OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[RobVarak]

Bosniacs?

That's not even a gaffe, just a slip of the tongue...but it's funny as hell. I think that should be the new moniker!!

It's the actual term for Bosnian Muslims (although I thought the same thing when I heard it as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosniaks

That's something. One of my former law school classmates was a Bosnian Musilim and I don't think I ever heard him use the term. And I'm quite red-faced because I studied the former Yugoslavia for years and never heard the term used. Ah well, more education mis-spent...LOL

[XXXIV]

Rob, I wouldnt worry about it.

Charlie Gibson moments happen...Even to Charlie Gibson.

[pk500]

More typical horseshit from CNN.com. The current (10:20 a.m. ET) lead headline reads:

Palin defies expectations;
Biden wins

This tops an ANALYSIS by a CNN Political Editor, yet there is no indication on the cover tease that this is an analysis piece. So it reads like a hard news story on the cover, stating as fact that Biden won the debate.

Does this organization have any journalistic ethics? Or is that an oxymoron at CNN Center in Atlanta, much like "jumbo shrimp."

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Very interesting debate, with mixed results for Palin.

Palin did an INCREDIBLE job of framing the agenda and tone of the debate since she maybe directly answered two of Ifill's questions.

...

So in pure debate terms, I thought she was quite weak.

I think that those conclusions are a bit contradictory. It's a debate, not a test - an exercise in persuasive rhetoric. Being able to frame the agenda and highlight the issues in the manner of your chosing is how you score. I agree that she did so awkwardly at several junctures, but on the whole her ability to ignore the moderator and talk directly to the viewers was why she was strong in debate terms. If she had simply thrown half-truths back and forth with Biden all night it would've been a fruitless exercise for both.

[Brando70]

I think they both did a fine job, but I just don't believe a lot of what Biden says. The "Home Depot, where I spend a lot of time" was a lame attempt to sound middle class, and I don't buy it. He comes off as a typical politican to me. He'll say anything you want to hear to your face, but you can't rely on him once he's out of your sight.

Exactly. That was about as sincere as John Kerry, NASCAR fan.

Take care,
PK

I don't know, given Biden's net worth, he might be at Home Depot a lot, doing his own home improvements to save a few bucks.

Biden played it safe, and that makes sense given the shift in the campaign. Direct assaults on Palin have probably hurt the Democrats more than helped. Whether one believes she is qualified or not, she is likable, and is a capable and popular governor. There wasn't much to be gained by going after her. He stayed on McCain and hammered the economic theme.

Palin did better than expected and looked much more in command than in the interviews. But then again, in these debates, candidates simply redirect questions they don't feel like answering back to their strong suits. Neither candidate hurt their running mate, but I don't think either gave their campaigns a significant boost. The Gaffe Bowl 2008 turned out to be a rather tame VP debate.

[Brando70]

More typical horseshit from CNN.com. The current (10:20 a.m. ET) lead headline reads:

Palin defies expectations;
Biden wins

This tops an ANALYSIS by a CNN Political Editor, yet there is no indication on the cover tease that this is an analysis piece. So it reads like a hard news story on the cover, stating as fact that Biden won the debate.

Does this organization have any journalistic ethics? Or is that an oxymoron at CNN Center in Atlanta, much like "jumbo shrimp."

Take care,
PK

Um, PK, I realize the front page makes it seem like a news story, but when you click on it, it does say Analysis in big letters before the title, as you said. And it also is reporting the results of a poll, so the headline makes sense.

I agree that they should have had "Analysis" on the front page, but I didn't see anything else wrong with it. Once you click past the front page, it's clearly a political and poll analysis piece, not a hard news story.

[pk500]

I think that those conclusions are a bit contradictory. It's a debate, not a test - an exercise in persuasive rhetoric. Being able to frame the agenda and highlight the issues in the manner of your chosing is how you score. I agree that she did so awkwardly at several junctures, but on the whole her ability to ignore the moderator and talk directly to the viewers was why she was strong in debate terms. If she had simply thrown half-truths back and forth with Biden all night it would've been a fruitless exercise for both.

