Last night, expectations were high for this first debate. The campaign is often a constant barrage of soundbites and political ads, shading issues with hearsay and rumor, constantly barreling towards the finish line in November without concern for the praciticality of positions. Debates, on the other hand, and a bit of an anomaly. The two candidates are placed face to face, unable to just lob accusations or assaults without immediate rebuttal. A single journalist-moderator is given full control of the direction of the debate, choosing topics and questions at his on discretion. In the end, a roomful of commentators, spinmeisters, and pundits do their best to interpret the results of the debate, and the following days and weeks determine whether or not the public at large agrees. The idea of a winner or loser in the debate is, frankly, ridiculous considering that each person is swayed in different ways by different things.
So, any debate is a fascinating prospect, and one that could potential change the entire direction of the campaign. One slip up on live television becomes the media theme for the rest of the campaign. Too long a pause is replayed as a demonstratoin of your ignorance. A repeated phrase such as “lock box” becomes a verbal albatross that makes a serious proposal sound ridiculous.
This particular debate raised the stakes considerably higher. At first meant to be a debate on foreign affairs, it was Obama’s best chance to unseat McCain from his reputation as the better Commander-in-Chief, and to demonstrate that his short tenure in Washington does not preclude his ability to comprehend and tackle the big issues of State. Then, the immediate concerns of our economy cried out for a platform where these candidates could make clear to the American people how their needs could be met and problems solved. On top of all of that, McCain’s failed gambit to postpone or cancel the debate in his feeble attempt to appear “above” politics demonstrated his fear of the questions he might face, and piqued public and media interest in how the debate would proceed.
Yesterday, in the immediate aftermath of the debate, I thought it was perfectly clear that Barack Obama had come out on top. He was clear, concise, congenial, and above all, demonstrated a deep comprehension of the issues facing America both domestically and abroad, with many proposals to meet the needs of the future. McCain, on the other hand, was condescending, dismissive, and easily flustered. While Obama painted a picture of how we would turn things around, McCain seemed more apt to tell us where we’ve been, and who’s to blame for where we are, and gave vague promises of how he would act in the future.
Policy, however, is not what the debates are about. We can hear and read about their policies everyday, and they have been previously vetted so greatly that we are unlikely to hear anything new or drastically dramatic. Instead, the debates are an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to act “Presidential,” a rather undefinable quality that, like pornography, we know it when we see it. Barack Obama began the debate by graciously shaking McCain’s hand and wishing him luck, thanking Jim Lehrer and the school for hosting them, and then spoke directly to the American people by looking right into the camera. McCain, conversely, avoided looking directly at or speaking to Obama, began with a sullen tone by wishing Ted Kennedy well, and then awkwardly shifted at his podium while addressing his opening remarks to Jim Lehrer off-camera.
While his opponent spoke, Obama appeared engaged, listening intently, and remained calm even when falsehoods were stated about his positions. When he did interupt, he did so politely, and allowed the moderator the opportunity to take control. John McCain refused to look at Barack while he was speaking, and spent most of the time smirking and laughing with incredulity, or mumbling off-camera. His frustration would boil over with squiting grimaces and gesticulating with his arms in anger like a petulant child or a curmudgeonly old man.
On the issues, Barack Obama suggested investments in alternative energy, education, and health care, while John McCain suggested a budget freeze except for Defense, and cutting programs that amounted to a paltry 20-30 millions dollars, while also increasing our Defense expenditures and increasing our debt by cutting revenue. He hit all of the Republican buzz words; called Obama the most liberal member of the Senate, repeated the name “Reagan,” and talked of “supporting the troops.” While Obama spoke knowledgably about diplomatic solutions to dealing with America’s enemies and bolstering our allies, McCain stumbled to pronounce the name of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called President Zardari of Pakistan “Kadari” while calling his country a “failed state,” and called the volatile Prime Minister Vladimir Putin akin to the KGB which - true or not - is the sort of inflamatory statement that could make it difficult to deal with this former superpower over former Eastern Bloc nations joining NATO.
While, like I predicted, most perceptions of the debate’s outcome fell along party lines, and the pundits were overly kind to McCain, the biggest surprise is that undecideds and moderates had their opinion of Obama greatly improved. In nearly all the polls, undecideds declared Obama the winner and better prepared to handle economic issues, and in most of these polls, he also did better than McCain on foreign affairs issues. According to one CBS poll, he went from being 9 points down compared to McCain on the questions of whether he was “prepared to be President,” to being 21 points ahead of McCain. On understanding the needs of the American people, his lead jumped from 18 points ahead to 56 points ahead. If the other debates go like this, including the VP debate, his lead on McCain should only increase, and considering that the nielsen ratings last night for this debate were highest in the midwest, many swing states that just two weeks ago were considered no longer in play, could once again lean towards Obama, marking a dramatic shift in the predictable nature of our electoral map.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Debates: Live!
Disclaimer: I am an Obama supporter (obviously) and whenever possible, I’m probably going to make a joke, so don’t read this if you want purely serious analysis.
9:01 And away we go…
9:02 Emphasis on the “global financial crisis.” I think we know what Jim wants to talk about.
9:03 Hey, look, they both showed up. I guess that means John McCain was able to fix our economy in time to make it down to Mississippi. Barack is all nice and friendly to McCain, who remains absolutely silent with a look of contempt in his eyes as they shake hands.
9:04 Nice. Obama gets the important “Thanks for having us at your awesome school” first question. Oh, and he’s answering directly into the camera. I think he’s looking right into my soul.
9:05 Ouch. Obama just laid the blame for the economic crisis on the policies of Bush supported by McCain. He comes out punching.
9:06 Okay…McCain starts out by wishing Ted Kennedy well. That’s weird. Both a downer and a pander to Democrats, and a way to delay answering the questions that he can’t answer.
9:07 McCain tries to make a joke which goes so flat that he literally clears his throat afterwards, like Rodney Dangerfield. He should try looking into the camera like Barack, because by looking at Jim Lehrer he just looks like he’s avoiding America’s gaze, like the guy who borrows 20 bucks from you and “forgets” to pay you back.
9:08 So the first question is done and Barack began by laying out specific idea, and McCain basically said “we need to fix stuff. No more foreign oil. I’m old.” Jim Lehrer lays down the gauntlet and asks the two candidates to “talk it out, bitch” (not an actual quote) and solve this problem in the next five minutes.
9:10 “Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?” Pretty straightforward question, right? Response: “I hope so.” You hope so? That’s another way of saying “I don’t know.”
9:12 Jim Lehrer is trying to start a rumble, and Barack gets the first laugh of the night. Charm will get you everywhere.
9:13 This feels awkward, like couples counseling. “Tell him how you feel, John. How has he hurt you?”
9:14 John McCain: “Our best days are ahead of us.” Oh, so you mean this isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse? How bold of you.
9:15 Finally, John McCain admits that the Republicans are neither conservative nor responsible. And apparently John McCain is so ready to cut the size of our government that he already bought a pen for vetoing everything.
9:17 John McCain keeps smirking and wincing when Barack Obama describes his policies. I guess words do hurt.
9:18 John McCain says he’s fought against earmarks his whole career…and also that they’ve tripled in the last 5 years. Clearly, his fight isn’t going well. That’s leadership.
9:19 John McCain: “The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is raise taxes.” Yes, if we’re going to dish out $700 billion dollars to corporations, we should make sure we bring in less money so that the government will be broke and then corporations won’t be able to ask us for money.
9:20 Jim Lehrer keeps trying to get them to respond directly two each other, and they keep avoiding it. It’s like an eighth grade dance up in here. Make eye contact, people.
9:21 John McCain keeps coming back to pork-barrel spending. Is that the entirety of his economic plan? Cutting 18 billions dollars. He also keeps mentioning that people have requested hundreds of billions in earmarks. It’s not like they were all at once. It’s not like Obama wanted a trillion dollars. When one thing gets rejected, they ask for something else. What’s so crazy about that?
9:23 John McCain cuts off the moderator to do what? That’s right, talk about earmarks again. He also wants to simplify the tax code by making a second code, and then you have to look at both and pick one for yourself. This must be a use of the word “simplify” that I’m not familiar with.
9:25 John McCain can’t stop interrupting Barack, and he keeps laughing inappropriately. That is not a comforting smile.
9:27 Barack just gave a shout-out to Ohio and Michigan. Hello electoral college.
9:28 Barack Obama is for alternative energy, broadband connections, and science education. He’s the future.
9:29 John McCain: “We’ve let the government get completely out of control.” He realizes that he and his party “are” the government, right? And he’s opposed to Ethanol.
Yeah, fuck you, Iowa.
