What do McCain voters know?
Remember that sobering poll of Obama voters? Several people (myself included) were interested in a similar poll of McCain voters. A reader alerted me to the fact that such a poll is now available, here.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
I can’t say I’m surprised. One probably predict voting preferences by polling whether the voter reads People magazine.
Er…make that “One could probably predict…”
Interesting poll results – and about what I was guessing would be the case.
Not the specific numbers mind you, but rather which side got more questions right or wrong on average and was better informed, and that opinion was based upon my personal discussions with a wide variety of supporters of The Chosen One both before and after the election.
Also interesting in light of a(n attempted) slam that occurred in another subject under discussion on this site wherein a reliance upon Fox or CNN was ridiculed by another poster – laughable in that instance all the more so because I had not mentioned news sources at all in the discussion.
So, we now know that on average Obamadisciples are not as well informed of the facts as those supporting candidates on the political right.
What do we do about it, and where do we go from here? I’m not sure education will work where left leaning political dogma is concerned.
Well, I actually happen to agree that the media was somewhat biased in favor of Obama, but one has to also point out that the questions in the survey were heavily biased (and one of the questions was simply incorrect; i.e., the “correct” answer was just wrong.) Since most of the questions were anti-Obama talking points, it’s obviously not surprising that McCain supporters would be more likely to know the “correct” answer to such questions, as these talking points were much more heavily promoted to McCain supporters. As such, the survey means little or nothing when it comes to measuring how “informed” McCain vs Obama supporters are.
For example, how many McCain supporters know that McCain gave the keynote speech at an ACORN rally in 2006? How many McCain supporters know that he supports a cap and trade scheme which would have had a very similar effect on new coal plants as the one Obama supports? How many McCain supporters know he had the worst attendance record in the United States Senate? How many McCain supporters know that he cheated on his wife while he was still married? Etc.
I have gotten the weird feeling, speaking to some O supporters and BDS sufferers that they have a cognitive thing going on.
They know they really know the truth but they force themselves to believe its opposite.
I’m not sure I’m right, but the dancing when I point out the truth indicates not a desire to correct me as to the truth as to avoid it. If they really believed what they claim to believe, they’d try to straighten me out.
Dodging, instead, means…?
The key question was who controls congress not the various mudslinging issues. This is not necessarily a partisan issue, but a fact (of considerable imporatance I would think).
This proably arises from the “Name that Party” problem that Glenn Reynolds always has fun with at Instapundit When the Dems are doing poorly, the MSM and associates do not mention their party affiliation or blame all the problems on the Republicans.
Here in CT we’ve had a Supermajority of Democrats in the Legislature for the past two years, but I can guarantee that in the last election (where their numbers increased) people thought they needed to throw out the Republicans!
(and one of the questions was simply incorrect; i.e., the “correct” answer was just wrong.)
Which one? or dont you want us to show you your wrong again?
Since most of the questions were anti-Obama talking points
anything that shows obama supporters in their real light as ignorant useful idiots would make obama not look good.
please let us know which questions were anti-obama.
because for the most part, i had a hard time knowing what inforamtion was on the mccain side. his level of coverage was a lot less than obama.
by the way, nice negation of all the work withuot any real refutation…
For example, how many McCain supporters know that McCain gave the keynote speech at an ACORN rally in 2006?
in 2006 no one knew what acorn was doing… and mccain was on the outside, while obama TRAINED AND WORKED FOR THEM FROM THE INSIDE…
How many McCain supporters know that he supports a cap and trade scheme which would have had a very similar effect on new coal plants as the one Obama supports?
i did.. but your wrong on whether it had a similar effect.. little differences can translate to huge differences in outcomes… and the left is incredibly bad on merit, empiricism, valid concepts, and more… so its no wonder that if you cant see the difference between an invited speaker who has the opportunity to perhaps gain vots from the other side, and an internal planner, trainer and legal council on payroll, then you cant see the differences in cap and trade either.
How many McCain supporters know he had the worst attendance record in the United States Senate?
i did… but i also know how that half truth was played with…
Barack Obama missed 185 of 1098 votes (17%) since Jan 6, 2005.
Hillary Clinton missed 152 of 2406 votes (6%) since Jan 23, 2001.
John McCain missed 592 of 3720 votes (16%) since Jan 22, 1997.
ah… the numbers come out different if you look at their whole careers, rather than just the matching tmie periods, which would pit obamas whole career against only a small part of mccains…
and THATS Why the right knows more… they dont stop at just the half truth that you do mitsu…
and yet… shall we lay odds that he wont get it?
then again, mitsu doesnt know what they did to his education, cause mitsu didnt self educate around the crap…
H.L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury (April 1924) that “the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim . . . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.”
know menken mitsu? neo and he have something in common… 🙂
How many McCain supporters know that he cheated on his wife while he was still married?
so what? your left guy got semen stains in the oval office and school kids will get to see that in the smithsonian as parents wonder how to describe to their youngins the cigar jokes…
and shall we talk about the gay man mcgreevy, who used his wife as a beard? and john kennedy who cheated on his wife with several. and ted kennedy?
i can give you a huge list of dems that have done worse… care to read about the dems and the kkk?
and you want the right to be so pure so that your side can win because we have no Galahad?
by the way…
can you tell us who paid for obamas school?
[before you say that he didnt go to a madrassa, let me inform you that my wife is indonesian, and i was there this past year… my bahasa isnt that good though]
he first went to an indonesian school… right?
that was till he was 10… then he came to the US and he attended school while living with his grandmom…
what was that school? Punahou School
a private school… he mom is divorced single mother who is not wealthy who marries a indonesian man whose country recalls him back there and somehow, he comes from a school there and can get into a private school…
my wifes education is not accepted here… and she is not poor indonesian, her family has factories in china, and has family who have served high in office. she went to private school in indonesia..
the school that obama attended in indonesia is not the one the wealthy go to, its the common one… which is different…
so his new dad isnt wealthy… his mom is not wealthy and works for the embassy… and he comes back to the US and now he is in a private school… (so much for his average joe roots).
then he went to occidental college… (what a history)…
then columbia (what another leftist pip central)… care to know the tuition of these two schools?
and he attended harvard…
his family is dirt poor… he grandmother was not wealthy… his mom wasnt either… and his shool experience normally wouldnt have allowed him entry to private school..
so how did he get all this top education and such and not have to pay for it?
its your turn mitsu…
tuition today for puhhaou is 16,000 a year… its a school like manhattens dalton school.
they get a HUGELY different education in these schools (i did some consulting for dalton)
harvard tuition today is around 33,000
columbias is all over the map depending on what your taking, but its also in the same class.
so your talking about almost a million…
then there is rezko… care to tell us something about rezko and be honest.
its your turn mitsu.