There were two questions that were telling and troubling to me, in regards to Palin's "non-answers."

One was whether either candidate had changed their view on a position over time. Biden gave a wonkish answer about his position regarding the judiciary, giving the Bork nomination as an example. Palin gave the example of not vetoing a budget.

This was a question about philosophy; it was obvious. I don't think Ifill needed to spell it out on a chalkboard. Biden got it; Palin didn't because it deviated from her message points.

The second was when Ifill asked both candidates if their plans would need to be modified due to the current financial crisis. Again, Biden gave a wonkish answer about how some of their funding programs would need to be tempered. Palin never answered the question, and when Ifill countered by asking Palin to answer the question -- a rarity all night -- Palin said none of their economic plans would be tempered by the bailout.

Come on. We're about to fund a $700-billion program while funding a war and dealing with a huge budget deficit, and nothing will change in their economic program? That was a little too much "Happy Days Are Here Again" for me to stomach and also indicated to me that Palin had no answer for the question.

Take care,
PK

[MACTEPsporta]

Rob, I wouldnt worry about it.

I would, I'd go back to that overly expensive school you were in and demand my money back.

Actually, the only reason you haven't heard the term is because you've studied that region in English. The terms became interchangeable, and most people use "Bosnian" instead of "Bosniak". In English, often times there isn't a word to define ethnicity from nationality. Example: Russian is someone who lives is Russia (or the entire former Soviet Union for some people), while someone of Russian descent is a "rus" or a "russak", but no one ever uses these terms. Same deal with Jews, English doesn't have a separate word for Jewish - being of Jewish religion, vs. Jewish - being of Jewish heritage.

If you ask your friend what he would call himself, he would say that he is a "Bosnjaci" or a Bosniak, but almost anyone will now translate it to Bosnian. You are a victim of an overly laconic language, Rob. That's your excuse, use it well.

[RobVarak]

Bosnian. You are a victim of an overly laconic language, Rob. That's your excuse, use it well.

Meh, it works for me. Matches up well with my overly laconic brain.

[pk500]

Um, PK, I realize the front page makes it seem like a news story, but when you click on it, it does say Analysis in big letters before the title, as you said. And it also is reporting the results of a poll, so the headline makes sense.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. How many people are going to click through and see the "Analysis" label?

There are countless people who just do "drive-bys" of the CNN.com home page to check the headlines and move on to another site. I do it all the time. So if they see "Biden wins" as a lead news story, then many people out there who don't know the difference between reporting and analysis -- a trend accelerated by the blurred lines between both in today's media -- will assume that's a fact.

As a former reporter, I think it's flat-out devious and wrong.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

More typical horseshit from CNN.com. The current (10:20 a.m. ET) lead headline reads:

Palin defies expectations;
Biden wins

This tops an ANALYSIS by a CNN Political Editor, yet there is no indication on the cover tease that this is an analysis piece. So it reads like a hard news story on the cover, stating as fact that Biden won the debate.

Does this organization have any journalistic ethics? Or is that an oxymoron at CNN Center in Atlanta, much like "jumbo shrimp."

Take care,
PK

Um, PK, I realize the front page makes it seem like a news story, but when you click on it, it does say Analysis in big letters before the title, as you said. And it also is reporting the results of a poll, so the headline makes sense.

I agree that they should have had "Analysis" on the front page, but I didn't see anything else wrong with it. Once you click past the front page, it's clearly a political and poll analysis piece, not a hard news story.

I'm more curious about the CNN/FOX "independent" voter groups and polling. Both sides seem to have managed to find independents who ended up breaking in the expected manner. And they did the same thing for the Presidential debate.

[matthewk]

In many ways it was exactly what you'd expect when a law professor debates a governor. He was phlegmatic and theoretical, she was direct and practical.

Simple or plain spoken should never be accompanied with a simple mind. Palin has a simple mind. After 8 years of someone with that same attitude -- it scares me.

Unless John McCain wins, we won't see Sarah Palin again. She'll probably run for Senate in AK and be the lightening rod for the base but from now to the election, we won't see her.

