Letters to the Editor
-
brainsplitter, Shooter242 and Planetary_Eulogy
brainsplitter, thanks for the wonderful transcript-minus-dog-poo. It's a pity more of the mainstream media can't pick up on some of the gems - particularly the biased questioning regarding Iran (obviously predicated on a fabrication...see NIE)
Topics opined upon were Iran and the bomb/income taxes/capital gains taxes/mortgage crisis/increased government spending/defining the middle class income limits/pulling out troops/raising payroll tax limits/capital gains/guns/affirmative action/gas prices/windfall profits/and roles of ex-presidents.
As for whether the questions were conservatively oriented, so what? Doesn't Glenn say adversarial questioning is the way to go?
-- Shooter242
I normally ignore you, because you're obviously a rancorous troll. But this time, I actually like your statement.
I agree that, if you were to cut out all of the crap regarding right wing smears and gaffes and the interruptions, and you actually look at where candidates say something interesting, the debate does have redeeming value. I assume you took those points from brainsplitter's transcript.
The thing that Glenn complains about is something you're ignoring, though. The mainstream media is saying how Barack was damaged by all of this, but from those bits that I read via brainsplitter, it seems like both candidates did well. That is one part of it.
But the other part is the very source. Right-wing talk radio points have no business in a Democratic debate; it should be what the Democrats are interested in. If it weren't for the first hour, what would right-wingers have had to say about tonight's debate?
If you cut out the crap and you actually start looking at the policy, it takes up maybe 10-20 minutes. At the end.
Don't you see a problem with that? Is it really okay to toss the issues in at the end, tacked on like an after-thought?
So I take it that you would object to Democrats who bring up Jack Abramoff's connections to GOP leaders?
-- Planetary_Eulogy
Sure. But I wouldn't bring up the connections, per se. Instead, I'd bring up the money that Abramoff donated to those GOP leaders in the course of their duty serving the United States.
I don't care if they played golf with Abramoff. Golf is not an officially sanctioned duty as a US Congress person. Maybe Abramoff said some mean things about someone while he was golfing; who cares. I do care, however, if they abused their position in the government for personal gain. That is what the Democrats should bring up. You could remove Abramoff's name if you really wanted to, and say that GOP-X received money from a lobbyist convicted of bribery. That's the important part - their actions, not the actions of someone else.
If you're really so interested in Obama's views about America, why don't you ask him instead of projecting the views of people who aren't Barack Obama onto him?
-
Just doin' their job, man...
"Media stars -- some due to sloth, some due to ideology, some due to an eagerness to please the Right..."
Sorry, Glenn -- gotta check the "none of the above" box. Toadying to the Right Wing Noise machine is about one thing only: keeping their jobs! The media is owned by corporations that are by their nature conservative; they write the paychecks, they ultimately decide who gets face time on the nightly news, etc. and they damn sure don't want a Dem in the White House come next January. Sure, they're smart enough to allow "differing points of view," but politics is like any other game: you don't have to win all the points to win.
Being a "media star" is no different from being a "soap opera star." You work off the script you're given, or you go back to waiting tables.
-
But who really runs the show?
Glenn, your naming of names is itself the greatest evidence of dictatorship as none are owners and the organizations they belong to, but only hired sophists. Real journalism in American history has given the big picture behind the veil, and that ceased 50 years ago with mass media corporate concentration. At this point we are beyond journalism, as critical thinking itself has been systematically stripped from education and replaced by the cultivation of uncritical desire for products. Indeed, the very purpose of television is to sell the power to deliver uncritical consumers to advertisers, particularly the political advertisers, along with nurturing docile assent to corporate serfdom.
-
@ Midwest Meg
Thank you. I just issued my complaint to the lot of them.
-
Electro Robot
Saying it 21 times doesn't make it sound better or deeper. All candidates positions boil down essentially to
"I'm for what's right and good while my opponent is a misguided fool. I promise to do all that is right and good. Details? Well those are hard to pin down now but trust me when I tell you I am thinking and feeling very seriously about all the the things that are important."
You didn't watch the debate, did you? Neither of them called the other misguided fools. Both said the other would beat McCain in a general election.
As far as details, sometimes they can actually describe a little bit of policy. Clinton did say she wouldn't raise taxes for anyone who makes less than $250,000 a year. I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet that means she's not going to raise your taxes. That's important to know if you're a...*cough*..."conservative"...they always go off about how important it is not to raise taxes.
As far as a difference between the two, I think there is a big difference. Obama claims not to be a slave to Special Interests. Clinton cannot claim the same. Considering that I have long held the position that K Street and lobbying are a major source of what's wrong in American politics, I happen to think quite fondly of Mr. Obama.
-
Boner pulling
That debate last night was as fine example of boner pulling as I've ever seen.
But I guess that's what happens when you try to talk like an adult about real issues in this country. You just get jerked around.