9:30 John McCain saved us 6.8 billion dollars by cutting a Boeing contract. Thank god, that’ll take care of all of our deficits.
9:32 Jim Lehrer is getting very frustrated.
9:33 John McCain suggest a spending freeze on everything except defense. So in an election year, he’s promising the people…nothing. We refuse to pay for anything new, so forget it. Barack calls this “using a hatchet instead of a scalpel.” Nice.
9:34 McCain is really pushing for Nuclear Power. This is just like that West Wing live debate. Watch out, California, you’re about to have a meltdown.
9:35 This “foreign policy” debate has, so far, been all about the economy. That’s good for Barack, I think, but c’mon, let’s talk about foreign policy a little. It’s kind of a big deal.
9:36 I can’t believe it took McCain this long to talk about veterans. Oh, and he’ll cut spending, but won’t say how or what. He assures us he has plans though. I guess we should just trust him.
9:37 Obama: Bush’s “orgy of spending.” Damn, that’s incendiary, and sexy.
9:38 What? You mean McCain wasn’t elected “Ms. Congeniality?” Oh, and he finally said “maverick”… twice in one sentence, and called Palin his “partner.” She’s a woman but that doesn’t mean you’re married, John. I know it’s confusing since you’ve cheated on the women you’ve been with.
9:39 According to McCain, we’re winning in Iraq. I guess those were victory bombs exploding and injuring our troops.
9:40 McCain: We can’t leave Iraq because we might have to go back. But we’ll come home. What?
9:44 Obama: “Our troops have done a brilliant job” McCain: “(giggles)”
9:45 Obama lays into McCain on the war, and McCain just smirks and laughs. He’s going to jump over the podium and punch Obama in a minute.
9:46 Hey, they passed a law in Iraq! One law?! I guess we are winning. Thanks, John McCain.
9:48 Obama: “…capture and kill Bin Laden, and crush Al Qaeda.” He wins!
9:49 The look on Obama’s face while McCain rambles on is priceless. It’s the way you look at an old person who’s confused and trying to understand “these darn kids today.” So sad.
9:51 Barack Obama, unlike McCain, knows how to pronounce words, like “Taliban,” “Pakistan,” and “Iraq.”
9:52 John McCain admits that all of our problems began when people like him washed their hands of Afghanistan after we helped them boot Russia out. Thanks for taking the blame, senator.
9:53 McCain on bombing Pakistan, “You don’t say that out loud.” So you would secretly bomb Pakistan? Yeah, that’s better. How’d that work in Cambodia?
9:55 McCain guarantees that he will not “publicly state” that he will attack Pakistan, and then grins. How is that a good thing? Does he mean he will attack them, but it’s in bad taste to say it?
9:56 Based on his facial expressions, I think McCain will have a stroke by the third debate. He does not take criticism well.
9:58 John McCain runs us through his entire record, and keeps saying “I have a record.” It’s been two minutes and he hasn’t come to a point yet. Lucky for him Jim Lehrer isn’t being a stickler about time. This was all in response to a comment about him bombing Iran. He ends by talking about Iraq. Good job, way to get confused, John.
10:01 John McCain is staring off into the distance while Barack Obama tries talking to him. The silent treatment, that could work.
10:02 Ouch, McCain is literally gritting his teeth while he talks. I can’t wait for him to lash out.
10:03 Obama flatters Jim on his ability to keeptime, and Mr. Lehrer swoons.
10:04 John McCain wants to make clear that we “can’t afford another Holocaust.” Was that unclear before, John? Was Obama suggesting we should get one? John McCain also suggests a “League of Democracies.” It’s like the League of Nations meets the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Movie. Nothing but success.
10:05 John McCain is trying to be as vague as possible.
10:08 It took McCain three times to get the name of Iran’s leader right, and he still failed, and looked crazy doing it.
10:09 McCain looks fucking pissed. I swear, he’s going to punch someone, and if it’s Lehrer, it might just kill both of them.
10:12 Every joke Obama makes gets a laugh. Every joke McCain makes meets awkward silence. John McCain’s favorite phrases “By the way…, “I know that…,” “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” And he refered to Kim Jong Ill as “our dear leader.” That’s weird.
10:15 McCain tries sarcasm. Once again looks crazy. Why does he keep waving around that sharpie?
10:16 Obama ignores the crazy, has another charming exchange with Jim Lehrer. Even if he were to lose this debate, he’s one Jim Lehrer’s heart.
10:17 Someone bought Barack a geography book…he just rattled off the names of most of the countries in western Europe, Asia, and the middle east.
10:18 Barack is hardcore.
10:19 McCain: “He doesn’t understand…” Man, this guy is a broken record.
10:20 According to McCain, Russian posters in Georgia are in English. Then he rattles off the names of Eastern European cities, and says we should “watch” them. Not take action, just watch.
10:23 Barack brings it full circle back to energy independence. I’m bummed he mentioned “clean coal” because it’s misleading.
10:26 McCain is almost stumped when asked what are the chances of another 9/11-type attack. He pauses wayyyy too long, and then says “less.” Then he shows off how tough he is by saying that he was “stymied” until some 9/11 families came along. Oh, and he fought for a commission. That’ll show those terrorists.
10:27 McCain stumbles again…couldn’t remember the word “sure.”
10:28 John McCain: “America is safer than it was on 9/11.” Well I should hope so. That’s like saying, “My house is less on fire than it was when it was on fire.” He’s essentially proud of the fact that we are just in danger, and not immediate danger.
10:31 Man, I have to go to the bathroom. Can’t McCain just storm out and end this thing. You know he wants too. Also, why bring up Reagan’s failed Missle Defense Shield? What’s that about?
10:34 Barack Obama seems to know he’s won this debate. John McCain again pivots back to “the surge.” Broken record. Also, he loves veterans. Doesn’t say how he’ll help them, just that he loves them.
10:36 “When I came home from prison…” That doesn’t sound good. It makes it sound like he was in Oz and not in a war camp.
10:37 And that’s the end of that. Barack looks pleased. McCain looks pissed. I wish his mic was still on. That sound guy is probably hearing some awesome snide remarks.
My first thoughts on the post-debate coverage on the major news networks. Were these people watching the same debate? They give McCain points for repeatedly mentioning the surge and earmarks. Was it not clear to them that he did that because those are the only talking points he has? He has no new ideas, no proposals, no ability to think on his feet.
My final thoughts on the whole debate. Obama was clear, concise, and had a lot of excellent and well-phrased proposals. John McCain was barely in control of his emotions, constantly stuttering, fumbling, fuming, and repeating the same three soundbites over and over while not actually answering some of the questions he was asked. I’m sure Obama’s supporters were pleased, but I’m just as certain that most of McCain’s supporters probably thought he did great. Early polling though, done of undecideds immediately after the debats, showed that the majority of ordinary Americans thought Obama won and think that he would be a far better President when it comes to the economy and the war in Iraq. Since those are two of the biggest issues right now, this should bode well for Obama. Now on to the Vice Presidential debates.
9:01 And away we go…
9:02 Emphasis on the “global financial crisis.” I think we know what Jim wants to talk about.
9:03 Hey, look, they both showed up. I guess that means John McCain was able to fix our economy in time to make it down to Mississippi. Barack is all nice and friendly to McCain, who remains absolutely silent with a look of contempt in his eyes as they shake hands.
9:04 Nice. Obama gets the important “Thanks for having us at your awesome school” first question. Oh, and he’s answering directly into the camera. I think he’s looking right into my soul.
9:05 Ouch. Obama just laid the blame for the economic crisis on the policies of Bush supported by McCain. He comes out punching.
9:06 Okay…McCain starts out by wishing Ted Kennedy well. That’s weird. Both a downer and a pander to Democrats, and a way to delay answering the questions that he can’t answer.
9:07 McCain tries to make a joke which goes so flat that he literally clears his throat afterwards, like Rodney Dangerfield. He should try looking into the camera like Barack, because by looking at Jim Lehrer he just looks like he’s avoiding America’s gaze, like the guy who borrows 20 bucks from you and “forgets” to pay you back.
9:08 So the first question is done and Barack began by laying out specific idea, and McCain basically said “we need to fix stuff. No more foreign oil. I’m old.” Jim Lehrer lays down the gauntlet and asks the two candidates to “talk it out, bitch” (not an actual quote) and solve this problem in the next five minutes.
9:10 “Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?” Pretty straightforward question, right? Response: “I hope so.” You hope so? That’s another way of saying “I don’t know.”
9:12 Jim Lehrer is trying to start a rumble, and Barack gets the first laugh of the night. Charm will get you everywhere.
9:13 This feels awkward, like couples counseling. “Tell him how you feel, John. How has he hurt you?”
