US Elections 2008

[Irenicus]

I had a riot with reading through the Wall Street Journal (September 2 edition) today. It's been like forever since I ever read a full newspaper rather than internet news articles, blogs, 'n stuff; and it's hilarious. Like they're trying to balance both sides by being biased for either in different articles.

Most of the actual news were "subtly" anti-McCain/Palin. One tried to deliver an "unbiased" account on the nature of the town where Palin was mayor, but ended up with presenting it as a case of Corporate America intruding on good old frontier nature. You know the deal: Wal-Mart, parking lots, and McDonalds where there was once one street, three houses, and six billion moose. Another indirectly asked why calling out Palin's role as a mother of five is politically incorrect when it has a direct bearing on just how much this VP/potential President will be able to devote herself to this task.

But these also balanced out nicely with the hilarious Opinion articles, which are unapogetically partisan for the Republicans. One kind columnist declared, with not a hint of irony, that "Mr. Obama may be able to offer voters all the attractions of high rhetoric, but Mr. McCain can offer something else: an uncomplicated love of country."

My God, Zeus, Protector of Guests, etc., etc., I nearly collapsed in mirth when I finished that.

P.S. Unfortunately, it isn't all fun reading through all that though. One long article confirmed once again how shallow voters are when WSJ pointed out that a pathetic ad hominem campaign, "Obama is like Britney Spears," actually had an effect on the voters in the polls.

...why?

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I do wonder how someone with a working spouse and five kids (one with extra needs) is going to be very effective at being Vice Prez or Prez. Those are MUCH MORE than 40hr/wk jobs if you're doing the job properly.

Kennedy seems to have managed it.


Also, what is the Secret Service for?

[Vexx]

.... Kennedy had a working spouse??? No, try a bit harder... also... no, that is not what the Secret Service is for...

More seriously - Mitt Romney's speech was so far right-wing tonight it had the conservative analyst David Brooks just about speechless. It painted the current Supreme Court as a pack of liberals (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, etc), railed against the application of the Constitution as a work of limited government (Guantanamo, privacy, etc). It threw up a strawman view of "liberals" that hasn't been true for decades.

OTOH.... Huckabee's speech demonstrated why this guy probably *should* have been the candidate for Prez or VP. His speech had more meat and reality in it than every speaker prior to him at the RNC combined (even if I seriously disagree with some of his positions).


On the WSJ: it ceased being a really credible source of information when Rupert Murdoch bought it. I suspect within a year or two it'll be as silly as Fox or any other media outlet he owns. This is the sort of guy that Randolph Hearst was the ancestor of (or of the sort of media that Arthur C. Clarke portrayed in his later science fiction novels).

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Kennedy seems to have managed it.


Also, what is the Secret Service for?

I totally agree how many children she has is pointless. There are better things to attack her on that would really address the issues.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by Vexx

also... no, that is not what the Secret Service is for......

I suppose the only thing the Secret Service does is take bullets for the President.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Heh. I napped through most of the convention. I'm more interested in hearing what Palin's going to say, though I'll be in my car, heading to classes when she gives her speech.

So... Why are we, the people, attacking any of the nominees/candidates again? The issues? I'm not understanding how attacking people on what they believe in will help.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

Heh. I napped through most of the convention. I'm more interested in hearing what Palin's going to say, though I'll be in my car, heading to classes when she gives her speech.

So... Why are we, the people, attacking any of the nominees/candidates again? The issues? I'm not understanding how attacking people on what they believe in will help.

That's politics these days. For the vast majority of the electorate, issues won't be the deciding factor. That's why blatant lies like the Swift Boat Veterans can be so effective.

Also, McCain himself made this a referendum on Obama. "Obama would rather lose a war to win a campaign" makes it pretty clear.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by cors8

That's politics. For the vast majority of the electorate, issues won't be the deciding factor. That's why blatant lies like the Swift Boat Veterans can be so effective.

That doesn't answer the question of why we have to go on attacking the nominees/candidates. If it makes either party look immature when they attack the other party, then I see no point as to why we should do it.

Stating "I disagree with their stance in this issue" and give reasons a, b and c is far more mature than, "So-and-so is retarded for their stance being this in the issue."

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by cors8

Also, McCain himself made this a referendum on Obama. "Obama would rather lose a war to win a campaign" makes it pretty clear.

Isn't that an attack on policies rather than Obama himself?

I would say Obama started it with his talk about how McCain doesn't know how the "lower" classes live (the "how many houses do you have" thing).

[thermopyle]

I enjoy the Repubs call of sexism. I've read that Palin called Hillary's charge of the same thing against the networks as 'perceived whining'. Oh, it makes me giddy.

The media also likes to ignore the reason why Palin's daughter's pregnancy is even an issue and continue to call it as an attack on her family...right, anything to make this a "close" race.

One of the issues which I'll openly mock Palin on is her abstinence only education stance and her slashing of funds for teen moms (cause, you know, that works and all those teen moms have well-off families to help them out, and their baby's daddies are just jumping to get married). The hypocrisy kills me.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Phantom-Takaya

That doesn't answer the question of why we have to go on attacking the nominees/candidates. If it makes either party look immature when they attack the other party, then I see no point as to why we should do it.