But like I said, with the bar set in the gutter for Palin. When not being incompetent means you do well in a debate, what does that say about the candidate? We are rewarding mediocrity and simple-mindedness.

I don't get the simple mind comment. Do you have her test scores from school? Weree you able to give her an IQ test? Just because someone doesn't speak in Political-ese does not mean they are stupid. I know many people who never went to college and don't have a Harvard sound to their words, but are very smart. I think she "gets it" when it comes to what the people in this country go through every day a lot more than a guy whose been in Washington longer than McCain.

A think the reason the elft has gone after her so hard is because they are afraid of her. Even if McCain loses, she will resurface again. She's just getting started. The left knows this, which is why they have tried so hard ever since her nomination to bury her.

The bar was set higher for Palin than Biden. All Biden had to do was put on his Washnigton face, which he's been doing for 30+ years and not let out any goofball soundbytes (which he did). Palin had the harder task of reversing the image of her from the recent interviews and hold her own against an experienced politician (which she did). They both accomplished what they set out to do, but I argue that Palin had a much higher target than Biden.

[wco81]

Come on. We're about to fund a $700-billion program while funding a war and dealing with a huge budget deficit, and nothing will change in their economic program? That was a little too much "Happy Days Are Here Again" for me to stomach and also indicated to me that Palin had no answer for the question.

Take care,
PK

In one of the post-debate discussions, they talked about this point.

McCain campaign hasn't said how they will adjust to the crisis and economic downturn/recession. So she has no answer because the campaign hasn't formulated an answer.

Obama has talked in general terms about stimulus plan.

The only thing the Republicans have in their economic playbook is tax cuts, regardless of the conditions. When Bush campaigned for his tax cuts in 2000, it was about giving money back. The it became a necessary stimulus.

So expect McCain to re-emphasize the tax cuts or call for more of them. He'll have to re-calibrate the promise to balance the budget by 2013.

[RobVarak]

Where are you getting the impression that there's some theocracy at work in the McCain/Palin ticket, bk? I certainly don't see it.

I'm with BK. I've never voted Republican, but I was leaning McCain earlier this year. Now I'm not sure.

There probably isn't an overt theocracy at work in the McCain camp. But McCain definitely has moved to the right -- the selection of Palin is an obvious example -- to pander to the far right wing of the party, which is comprised mainly of evangelicals.

Johnny Mac is nowhere near the "maverick" he was eight years ago, so I'm really tiring of that moniker being tossed about like Hershey bars to children during the French liberation in 1944.

Take care,
PK

The lament that McCain isn't the 2000 McCain is a commonly echoed one. I'm curious about something, and maybe PK or someone else who agrees with that conclusion may be able to explain.

Since 2000 he has broken with the GOP base and leadership on enormously important issues like campaign finance reform and immigration. He was an early critic of Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy. All of those positions are consistent with his 2000 campaign message.

Is that guy not running for President? Do you think that he won't govern that way? I'm not being sacrcastic at all here. I'm curious.

Is it just the fact that he's picked a more conservative VP candidate that has made you decide that 2000Mac is dead and buried, or the fact that he's campaigned to his base? Or is there something else? I assume it's not the divergence between his campaign and his record, or else you would certainly be equally put off by Obama running away from his record and running a centrist campaign.

At the heart of matter I'm interested in whether people perceive these two candidates as the sum of their campaign positions or their records and background. The two are often very contradictory.

[RobVarak]

I don't know, given Biden's net worth, he might be at Home Depot a lot, doing his own home improvements to save a few bucks.

Are you kidding? Biden doesn't need a hammer. He just talks the nails right into the wall.

[JackB1]

I think they both did a fine job, but I just don't believe a lot of what Biden says. The "Home Depot, where I spend a lot of time" was a lame attempt to sound middle class, and I don't buy it.

That was no worse than Palin's continued claims to be "middle class" when she is worth over $1.2 M, with a beautiful waterfront home on the water in Alaska and her own personal seaplane.

Anyone that believes ANY of these politicians are in the same financial boat as the true middle class is just kidding themselves.