9:14 John McCain: “Our best days are ahead of us.” Oh, so you mean this isn’t the beginning of the apocalypse? How bold of you.
9:15 Finally, John McCain admits that the Republicans are neither conservative nor responsible. And apparently John McCain is so ready to cut the size of our government that he already bought a pen for vetoing everything.
9:17 John McCain keeps smirking and wincing when Barack Obama describes his policies. I guess words do hurt.
9:18 John McCain says he’s fought against earmarks his whole career…and also that they’ve tripled in the last 5 years. Clearly, his fight isn’t going well. That’s leadership.
9:19 John McCain: “The worst thing we could do in this economic climate is raise taxes.” Yes, if we’re going to dish out $700 billion dollars to corporations, we should make sure we bring in less money so that the government will be broke and then corporations won’t be able to ask us for money.
9:20 Jim Lehrer keeps trying to get them to respond directly two each other, and they keep avoiding it. It’s like an eighth grade dance up in here. Make eye contact, people.
9:21 John McCain keeps coming back to pork-barrel spending. Is that the entirety of his economic plan? Cutting 18 billions dollars. He also keeps mentioning that people have requested hundreds of billions in earmarks. It’s not like they were all at once. It’s not like Obama wanted a trillion dollars. When one thing gets rejected, they ask for something else. What’s so crazy about that?
9:23 John McCain cuts off the moderator to do what? That’s right, talk about earmarks again. He also wants to simplify the tax code by making a second code, and then you have to look at both and pick one for yourself. This must be a use of the word “simplify” that I’m not familiar with.
9:25 John McCain can’t stop interrupting Barack, and he keeps laughing inappropriately. That is not a comforting smile.
9:27 Barack just gave a shout-out to Ohio and Michigan. Hello electoral college.
9:28 Barack Obama is for alternative energy, broadband connections, and science education. He’s the future.
9:29 John McCain: “We’ve let the government get completely out of control.” He realizes that he and his party “are” the government, right? And he’s opposed to Ethanol.
Yeah, fuck you, Iowa.
9:30 John McCain saved us 6.8 billion dollars by cutting a Boeing contract. Thank god, that’ll take care of all of our deficits.
9:32 Jim Lehrer is getting very frustrated.
9:33 John McCain suggest a spending freeze on everything except defense. So in an election year, he’s promising the people…nothing. We refuse to pay for anything new, so forget it. Barack calls this “using a hatchet instead of a scalpel.” Nice.
9:34 McCain is really pushing for Nuclear Power. This is just like that West Wing live debate. Watch out, California, you’re about to have a meltdown.
9:35 This “foreign policy” debate has, so far, been all about the economy. That’s good for Barack, I think, but c’mon, let’s talk about foreign policy a little. It’s kind of a big deal.
9:36 I can’t believe it took McCain this long to talk about veterans. Oh, and he’ll cut spending, but won’t say how or what. He assures us he has plans though. I guess we should just trust him.
9:37 Obama: Bush’s “orgy of spending.” Damn, that’s incendiary, and sexy.
9:38 What? You mean McCain wasn’t elected “Ms. Congeniality?” Oh, and he finally said “maverick”… twice in one sentence, and called Palin his “partner.” She’s a woman but that doesn’t mean you’re married, John. I know it’s confusing since you’ve cheated on the women you’ve been with.
9:39 According to McCain, we’re winning in Iraq. I guess those were victory bombs exploding and injuring our troops.
9:40 McCain: We can’t leave Iraq because we might have to go back. But we’ll come home. What?
9:44 Obama: “Our troops have done a brilliant job” McCain: “(giggles)”
9:45 Obama lays into McCain on the war, and McCain just smirks and laughs. He’s going to jump over the podium and punch Obama in a minute.
9:46 Hey, they passed a law in Iraq! One law?! I guess we are winning. Thanks, John McCain.
9:48 Obama: “…capture and kill Bin Laden, and crush Al Qaeda.” He wins!
9:49 The look on Obama’s face while McCain rambles on is priceless. It’s the way you look at an old person who’s confused and trying to understand “these darn kids today.” So sad.
9:51 Barack Obama, unlike McCain, knows how to pronounce words, like “Taliban,” “Pakistan,” and “Iraq.”
9:52 John McCain admits that all of our problems began when people like him washed their hands of Afghanistan after we helped them boot Russia out. Thanks for taking the blame, senator.
9:53 McCain on bombing Pakistan, “You don’t say that out loud.” So you would secretly bomb Pakistan? Yeah, that’s better. How’d that work in Cambodia?
9:55 McCain guarantees that he will not “publicly state” that he will attack Pakistan, and then grins. How is that a good thing? Does he mean he will attack them, but it’s in bad taste to say it?
9:56 Based on his facial expressions, I think McCain will have a stroke by the third debate. He does not take criticism well.
9:58 John McCain runs us through his entire record, and keeps saying “I have a record.” It’s been two minutes and he hasn’t come to a point yet. Lucky for him Jim Lehrer isn’t being a stickler about time. This was all in response to a comment about him bombing Iran. He ends by talking about Iraq. Good job, way to get confused, John.
10:01 John McCain is staring off into the distance while Barack Obama tries talking to him. The silent treatment, that could work.
10:02 Ouch, McCain is literally gritting his teeth while he talks. I can’t wait for him to lash out.
10:03 Obama flatters Jim on his ability to keeptime, and Mr. Lehrer swoons.
10:04 John McCain wants to make clear that we “can’t afford another Holocaust.” Was that unclear before, John? Was Obama suggesting we should get one? John McCain also suggests a “League of Democracies.” It’s like the League of Nations meets the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Movie. Nothing but success.
10:05 John McCain is trying to be as vague as possible.
10:08 It took McCain three times to get the name of Iran’s leader right, and he still failed, and looked crazy doing it.
10:09 McCain looks fucking pissed. I swear, he’s going to punch someone, and if it’s Lehrer, it might just kill both of them.
10:12 Every joke Obama makes gets a laugh. Every joke McCain makes meets awkward silence. John McCain’s favorite phrases “By the way…, “I know that…,” “Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand.” And he refered to Kim Jong Ill as “our dear leader.” That’s weird.
10:15 McCain tries sarcasm. Once again looks crazy. Why does he keep waving around that sharpie?
10:16 Obama ignores the crazy, has another charming exchange with Jim Lehrer. Even if he were to lose this debate, he’s one Jim Lehrer’s heart.
10:17 Someone bought Barack a geography book…he just rattled off the names of most of the countries in western Europe, Asia, and the middle east.
10:18 Barack is hardcore.
10:19 McCain: “He doesn’t understand…” Man, this guy is a broken record.
10:20 According to McCain, Russian posters in Georgia are in English. Then he rattles off the names of Eastern European cities, and says we should “watch” them. Not take action, just watch.
10:23 Barack brings it full circle back to energy independence. I’m bummed he mentioned “clean coal” because it’s misleading.
10:26 McCain is almost stumped when asked what are the chances of another 9/11-type attack. He pauses wayyyy too long, and then says “less.” Then he shows off how tough he is by saying that he was “stymied” until some 9/11 families came along. Oh, and he fought for a commission. That’ll show those terrorists.
10:27 McCain stumbles again…couldn’t remember the word “sure.”
10:28 John McCain: “America is safer than it was on 9/11.” Well I should hope so. That’s like saying, “My house is less on fire than it was when it was on fire.” He’s essentially proud of the fact that we are just in danger, and not immediate danger.
10:31 Man, I have to go to the bathroom. Can’t McCain just storm out and end this thing. You know he wants too. Also, why bring up Reagan’s failed Missle Defense Shield? What’s that about?
10:34 Barack Obama seems to know he’s won this debate. John McCain again pivots back to “the surge.” Broken record. Also, he loves veterans. Doesn’t say how he’ll help them, just that he loves them.
10:36 “When I came home from prison…” That doesn’t sound good. It makes it sound like he was in Oz and not in a war camp.
10:37 And that’s the end of that. Barack looks pleased. McCain looks pissed. I wish his mic was still on. That sound guy is probably hearing some awesome snide remarks.
My first thoughts on the post-debate coverage on the major news networks. Were these people watching the same debate? They give McCain points for repeatedly mentioning the surge and earmarks. Was it not clear to them that he did that because those are the only talking points he has? He has no new ideas, no proposals, no ability to think on his feet.
My final thoughts on the whole debate. Obama was clear, concise, and had a lot of excellent and well-phrased proposals. John McCain was barely in control of his emotions, constantly stuttering, fumbling, fuming, and repeating the same three soundbites over and over while not actually answering some of the questions he was asked. I’m sure Obama’s supporters were pleased, but I’m just as certain that most of McCain’s supporters probably thought he did great. Early polling though, done of undecideds immediately after the debats, showed that the majority of ordinary Americans thought Obama won and think that he would be a far better President when it comes to the economy and the war in Iraq. Since those are two of the biggest issues right now, this should bode well for Obama. Now on to the Vice Presidential debates.
