By his/her works shall you know him/her
I dig the Republicans making this election about personality rather than issues, because it’s what they do. It’s what they understand. Nothing sinister about it, it’s just an argument that sort of person finds more persuasive. So Barack + proximity to William Aires = “hates America” for them fairly easily.
I just don’t get it. You look at his life, and what has he done that makes these people think he hates America or that he’s some sorta secret sleeper cell terrorist or something? It’s an indicator of how conservatives dominate the discussion that this isn’t asked much. What is it about Obama that says he hates America? you’d ask. And in some sense I guess some prominent pundits have already answered it…I seem to remember Sean Hannity saying he is afraid that, in his heart, Obama doesn’t love America, or similar.
Meanwhile you get this:
Palin touts stance on ‘Bridge to Nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop: Politics | adn.com
Meanwhile, Weinstein noted, the state is continuing to build a road on Gravina Island to an empty beach where the bridge would have gone — because federal money for the access road, unlike the bridge money, would have otherwise been returned to the federal government.
So 1) not only did she support the Bridge to Nowhere, but 2) she is currently in support of a road to nowhere. Why? Because if Alaska didn’t use the money, they’d have to give it back. So not only is the “thanks but no thanks” a lie, but it covers up a greater falsehood: she’ll keep Federal money and burn it on something useless.
But somehow, in many people’s minds, the perky scrappy hockey mom image wins.
September 16th, 2008 07:16
‘It’s an indicator of how conservatives dominate the discussion that this isn’t asked much.’
Could it be that the main stream media is liberal and does not want to ask the questions or probe too deeply?
When the Palin vetting stories broke the response was that we had 19 months of Obama. But yet, there is hardly any investigative journalistic pieces on his community organizing days or his various relationships despite some puzzling facts.
And have you seen where the bridge was supposed to go? I can see why roads should be built but who’s idea was it to build an airport on the other side of the water? I guess the guy who owned the land had something to say about that.
September 16th, 2008 10:04
No. No, it could not. The fact that there’s a widespread notion that the MSM is liberal is also an indicator of how conservatives dominate the discussion. Though your example actually does illustrate something…
Much of the opposition that Palin has gotten has been investigative in nature, looking at her background, things she’s done, etc. Much of Obama’s opposition has been character-based in nature: is he a patriot, does he wear a flag pin, DOES HE LOVE AMERICA??!?!, etc. The investigative attacks are liberal-fu, and the character attacks are conservative-fu. So the opposition is possibly driving the media narrative more than I thought.
This is why it drives me nuts that Palin isn’t laughed off the public stage: because it should be clear to anyone with eyes to see that she’s a bad choice to be president, as we learn more about what she’s done. But that sort of argument works for me, but not for the people who think she’s a Great Gal with Small Town Values. And conversely, the argument that Obama secretly hates America and his wife isn’t patriotic enough just doesn’t work on me, so I imagine that must drive conservatives nuts as well, that I can’t see what they think is obviously in plain sight.
So really, that’s probably why you think the media is liberal. Because the sorts of arguments that don’t hold weight with you jump out more, and it looks like bias. And I’d say the same for me, except I have evidence to the contrary.
For any of those sources, a conservative could disregard the data out of hand, on the basis that “well yeah, but that’s ______, which is biased.” Which is a circular argument that brings me back to the beginning: it illustrates how conservatives dominate the discussion.
September 16th, 2008 21:16
spinn…what is so wrong with Gov Palin? why would you think she should be laughed off the public stage?
as for the liberal/conservative balance…the evidence just shows that the majority of America is conservative and they support the programming that goes with their thinking…there are plenty of polls that show the overwhelming number of liberal/democrats in the MSM…the reason more shows are showing up with a conservative lean is because of ratings, they are driven by ratings and the money it brings…and yeah, you are right, the sources of those three pieces made my eyes roll back into my head…sheesh…
September 17th, 2008 08:46
Judging from the last few elections it seem that just about 50% of the electorate is conservative. Although, ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ don’t quite cut it anymore. I don’t think the ’small government’ vs. ‘big government’ difference applies like it used to. More and more it seems the split is ‘people who think faith should drive government’ vs ‘people who think faith should get the hell out of government’.
I don’t really watch The Media anymore. I gave up when I thought they were asking me to accept their facts on faith. Conservative vitriol and evangelistic government, that’s entertainment. Apparently ~50% of the nation believes it’s real and that it represents middle America.
September 17th, 2008 13:31
Yeah. The evidence does not show that the majority of Americans are conservative, but really, you’re not going to believe any of the evidence I give you.
But in my opinion, what’s wrong with Palin? Much of what’s wrong with Bush, actually, and should’ve gotten him impeached a long time ago: for one, an apparent disregard for accountability. She was under investigation for something, and now (as represented by the McCain camp) she’s stonewalling for very Bush-like reasons. I am amazed they’re saying “we’re not going to cooperate with this investigation because we think it’ll be unfair.” Gah, can you imagine if you were arrested for something and you refused to go to court because “I don’t think the judge will be fair”? How do these people get away with disregarding the law?
