as mine. It's easy to laugh at Obama for the 57-state gaffe and accuse him of being two shades of red away from pure communism (without understanding what communism actually is), and focusing on crap like that just says to independents/undecideds that "your" side can't explain why his policy is unsound. I see more anti-Obama comments and threads here than threads and discussions that say why McCain is better. If you constantly try to force a lesser of the two evils contest, why are you surprised when thats what it ends up being. More effort seems to be spent pushing the other candidate down under the water and hoping yours rises through displacement, and when it backfires and the GOP discovers their candidate is just as fallable as those they've been ridiculing, we see crying foul.
What else can "you" do? Tell me why McCain should be president, not some half-crocked theory about how Obama is going to "destroy America" that stands zero chance of actually happening because that's just not how it works in reality. Cut the crap, on both sides, and tell me what "your" candidate actually believes, not what "you're" convinced the other guy believes (which even "you" know deep down isn't true).
[1] - Where "you" and "your" are not specific people, just general unnamed generic people, except for a few certain "you", and "you" know who "you" are.
-----
At some point we have to trust the government. - redstatewannabe on 2008-06-12 at 1:14pm
[1] - Where "you" and "your" are not specific people, just general unnamed generic people, except for a few certain "you", and "you" know who "you" are.
As an aside, I find this the biggest shortcoming of the English language. There's no commonly-used generic person. I try to follow the French and use "one" as a generic pronoun, but it seems awkward most of the time.
Arvid... I did my "Why McCain" (they show up in the opposite order with this search link) series months and months ago (around the end of January) and have more scattered support and criticism of him throughout my blog from when I initially threw my endorsement behind him in May of 2007.
The January arguments were primarily geared towards conservative audiences so, they'll certainly have that feel. My liberal constitutionalist political philosophy matched with my realpolitik (tempered by American idealism) diplomatic views, probably means that my reasons will probably never go over well with you, since I doubt McCain would fit your political philosophy at all.
I wouldn't expect too much big long defenses of candidates at this point in the campaign since almost every wonk has already gotten that out of the way in the primaries and are now defending on the little things, if at all, for the yahoos that made it through. I certainly wouldn't expect the campaigns themselves to do much other than get dumbed down to appeal to those without any strong ideological leanings or who possibly don't really care (at least no where as much as the wonks).
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Oh and probably a couple good examples from a different perspective than my own: A former Nader support from 2000 and the comments of an excommunicated Democrat.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I don't think "The American people are too stupid so we don't want people who will appeal to the wants of the American people" is a compelling argument. (Note: not a real quote)
I also don't see anything of substance about what McCain WILL do in the write up. McCain will be good in the War on Terror is not concrete and my experience is that most people who use the term "War on Terror" haven't yet figured out that the current approach is exacerbating the "War on Terror" in many ways.
Nobody thinks we should just let terrorists blow us up. It's just that some people have figured out that giving those groups free recruiting campaigns is not an effective response. I fail to see how increasing the number of people who want to blow us up serves anyone's goals except loonies like Ann Coulter who want to break out the popcorn and watch us make good on our excuses to kill as many Muslim people as possible.
The candidates certainly appeal to the American people. There is only a small percentage of voters left who are still undecided. Those undecided voters aren't ideologues like us who are concerned about which candidate appeals to the economic theories they most embrace or the historical significance of political theories they may generally accept or political philosophies they've found to be the most adequate for our society.
What appeals to them? Not voting for a scumbag (negative ads). People who offer stuff they want (pandering). People who they can put their faith in to run stuff they don't understand (claims of brilliance or proven experience)... etc... etc.
If you want the candidates to have a technical debate on the historical and practical application of social and economic theories over time... they're going to switch the channel to something interesting to them. The people who care that deeply made up their mind a long long long time ago.
It's not because they're stupid... some might be, sure... but often times their expertise and interests have nothing to do with these kind of topics. You can find brilliant people who know absolute jack about political issues since it just doesn't interest them, they don't have the time, or they just don't understand it well enough. Right now McCain and Obama are fighting for the remaining non-partisan, non-ideological, and generally disinterested voters. If you're looking for an intellectual debate on the issues and the political and economic philosophies prepare to be sorely disappointed.