New Adventures in Bad Parenting: The United States
Have you ever seen a parent with their child in public and thought to yourself, “you know, there really ought to be some sort of qualification for becoming a parent.” It’s the fleeting thought that pops into all of our heads when we see the mother handing her toddler a giant bag of candy, or the dad who’s walking with his son in a harness on a tether, or the couple on the airplane who’s baby won’t stop crying and they keep asking it to shut up. Let’s be honest, raising a child is one of the most important responsibilities a person can have, and yet the prerequisite for having a child (working genitals and sex without protection) are engaged in by everyone, and often disproportionately by people who are irresponsible or, well, dimwitted. All you have to do is look around at the state of our society and watch a little reality television and you’ll see that there are literally billions of people out there who’s parents could have done a better job of raising them.
Obviously, though, every child is different and no parent is perfect, so people can be forgiven for missteps here and there. What can’t be forgiven, though, is physical abuse. “Of course,” you say, but I don’t just mean the parents who drunkenly slap their kid around for 20 minutes because they accidentally spilled their juice box. I mean spanking, hitting, shaking, slapping, even done rarely. Don’t misunderstand me; I completely understand the impulse and can even understand the rationalization. Children can be frustrating and can even be jerks, just like adults, but what is it that every parents tells their child when the child hits someone? “It’s not okay to hit people.” Yet, parents do it all the time.
Even with the recent trends towards time-outs and other more comprehensive strategies, 63 percent of parents still admit to occasionally using corporal punishment against their 1-2 year old children, and even more parents (80 percent) admit to having used corporal punishment on older children. Joe Biden’s father once said, “It takes a small man to hit a small child,” and clearly his avoidance of hitting his children didn’t lead to delinquency and criminal futures. He is not alone.
It’s been proven in numerous studies that children who are disciplined without corporal punishment not only can behave, but often behave better than children who are spanked or hit when they do something wrong. The reason? Well, let me ask you this, rhetorically: how would you respond if your boss slapped you across the face when you screwed up? You’d be shocked, you’d be embarassed, and perhaps those would be enough to make you more cautious in the future. After a short while, though, maybe a few hours or days, you would be furious. You’d be angry, resentful, and would lose respect for your boss. That’s precisely what happens with children and corporal punishment. The immediate fear and pain of being hit corrects their behavior in the short-term, but over time they grow more aggresive and rebellious in response to this treatment, and in the longterm they grow more resentful and distant with their parents which means that they are also less likely to take their parents’ advice and guidance.
Here in the United States, though, it’s become yet another troubling behavior we consider “private,” and as long as the children aren’t showing up to school with bruises or acting unusually aggressive, we don’t do much to stop it. This behavior that’s considered acceptable when done by parents, though, is considered unacceptable when performed by anyone else. Twenty-eight states have banned corporal punishment in schools, and many other local municipalities have done the same nationwide. Of course, in my opinion, it should be a no-brainer that this should be banned in all 50 states, but at the very least it seems clear that most parents would not tolerate anyone hitting their child, unless it is them.
We are behind much of the western world on this issue. Ninety-one countries have banned corporal punishment in all schools, and twenty-three countries have gone so far as to ban corporal punishment everywhere, including in the home. The United States did help to author the United Nation’s ‘Convention on the Right’s of Children’ wihch would, among other things, mandate that government do all they can to protect children from physical and mental violence. In the United Nations, 192 nations have ratified this treaty and only 2 haven’t. Those two? The United States and Somalia. Somalia. Take a second to really let that sink in.
The United States has proven again and again to be opposed to any effort by the UN which would seem to take sovereignty away from the United States, even thought we have could certainly ratify any treaty and then ignore it whenever it encroaches on anything we want to do (hey, we’ve done it before). When it comes to things like the Kyoto accords or the World Court, these arguments can be understood even when they are irresponsible, but how could anyone possibly argue against ratifying a document that would seek to prevent abuse and neglect of children. Most of our laws already adhere to that, and there would be little public resistance to a few more. Two of the arguments made by critics in the United States is that this could infringe upon the ability of the United States to a.) recruit 17-year-olds into the Armed Forces, and b.) prevent the States from using capital punishment on criminals who commit capital crimes while under the age of 18. If that’s the best excuse we have, then the solution is simple. The Army can wait the extra year to get those recruits, which is probably the wise decision since 17-year-olds can be prone to rash or poor decision-making and that our Armed Forces would be benefitted by having recruits who had all completely finished high school and taken the time to consider higher education. As for capital punishment, it too encourages violence in our society and has been ineffective as a deterent to crime, so a ban to prevent capital punishment of people under 18 (which account for only a rare few of those put to death each year). If you need further encouragement, every other country on the planet has banned the death penalty from being used on underage perpetrators except for the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia… and The United States. That’s a terrible list to be on, and we should get off of it.
If an adult hits another adult, even something small like a slap, they canbe arrested and charged with a crime. If an adult spanks someone as a punishment, they could be sued. If an adult hits one of their pets, there are often severe legal punishments. All the while, children, least able to defend themselves and least likely (aside from your pets) to report abuse, are left largely on their own. Severe abuse can lead to children being removed and parents being arrested, but more minor transgressions that could find you in a courtroom when performed against an unconsenting adult or animal are ignored or forgiven when performed against a child by his or her own parents.
There needs to be a comprehensive effort to educate the populace, and new parents especially, on ways to discipline children without resorting to violence, even slight physical punishment. They need to be taught that while hitting may seem to correct the problem that it is ineffective over the longterm and will only lead to an escalation of trouble behavior, which will then encourage greater acts of violence against the children. We complain about violence in media, violence in our schools, violence in our culture and yet we still turn a blind eye to the subtle but influential violence in our homes. If education starts at home, we need to start teaching the corporal punishment against anyone, and especially children, is not acceptable.
Obviously, though, every child is different and no parent is perfect, so people can be forgiven for missteps here and there. What can’t be forgiven, though, is physical abuse. “Of course,” you say, but I don’t just mean the parents who drunkenly slap their kid around for 20 minutes because they accidentally spilled their juice box. I mean spanking, hitting, shaking, slapping, even done rarely. Don’t misunderstand me; I completely understand the impulse and can even understand the rationalization. Children can be frustrating and can even be jerks, just like adults, but what is it that every parents tells their child when the child hits someone? “It’s not okay to hit people.” Yet, parents do it all the time.
Even with the recent trends towards time-outs and other more comprehensive strategies, 63 percent of parents still admit to occasionally using corporal punishment against their 1-2 year old children, and even more parents (80 percent) admit to having used corporal punishment on older children. Joe Biden’s father once said, “It takes a small man to hit a small child,” and clearly his avoidance of hitting his children didn’t lead to delinquency and criminal futures. He is not alone.
It’s been proven in numerous studies that children who are disciplined without corporal punishment not only can behave, but often behave better than children who are spanked or hit when they do something wrong. The reason? Well, let me ask you this, rhetorically: how would you respond if your boss slapped you across the face when you screwed up? You’d be shocked, you’d be embarassed, and perhaps those would be enough to make you more cautious in the future. After a short while, though, maybe a few hours or days, you would be furious. You’d be angry, resentful, and would lose respect for your boss. That’s precisely what happens with children and corporal punishment. The immediate fear and pain of being hit corrects their behavior in the short-term, but over time they grow more aggresive and rebellious in response to this treatment, and in the longterm they grow more resentful and distant with their parents which means that they are also less likely to take their parents’ advice and guidance.
Here in the United States, though, it’s become yet another troubling behavior we consider “private,” and as long as the children aren’t showing up to school with bruises or acting unusually aggressive, we don’t do much to stop it. This behavior that’s considered acceptable when done by parents, though, is considered unacceptable when performed by anyone else. Twenty-eight states have banned corporal punishment in schools, and many other local municipalities have done the same nationwide. Of course, in my opinion, it should be a no-brainer that this should be banned in all 50 states, but at the very least it seems clear that most parents would not tolerate anyone hitting their child, unless it is them.
We are behind much of the western world on this issue. Ninety-one countries have banned corporal punishment in all schools, and twenty-three countries have gone so far as to ban corporal punishment everywhere, including in the home. The United States did help to author the United Nation’s ‘Convention on the Right’s of Children’ wihch would, among other things, mandate that government do all they can to protect children from physical and mental violence. In the United Nations, 192 nations have ratified this treaty and only 2 haven’t. Those two? The United States and Somalia. Somalia. Take a second to really let that sink in.