September 17th, 2008 14:59
Oh and what else about Palin: the lying. McCain said she took no earmarks as governor, which is demonstrably false. She said she “told Congress ‘thanks but no thanks’ for that Bridge to Nowhere”, as if Congress suddenly arbitrarily decided to drop a bridge in Alaska and she valiantly stopped the wasteful spending, which is demonstrably false. She said Alaska is responsible for 20% of America’s energy production which is demonstrably false, and then when called on it, she clarified by saying “20% of oil and gas production” which is also demonstrably false.
September 17th, 2008 15:28
Oh ho! No, wait, what really bothers me about Palin, is the rank hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans that she represents. It’s the big, white-hot searing ball of anger that got me started on her in the first place.
Really. Imagine how our liberal media would handle it if a spokesperson for Obama said that he wouldn’t give an interview to the press until they approached him “with some level of respect and deference.” Karl Rove has nothing for praise for Palin and says she’s ready and a great choice for VP, but just imagine if Obama had picked a similarly-experienced governor for his VP, what would Rove say? Oh, right, you don’t have to imagine. And even on the stupid crap I don’t give a damn about, they like messing with my head: now Palin has been wearing a flag pin roughly the size of a dinner plate, but I don’t recall seeing her wear a flag pin in pictures before she was the VP nominee; another staunch media liberal, Bill O’Reilly, blames Jamie Lynn Spears’ parents for her pregnancy because they’re out of control of their daughter, but on the topic of Palin’s daughter, suddenly it’s a private business and no one should even be discussing it.
There are more, but I’ve already risked too much of my work day in finding sources. But yeah, it’s the parade of hypocrisy that really gets me.
September 17th, 2008 17:57
MikeG: I had a boss once, several years ago, who claimed that the media was liberal because they didn’t depict horrific events graphically enough. It seems that just about anyone who calls the media “liberal” has their own weird definitions of what “liberal” is.
So if I’m reading your first post correctly, you’re saying that the media is liberal because reporters aren’t aggressive and thorough and critical enough. Thus, it’s somehow the passiveness that makes it liberal, even though that passiveness is caused by the deference to conservative governance that has developed over the last decade. There’s something weird about arbitrarily classifying particular behavioral attributes as “conservative” or “liberal” and then completely ignoring the philosophies and ideals of the people manipulating the media.
Anyway, there are plenty of reasons why Palin would make a terrible vice president, but I really hate to repeat myself, so you can read my feelings on the subject on my website.
September 17th, 2008 19:16
J Crowley…no…I meant liberal by the standard political term. Bigger government, we don’t trust you so we will do things for you, we will raise your children because we know better, wealth is a limited resource meant to be shared, wealth is evil, you failed because someone held you down, no need for personal responsibility…shall I go on?
Besides your obvious hatred of anything Republican or about Gov Palin and the various negative stories which seem to get cleared up and then we all move on to the next negative story, what exactly do you base this hatred on? You are equally outraged by Sen Obama or Sen Biden, I presume for some of their actions?
September 17th, 2008 20:07
MikeG, please remember that people holding liberal political values do not, as you imply, think Plato was on to something with that Republic thing of his.
Or at least, if you’re going to tar all liberals with a bunch of straw men, spice it up a bit with some praise. Open-minded, educated, and charitable are some adjectives that come to mind. Or maybe, to fit with your prose: “provide for your age and infirmity, provide free education to all children, and ensure that all workers have safe working conditions and receive decent wages.”
September 17th, 2008 21:57
And how is the press demonstrating this “liberality”, as you define it (which, well, includes most politicians who identify as “conservative”), by not asking Sarah Palin the tough questions?
It’s really great that you’ve apparently always received whatever the reward was that you respected for the work that you did. And it’s even better that you’ve decided to extrapolate your own personal experience to be representative of all things, apparently under the assumption that if everyone all worked equally hard, they’d ALL be promoted to president of all the companies in the world, and there would be no janitors or fast food workers.
And that’s the thing, you want everyone else to compete with you and succeed, right? Or did you just not stop to realize that your philosophy can’t possibly accommodate everyone succeeding? If you truly believe that all people have precisely equal opportunities and that any application of hard work will nullify any contextual situations in which a person might find themselves, and that there is ONLY personal responsibility, then do you REALLY want them all to actually apply themselves? Or are you deluded enough to believe that there’s an infinite amount of success in the world and that everyone can simultaneously be presidents of every corporation?
What makes you think you’re going to somehow be one of the select few “at the top” if laissez-faire economic policies are implemented? What makes you feel that business isn’t just itself another form of government, but one that doesn’t have that awful burden of democratic oversight? (Forgive me if I’m making assumptions about some of the philosophies you subscribe to, but if it walks and talks like a Randroid…)
There are just so many things wrong with the idea that “all it takes is hard work, and poor people are just lazy” that anyone who espouses such ridiculous shittery immediately loses whatever respect or potential respect I might have for them. So sorry if I’m a bit harsh, but grow the fuck up and reacquaint yourself with reality.
