This is a bit dated considering the VP pick and Gustav... but it was just a few days ago that Obama gave his speech accepting the nomination of the Democrat party for president of the USA.
I thought it was a fine speech, nothing surprising, and filled with platitudes... but I forgive him for that. Why do I bring this up? Because Peggy Noonan was on MSNBC the day after the speech and was asked what she thought... it degenerated into a pseudo comentary on MSNBC's media bias and leftists in general.
I'm not often a fan of name calling, but this is just too creative to not make even me smile. Check it out.
HA!
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Cancel the Convention
McCain has a real problem. As reprehensible as some have been in cheering Gustav in the hopes that it will damage John McCain, they are still right. This could be a disaster for the RNC. McCain cannot be seen playing the fiddle while New Orleans drowns. So, what do you do?
I say postpone the convention and get on a plane to Louisiana. Mayor Nagan seems to be serious this time. He's invited the Bush, Obama, and McCain to be on point when this storm hits. I don't think that this is an invitation that McCain or Bush can afford to ignore.
I'm aware that setting up the armed camp that must come with these candidates and the president will not help, materially, those who are in the way of the storm, but the symbolism is critical. Get there, raise some money, make a speach, and forget the party in St. Paul for now.
I say postpone the convention and get on a plane to Louisiana. Mayor Nagan seems to be serious this time. He's invited the Bush, Obama, and McCain to be on point when this storm hits. I don't think that this is an invitation that McCain or Bush can afford to ignore.
I'm aware that setting up the armed camp that must come with these candidates and the president will not help, materially, those who are in the way of the storm, but the symbolism is critical. Get there, raise some money, make a speach, and forget the party in St. Paul for now.
Sent from God?
Gustav is coming and are happy and are saying so. Michael Moore is glad that New Orleans has to be evacuated at huge cost and possibly loss of life because it happens to coincide with the RNC. Apparently there is a God and he's a democrat.
Another is former DNC Chair Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt. They were video taped joking that the Hurricane is God's favor to Democrats.
Don't those cynical pot shots remind you of the Enron energy traders giggling about ripping people off over their gas bills in 2001?
Obama is classy see here for the campaign's statement. Good for him!
Another is former DNC Chair Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt. They were video taped joking that the Hurricane is God's favor to Democrats.
Don't those cynical pot shots remind you of the Enron energy traders giggling about ripping people off over their gas bills in 2001?
Obama is classy see here for the campaign's statement. Good for him!
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Ad Alert
Unless you live in a swing state you don't get the great pleasure of being bombarded by the campaign ads. That's why you come here people. The videos below are the most recent entries by both campaigns.
McCain's latest attempt to use the Democrat's words against them.
And Obama...
I gotta admit, rightly or wrongly, McCain's winning the ad wars.
McCain's latest attempt to use the Democrat's words against them.
And Obama...
I gotta admit, rightly or wrongly, McCain's winning the ad wars.
Bouncing Politics!
There is a phenomenon that we usually see around the VP selections and conventions that has not been apparent this year. The bounce! If you'll recall Gore went from 4 points down to 10 points ahead based on a kiss in 2000. Though I don't think that a person is qualified to run the country based on tongue action, the introduction to the candidates and their running mates usually precipitate some gain in the polls.
This year, nothin'. Or, at least nearly nothing. Before the convention Gallop's tracking poll showed Obama and McCain in a statistical tie, and had done so for the better part of a month. The most recent polls might show a bounce because Obama has had a few days in a row in which he's leading by more than the 5 point error. Still, compared to previous bounces that's almost nothing, and Gallop's tracking poll is not something that is useful day to day, only in identifying trends. So I'm not ready to call it a bounce for Obama after 4 days of statistical significance.
Why has politics stopped bouncing? (or has it?) First, and foremost, Americans are far more partisan and well informed because of a vast expansion of information outlets such as blogspot.com. The ability to cheaply barrage the general public with a message means that grand gestures (such as kisses) do not have the same effect as before. More information makes people more skeptical and leads them to fall back on their core beliefs. Ironically the net effect of more information has been to make people identify more with their parties!
When a voter has access to both sides it becomes a matter of trust... and who do you trust the line given to you by the D's or the R's (probably whom ever you're registered for)? It's too easy to assume that the other side is spinning and discount whatever they say by identifying them as the "other team." This dissemination of new information has made people more partisan. Who's the least willing person you know to engage in blind partisanship? Is it your hair dresser who doesn't read the paper? Or is it your college professor who consumes vast quantities of public information? It is the availability of opinion that empowers partisans to believe that they are right because they have SO MUCH evidence to prove it! Quantity has substituted quality and resulted in incredibly well researched drivel appears.