[wco81]

The lament that McCain isn't the 2000 McCain is a commonly echoed one. I'm curious about something, and maybe PK or someone else who agrees with that conclusion may be able to explain.

Since 2000 he has broken with the GOP base and leadership on enormously important issues like campaign finance reform and immigration. He was an early critic of Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy. All of those positions are consistent with his 2000 campaign message.

Those maverick moves were mostly before 2004.

And they could be seen as his reaction to the primary campaign of 2000, the way he was treated.

By the election campaign of 2004, he cozied up to Bush and got in line when it was time to vote.

For his campaign, he kissed up to the religious right and tried to tap into the same Bush fundraising base. In fact, still relied on Bush to raise a lot of money this year.

And after being a victim of Karl Rove tactics, he decided to join them since he can't beat them, hiring Rove proteges.

Of course he flipped on the Bush tax cuts and now repudiates his previous immigration reform position.

So what's left of the Straight Talk Express?

[pk500]

Unless John McCain wins, we won't see Sarah Palin again. She'll probably run for Senate in AK and be the lightening rod for the base but from now to the election, we won't see her.

Couldn't disagree more. Palin is the future of the GOP. If she can combine her folksy, Reagan-esque charm and superb looks in a skirt with more experience and a tighter grasp on issues, she will be a very formidable contender for the top of the GOP ticket in 2012 if Obama wins next month.

The GOP can sell Palin again in four years because they know she was pushed on the national stage as a virtual unknown. Americans really don't know much about her. Four more years of experience and accomplishment in politics will only aid her, not hurt her.

She's a long-term player in the party, no doubt.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

The lament that McCain isn't the 2000 McCain is a commonly echoed one. I'm curious about something, and maybe PK or someone else who agrees with that conclusion may be able to explain.

Since 2000 he has broken with the GOP base and leadership on enormously important issues like campaign finance reform and immigration. He was an early critic of Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy. All of those positions are consistent with his 2000 campaign message.

Is that guy not running for President? Do you think that he won't govern that way? I'm not being sacrcastic at all here. I'm curious.

He has sided with Bush post-2004 election on the two issues that matter the most to Joe Sixpack right now:

1. A devotion to trickle-down economics through lower corporate taxes and more financial deregulation
2. An open-ended commitment to the Iraq war

Obama also has morphed his political positions with his move to the center, so he's guilty, too.

And maybe that's why I'm really torn about this election, just 32 days away from entering the booth. Both of these guys are political animals -- "pander bears," pardon the pun -- not the agents of change that they both so desperately want to portray.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

The lament that McCain isn't the 2000 McCain is a commonly echoed one. I'm curious about something, and maybe PK or someone else who agrees with that conclusion may be able to explain.

Since 2000 he has broken with the GOP base and leadership on enormously important issues like campaign finance reform and immigration. He was an early critic of Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy. All of those positions are consistent with his 2000 campaign message.

Those maverick moves were mostly before 2004.

And they could be seen as his reaction to the primary campaign of 2000, the way he was treated.

By the election campaign of 2004, he cozied up to Bush and got in line when it was time to vote.

For his campaign, he kissed up to the religious right and tried to tap into the same Bush fundraising base. In fact, still relied on Bush to raise a lot of money this year.

And after being a victim of Karl Rove tactics, he decided to join them since he can't beat them, hiring Rove proteges.

Of course he flipped on the Bush tax cuts and now repudiates his previous immigration reform position.

So what's left of the Straight Talk Express?

Intersting points, although I have to be a bit skeptical that you were ever particularly supportive of the 2000 McCain in the first place I was more interested in hearing from someone who's become disenchanted with him...not more disenchanted than before Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

McCain-Feingold was initiated well before the 2000 campaign.

"Kissing up to the religious right" is hardly something that would seem to be a hypocritical position. If he were pro-choice and then turned to curry their favor, or if he became a born-again etc, I could see there being an issue. But he did nothing more than appeal to a constituency with rhetoric for the most part. It's nothing more than Obama did to appeal to disenchanted Hillarites, for example. Anwyay, I don't recall the 2000 McCain suggesting that he would completely ignore huge segments of the GOP base and not take their money. LOL

His "repudiation" of the immigration position is nothing more than putting border security first. He's still villainized by the Right for his current stand on the issue.