The United States has proven again and again to be opposed to any effort by the UN which would seem to take sovereignty away from the United States, even thought we have could certainly ratify any treaty and then ignore it whenever it encroaches on anything we want to do (hey, we’ve done it before). When it comes to things like the Kyoto accords or the World Court, these arguments can be understood even when they are irresponsible, but how could anyone possibly argue against ratifying a document that would seek to prevent abuse and neglect of children. Most of our laws already adhere to that, and there would be little public resistance to a few more. Two of the arguments made by critics in the United States is that this could infringe upon the ability of the United States to a.) recruit 17-year-olds into the Armed Forces, and b.) prevent the States from using capital punishment on criminals who commit capital crimes while under the age of 18. If that’s the best excuse we have, then the solution is simple. The Army can wait the extra year to get those recruits, which is probably the wise decision since 17-year-olds can be prone to rash or poor decision-making and that our Armed Forces would be benefitted by having recruits who had all completely finished high school and taken the time to consider higher education. As for capital punishment, it too encourages violence in our society and has been ineffective as a deterent to crime, so a ban to prevent capital punishment of people under 18 (which account for only a rare few of those put to death each year). If you need further encouragement, every other country on the planet has banned the death penalty from being used on underage perpetrators except for the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia… and The United States. That’s a terrible list to be on, and we should get off of it.
If an adult hits another adult, even something small like a slap, they canbe arrested and charged with a crime. If an adult spanks someone as a punishment, they could be sued. If an adult hits one of their pets, there are often severe legal punishments. All the while, children, least able to defend themselves and least likely (aside from your pets) to report abuse, are left largely on their own. Severe abuse can lead to children being removed and parents being arrested, but more minor transgressions that could find you in a courtroom when performed against an unconsenting adult or animal are ignored or forgiven when performed against a child by his or her own parents.
There needs to be a comprehensive effort to educate the populace, and new parents especially, on ways to discipline children without resorting to violence, even slight physical punishment. They need to be taught that while hitting may seem to correct the problem that it is ineffective over the longterm and will only lead to an escalation of trouble behavior, which will then encourage greater acts of violence against the children. We complain about violence in media, violence in our schools, violence in our culture and yet we still turn a blind eye to the subtle but influential violence in our homes. If education starts at home, we need to start teaching the corporal punishment against anyone, and especially children, is not acceptable.
Monday, September 15, 2008
How to Lose an Election in 5 Easy Steps by John McCain
1. Change
Change every opinion you’ve ever had. Once will do, but two or three times is even better. If you used to question President Bush’s military strategies, not only embrace them but take them even further and talk about invading Iran. If you voted with the President 95% of the time, pretend that you’re a maverick who will shake up washington. Remember those tactics you denounced in the last election? Not anymore...you love those!
2. Choose
Choose a running mate who is the antithesis of not only your opponent’s running mate, but the antithesis of everything a President should be. If you are opposed to earmarks, find someone who can’t get enough of them. If you are a war hero with decades of experience in Washington, try to find someone who’s rarely left their home state and doesn’t know anything about Government or foreign affairs. It’s best if this person holds the opinions of the majority - especially concerning abortion, the economy, and foreign affairs - in absolute contempt. Bonus points if this person has a hateful personality, little to know understanding of anything, and likes to make bad jokes and lie as much as you do.
3. Cheapen
Cheapen your service to the nation by using it as an excuse for everything. The reason you are out of touch with 95% of the country concerning economic woes? Say it’s because you were a prisoner of war and they didn’t let you have money or read up on mortgage laws while you were being tortured. Imply that your opponent is a traitor who hates the troops to distract from the fact that you want to put them in greater danger and use them as a political shield here at home to avoid having to answer tough questions. You know that thing you did when you got home from the war? You know, public service and government work? Cheapen that service by mocking anyone who believes in helping their community and devoting their lives to public service and call people who work in Washington “out of touch.”
4. Check-out
Try to ignore what’s going on around you. Pay no mind if your strategies are failing. Ignore the fact that the economy that you called “fundamentally strong” is getting worse, and the war you said we are “winning” is getting more violent and precarious. If people try to ask you serious questions, pretend you can’t hear them or don’t understand, and ignore any evidence that the things you say aren’t correct. That brings us to the most important one…
5. Cheat
As much and as often as you can. No, not on your wife, besides, you already did that when you cheated on your first wife with Cindy, then divorced your wife, then married Cindy a month later. No, cheat in the election. Lie about everything - your voting record, what your opponent says, how the media is treating you. Swamp the airwaves with misleading ads. If you can, challenge voter roles in swing states to try and get minorities disenfranchised and encourage last minute changes to voting protocols, like ID cards and rules for early voting, so that poor people and minorities can’t get their votes counted. And did we mention: Lie! Lie so much that even Fox New pundits have no choice but to flat-out call you a liar. Lie like there’s no tomorrow because this is your last chance to bring change to Washington by replacing those corrupt Republicans in the White House with...new and improved - and more corrupt - Republicans! It’s time that America gets the change it deserves: four more years of cronyism, anti-choice judges, tax cuts and deficit spending, moral hypocrisy and contempt for the rest of the world.
Change every opinion you’ve ever had. Once will do, but two or three times is even better. If you used to question President Bush’s military strategies, not only embrace them but take them even further and talk about invading Iran. If you voted with the President 95% of the time, pretend that you’re a maverick who will shake up washington. Remember those tactics you denounced in the last election? Not anymore...you love those!
2. Choose
Choose a running mate who is the antithesis of not only your opponent’s running mate, but the antithesis of everything a President should be. If you are opposed to earmarks, find someone who can’t get enough of them. If you are a war hero with decades of experience in Washington, try to find someone who’s rarely left their home state and doesn’t know anything about Government or foreign affairs. It’s best if this person holds the opinions of the majority - especially concerning abortion, the economy, and foreign affairs - in absolute contempt. Bonus points if this person has a hateful personality, little to know understanding of anything, and likes to make bad jokes and lie as much as you do.
3. Cheapen
Cheapen your service to the nation by using it as an excuse for everything. The reason you are out of touch with 95% of the country concerning economic woes? Say it’s because you were a prisoner of war and they didn’t let you have money or read up on mortgage laws while you were being tortured. Imply that your opponent is a traitor who hates the troops to distract from the fact that you want to put them in greater danger and use them as a political shield here at home to avoid having to answer tough questions. You know that thing you did when you got home from the war? You know, public service and government work? Cheapen that service by mocking anyone who believes in helping their community and devoting their lives to public service and call people who work in Washington “out of touch.”
4. Check-out
Try to ignore what’s going on around you. Pay no mind if your strategies are failing. Ignore the fact that the economy that you called “fundamentally strong” is getting worse, and the war you said we are “winning” is getting more violent and precarious. If people try to ask you serious questions, pretend you can’t hear them or don’t understand, and ignore any evidence that the things you say aren’t correct. That brings us to the most important one…
5. Cheat
As much and as often as you can. No, not on your wife, besides, you already did that when you cheated on your first wife with Cindy, then divorced your wife, then married Cindy a month later. No, cheat in the election. Lie about everything - your voting record, what your opponent says, how the media is treating you. Swamp the airwaves with misleading ads. If you can, challenge voter roles in swing states to try and get minorities disenfranchised and encourage last minute changes to voting protocols, like ID cards and rules for early voting, so that poor people and minorities can’t get their votes counted. And did we mention: Lie! Lie so much that even Fox New pundits have no choice but to flat-out call you a liar. Lie like there’s no tomorrow because this is your last chance to bring change to Washington by replacing those corrupt Republicans in the White House with...new and improved - and more corrupt - Republicans! It’s time that America gets the change it deserves: four more years of cronyism, anti-choice judges, tax cuts and deficit spending, moral hypocrisy and contempt for the rest of the world.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Charles Gibson Does His Duty
Much has been made of the media during this campaign season. During any election since the beginning of this nation, the fourth estate has had the ability to shape the debate and even the public perception. At times, they have been complicit in the abuses of the government or have uncovered those abuses and brought down Presidents. The modern news media, though, - running 24 hours a day on the radio, television, internet, and in print; under greater economic pressure than ever to provide returns in viewership and advertising revenue; appealing to a public with lives moving at a faster pace and with shorter attention spans - has often followed stories on a whim of drama rather than importance. During the primaries, the Democrats dominated news coverage because that’s where the exciting horse race was (and no, I’m not calling Barack or Hillary horses, Mr. McCain). Meanwhile, John McCain was given a pass by the media because he had previously been so good to them and because of his compelling story as a war hero and self-declared maverick. Then, when it became clear that he did not wish to run on issues and wanted to run on attacks, the media stopped covering him with such unflinching favor. That’s when John McCain declared war on the media. He claimed that they were “in love” with Senator Obama, and were biased to support him, even at a time when the majority of coverage was more favorable to John McCain.