I think you missed the point, Mitsu. In the earlier segment, Obama voters were unaware of Obama’s policies, and attributed ones they didn’t like to McCain.
So they didn’t know their own guy’s positions. It’s not a matter of talking points, but just basic information about what you’re voting for.
Mitsu,
We knew all of that. We knew our candidate wasn’t perfect. We knew that he supported shamensty and was part of the gang of 14 and was exonerated from any wrongdoing in the keating 5 stuff.
But how can a question of who has controlled Congress be SOOOOOO biased that Obama voters can’t get that simple question right as much as they didn’t?
Biased on that question too?
All polls have a bias if you will.
How many Obama supporters knew Obama voted present 45% of the time, has had ZERO executive experience. And with his ‘legislative’ experience has nothing to point to to say “here is why you are voting for me”.
His policies have people divesting in preparation for the capital gains tax rate increase, hording funds, spending less to prepare for a tax increase, bracing themselves for the negative impact on the economy that tax rate increases would have.
Fannie and Freddie donated to him more than anyone except Chris Dodd and Obama supports to this day teaser rates for home loans to lower income people with no money down.
John McCain was hardly an oppositional candidate. He was looked at by the popular culture as old and nobody cared that he was ‘moderate’ or ‘centrist’ and reached across the aisle more than any other Republican Senator.
They wanted change no matter if they stated change had people divesting and bracing.
Divesting and Bracing is what you get Mitsu !@ Thanks. 🙂
There is also the issue that everyone knew the anti Palin talking points… while only some knew the anti Obama talking points… which is THE point, this is what the media focused on reporting… ergo, it is what the people knew.
Bottom line: Obama’s not fit to pack McCain’s lunch, but McCain got voted off the island.
The MSM four year to late finally got their man into office. Predictions, 1/22/2009, we will start hearing about the evils of filibusters, we will hear how tax increases are the will of the people, we will hear about “greening of the economy” is a mandate and we will hear nothing about how bad the economy is or the level of unemployment.
Well, I actually happen to agree that the media was somewhat biased in favor of Obama, but one has to also point out
You are such a stand up guy, Mitsu. But the thing I wonder at is whether you actually believe you can maintain your “moderate” status by moderating the truth and making it less than the full truth.
Since most of the questions were anti-Obama talking points
I don’t know about you, Mitsu, but getting the correct party for control of Congress correct isn’t an anti-Obama talking point to me.
o Voters in the “South” had the best response rate on “congressional control” (+22).
o Voters in the “Northeast” had the worst response rate on “congressional control” (+9).
o Those “exposed” to Fox News voted 70-29 for McCain.
o Those “exposed” to CNN voted 63-37 for Obama.
o Those “exposed” to MSNBC voted 73-26 for Obama.
o Those “exposed” to network newscasts voted 62-37 for Obama.
o Those “exposed” to national newspapers voted 64-36 for Obama.
o Those “exposed” to talk radio voted 61-38 for McCain.
Those “exposed” to Fox News got “congressional control” correct 64-25 (+39).
Those “exposed” to talk radio got “congressional control” correct 61-29 (+32).
It is very hard to get the truth out when people like you see such media distortion and lying as “somewhat biased”. They are very biased, and what’s more, they aren’t biased towards getting the truth out to the American public.
You can party on about how this isn’t a problem for democracy all you want, Mitsu, but that right may not be there for ya in the future given the support of people like you for mass propaganda campaigns.
>Obama’s policies
The questions were mostly things like, did you know Biden plagiarized, etc. In other words, negative talking points about Obama-Biden, far more likely to be known by McCain-Palin voters. My list were simply examples of talking points about McCain that McCain voters might not know. The survey was for the most part not useful in determining overall levels of political knowledge but rather awareness of negative talking points.
As for my moderate views, I’ve listed them at length. Obama is a man of my political proclivity… centrist and bipartisan and pragmatic as you can see from his appointments so far. Even Neo has noticed Obama’s moderation. It’s where I stand politically and proudly so.
McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
o Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
o Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
o Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama.
Banana republics favor manipulation and power over an informed and educated citizenry. It’s sad to see Americans favoring the same thing as coup de tat nations.
The nice thing about Main Sewer Media lies and manipulations of weak minded people is that if you can convince Obama supporters that Republicans control Congress, you are more likely to be able to blame economic problems on Republicans. Which is a good thing for Democrat power plays.
Mind you, Mitsu, there is a clear difference between bias and Democrat power plays. You are biased, but that doesn’t change the fact of how people were manipulated by organs you see as no problem.
Mitsu, let’s look at the facts.
Here are the issues on the video:
1. Who controls Congress?
2. Who is Barney Frank?
3. Who is Nancy Pelosi?
4. Who is Harry Reid?
5. Which candidate’s wardrobe was purchased by the candidate’s party?
6. Which one has a pregnant daughter?
7. Which one said Russia was visible from his/her door?
8. Which one said he/she would campaign in all 57 states?
9. Which one said Obama would be tested in the first six months?
10. Which one previously had all of his/her opponents kicked off the ballot?
11. Which one wound down his Presidential campaign when he was caught plagiarizing a speech?
12. Which one said his policies would bankrupt the coal industry?
13. Which one said he would redistribute the wealth?
14. Who is Bill Ayers?
Anyone who whiffed on any of 1-4 shouldn’t be allowed to vote, imo.
Numbers 5-7 were aimed (accurately) at People’s readership and SNL’s viewership.
Numbers 8, 9, 12, and 13 should have been trivial for anyone who followed the campaign at all, and are direct quotes from the Messiah and his sidekick.
Numbers 10 and 11 are pretty obscure, certainly so for low-information voters (such as those who missed questions 1-4).
Number 14 I’ll give you is a pro-American talking point, so I wouldn’t expect Dems to get it.
So, on balance, the data do not support your thesis.
Mitsu without perspective wrote, “As for my moderate views, I’ve listed them at length. Obama is a man of my political proclivity… centrist and bipartisan and pragmatic”
John McCain was the moderate running for President. What you heard (and believed) was Obama talking about John McCain and lying about John McCain’s positions as Obama painted McCain to be on the right.
Obama is far from a centrist based on his STATED policy positions.