It'd be nice if we could all take the high road but that's not how you win in politics. People just don't vote consistently enough for the "positive" candidate.

It can be partially blamed on the media. In my opinion though, the main problem is that people are too lazy to do research themselves so they listen to the soundbites and believe it to be true.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Isn't that an attack on policies rather than Obama himself?

I would say Obama started it with his talk about how McCain doesn't know how the "lower" classes live (the "how many houses do you have" thing).

John Mccain's accusation came much earlier than the house fiasco. As stupid as these attacks seem, then unfortunately work. You take the high road in politics you take it home.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by thermopyle

One of the issues which I'll openly mock Palin on is her abstinence only education stance and her slashing of funds for teen moms (cause, you know, that works and all those teen moms have well-off families to help them out, and their baby's daddies are just jumping to get married). The hypocrisy kills me.

I don't see the hypocrisy other than that what happened to Palin happens to many average households.

However, I admit that Palin's stance is very 1950ish.

Originally Posted by SeedFreedom

John Mccain's accusation came much earlier than the house fiasco. As stupid as these attacks seem, then unfortunately work. You take the high road in politics you take it home.

Read again. I believe McCain's "accustion" was an attack on policy rather than character.

[cors8]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

Isn't that an attack on policies rather than Obama himself?

I would say Obama started it with his talk about how McCain doesn't know how the "lower" classes live (the "how many houses do you have" thing).

It attacks more than his policy. It feeds into the narrative that Obama isn't patriotic enough. It's like how Michelle Obama had to show she loved the USA enough for her speech.

As for the house thing, that was much more recent than my example. I think the house thing is to tackle the narrative that Obama is elitist and a celebrity while McCain is for the common man. That's a narrative McCain started too.

[SeedFreedom]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I don't see the hypocrisy other than that what happened to Palin happens to many average households.

However, I admit that Palin's stance is very 1950ish.




Read again. I believe McCain's "accustion" was an attack on policy rather than character.

I fail to see how that is attack on policy. To say "this man cares about his own career more than the country" sounds like a personal attack to me, especially knowing how many Americans still think hes a Muslim.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by cors8

It attacks more than his policy. It feeds into the narrative that Obama isn't patriotic enough. It's like how Michelle Obama had to show she loved the USA enough for her speech.

I admit, it was a borderline thing. But all in all, the pre-VP race wasn't as bad as the current Palin situation.

[Phantom-Takaya]

Originally Posted by cors8

It'd be nice if we could all take the high road but that's not how you win in politics. People just don't vote consistently enough for the "positive" candidate.

It can be partially blamed on the media. In my opinion though, the main problem is that people are too lazy to do research themselves so they listen to the soundbites and believe it to be true.

I'll try one more time, then give up after this since what I'm saying doesn't seem to be getting through...

I know as well as many others that either party will probably continue to attack each other one way or another, as immature and pointless as it is. But, we, the voters, shouldn't be taking sides by jumping on the bandwagon to attack the other party. It makes those people's votes seem biased and unfair, as well as immature.

[thermopyle]

Originally Posted by Kang Seung Jae

I don't see the hypocrisy other than that what happened to Palin happens to many average households.

However, I admit that Palin's stance is very 1950ish.

Except those other parents who experience this same thing weren't denying funding for an all encompassing sex ed and approving an [disproven] abstinence only course.

[Vexx]

It isn't automatically an attack to examine an candidate's background to a certain degree and a brief consideration of their qualifications is certainly in order

Since we've not heard much from Palin herself (unless one has been following Alaskan politics), we have to go by what the Republicans themselves are revealing about her.

Much of the so-called "media attack" of Palin doesn't *actually exist". Its a meme the Republican party loves to ignite --- the "liberal media is out to get us". Why? because it energizes the base. So far, perfectly legitimate questions have been asked (re: CNN) and the Republicans responded by canceling interviews (McCain) and whining because one reporter was doing her job by asking for substance for an assertion.

The media is corporate... and therefore has a mandate to maximize profits. If that means fanning flames... well.

As far as people here... if that means me - I don't see how wondering if Palin will be able to manage her homelife workload with her professional requirements is "an attack". I'm part of a dual-income family with two kids and I can certify it is Quite Damn Hard. More than occasionally, career suffers if you keep "family first". There are some professions where "family first" is completely unacceptable.

edit: watching the convention, the "Country First" false meme is really starting to be antagonizing with its implicit "you're not patriotic unless you vote Republican".

edit: Rudy's speech is functioning as the attack spearhead --- he's actually doing a pretty good job (if he'd stop laughing so much) of pointing out potential weaknesses in Obama's qualifications and asserting for McCain.

[Kang Seung Jae]

Originally Posted by thermopyle

Except those other parents who experience this same thing weren't denying funding for an all encompassing sex ed and approving an [disproven] abstinence only course.

Except all those other parents also don't educate their kids as much as they need to, and the kids don't listen anyway.


Also, when has an all encompassing sex ed worked?