Every time John McCain leveled an attack on Barack Obama, the media readily reported it, giving his unfounded claims equal weight as Barack Obama’s defense. Still, this was not enough for John McCain. He claimed bias when network news anchors followed Barack Obama around the world while lesser known journalists went with him to a grocery store and German restaurant here in the states. He assumed the bias was towards the candidate, and not towards the fact that one story was interesting and important, and one was boring and mundane. After all this, though, hardly a journalist called him on his vicious attacks, his refusal to talk about issues, or his shameless use of his war record as a deflection to any criticism.
John McCain, though, was not appeased.
So, when he hastily chose his running mate, he expected the media to swoon and give him enough coverage to steal the thunder of Barack Obama’s convention speech. To his horror, the media did what it is meant to do: investigate. They began reporting on Sarah Palin’s record, on her political views, on he lack of experience, and not (as he had hoped) merely on the fact that she was a young and conservative woman. This was the final straw to McCain, and he blamed the media. It was the media’s fault that he didn’t vet his candidate. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin had so often contradicted her previous statements. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy was reported on after Sarah Palin reported it in a press release and then dragged her daughter and fiance on the campaign trail. Yes, this would be the end of the line for the media.
Last Sunday when John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all appeared on the Sunday political shows, Sarah Palin stayed home. They were not going to serve her up for the biased media to attack. Heck, John McCain would have stayed home if not for the fact that he’s trying to become President and the President occasionally has to come out of hiding. This week, though, they thought it might be safe to bring Sarah Palin out and place her in the soft embrace of Charles Gibson. After all the talk from the McCain camp about wanting to control the story, it seemed obvious to everyone that this would not be an in depth discovery. This would be the very model of modern network puff piece. At even the hint of a bold question, the interview would be ended, and ABC would lose it’s access and the ratings that come with it. People began to talk fancifully of the questions they would like to ask, with no belief that any of those questions ever would be.
Charles Gibson, though, is a greater journalist than any of us dared give him credit. As Sarah Palin repeatedly refered to him as “Charlie,” in either an attempt to be folksy, unawareness of the formal nature of such an interview, or in contempt for him and his educated ilk, Charles Gibson calmly and respectfully asked her the serious questions that none of us thought he would.
He began by mentioning that even John McCain could only name two credentials that Sarah Palin had as experience for the Vice Presidency; that she had been commander-and-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which when used for military or foreign service becomes nationalized so she is no longer in charge of them) and that Alaska was relatively close to Russia (and I would suppose Canada, so I don’t know why John McCain never brings that up.) Her response? That her real foreign policy credential is that Alaska has a lot of oil, and energy independence is one of our greatest foreign policy goals. She even stated that 20 percent of our energy comes from Alaska, though I’ll assume she just meant 20 percent of our oil since most of our actual energy comes from coal which comes mostly from the lower 48. What she didn’t seem to understand was that this means that 80 percent of our oil is coming from places other than Alaska, and a lot of those places are overseas, and that means that as long as we depend on oil for energy, we will be unable to meet our own demands through domestic drilling. Actual energy independence would require us a.) conserving more energy, b.) developing new, domestic sources of energy, and c.) developing alternative energy. We can drill all we want, but we’re never going to find all of the oil we need here, and even if we do, we will run out, and then we’ll be stuck again. Real energy independence comes from renewable energy that can be created here by Americans, such as with wind farms, like the ones she opposed in Alaska because it would have cut into demand for Alaska’s oil.
He asked her if she’d ever met a foreign head of state. At first, she said yes, because she’d met people from foreign nations who’d come to discuss issues of trade, for oil. When Charles Gibson prodded her on whether she’d ever met a head of state, and not just a trade representative, that’s when she became defensive. She said that people were sick of the “Washington establishment” with their “fat resumes” who “meet heads of state” because they are part of “closed door, good-old-boy network that has been the Washington elite.” So, let me get this straight… at first she claimed she had met heads of state, showing no sign that she thought something like that was distasteful or elitist. Then, when Charles Gibson called her out on this untruth, she turned it into a negative saying that she didn’t want to meet heads of state because people were sick of those “Washington elite” who spend decades working in the government and meeting with foreign leaders and building up all sorts of experience. That’s not what we want in our next President. We want someone with even less experience than George W. Bush had (please note irony).
Charles Gibson also used one of those dirty, liberal media tricks… telling a person what they’ve already said. Here’s the exchange in question:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said—first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
Well, actually, she did presume because she said the soldiers were on a task from God, which means she presumed it was a task of which God would approve. Rather than answer the question, she tried to make Mr. Gibson out to be the one who was manipulating words. She didn’t want to own up to what she’d said, or even explain it if she actually believed it. She could have easily said “Yes, our boys are doing God’s work in spreading Democracy and saving lives, but no this is not a holy war.” Look, I’m not running for Vice President and yet somehow I was able to come up with an answer that is honest, pleasing to both sides, and doesn’t make me look like a liar.
When asked about the United States getting involved in a conflict between Russia and Georgia, she said we would have to keep an eye on Russia because they attacked Georgia “unprovoked”. ; Charles Gibson, good journalist that he is, questioned this because, no matter what your view on Russia’s intent and the validity of what they did, no one can possibly think that it was completely unprovoked given the fact Georgia had first mobilized their military in South Ossetia, an area with many ethnic Russians and in which Russian peacekeepers were stationed.
Following this, Sarah Palin stated that we have to avoid another Cold War, which according to her assessment was “won” by Ronald Reagan “without a shot fired”. She also thought that Ukraine and Georgia should be added to NATO, and when Charles Gibson asked her if she thought we would then have to enter a war with Russia if they attacked Georgia again, she said:
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
She also suggest diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions. Perhaps she’s confused by the “war” part of “Cold War,” but right there, she described the Cold War. It was us, the United States, placing sanctions on Russia, and using smaller, democratic nations to fight for control of Eastern Europe. That rationale of what “the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries” is precisely what led to our Cold War conflicts, the fear of the domino effect of democracies being attacked.
Then, when asked if she, like John McCain, felt we would have to attack a nuclear Iran, she suggested sanctions and diplomatic pressure. When Charles Gibson pointed out that those are the things we have done and they haven’t worked, she said we “wouldn’t stand for it.”
PALIN: We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
I hope I’m not the first to say it, but the word “gee” has no place in any discussion of nuclear proliferation. Also, she just said that we shouldn’t be asking ourselves “what can we do about it?” if Iran gets nuclear weapons, which it is already in the process of developing. So, we shouldn’t back down, but we also shouldn’t do anything or consider doing anything? Hmm...gee, that’s real leadership. When she wouldn’t say what she would do, Charles Gibson asked what we should do if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. She said “we cannot second guess what Israel has to do to defend itself.” When he asked if this meant we’d support it, she repeated the sentiment. When he asked for clarification, she repeated it again. So, we shouldn’t question it, and because we can’t question it, apparently we wouldn’t have an opinion on it.
He ended by asking Sarah Palin her opinion of the “Bush Doctrine.” First, she didn’t know what it was, despite the fact that it’s been at the center of our foreign policy for the 6 years since he declared it. Then, she thought he just meant “Bush’s world view,” apparently unfamiliar with the historical use of the world “Doctrine” as it involves Presidents and foreign policy. When Charles Gibson stated it, flat-out, that it referred to our right to preemptively invade sovereign nations if we felt our national security was threatened, she swam into a sea of non-answers about how we had to protect ourselves and if we had intelligence and about terrorists hell-bent on destroying America and it’s allies. Here is my favorite part of the evening:
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
She ended with another non-answer about leaving all options on the table, without a hint of irony since she thinks we should invade any countries we want if we feel threatened, but that Russia shouldn’t invade the country right next to it when it feels threatened by actual troops, not terrorists but troops, on its border. So, once again Sarah Palin, you have lowered my opinion of you. At this point, you’re going to need a shovel to get any lower.
But, Charles Gibson, you have proven yourself a true journalist in my eyes. You didn’t waver, you didn’t cave, you didn’t attack or distort. You did what journalists do: ask questions. You stuck to the facts and you looked for answers and I look forward to seeing you do it again tomorrow unless Sarah Palin’s handlers figure out a way to sneak her out the back tonight.