Yes, Obama has appointed a few surprising people but there are also some liberals in the mix of appointments (Hillary herself).
Hopefully Obama on inaguration day apologizes for his stated policies which had people DIVESTING and BRACING themselves for the future bad policies.
He should apologize and then explain his economic understanding was poor and has now brought himself up to speed so he won’t put the nation through any more divesting and bracing…
In other words, negative talking points about Obama-Biden, far more likely to be known by McCain-Palin voters.
That’s a nice attempt to explain how Palin voters heard the same things about Palin as Obama voters, but it doesn’t really cut it, Mitsu.
I know you want to exercise your special interest privileges on this topic by planting an argument on how things were evenly divided between the two groups: signifying no real problem or difference between McCain and Obama voters.
McCain voters knew the negatives of both candidates and their VPs, while Obama voters only really knew the negatives about McCain and Sarah. This is a healthy democracy to people like you, Mitsu, because you live in a cloud and you look down on the rest of us but you don’t really see things in enough detail to get things right. You focus on the “big picture” while thinking rivers are columns of men and volcanoes are misty lakes. That would make for an interesting big picture. It is just one fussy mess that looks like whatever you want it to look like, and currently it looks like it is about even to you. Well, people who sit on a high fence tend to want to believe everything is balanced around them, but after looking at the raw data in this poll, that’s hard to do. (At least, it should be hard to do)
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
A couple of interesting data points I found concerns when you look at the MQ.
The sample of 18-20s peeps were pretty small, about 9%, so the 3% diff between those in that demographic who voted for Obama over McCain can be discounted or at least held in disbelief for the moment. Although it is predictable that a higher sample (100 or 80%) of 18-25 year olds would probably produce more ignorance, given the fact that these people just don’t have the time or the life experience to pay attention to certain political quesitons.
However, those older than 75 voted for McCain with a 61% to 38% gap. Old people vote for old people, perhaps. Although it’s more like the WWII generation voting for a veteran, in my view. Then there’s the male vs female break down, which lists men, 18-54, at 49% to 51% in favor of Obama. Males 55+ favors McCain at 56 to 43, however. The female 18-54 shows the biggest gap, with 57% to 42%. More and more evidence starts to show that females would rather vote for men they find attractive or strong than over other women. Which is something Republicans already know, yet we are still accused of choosing Sarah because we thought it would win us women votes. If we wanted to win women votes, we would have found a Republican Clinton or Reagan. But ah, I guess you can’t expect Democrats to expect that out of dumb white trash or hillbillies that don’t have the right education (to know which party controls Congress).
Females 55+ showed an even higher gap, with 41% to 58%. So it is not as if age played a part.
The people polled had to rate themselves as strongly Republican or strongly Democrat, with the usual shades in between. 3% of strong Republicans voted Obama. 4% of strong Democrats voted Sarah.
Now, what the GOP needs to do is to find those 3% “strong Republicans” and purge them from the party. They make up neglible percentage of the total GOP vote roll, yet they hold predominantly more power and influence than the party faithful. Much of what the “strong GOP” contingent has done in the last few years have been blamed on the GOP “base”, which is rather interesting. As for those who rated themselves strongly Democrat and still voted for McCain, it is vital to GOP to find out the reasons for which they would shuck Democrat tradition (and social ostracization combined with verbal abuse) to vote Republican. Those are the kinds of people you want to get if you want new ideas on how to make the party more attractive to others. There must be a strong reason for those that rate themselves staunch Democrats that they would vote for Sarah and McCain. The GOP needs to find that reason, and I dare say that it can’t just be Pumas. Although certainly that helped and perhaps is the difference between a 4% that went to McCain over a minor 2% or 1%.
Those that rated themselves only slightly Democrat also favored (voted) McCain more than those that rated themselves softly Republican did for Obama. It was 6 percentage points of difference. Not statistically very important, but still, informative. (Plus or minus 3.5% error means to me that the errors can be as high as 7 percent. Unlikely, but still.)
If I am reading this chart correctly on the congressional control diff for those that said Congress was controlled by Republicans or Democrats, then the raw data here is very interesting. Confusing, but interesting.
For one thing, males 55 plus said Democrats controlled Congress by a 64 to 24 gap. The female gap was only 40 for Republican control of congress and 43% who said Democrats controlled Congress. This is either some flawed reading on my part, flawed reading from the way the data was calculated (although how that would have happened, I have no idea), or just one of those weird statistical flukes that may or may not impact the final results. Personally, given the small sample size, I would have to say we had some outliers in the male age range between 65-74 that ended up skewing the raw data sums. The 65-74 age range, both male and female, was said to have answered the Congress control question by 19% for Repubs and 66% for Demos. Compare this with the 18-34 crowd that had 39% saying Repubs and 47% saying Demos. Since 75+ aged people had a more sane distribution of 37% vs 47% on Repubs controlling Congress to Demos controlling Cong, it is seems more like a fluke statistical thing.
Also, who “controls” Congress is, of course, a really bad question. The word ‘control’ has more than one meaning. It would have been better to say who has the majority of seats in Congress, both Senate and House.
But even the results from that question is interesting, for a person that believes Republicans control a Congress that has many Democrats in it tends to go into things like Halliburton and Bush being the organizer for 9/11 (or Dick Cheney). Or maybe they believe the President decides who controls Congress or not *shrugs*.
The ambiguous question would probably give as much as 20-40% difference in poll results. It has been statistically proven that 22% of an population will believe in all the weird conspiracies and Nigerian scams available. This applies to Democrats as well as Republicans. This hasn’t hurt the Democrats, however, much in the public perception.
This is relevant given the poll results “conclusions”.
McCain voters knew which party controls congress by a 63-27 margin.
o Obama voters got the “congressional control” question wrong by 43-41.
o Those that got “congressional control” correct voted 56-43 for McCain.
o Those that got “congressional control” wrong voted 65-35 for Obama
The totals for Obama voters and McCain voters are close to the data summarization. In Obama’s case, they listed it as 45 to 38 and in the summary they say 43 to 41. Whatever. What this means is that “those that got congressional control correct” voted only 56% for McCain because many people who got the Congress question right voted for Obama, including the women of all ages. The women actually knew the correct party for Congress more than the men, but the men voted for Obama by huge differences while the men 55+ actually voted for McCain more than Obama.