So what does this have to do with bounces? I believe that the campaigns have lost control of the message. A kiss doesn't matter, and neither does a speech, a party, or a woman on the ticket. As the public polarizes the campaigns fight over a smaller and smaller number of 'swing' voters and there's simply less room to bounce.
What do you think?
This year, nothin'. Or, at least nearly nothing. Before the convention Gallop's tracking poll showed Obama and McCain in a statistical tie, and had done so for the better part of a month. The most recent polls might show a bounce because Obama has had a few days in a row in which he's leading by more than the 5 point error. Still, compared to previous bounces that's almost nothing, and Gallop's tracking poll is not something that is useful day to day, only in identifying trends. So I'm not ready to call it a bounce for Obama after 4 days of statistical significance.
Why has politics stopped bouncing? (or has it?) First, and foremost, Americans are far more partisan and well informed because of a vast expansion of information outlets such as blogspot.com. The ability to cheaply barrage the general public with a message means that grand gestures (such as kisses) do not have the same effect as before. More information makes people more skeptical and leads them to fall back on their core beliefs. Ironically the net effect of more information has been to make people identify more with their parties!
When a voter has access to both sides it becomes a matter of trust... and who do you trust the line given to you by the D's or the R's (probably whom ever you're registered for)? It's too easy to assume that the other side is spinning and discount whatever they say by identifying them as the "other team." This dissemination of new information has made people more partisan. Who's the least willing person you know to engage in blind partisanship? Is it your hair dresser who doesn't read the paper? Or is it your college professor who consumes vast quantities of public information? It is the availability of opinion that empowers partisans to believe that they are right because they have SO MUCH evidence to prove it! Quantity has substituted quality and resulted in incredibly well researched drivel appears.
So what does this have to do with bounces? I believe that the campaigns have lost control of the message. A kiss doesn't matter, and neither does a speech, a party, or a woman on the ticket. As the public polarizes the campaigns fight over a smaller and smaller number of 'swing' voters and there's simply less room to bounce.
What do you think?
Wow, tell em what you really think Roger
Roger Ebert really doesn't like a former columnist from the Chicago Sun Times. I admit to reading and enjoying Jay Mariotti's work and am not sure Mr. Ebert's biting remarks are reasonable.
Some choice cuts:
An open letter to sports columnist Jay Mariotti, who resigned from the Sun-Times and lashed out during a TV interview announcing that newspapers were dead:
As someone who was working here for 24 years before you arrived, I think you owed us more than that. You owed us decency. The fact that you saved your attack for TV only completes our portrait of you as a rat.
and
I started here when Marshall Field and Jim Hoge were running the paper. I stayed through the Rupert Murdoch regime. I was asked, "How can you work for a Murdoch paper?" My reply was: "It's not his paper. It's my paper. He only owns it." That's the way I've always felt about the Sun-Times, and I still do. On your way out, don't let the door bang you on the ass.
I'm not a huge fan of name calling, but it sure can be funny huh?
See the whole letter here. Yikes.
Some choice cuts:
An open letter to sports columnist Jay Mariotti, who resigned from the Sun-Times and lashed out during a TV interview announcing that newspapers were dead:
As someone who was working here for 24 years before you arrived, I think you owed us more than that. You owed us decency. The fact that you saved your attack for TV only completes our portrait of you as a rat.
and
I started here when Marshall Field and Jim Hoge were running the paper. I stayed through the Rupert Murdoch regime. I was asked, "How can you work for a Murdoch paper?" My reply was: "It's not his paper. It's my paper. He only owns it." That's the way I've always felt about the Sun-Times, and I still do. On your way out, don't let the door bang you on the ass.
I'm not a huge fan of name calling, but it sure can be funny huh?
See the whole letter here. Yikes.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Feminist's Clarence Thomas moment
Does anybody remember the debate at the NAACP when justice Thomas was nominated? It was a real problem for that body that identifies its success by the "advancement of colored people."
Thomas was black and he was advancing. Thomas was also desperately out of step politically with the vast majority of black people. It was a question of conflicting identities. On the one hand the members of the club wanted to see a black supreme court justice, but on the other they also wanted a justice who would advance their political point of view. The NAACP did not endorse Thomas in the end. In a remarkably race neutral decision for a group that identifies itself on racial grounds it decided that the advancement of a political point of view was more important that the advancement of one colored person.