Every time John McCain leveled an attack on Barack Obama, the media readily reported it, giving his unfounded claims equal weight as Barack Obama’s defense. Still, this was not enough for John McCain. He claimed bias when network news anchors followed Barack Obama around the world while lesser known journalists went with him to a grocery store and German restaurant here in the states. He assumed the bias was towards the candidate, and not towards the fact that one story was interesting and important, and one was boring and mundane. After all this, though, hardly a journalist called him on his vicious attacks, his refusal to talk about issues, or his shameless use of his war record as a deflection to any criticism.
John McCain, though, was not appeased.
So, when he hastily chose his running mate, he expected the media to swoon and give him enough coverage to steal the thunder of Barack Obama’s convention speech. To his horror, the media did what it is meant to do: investigate. They began reporting on Sarah Palin’s record, on her political views, on he lack of experience, and not (as he had hoped) merely on the fact that she was a young and conservative woman. This was the final straw to McCain, and he blamed the media. It was the media’s fault that he didn’t vet his candidate. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin had so often contradicted her previous statements. It was the media’s fault that Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy was reported on after Sarah Palin reported it in a press release and then dragged her daughter and fiance on the campaign trail. Yes, this would be the end of the line for the media.
Last Sunday when John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden all appeared on the Sunday political shows, Sarah Palin stayed home. They were not going to serve her up for the biased media to attack. Heck, John McCain would have stayed home if not for the fact that he’s trying to become President and the President occasionally has to come out of hiding. This week, though, they thought it might be safe to bring Sarah Palin out and place her in the soft embrace of Charles Gibson. After all the talk from the McCain camp about wanting to control the story, it seemed obvious to everyone that this would not be an in depth discovery. This would be the very model of modern network puff piece. At even the hint of a bold question, the interview would be ended, and ABC would lose it’s access and the ratings that come with it. People began to talk fancifully of the questions they would like to ask, with no belief that any of those questions ever would be.
Charles Gibson, though, is a greater journalist than any of us dared give him credit. As Sarah Palin repeatedly refered to him as “Charlie,” in either an attempt to be folksy, unawareness of the formal nature of such an interview, or in contempt for him and his educated ilk, Charles Gibson calmly and respectfully asked her the serious questions that none of us thought he would.
He began by mentioning that even John McCain could only name two credentials that Sarah Palin had as experience for the Vice Presidency; that she had been commander-and-chief of the Alaska National Guard (which when used for military or foreign service becomes nationalized so she is no longer in charge of them) and that Alaska was relatively close to Russia (and I would suppose Canada, so I don’t know why John McCain never brings that up.) Her response? That her real foreign policy credential is that Alaska has a lot of oil, and energy independence is one of our greatest foreign policy goals. She even stated that 20 percent of our energy comes from Alaska, though I’ll assume she just meant 20 percent of our oil since most of our actual energy comes from coal which comes mostly from the lower 48. What she didn’t seem to understand was that this means that 80 percent of our oil is coming from places other than Alaska, and a lot of those places are overseas, and that means that as long as we depend on oil for energy, we will be unable to meet our own demands through domestic drilling. Actual energy independence would require us a.) conserving more energy, b.) developing new, domestic sources of energy, and c.) developing alternative energy. We can drill all we want, but we’re never going to find all of the oil we need here, and even if we do, we will run out, and then we’ll be stuck again. Real energy independence comes from renewable energy that can be created here by Americans, such as with wind farms, like the ones she opposed in Alaska because it would have cut into demand for Alaska’s oil.
He asked her if she’d ever met a foreign head of state. At first, she said yes, because she’d met people from foreign nations who’d come to discuss issues of trade, for oil. When Charles Gibson prodded her on whether she’d ever met a head of state, and not just a trade representative, that’s when she became defensive. She said that people were sick of the “Washington establishment” with their “fat resumes” who “meet heads of state” because they are part of “closed door, good-old-boy network that has been the Washington elite.” So, let me get this straight… at first she claimed she had met heads of state, showing no sign that she thought something like that was distasteful or elitist. Then, when Charles Gibson called her out on this untruth, she turned it into a negative saying that she didn’t want to meet heads of state because people were sick of those “Washington elite” who spend decades working in the government and meeting with foreign leaders and building up all sorts of experience. That’s not what we want in our next President. We want someone with even less experience than George W. Bush had (please note irony).
Charles Gibson also used one of those dirty, liberal media tricks… telling a person what they’ve already said. Here’s the exchange in question:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said—first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.
Well, actually, she did presume because she said the soldiers were on a task from God, which means she presumed it was a task of which God would approve. Rather than answer the question, she tried to make Mr. Gibson out to be the one who was manipulating words. She didn’t want to own up to what she’d said, or even explain it if she actually believed it. She could have easily said “Yes, our boys are doing God’s work in spreading Democracy and saving lives, but no this is not a holy war.” Look, I’m not running for Vice President and yet somehow I was able to come up with an answer that is honest, pleasing to both sides, and doesn’t make me look like a liar.
When asked about the United States getting involved in a conflict between Russia and Georgia, she said we would have to keep an eye on Russia because they attacked Georgia “unprovoked”. ; Charles Gibson, good journalist that he is, questioned this because, no matter what your view on Russia’s intent and the validity of what they did, no one can possibly think that it was completely unprovoked given the fact Georgia had first mobilized their military in South Ossetia, an area with many ethnic Russians and in which Russian peacekeepers were stationed.
Following this, Sarah Palin stated that we have to avoid another Cold War, which according to her assessment was “won” by Ronald Reagan “without a shot fired”. She also thought that Ukraine and Georgia should be added to NATO, and when Charles Gibson asked her if she thought we would then have to enter a war with Russia if they attacked Georgia again, she said:
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
She also suggest diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions. Perhaps she’s confused by the “war” part of “Cold War,” but right there, she described the Cold War. It was us, the United States, placing sanctions on Russia, and using smaller, democratic nations to fight for control of Eastern Europe. That rationale of what “the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries” is precisely what led to our Cold War conflicts, the fear of the domino effect of democracies being attacked.
Then, when asked if she, like John McCain, felt we would have to attack a nuclear Iran, she suggested sanctions and diplomatic pressure. When Charles Gibson pointed out that those are the things we have done and they haven’t worked, she said we “wouldn’t stand for it.”
PALIN: We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they’re going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
I hope I’m not the first to say it, but the word “gee” has no place in any discussion of nuclear proliferation. Also, she just said that we shouldn’t be asking ourselves “what can we do about it?” if Iran gets nuclear weapons, which it is already in the process of developing. So, we shouldn’t back down, but we also shouldn’t do anything or consider doing anything? Hmm...gee, that’s real leadership. When she wouldn’t say what she would do, Charles Gibson asked what we should do if Israel were to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. She said “we cannot second guess what Israel has to do to defend itself.” When he asked if this meant we’d support it, she repeated the sentiment. When he asked for clarification, she repeated it again. So, we shouldn’t question it, and because we can’t question it, apparently we wouldn’t have an opinion on it.
He ended by asking Sarah Palin her opinion of the “Bush Doctrine.” First, she didn’t know what it was, despite the fact that it’s been at the center of our foreign policy for the 6 years since he declared it. Then, she thought he just meant “Bush’s world view,” apparently unfamiliar with the historical use of the world “Doctrine” as it involves Presidents and foreign policy. When Charles Gibson stated it, flat-out, that it referred to our right to preemptively invade sovereign nations if we felt our national security was threatened, she swam into a sea of non-answers about how we had to protect ourselves and if we had intelligence and about terrorists hell-bent on destroying America and it’s allies. Here is my favorite part of the evening:
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
She ended with another non-answer about leaving all options on the table, without a hint of irony since she thinks we should invade any countries we want if we feel threatened, but that Russia shouldn’t invade the country right next to it when it feels threatened by actual troops, not terrorists but troops, on its border. So, once again Sarah Palin, you have lowered my opinion of you. At this point, you’re going to need a shovel to get any lower.
But, Charles Gibson, you have proven yourself a true journalist in my eyes. You didn’t waver, you didn’t cave, you didn’t attack or distort. You did what journalists do: ask questions. You stuck to the facts and you looked for answers and I look forward to seeing you do it again tomorrow unless Sarah Palin’s handlers figure out a way to sneak her out the back tonight.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Absurdities of the Campaign Trail: "Lipstick on a Pig"
“You know that, because you’re stupid but you’re not stupid, you know what I’m saying?”
Press Secretary C.J. Cregg said that on Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant series, The West Wing, to a reporter who was over eager to distort the facts of a situation to make a good story. It’s one thing to misinterpret or not understand something the way it was meant, but quite another to maliciously distort something by pretending that you didn’t get the meaning. That’s stupid on a whole other level.