I’m not sure how you can look at those questions and come to the conclusion they do not support my thesis. 1-4 are general knowledge questions, 5-7 are anti-McCain/Palin talking points, and 8-14 are anti-Obama/Biden talking points, of varying degrees of obscurity. So, clearly, far more questions were about anti-Obama rather than anti-McCain talking points. The ostensible point of the survey is that more people were aware of the anti-McCain/Palin talking points than the anti-Obama/Biden talking points. This may well be true, but there are plenty of obscure anti-McCain/Palin talking points to choose from (which is why I listed some examples, above) which could have been chosen for the survey, which may well have skewed the results the other way. It’s impossible to objectively assess whether some of these talking points ought to have been publicized more, but there’s no question this survey is heavily weighted towards questions which are anti-Obama/Biden.
Females 55+ showed an even higher gap, with 41% to 58%. So it is not as if age played a part.
Elaboration, I am preferring, of course, to the great big gap between male and female voters in the poll. Female voters, of all ages, voted for Obama over McCain. Even the 120 people aged 18-34 something voted for Obama over McCain at only a 2-4 % advantage.
http://www.w-r-s.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/ziegler_news-coverage-survey_xtabs2_081125.pdf
I also used the raw data sums, rather than the executive summary. What the executive summary does is slant your perception by telling you what the data says before you even see the sum of the poll answers.
That may not be a good idea. When I’m analyzing data, I would prefer not to have somebody else’s conclusions in my face as I am perusing the data.
That is why it is the “executive summary”. It is for the executives to know what the data means after looking at it in one long gulp: not for the actual data massagers.
I also don’t like how the poll “weighted” the data by discarding answers because they wanted to make the numbers more evenly match up to the Presidential polls.
If you look at the demographics on Rural vs Urban or Strong Republicans vs Strong Democrats, you would already know to what extent this poll has been skewed towards the Dems.
More rural pop means more strong Repubs. More urban sample percentage means more strong Dems and more Obama voters.
But, given today’s educational requirements, I suppose the poll can be excused for trying to dumb down the data summaries for folks. Some of them desperately need it.
So, clearly, far more questions were about anti-Obama rather than anti-McCain talking points.
Your idea of what constitutes “anti-Obama” and “anti-McCain” is sort of like ice. It melts when faced with the beam of truth.
These are not premises you can simply get away with via assumptions, Mitsu. Unless you have argued and acquired concessions from us on what anti-Obama and anti-McCain questions are, do you really believe you can steal a march on the debate by simply getting us to use your assumptions as the battlefield?
If I could always get my opponent to use my assumptions in an argument, I assure you, Mitsu, it wouldn’t be much of an argument.
Mitsu, I don’t see it that way at all. The points were a) the ignorance of Obama supporters, and b) the complicity of the MSM. The data amply bear out both.
Questions 1-4 set a very low bar for knowledge, and yet most respondents on the video whiffed. That’s shockingly ignorant.
The anti-Palin talking points comprise assorted trivia and/or misinformation (the Russia viewing thing) that had no bearing whatever on her fitness for office.
The “57 states” remark falls in that class for Obama, but I think you’re fair-minded enough to admit it would have have rocketed to prominence had Palin made it. That it didn’t achieve that prominence speaks to the complicity of the MSM, point b).
Contrast questions 5-7 with questions 9-13. The former are devoid of implications, whereas the latter all bear directly on fitness for office, and raise questions that the media should have investigated and reported on it depth – but didn’t.
Specifically, Obama’s being tested in the first six months (a quote from his running mate, no less) raises the question of whether and how he’ll meet that test.
Obama’s getting opponents kicked off the ballot and Biden’s plagiarism speak to values and integrity, matters a bit weightier than wardrobe.
Bankrupting the coal industry and redistributing the wealth are core issues that people should consider, and again, are a bit weightier than whether a candidate’s daughter is pregnant (although I want to go on the record now: if one of Obama’s daughters get knocked up in the next four years I’m going to laugh my ass off).
Surely you can see the difference in heft between the anti-Palin and anti-Obama/Biden points?
To reiterate, the point was that Obamanauts are incredibly ignorant, and/or full of fluffy rubbish poured into them by a complicit MSM that assiduously avoided doing any real reporting. There’s really no avoiding that conclusion.
It’s impossible to objectively assess whether some of these talking points ought to have been publicized more, but there’s no question this survey is heavily weighted towards questions which are anti-Obama/Biden.
Ah, Mitsu, still trying to move the goal posts. A nice attempt in the art of propaganda, I grant you that, but no good for those that actually know what the data in these polls mean (without being told beforehand).
It is impossible for you to objectively assess the statistical relevance and skew results of different samples of different questions asked in one way as opposed to another. Thus it is impossible for you to claim that this has any result, one way or the other, on the poll result, for you have no idea how the questions skew the results one way as opposed to another.
Now, I, however, already know what the skew results are because i’ve looked at the raw data and figured it out. It is not impossible for me, though I grant that it can very well be impossible for you.
For a guy that wants to talk about how polls are weighed one way or another, Mitsu, do you really think your high fence sitting position is the correct spot from which to launch such an argument? And do you really believe that saying if the survey was skewed the way you described, the results would have been the opposite? Speculation is your forte, yes, but up against the hard data, including the raw data, of the survey? That speculation becomes much less useful.
In fact, I can use the hard data of the survey, the actual data not the hypothetical talking points you described, to argue your position better than you can when you make up non-survey questions out of your imagination. But then again, why do your work for you, I ask myself.
The ostensible point of the survey is that more people were aware of the anti-McCain/Palin talking points than the anti-Obama/Biden talking points.
I think you got a big fat F right there, Mitsu. I think that “point” is more your point than the survey’s, whether seen on the surface or not.
Sure, it looks plausible from your special position and perspective, Mitsu, but there’s a catch; it is still your position and not the survey’s position. As for stating that the survey people did what you would have done if you were them, however, that’s not so clear cut. You are going to have to do the actual work of arguing that position instead of copping out with a statement like “ostensibly”. You might want to rethink casting the survey as a foundation set on mud only to build more of your arguments on top of it by assuming the foundation is solid. That wouldn’t make your arguments very strong, in the end.
Ostensibly, the survey is set out to be biased in terms of putting anti-Obama talking points, so this means it would have had other results had the questions been different, and so this means Mitsu’s point is right. No, what this means is that Mitsu got it wrong on Step 1 with “ostensibly” for ostensibly means exactly what it says it means.
The “ostensible” point of this survey is to find out how people would answer the questions put to them. Unless you have some hard proof, one way or the other, on the pollster’s personal biases and conspiracy intentions, I think you should stick with the facts.