Now if you're expecting gimmicks, pandering, and mudslinging? You may still be disappointed, but at least history shows that the odds are it is the only realistic outcome.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
And, as if to confirm my hunch:
Emphasis added. I'm only half-joking when I say that "media reform" legislation should be a larger federal priority than "campaign finance reform."
It's also my hunch that these idiots in the media, feeling desperate now that their over-the-top campaigning for Obama is backfiring, will double-down and we'll really start to see some ridiculous stuff.
All that shows is that the Reactionary Wolf Crying Crowd is successful. If you can show me a poll that shows the press supporting Obama as a candidate, then your numbers would be compelling. My experience is such polls (I haven't seen anyone from this specific race) put journalists as social liberals and economic conservatives. It makes sense--they tend to be upper middle class with exposure to multiple social groupings and classes.
Is it Friday Funnies already? MSNBC has removed Matthews and Oberman because of their comments being over top.
"It's also my hunch that these idiots in the media, feeling desperate now that their over-the-top campaigning for Obama..."
While I agree that the media is a major negative factor in this presidential race, I'm growing tired of the incessant claims that the evil media serve only to benefit Obama/Biden. Does this mean Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michele Maulkin, Jerome Corsi, David Freddoso, and most anybody at NRO and Regnery Publishing, just for starters, are representatives of the vast minority of objective members of the media?
How do you tell the difference between Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin? Lipstick!
The problem that the democrats have is that they have nominated a far left democrat. He touted himself as someone that would put race behind us. He touted himself as someone who would look out for the common good of the country. His resume did not match his words. It is not about race-remember Alan Keyes. Obama's problem is that he is plainly a socialist or a left wing liberal, whatever your choice of words.
These folks are all about income redistribution to those "less fortunate neighbors" (those who did not work for it). What a community organizer does is try to make more people dependent upon the organizer so they will vote for them to get their "bread and circuses". We need to teach people to fish, not give them fish.
I will make the admission that McCain does not bring much to the table on issues except he is not Obama. His support of the gang of 14 kept some very good judges from getting elevated to the bench. Supporting a military policy (the surge) is not the same as creating good public policy. Being in favor of the surge is like being in favor of good military strategy-like duh!!!!
What he has brought to the table is a showing that he is able to unite a group of people in a way that organizes them for the common good. For him to pull off what he did in Florida to Romney, and then get Romney on board with every opponents, that is amazing. A president does not need to be the smartest guy on the block, but he needs to have the humility to put people around him who are smarter than he is. This will not be hard for McCain.
"What a community organizer does is try to make more people dependent upon the organizer so they will vote for them to get their "bread and circuses". We need to teach people to fish, not give them fish."
That's the second time in just a few days that you have made this slanderous assertion. Neither time have you offered any proof of your characterization, which flies directly in the face of the truth about every community organizing project I have ever been involved with or even heard of.
If you have even the smallest shred of evidence that this is the standard MO for all (or even most) community organizing, rather than the disconnected ravings of a divorcee from reality, please provide it. (And let me say in advance that blanket statements such as yours, which pretend to describe all community organizing, or at least the majority of it, will require more proof than just a couple of anecdotal drive-by snipings.)
I seriously doubt that you will be able to do so, since both the fundamental technique and goal inherent in all community organizing is empowerment. In that light, it goes your analogy one better: it teaches people how to teach themselves to fish.
That's the second time in just a few days that you have made this slanderous assertion. Neither time have you offered any proof of your characterization, which flies directly in the face of the truth about every community organizing project I have ever been involved with or even heard of.
I would like to know what community organization project you have been involved with. Since you asked about my expertise on this subject I will respond. In 1995, Joe Loftus and Jess McDonald were the 1 and 2 people in DCFS. They proposed that a way in which community organizations, including Churches, could network together to provide for the needs of children in the community. Jess, then the head of DCFS, called for discussion of the issue, and I was selected as a representative to the study this issue. Jess was interested primarily in finding ways that the community could could fill the gaps in services that were left because of the failure of the Chicago Board of Education and the problems that DCFS was having in the shelter care system in the City of Chicago. I was selected because while on the Interagency Authority on Residential Facilities for Children I wrote and published a white paper on Local Systems of Governance, which was essentially a method of networking community organizations rather than voter initiatives to recruit inner city blacks, but I digress.