I see this happening all over again today. Self identified feminists tend to embrace a leftist philosophy. But they also define themselves as proponents of female advancement. The nomination of Palin has put these two truths in conflict for many women in the country.
While the oppression of women in history is much different (though no less reprehensible) from that of Blacks I wonder whether a similar dynamic to the Clarence Thomas nomination might develop among left-leaning women regarding Palin. Will a feminist really vote against the only female on a major party ticket? I suspect that they will, because just like the NAACP, feminists are interested in the advancement of the right women. And... that's okay! Any time people want to identify themselves with something they believe rather than something they just happen to be all of us are advanced.
What do you think? Will McCain get more votes from disenchanted Hillary folks because of Palin? Will there be at least a little regret among women who vote for Obama?
Thomas was black and he was advancing. Thomas was also desperately out of step politically with the vast majority of black people. It was a question of conflicting identities. On the one hand the members of the club wanted to see a black supreme court justice, but on the other they also wanted a justice who would advance their political point of view. The NAACP did not endorse Thomas in the end. In a remarkably race neutral decision for a group that identifies itself on racial grounds it decided that the advancement of a political point of view was more important that the advancement of one colored person.
I see this happening all over again today. Self identified feminists tend to embrace a leftist philosophy. But they also define themselves as proponents of female advancement. The nomination of Palin has put these two truths in conflict for many women in the country.
While the oppression of women in history is much different (though no less reprehensible) from that of Blacks I wonder whether a similar dynamic to the Clarence Thomas nomination might develop among left-leaning women regarding Palin. Will a feminist really vote against the only female on a major party ticket? I suspect that they will, because just like the NAACP, feminists are interested in the advancement of the right women. And... that's okay! Any time people want to identify themselves with something they believe rather than something they just happen to be all of us are advanced.
What do you think? Will McCain get more votes from disenchanted Hillary folks because of Palin? Will there be at least a little regret among women who vote for Obama?
Who is Sarah Palin?
Well... she's apparently the Governor of Alaska and now up for election the second highest office in the land. She's got a good reputation with those who know her, almost 90% approval rating in Alaska, but I share the worry with many, I'm sure, that a 44 year old with 2 years of experience as a governor is backing up a 72 year old who's had cancer. Then again... Obama's only had 2 years of experience as a senator and his name is on the top of the ticket.
I guess it's wait and see time. What do you think?
What others are saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7588435.stm
BBC's take
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/gergen-talk-about-a-bold-gamble/
It's a gamble for sure, but bold?
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/08/sarah-palin-the-doublex-dan-quayle.html
Promoted for all the wrong reasons? And is she the next Dan Quayle?>
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/clinton-congratulates-palin/
Hilary approves
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/rollins.palin/index.html
This guy's got it just about right I think. Though it's too soon to tell.
http://www.palinfacts.com/
HA!
I guess it's wait and see time. What do you think?
What others are saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7588435.stm
BBC's take
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/gergen-talk-about-a-bold-gamble/
It's a gamble for sure, but bold?
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2008/08/sarah-palin-the-doublex-dan-quayle.html
Promoted for all the wrong reasons? And is she the next Dan Quayle?>
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/clinton-congratulates-palin/
Hilary approves
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/rollins.palin/index.html
This guy's got it just about right I think. Though it's too soon to tell.
http://www.palinfacts.com/
HA!
Welcome
It is a bit ironic to welcome readers who do not exist yet, but I'll do it in anticipation anyway. In this space I'll post and comment on the news of the day. Usually it will be political, but don't be surprised to see sports or culture make its way into a post or two.
My political philosophy is center-right in today's political world. However, I am *NOT* a conservative. I'm a traditional liberal. The people are our nation's greatest asset and Government's role is to promote the common good by moderating extremes of society and provide for its defense.
As for discussion here it will be unedited except for language. Posts with curses will be deleted. I hope that this forum can be a place where we can disagree without being disagreeable.
My political philosophy is center-right in today's political world. However, I am *NOT* a conservative. I'm a traditional liberal. The people are our nation's greatest asset and Government's role is to promote the common good by moderating extremes of society and provide for its defense.
As for discussion here it will be unedited except for language. Posts with curses will be deleted. I hope that this forum can be a place where we can disagree without being disagreeable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