I’m not sure how you can look at those questions and come to the conclusion they do not support my thesis.
When you make up stuff to support your thesis, surely you realize that this isn’t very strong justification on your part. Surely you know that basing your arguments off of what “ostensibly” looks true is not exactly a strong justification? Surely you also know that using your own interpretation and imagination as data, rather than using the survey’s data, makes for some weak evidence?
The “57 states” remark falls in that class for Obama, but I think you’re fair-minded enough to admit it would have have rocketed to prominence had Palin made it.
But Palin did say it, Occam. That’s what the people in the vid said, so it must be true. And it is also something that sounds like what Palin would have said, so des neh?
To reiterate, the point was that Obamanauts are incredibly ignorant, and/or full of fluffy rubbish poured into them by a complicit MSM that assiduously avoided doing any real reporting. There’s really no avoiding that conclusion.
Did Mitsu support Obama over McCain or did he sit that one out?
If Mitsu follows the trend, he would have been strongly for neither, up until Sarah Palin came on the scene.
The national media badly needs reform. Obviously letting things continue to fall the way they are going is not going to work. Wait, let me rephrase that. We don’t need reform; we need a revolution – a revolution of ethical journalism. The idea that people are moving into separate realities is not that far from accurate – comparing the leanings of MSNBC and FOX’s viewers is a huge indicator of how opinion and out-of-control spin has polluted what used to be reporting.
Personally, I watch MSNBC, FOX, and PBS. I listen to NPR; I read conservative papers and blogs like this one. I attempt to gather as much good reporting as I can and then offset the rest by taking in both sides of the spin… but even still, there is little quality to be found in today’s media.
I don’t think any serious person could reasonably conclude that Obama’s “57 states” slip remotely compares to Palin’s absurd series of gaffes in her multiple televised interviews. I’m not about to get into a significant discussion about Palin’s lack of qualifications for high office, but suffice it to say I agree wholeheartedly with David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, David Frum, and my brother-in-law’s parents (lifelong Republicans who voted Obama due in no small part to Sarah Palin), regarding her qualifications or lack thereof.
Regarding questions 1-4, the only result mentioned in the poll summary is the Congressional control question, where there’s a small tilt towards McCain voters knowing the correct answer.
Ah, Mitsu – you must not realize, given your insistence that the questions were based on right wing talking points, that the answers were mulitiple choice with 4 options to choose from.
In other words, they had a 25% chance to get the question right simply by guessing.
Instead, a clear pattern emerged where if a question could have a negative answer it was attributed to the republican side, and if it had a positive answer it was attributed to the democrats.
That’s pretty clear evidence of some Pavlovian level social engineering at work on the part of the media.
Mitsu, forget the 57 states bit.
Compare the anti-Palin vs. the anti-Obama/Biden points (note that, significantly, there are no anti-McCain ones).
Which have more heft? Which have more bearing on fitness for office?
No Obama supporter should ever bring up the issue of qualifications.
Ever.
Not ever.
Not once.
Don’t even think it.
I wouldn’t hire someone as green as Obama to be my subordinate.
And that’s the truth.
That’s pretty clear evidence of some Pavlovian level social engineering at work on the part of the media.
Nothing people like me can’t reproduce for the GOP, and with more efficiency and less lies in the bargain.
I’m not about to get into a significant discussion about Palin’s lack of qualifications for high office, but suffice it to say I agree wholeheartedly with David Brooks, Christopher Buckley, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan,
Does that mean you do follow the trend I described, Mitsu?
Come on, get off that high fence sitting horse of yours and provide a straight answer, if you can. If you are unclear on what a straight answer is, it is one that describes your personal beliefs and doesn’t reference anybody else or talks about how other people “ostensibly” believe in A, B, or C.
I once had a teacher i hated… still do to this day… however there was ONE thing he did teach me well, while he was busy being perversly mentally abusive to the students (oh he should have been removed the sadistic little sociopath).
its someone that mitsu would have learned from too. it was a physics course in high school… not in bronx science, where i attended for a while, then we moved… (big bummer ruining life plan bummer).
he liked to devise ways of teaching that also tortured the students…
so you would go up to the board… and if you were a geek you would use “weasel words”, and he would say talk english… give it to me in simple terms that a one armed idiot mongoloid could understand it…
and he would make you stand there and watch someone like you mitso squirm. they would pull every weasel trick out of the book, they will do everything BUT give him the focused non confused argument and point…
what it was is that he was teaching us that these tricks will fail you when something more powerful than, as he said “your little smart ass”, and your going to need to give a straight simple answer to a complex question.
i learned that a dumber person in a power position can force you to stop your games and roast your but on a spit precisely because you play games.
i saw kids who ended up there three periods squirming while this guy would nearly orgasm at the worm on a hook.
another thing he would do is have you put up the work you did to get an answer… then he would play little mind games… “are you sure” “hmmmmm” if you erased and changed things… tons of stuff too numerous to mention…
by the time you were done… if you didnt know the work like a one armed idiot mongoloid, you wouldnt look him in the eye and say thats the right answer… and boy did he revel by yelling outloud “sucker!!!!!!” if he could get you to change a right answer into a wrong one and drop your point grade.
i never thought that my experience with inner city sociopaths in public school would be useful… but it was… there was only one way to stop the long drawn out torture that continues as long as wiggling is happening, and winning by other means is still believed to be on the table.
he was one big moral pretzel… i learned good things, but i wont thank him for that…
there really is little point in taking the argument of whether they were bad or good obama or mcain points. it doesnt matter since the questions were about facts… and if people were really informed, they would know the facts no matter whether they favored their candidate or favored the other.
this is ESPECIALLY true if through this process they actually were using facts to choose between candidates.
if everyone was starting from a neutral base and juggling the facts to make a choice as to the best one, then what facts you ask wouldnt matter at all.
however, if people are starting from a biased point, and they are not using facts to decide what things are, they are going to get factual questions wrong because they accept as true false premises (which is what bias is – lying to oneself as to the facts)…
the questions negativity or positives dont matter as the question is who knew more facts… and who knew more facts about which candidate…
negative or not, fact based questions cant be biased as to whether you know the answer or not.
does winston churchill have a bull dog on his ass?
not a pleasant question… if you love churchill or hate him, you still either know the fact or not…
why you know or dont know the fact comes after the people take the test and it turns out that they dont know the facts does one analyse the data and see if one can surmise why they dont know the facts.
no result of imagination will change the primary info of who knew more facts or didnt..
analysing how it may skew hypothesis of why the fact knowlege turned out that way is another subject.