Jess went to the Board of Education and together they funded an initiative to develop the 62 Children and Adolescent Local Area Networks here in Illinois. In used to have a website called a systemofcare, but that has been disbanded. During the discussions during the development of this initiative, I wrote two more papers, the first one being called Stupid is as Stupid Does. This outlined 17 main points on why the system of "community organization" would not work in the fashion that he indicated. The second paper was a 13 page paper entitled A Real System of Governance.
When the Interagency Authority sunset in 1997 (I was an at large voting member which meant that DCFS got one vote and I got one vote) Jess McDonald wrote me a personal letter requesting that I work with the LAN 24 which is the Champaign, Ford, and Iroquois County Local Area Network. This I did and I have requited and requested many community people to participate. These include, Marty Barratt the former superintendent of Schools, Judy Pacey, the successor, Julia Reitz the States Attorney, Carl Meyer (Parkland Foundation) and many more. I was asked by our Lan to review the bylaws of the other Lans that had their bylaws posted on the website. I was elected convenor of the local lan and served until 2006.
Ok Kevin, now why don't you tell me what you know about Community Organizing.
John: I warned you in advance against painting every community organizing project with the brush of a single anecdotal reference, but that is of course exactly what you have done.
So in other words, you have experience with one (and only one) initiative which developed a top-down committee structure whose primary purpose was interagency coordination for the provision of mental health services for children with behavioral and other issues, but which sought to include a limited number of community representatives for input. Furthermore, by your own account, you were initially invited to participate in establishing these interagency coordination committees precisely because you had already expressed previously held biases against community organizing. Do I really need to go on? (Their website has not been disbanded, by the way.)
I am sure that System of Care Illinois does some wonderful work, and it appears to meet a well established need. It also technically meets the literal definition of the two words, in that it "organizes" the "community" of local, regional, and state institutional agencies for the provision of care. Including a handful of carefully selected community representatives for input to an interagency committee, however, does not even remotely begin to resemble community organizing in the traditional sense of the term.
Community organizing works from the ground up, from the street, from the citizens themselves, from the individual neighbors and co-workers and churchgoers, and it is populated and directed primarily by those individual citizens. It often includes support and advice from other local public organizations, but it is not by any stretch first and foremost a coordinating council between government and private organizations.
You ask about my experience. To be perfectly honest, I can't remember every project I've ever been involved with. I can tell you that, in addition to my active participation in organized labor for almost thirty years, I also have worked for a number of non-profit organizations that have provided direct support to community organizing projects dating back to the mid-seventies.
These non-profit organizations have included the Illinois Public Action Council, the Campaign Against Toxic Waste, the Champaign County Health Care Consumers, the Campaign for Better Health Care, the C-U Area Project, and the Illinois Center for Citizen Involvement, which later became the Public Interest Fund of Illinois, and then merged with the Illinois Women's Funding Federation to become Community Shares of Illinois, a federation of over 70 non-profit organizations around the state, and my current employer.
Along the way, I've also been lifelong friends with community organizers in other organizations in Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Indiana. In short, I have been completely immersed in the culture of community organizing for nearly all of my adult life. Does that make me biased? You bet. It also gives me the personal experience to know what I'm talking about.
Community organizers make mistakes just like anyone else. Some projects work better than others. These are extremely human endeavors, manpower (and volunteer) intensive, and entirely dependent on the quality of effort and commitment of the people who choose to join or support them. But there is a consistent element to their success or failure, and it is a theme that is constantly hammered into the heads and hearts of every community organizer: empowerment. That means that there is an inherent abhorrence of the kind of conditioned dependence that you have alleged, and it also means that I know immediately and instinctively when community organizing is being unfairly characterized or maligned, as you have done.