This week, the cynical, dirty campaign being waged by the flailing McCain camp did just that because when you can’t win on the issues, you try to change the story. It wasn’t so long ago that a McCain spokesperson said that this wasn’t going to be a campaign about issues but about personality. The problem with that is that Barack Obama has a great personality, which the McCain camp has oft been quick to point out as a flaw because of his “rock star” status and his cult of personality. It is his personality that draws 84,000 people to a stadium in Denver to hear him speak, and to donate record amounts of money in small incrememnts to his campagin. Just the latest in the attacks designed to distort people’s views of his personality, next in line after “elitist” and “presumptuous,” comes from the McCain’s just-launched and Orwellian-named “Palin Truth Squad.”
Today they are attacking Senator Obama for calling Sarah Palin a pig. What’s that you say? “That doesn’t seem at all like something Barack Obama would do, not after saying her family should be off limits and after the clean campaign he has run?” Well, even if you didn’t say that, you should have, because you would be correct. Barack Obama did not call her a pig. Something like that should be pretty obvious though, right? Either someone says “she’s a pig” or they don’t.
What he did say, was this when discussing the McCain campaign’s attempts to paint their ticket as a ticket of change: “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Just in case someone wasn’t sure what he was refering to, he continued: “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change.’ Iit’s still gonna stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing! It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”
He laid it all out right there, he was talking about change, and how saying you’re for change doesn’t mean that there is any substance beneath that veneer. He does that by using folksy colloguialisms, something that George Bush has done repeatedly and which has been credited with winning him support from voters who want their President to seem “just like them.” Could it be that the “Truth Squad” doesn’t know what a colloguialism is? A quick refresher…
A colloguialism is a phrase not used in formal speech or language, and is often meant to convey meaning that is not strictly dictated by the literal interpretation of the phrase. In this case, putting “lipstick on a pig” means to “make the unattractive superficially attractive,” or “to dress up an idea and try to pass it off as something else.” Literally, that while makeup is usually associated with people making themselves more attractive, that when applied to a pig, it would make the pig neither attractive nor a person. It’s a phrase that’s not actually about pigs, but about how tihngs are viewed and about tactics.
So does McCain’s camp not know this colloquialism, or are they playing deliberately dim? For a clue, you need go no farther than McCain himself, who said about Hillary Clinton’s proposed health care plan during the primaries: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” No one then thought he was calling Hillary a pig, and certainly he wasn’t intending anyone to. No, John McCain was saying that he thought her “new” health care plan was exactly like her old health care plan that failed to gain support back in 1992. It was an attack on her ideas, not on her physical appearance.
So John McCain is familiar with the expression and how it’s used, as is his former press secretary who used it as the title to a book, “Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No Spin Era.” Clearly the Spin Era isn’t quite over, though, since the “Truth Squad” is now trying to spin Barack’s remarks and turn them into a sexist attack. Speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign, former Gov. Jane Swift (who’s last name can’t help but remind you of a certain Swift Boat campaign to distort reality), said that she was certain Barack was calling Sarah Palin a pig because “She’s the only of the four candidates...that wears lipstick.” Let’s follow this trail of logic: the word “lipstick” was in the sentence, Sarah Palin wears lipstick, i.e. the sentence was about Sarah Palin exclusively. She also said that she expected an apology and, if he wasn’t refering to Sarah Palin and was calling John McCain a pig, then he should apologize for that too. I really hope Jane Swift isn’t actually that foolish to think Barack Obama was actually calling anyone a pig and that his reference to lipstick was a reference to a woman, because if so, I worry for the people of Massachusetts who she governed. Just to put an exclamation point on that thought, she also commented that Barack’s reference to wrapping an old fish in a paper called “change” was calling John McCain an “old fish.”
So either the “Truth Squad” is remarkably stupid, or equally malicious, and either way they are not fit for the duty of protecting the truth. This “MiniTruth” of the McCain/Palin campaign should leave the real reporting and investigating to journalists and not paid campaign spinmeisters. One of those journalists pointed out to Jane Swift that McCain had used similar phrases himself, such as when he refered to Gov. Romney’s attacks on him during the primary and stated “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” When the journalist asked Jane Swift if she thought Mr. McCain was calling Romney a pig, she said “Of course not.”
Of course not.
Press Secretary C.J. Cregg said that on Aaron Sorkin’s brilliant series, The West Wing, to a reporter who was over eager to distort the facts of a situation to make a good story. It’s one thing to misinterpret or not understand something the way it was meant, but quite another to maliciously distort something by pretending that you didn’t get the meaning. That’s stupid on a whole other level.
This week, the cynical, dirty campaign being waged by the flailing McCain camp did just that because when you can’t win on the issues, you try to change the story. It wasn’t so long ago that a McCain spokesperson said that this wasn’t going to be a campaign about issues but about personality. The problem with that is that Barack Obama has a great personality, which the McCain camp has oft been quick to point out as a flaw because of his “rock star” status and his cult of personality. It is his personality that draws 84,000 people to a stadium in Denver to hear him speak, and to donate record amounts of money in small incrememnts to his campagin. Just the latest in the attacks designed to distort people’s views of his personality, next in line after “elitist” and “presumptuous,” comes from the McCain’s just-launched and Orwellian-named “Palin Truth Squad.”
Today they are attacking Senator Obama for calling Sarah Palin a pig. What’s that you say? “That doesn’t seem at all like something Barack Obama would do, not after saying her family should be off limits and after the clean campaign he has run?” Well, even if you didn’t say that, you should have, because you would be correct. Barack Obama did not call her a pig. Something like that should be pretty obvious though, right? Either someone says “she’s a pig” or they don’t.
What he did say, was this when discussing the McCain campaign’s attempts to paint their ticket as a ticket of change: “You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” Just in case someone wasn’t sure what he was refering to, he continued: “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called ‘change.’ Iit’s still gonna stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing! It’s time to bring about real change to Washington. And that’s the choice you’ve got in this election.”
He laid it all out right there, he was talking about change, and how saying you’re for change doesn’t mean that there is any substance beneath that veneer. He does that by using folksy colloguialisms, something that George Bush has done repeatedly and which has been credited with winning him support from voters who want their President to seem “just like them.” Could it be that the “Truth Squad” doesn’t know what a colloguialism is? A quick refresher…
A colloguialism is a phrase not used in formal speech or language, and is often meant to convey meaning that is not strictly dictated by the literal interpretation of the phrase. In this case, putting “lipstick on a pig” means to “make the unattractive superficially attractive,” or “to dress up an idea and try to pass it off as something else.” Literally, that while makeup is usually associated with people making themselves more attractive, that when applied to a pig, it would make the pig neither attractive nor a person. It’s a phrase that’s not actually about pigs, but about how tihngs are viewed and about tactics.
So does McCain’s camp not know this colloquialism, or are they playing deliberately dim? For a clue, you need go no farther than McCain himself, who said about Hillary Clinton’s proposed health care plan during the primaries: “I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.” No one then thought he was calling Hillary a pig, and certainly he wasn’t intending anyone to. No, John McCain was saying that he thought her “new” health care plan was exactly like her old health care plan that failed to gain support back in 1992. It was an attack on her ideas, not on her physical appearance.
So John McCain is familiar with the expression and how it’s used, as is his former press secretary who used it as the title to a book, “Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No Spin Era.” Clearly the Spin Era isn’t quite over, though, since the “Truth Squad” is now trying to spin Barack’s remarks and turn them into a sexist attack. Speaking on behalf of the McCain campaign, former Gov. Jane Swift (who’s last name can’t help but remind you of a certain Swift Boat campaign to distort reality), said that she was certain Barack was calling Sarah Palin a pig because “She’s the only of the four candidates...that wears lipstick.” Let’s follow this trail of logic: the word “lipstick” was in the sentence, Sarah Palin wears lipstick, i.e. the sentence was about Sarah Palin exclusively. She also said that she expected an apology and, if he wasn’t refering to Sarah Palin and was calling John McCain a pig, then he should apologize for that too. I really hope Jane Swift isn’t actually that foolish to think Barack Obama was actually calling anyone a pig and that his reference to lipstick was a reference to a woman, because if so, I worry for the people of Massachusetts who she governed. Just to put an exclamation point on that thought, she also commented that Barack’s reference to wrapping an old fish in a paper called “change” was calling John McCain an “old fish.”
So either the “Truth Squad” is remarkably stupid, or equally malicious, and either way they are not fit for the duty of protecting the truth. This “MiniTruth” of the McCain/Palin campaign should leave the real reporting and investigating to journalists and not paid campaign spinmeisters. One of those journalists pointed out to Jane Swift that McCain had used similar phrases himself, such as when he refered to Gov. Romney’s attacks on him during the primary and stated “Never get into a wrestling match with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.” When the journalist asked Jane Swift if she thought Mr. McCain was calling Romney a pig, she said “Of course not.”
Of course not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