No Obama supporter should ever bring up the issue of qualifications.
In case Mitsu doesn’t want to answer the question or hasn’t gotten to it yet, I’m going to ask you, Occam.
Did Mitsu ever, on this forum, comment about supporting Barack Obama as President over McCain and Palin? Disregard all the “moderate” advertisement he did on himself, if you would.
Scottie, if you know something on this score, I’d be grateful if you could make a comment. Although I don’t seem to remember seeing you here during the 2008 President elections. I’m asking Occam since he may have paid more attention to Mitsu over this entire year than I have.
Oh, and regarding the “Palin gaffes”, I guess you missed the entire scandal – well, what passes for scandal – among the so-called journalists these days wherein Couric deliberately and systematically sliced and diced the interview to get a negative image portrayed of Palin.
The slicing and dicing was so bad it was roundly criticized by most observers as a bad hack job.
The second interview with Gibson included a question on the “Bush Doctrine” – a phrase that definitely means different things to different people, compounded by the fact that different people’s interpretation of the doctrine varied as well based upon what year the question referred to.
It was a vaguely worded question with no clear answer.
Then you have the question wherein Gibson most emphatically misquoted Palin yet insisted she defend/explain the quote as if she had actually said it.
No, no gaffes anywhere except in the perceptions of people who are already predisposed/brainwashed into believing a certain way about an obviously successful woman.
It is even more telling that while Palin’s supposed “gaffes” are laughed at, the same people pretty much deliberately ignore Biden.
Ymarsakar,
Sorry – I’m a fairly recent neo addict so can’t say what Mitsu has stated over the past year in the campaign.
My list were simply examples of talking points about McCain that McCain voters might not know.
Concerning what Art argued, I still think Mitsu’s list of hypothetical examples he selected from his own imagination is far inferior than analyzing and using the actual data, both executive summary and raw, that the survey, which Neo has provided us, acquired.
The link is available for anybody that wants to crunch hard numbers, Mitsu included.
Couric deliberately
Are you talking about the Gibson interview or the Couric one? I heard it was done on Gibson but not Couric, although the format of these interviews wouldn’t EXCLUDE such methods.
Sarah’s saboteurs in the McCain camp probably wanted to see how far they could make her fail given these hostile land mines.
After all, Republicans have seen what happened to Bush in eight years in the media. Don’t tell me they didn’t know.
No, no gaffes anywhere except in the perceptions of people who are already predisposed/brainwashed into believing a certain way about an obviously successful woman.
I wrote a comment on how rumors were spread at Villainous Company. I’ll just cut and paste it here.
Link
*********I read an article in Psychology Today or something like that concerning how rumors were spread. Even though the author had a Democrat bias, in terms of mentioning the swiftboat “rumors” on John Kerry, there were still some useful stuff for the propaganda and psychological warfare fronts.
It is true that the more rumors were repeated, the more people started believing they were valid. A rumor repeated many times would lead the target population thinking it had come out of some scholarly journal, when in fact it came out of the National Inquirer. This is one of the tools in the MSM’s arsenal when it comes time to deceive and lie to the American public. They don’t need to print anything except repetitions of what somebody else has printed, like Kos or the National Inquirer. They defend Democrats like Edwards by refusing to talk about it, and thus ensure that the “rumors” die off. Even when the truth comes out, nobody has had the rumors in their mind so they hadn’t really been thinking about it, so the truth doesn’t really change anything.
Another reason for the spread of rumors concerns envy. The article detailed some interesting tid bits concerning how celebrities have incredible rumor mills going on. In fact, the author of the stories went into more detail concerning such episodes than he did concerning John Kerry, Bush, or Obama combined. (That should be a sign to somebody concerning the judgment of the author)
The argument was made, and it seems to make more sense than not, that particularly masculine celebrities are envied for their ability to attract women so there is a natural tendency to take those celebrities down a notch by spreading and believing in rumors that they are gay, have sex with dogs, swallow cum in orgy parties, and what not.
I am not exactly “plugged” into the Hollyweird scene, one may say, so I haven’t checked up on this data. It, however, fits what I do know about Hollywood. They say it is a tough town and certainly it is, given the amount of envy and neuroses flying around.
Sarah Palin, taken in this light, is a celebrity and her strong point is her appeal to women (and her career/family success). This means that many people envy her success and want to take her down a notch, if only because crabs in a bucket won’t let any other crab climb out of it. This means that they are more likely to both spread and believe in rumors concerning Sarah Palin making rape victims pay for their own rape kits. This means that they are more likely to believe in rumors and to talk about rumors concerning Sarah Palin being mean or stupid or unfit and so forth.
The more people talk about it, the more other parts of the target population start believing it has some validity. (In fact, they may even start quoting each other and using each other as references) Even denials of rumors tend to actually reinforce in the minds of people that they are true. Which is why a Main Sewer Media blackout is often the only real way to stop rumors in their tracks. There was a rumor going on that the Surge was working and violence was going down in Iraq, but since the MSM never reported about it, including to deny it, most Americans have no idea: all they know is that Iraq is a mess and we need to get out. So even when we say that we are withdrawing forces, people will immediately think “we need to get out of that violent nation and the mistakes Bush made” rather than think “violence has gone down due to American problem solving know how”.
These traits in rumor mongering are one of numerous mechanisms used to control the mob. Bush took the high road and refused to use any of these methods after 2003, and so now we have a President to Be and a Main Sewer Media that now will use it all the time. Because they have done so and suffered nothing in return, while getting major loot. Loot, loot, loot, it is what makes the boys get up and shoot.
*****************
And you know what’s really funny, Scottie? As I was reading the article, I could not help but apply what the author was saying to… the author himself.
Ahh, this must be one of those annoyances that the Left and the Dems don’t have to worry about. I so envy them.
THe fact that psychoanalysts absolutely need another psychoanalyst to psychoanalyze them, makes things even more… interesting.
>bearing
I agree, Occam, that many of the attacks on Palin were little more than tabloid gossip. Nevertheless, the general picture that emerged of Palin as a woefully unqualified potential leader of the free world was, in my view, absolutely and unequivocally accurate. Not only from the Couric interview, but from the Gibson and even the Hannity interviews. If you disagree, well then let’s just say we’re going to have to agree to totally disagree on this point, because I certainly have no interest in discussing Palin’s qualifications anymore.