September 18th, 2008 06:25
MikeG said, “I meant liberal by the standard political term. Bigger government, we don’t trust you so we will do things for you, we will raise your children because we know better, wealth is a limited resource meant to be shared, wealth is evil, you failed because someone held you down, no need for personal responsibility…shall I go on?”
This is another blurring of these categories of liberal and conservative, because I would transpose to “I meant liberal by the standard political term. Smaller government, we don’t trust you to understand us so we’ll provide not mechanisms for transparency or accountability for your tax dollar, we will control your reproductive rights because single moms can’t be trusted to make the right decisions, we will educate your children so that they learn that faith-based evidence is a valid as fact-based evidence, and you all should just be working hard because it’s obvious that consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few tax sheltered uber-rich will someday trickle down and create more crap jobs without pensions or insurance security.”
I don’t see any big vs small here. Just morality wars.
September 18th, 2008 13:06
No, you shall not. If you’re going to reduce this to a “liberals walk like this, but conservatives walk like this” comedy routine, then there’s no point having this discussion.
Bush has spent way too much time bloating the government, endorsing illegal surveillance and torture, and telling us to trust the government, for you to suggest the librruls have exclusive rights to creating big government that knows what’s good for you.
September 19th, 2008 11:18
Frankly, as soon as it became a name-calling game, the discussion was over. Actually liberalism is very little of what mikeg claimed, as far as a standard political term. Traditionally, in a delicious twist, the Republicans were the liberals of the country, with Lincoln as the standard carrier. The poli-sci definition of liberalism actually promotes free-market systems, with regulation and protections in place to prevent the fuckstupid things that are happening today on Wall Street. Liberalism promotes less government interference in citizens’ lives, holding the concepts of freedom of speech/religion/thought sacrosanct. Rule of law is the ultimate political power, and fair interpretation of those laws for each and every citizen.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are rooted in tradition and status quo. Preserving a culture or perceived ideologies are paramount to a conservative thinker, and politically speaking this translates to a depowered central government, with states being the arbiters of their own fates. Ironically, many of the economic and political “values” espoused by modern US conservatives were originally very liberal policies. The problem is that nowadays, there are many cultural and religious conservatives that have an undue amount of influence over the Republican party, and have corrupted conservatism to being a repressive, anti-counter-thought philosophy.
You seem like an intelligent guy, mikey, it makes me sad to see someone so devoid of critical thought parroting ad hominem attacks and partisan pablum like you do. Oh, and by the way, there is very little evidence that the majority of Americans are conservative. There is very strong evidence, however, that the majority of the voters in America are either conservative (unlikely) or too apathetic/lazy/busy to actually critically inform themselves abotu the candidates, and instead vote based on personality, hearsay, or with their metaphorical dick. “He’s the kind of guy I’d have a beer with” is not a good basis for voting for a leader.
September 19th, 2008 15:04
Fuck ‘em all. It’s all gonna end soon anyway.
September 19th, 2008 15:52
You mean in November, or are you still holding out for the Large Hadron Collider / black hole theory?
September 19th, 2008 15:54
^— Me
Dammit, I was logged in and everything!!
September 20th, 2008 10:20
I fear neither the Hadron Collider nor black hole theory. And it won’t stop per se in November — our society is already in the process of completely ending. How will it go down? I am not sure. I’m standing by and watching like the rest of you.
In summary: Don’t put any stock into what these overpriced meat puppets are spewing out of their cakeholes. Focus on the fact that you’re being lied to everyday and go from there.
September 20th, 2008 12:03
Yeah, if you can’t admit that you’re confused, intimidated and terrified, then make yourself a veneer of cynicism to try to keep some clutch on the myth that you’re clever. Well played.
September 20th, 2008 13:39
K: We will all be blown up by a giant insect space ship hijacked by a gay, jealous, homicidal robot head.
September 20th, 2008 13:48
Joe: What’s amusing, though, about conservatives trying to preserve a particular culture is that their ideal is oftentimes just a fantasy. I’m pretty sure people never actually behaved the way they want us all to behave, and though the 1950s — the decade many of them seem to look to as a bastion of their values — was rather socially terrible in many of the ways that get them hot and bothered, it wasn’t as thoroughly oppressive as the nightmare they’d have us live given the power to do so. Conservatives and liberals are all trying to change and shape the country into something different than what it currently is — it’s just that liberals seem to have a greater respect for individual freedom in mind.
September 21st, 2008 23:34
We will all be blown up by a giant insect space ship hijacked by a gay, jealous, homicidal robot head.
For the record, I am not gay.
September 24th, 2008 08:32
Actually I too think we’re headed for the demise of our culture. I keep a mental catalogue of all the little signs of the end of various civilizations and we’re positively bursting at the seams with them. Really, we couldn’t have expected to stay on the top for too long, history shows quite clearly that no society really lasts. I will confess it’s all happening way quicker than I thought, though. But hey, if you’re Hindu it’s all up from here. I, for one, hold with Hesiod.