Pardon my lack of being impressed by hiring Little Karl's. He should go out and get one of those campagin professionals with an unblemished record of humanitarianism...like David Axelrod.

[Teal]

In many ways it was exactly what you'd expect when a law professor debates a governor. He was phlegmatic and theoretical, she was direct and practical.

Simple or plain spoken should never be accompanied with a simple mind. Palin has a simple mind. After 8 years of someone with that same attitude -- it scares me.

Unless John McCain wins, we won't see Sarah Palin again. She'll probably run for Senate in AK and be the lightening rod for the base but from now to the election, we won't see her.

But like I said, with the bar set in the gutter for Palin. When not being incompetent means you do well in a debate, what does that say about the candidate? We are rewarding mediocrity and simple-mindedness.

This 'incompetent' baloney is just that...baloney. She did quite well last night, not just 'not f***in up', as has been so eloquently said here by some...but some people just don't want to give her that. Oh well. It's not surprising.

[Teal]

Um, PK, I realize the front page makes it seem like a news story, but when you click on it, it does say Analysis in big letters before the title, as you said. And it also is reporting the results of a poll, so the headline makes sense.

Thanks for reinforcing my point. How many people are going to click through and see the "Analysis" label?

There are countless people who just do "drive-bys" of the CNN.com home page to check the headlines and move on to another site. I do it all the time. So if they see "Biden wins" as a lead news story, then many people out there who don't know the difference between reporting and analysis -- a trend accelerated by the blurred lines between both in today's media -- will assume that's a fact.

As a former reporter, I think it's flat-out devious and wrong.

Take care,
PK

It is. And it is designed to be.

[wco81]

No I wouldn't have supported McCain given his position on abortion and his general foreign policy outlook -- although I wonder if as president he would have gone to Iraq in the first place.

But at least he was for things like stem cell research and he probably would have had a much better environmental record than Bush. And despite his pro-life position, neither he nor the religious right liked each other.

His disenchantment with the cultural conservatives started when John Tower, his mentor, was taken down because Tower's lifestyle didn't conform to their standards.

As for using Rove, it's not about whether he was too principled to adopt Rovian tactics in 2000 but isn't so principled in 2008. It's more about being the victim of the tactics, when his adopted Indonesian daughter, was portrayed as being secretly black in South Carolina.

But he must have gotten over it, being the victim of such vile tactics.

[Teal]

I find it hilarious that people would say that 'McCain the Maverick' is dead, simply because he's got himself a conservative VP. Politicians want to get elected. Democrats need democrat votes. Republicans need republican votes. Both need a little of the other. Republicans who try to go after liberal voters are screwed. Democrats who try to go after conservative voters are screwed. Their bases simply will not go along with that, and if you try to build a house without a base, you're really an idiot of the first order.

John McCain got my conservative vote precisely WHEN he picked Sarah Palin, and not before. McCain isn't my cup 'o' tea. I like the guy sometimes, I want to throttle him sometimes, but he's much, much more like Joe Leiberman than George Bush. Much. I like Joe as well, but the base would have come unglued if he'd picked someone like Joe, because Joe is too much like John.

Some of you talk like John should pander to the left. Hello? What kind of idiotic move would that be? He's not running for the left wing-he's running for the West Wing, and he's a republican. He can't win with only the Log Cabin Republicans and people like Lincoln Chafee supporting him-he has to go for his base.

What's telling is that Obama is FIRMLY in his base's corner, and yet, no one seems to mind that. Biden is not a pick to draw him to the 'center', either-he's also firmly in the base's corner. That's Obama's choice, and I understand it. It also ensures that no fiscally conservative republican, nor blue dog democrat like Joe Leiberman, will vote for him. It's the way it works.

But being disqualified for pandering to your base? What kind of nonsense is that?

[RobVarak]

He's not running for the left wing-he's running for the West Wing...

OK, who gave Jesse Jackson access to Teal's DSP account?