>qualifications
Perhaps you wouldn’t hire Obama, but if you believe Palin is remotely qualified for office, we clearly have very different ways of assessing competence. In my view Obama has already demonstrated tremendous competence, not only in the way he conducted his campaign but in the way he’s been managing the transition, and the excellent appointments he has made so far.
>moderate
I’ve made it abundantly clear that I consider myself a liberal and a Democrat, however I also consider my political views centrist, which is not to say halfway in between the Democratic and Republican parties. What I mean by “centrist” is as I’ve described before: pragmatic, I judge policy not by whether it is “left” or “right” but whether it works or not. In some cases that places me in strong agreement with the left (gay rights, most social issues, environmentalism), in some cases with liberals, in some cases with libertarians, in some cases with conservatives (I supported the surge, the first Gulf War, welfare reform, etc.) In general, my views fit much more comfortably within the Democratic Party than the Republican, which is why I call myself a liberal, though I also consider myself a centrist. I consider Bush Sr. to have been a pretty good president, Bush Jr. to have been a disaster, Reagan to have been a mixed bag, etc.
That being said, McCain himself was closer to my views in 2000 than he was in 2008. To win the nomination he veered right, which made a lot of sense tactically but it pushed him far from my views. In 2000 and even in 2004 I was hoping McCain might get named to the VP spot on the Democratic ticket — in 2008 he was very far from my views (though I believe in practice he would have made a decent President, except for the fact that he chose Palin, and he would have packed the Supreme Court with right-wingers which would have in my view tilted the Court way too far to the right.)
I agree. She’s not that much better than Obama, and that’s just not good enough. We agree on that.
Now if she had experience as a communist agitator…
I don’t Obama is qualified to be a Senator, much less President. I think he was a bit over his head as a state senator, where he acccomplished…uh…nothing.
.
The Dems should have run Axelrod for President, obviously.
That raises an interesting question: how do you assess competence?
I’d look at what someone has accomplished, and the obstacles he overcame in achieving it.
I hate to think how many people I’ve encountered in academia that talk a good game and quickly move on before anyone stops to ask just exactly what they’ve actually accomplished, as in finished, brought to completion, wrapped up. They’re always “on the come,” always the ones from whom great things are expected…but never materialize. They move between Harvard, Berkeley, CalTech, MIT, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, and maybe the ETH, but barely light in one place before updating their resumes and flitting off somewhere else.
I’m afraid Obama fits that pattern to a T.
Concerning what Art argued, I still think Mitsu’s list of hypothetical examples he selected from his own imagination is far inferior than analyzing and using the actual data, both executive summary and raw, that the survey, which Neo has provided us, acquired.
thats fine… but since they are outside the argument… a non point… i have no comment on them.. i never bothered to analyse them. to what point?
far inferior? far superior? so what? how does mitsu’s skill at survey questions translate to anything meaninful either way?
when arguments get complex try to keep em in bounds or else everyone forgets what the heck they are arguing about.
All of the back and forth here makes it pretty clear that there is a lot of mischief that can be done in the way the questions are worded. And it’s not surprising that right-leaning newscasts like Fox would emphasize different sets of information than left-leaning newscasts like MSNBC.
So throw out all of the questions about individual candidates and viewing habits, just look at the simple, objective, no-way-to-skew question about which party controlled Congress. McCain voters got it right, 63-27, and Obama voters got it wrong, 41-43. There’s no way to misinterpret that.
So McCain supporters are better informed, and Obama supporters are celebrating. Advantage: Obama.
>not that much better than Obama
I hope you’re joking, Occam, but I fear you are not.
>how do you assess competence?
It’s certainly true that Obama is young and lacks a long track record. If you can’t tell his level of competence, however, from what he has done so far, I doubt we’re going to be able to have a fruitful discussion on how one can “assess competence.” If you actually think Palin was more qualified than Obama, I’m left fairly speechless.
All I can say is, let’s see how Obama does. So far, he’s been doing very well, picking some of the best people he could possibly pick for his Cabinet. Nouriel Roubini, for example, an economist who predicted this economic crisis, had this to say about Obama’s economic picks:
He’s kept Gates at Defense, another good move. He’s been moving with deliberation and gravitas. Let’s watch and see how he handles the rest of his presidency, but I’m going to make a prediction that he’s going to handle it with grace and competence, and he will learn quickly from his mistakes.
Mitsu Says:
“I don’t think any serious person could reasonably conclude that Obama’s “57 states” slip remotely compares to Palin’s absurd series of gaffes in her multiple televised interviews.”
I would seriously point out that Obama was never given quiz style questions by the press. His were always general softballs such as ‘what type of people will you appoint if you win’…. and he ummmed and ahhed and 57 stated right through even them…
negative talking points
Biden’s PLAGIARISM is a FACT. That is not a “negative talking point.” It is the TRUTH. And it should disqualify him from high office. It would get him kicked out of school.
People have lost the ability to distinguish FACT – facts that matter – from propaganda and “talking points” which the LEFT has mastered.
Wow…. I see Mitsu has taken the Kool-aid enema.
Occam: not that much better than Obama
Mitsu: I hope you’re joking, Occam, but I fear you are not.
I looked at US Presidents who had been Senator, using the metric of the following experience: Vice President, Cabinet member, House of Representatives, Governor, Military.
Before 2009, only one President who had been a Senator had none of the above: Warren Harding.
As of January 20, 2009, Obama will join Harding. And Harding was such a successful President.
Harding was killed by southeast Alaska! I guess we are good for something. (shellfish poisoning)
“In my view Obama has already demonstrated tremendous competence, not only in the way he conducted his campaign but in the way he’s been managing the transition”
Mitsu
I think Obama would have polled less than 30% In a level playing field, real world assessment by an objective press. The man is in office by the same methods that make Tide detergent outsell its competition of an identical makeup by a wide margin.
I don’t know if this works out better or worse for Obama voters, but I have an additional interpretation. At one level, the “control of congress” question is merely factual: count up the number from each party and see who wins. That Obama voters have a false impression may run deeper. Progressive ideas do not work as well as advertised. Liberals often develop the idea that things would work if powerful conservative forces were not arrayed against them. The alternative would be to acknowledge their ideas don’t work, after all. I suggest that a percentage of progressives do not keep track of the numbers but just keep telling themselves year after year that dark corporatist (greedy, conservative, Republican) forces actually control everything somehow. The forces of progress are always on the verge of working except that they are undermined by reactionaries. If this seems halfway to the thinking of conspiracy theorists to you, I say Well, duh. It also bears some resemblance to the old Soviet idea of “wreckers.”
The difference, or margin of victory, between McCain and Oobonga is revealingly in the demographics: 68% of young people, between the ages of 18 and 30, voted for Oobonga. 75% of single females did. The rise of the acceptability of cultural Marxism runs parallel with the knowledge base of the crowd that thinks Naomi Klein is an intellectual.
The education system is completely broken. And there is neither help nor solution in sight, since the people who broke it did so by design. Look up “Critical Studies” and find out what this Leftist current has done to the intellectual project. That’s why the kiddies are indoctrinated and their diplomas from high school and college are as valuable as sections from a roll of Charmin tp.
Mitsu’s quote about how Obama showed his competence in the campaign is like Obama saying his campaign budget is greater than Wasilla’s.
He totally ignored the governing (executive) experience which Obama has NONE.
The Charlie Gibson interview showed Gibson’s incompetence. I read the complete transcript (unedited) and Sarah answered PERFECTLY when she said in what respect Charlie
And then when Charlie misdefined the Bush doctrine he showed his own ignorance and the slant of him and his team.
Of course….
…. less than 1% of Obama voters read the entire transcript and the 99% are caught up in the supposed got ya moment.
Mitsu shows more about himself with each post.
Nothing of substance.
No economic knowledge.
No perspective.
Not able to stay on topic.
This study showed repeatedly that Obama voters were not interested in learning and don’t know simple facts.
Mitsu, What is YOUR explanation for the disparity on the control of Congress question?
Stick to the question
BTW Mitsu, Define for us the Bush Doctrine !
Gotcha !
You can’t !
Mitsu wrote, “If you actually think Palin was more qualified than Obama, I’m left fairly speechless.”
Palin was 10 times more qualified. She had more executive experience than Biden and Obama combined and that is what a President should have – executive experience.
She is extremely intelligent whether your judgmental as* wants to admit it or not. We/I will admit Obama is intelligent but he lacks economic basic concepts (based on his stated policies). Palin and McCain’s solutions to the economic problems we face were of great substance AND the medicine this country needs.
You can go down the road of trying to convince us that Palin wasn’t qualified (then neither was Teddy Roosevelt) or wasn’t intelligent but it only shows you to be judgmental and not knowledgable about her as a candidate. Period.
Mitsu, You don’t convince me that my partner in life is not intelligent (because I know her) and you don’t convince me that Sarah is unintelligent (because I made a point to study her) and when reading your posts I found you to be economically illiterate and lacking of a few basic points on things other than economics also.
BTW Mitsu,
Define for us the Bush Doctrine !
You can’t !@!
Checkmate !@
I’m not at all. Palin at least has been in an executive position. Those who haven’t don’t realize that that’s qualitatively different from pontificating to a teleprompter, which is what legislators do. Running a staff you selected is wildly different from running an organization where you’re stuck with your predecessors staffing choices. That difference was my biggest concern re McCain, in fact. Even with executive experience, some people screw the pooch when they move up (Carter, for example, famously spent time drawing up a White House tennis court schedule. Can you say “displacement activity?”).
Obama can’t delegate decision-making to Axelrod anymore. He’s on his own. That scares the hell out of me, and I suspect, Obama as well.
I wouldn’t go that far. I’d say he could have made much worse choices, and I feared he would. Obama is clearly a con artist; the question is who he has conned, the American people or the lefties. His choices give me hope that it’s the latter.
And a Newsweek quote? Please. Nothing against Roubini, or Obama’s choices, but Newsweek wants to have Obama’s baby (so you’ve got some competition there). I’d sooner take the Daily Worker’s views. Now Karl Rove’s endorsement, which he gave, carries some clout.
Obama, you, and I all agree that George Bush appointed the best man for the job, and he should stay there.
Harrison Ford would have had more gravitas, by far. I keep telling ya, the Dems missed a bet there. As long as they were going to go for someone with zero experience or qualifications, Harrison should have been the choice.
I have a wait and see attitude toward Obama. I’m heartened by his appointments so far, having half expected him to appoint Kucinich SecDef, Cindy Sheehan Secretary of Peace, and Bill Ayers Secretary of Education.
If he’s conned the left, the fun part will come within about 18 months, when the lefties realize that. It may come soon, if the UAW leaves DC with bupkis. Obama can’t vote “present” any more. Every decision an executive takes pisses someone off, guaranteed. Obama will have to either burn the UAW and piss off union members generally (and Pelosi), or flush tax money down the toilet to protect the UAW, thereby pissing off taxpayers (according to polls). He can’t weasel off the hook, he can’t bump opponents off the ballot, he can’t BS Detroit with high-flown rhetoric, he can’t lay it off on the Republicans because his party controls Congress. Detroit is either a) going to get its money, or b) isn’t, and whichever way, it’s going to be laid at Obama’s door.
Then we’ll start to find out what he’s made of.
I still think, given his breeding and what was inculcated in him through his formative years, that his instincts are going to be to govern from the Left. I don’t see his appointments so far as in any way an indicator of approval of their “centrism.” Someone else is calling the shots on this, and I think it’s Soros and his crew. They want to calm the markets. On foreign policy, please take note that all of his foreign policy people so far are hostile towards Israel and very pro-Arab, including Hillary, who it is rumored is a vile Jew-hater. Oh, and never mind the fact that appointing a U.S. senator to a cabinet position may violate the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.
I think every way Oobonga is an amateur. Hell, he does not even have a scholarly mind about the Constitution. Maybe his developing facial tick has to do with his fear that all those court cases are going to pry his birth certificate out of Hawai’i and the shit really will hit the fan.
Bull’s eye. It’s how they maintain belief in their solutions: they believe they’ve “never really been tried.” Nonsense, but it insulates them from facing the reality: their ideas don’t work, and haven’t worked, anywhere, at any time.
My alma mater sent me a glossy magazine (gee, I wonder if they’d accept a contribution from me? I kid.) containing an article in which a faculty member argued how relevant Marx was today and how Marxism had never really been tried. (Shows you how out to lunch universities truly are, to include such an article soliciting funds from wealthy capitalists.) By the same token, of course, capitalism has never really been tried either.
Israeli kibbutzes probably represents the most faithful implementation of Marx’s ideas, and as I understand it, they’re pretty much gone now (in their original form) or on life support. Case closed.
Mitsu is doing research…
and finding out Charlie Gibson’s answer on the Bush Doctrine was wrong…
Checkmate still stands…. you put your own self in that position Mitsu! !
he can’t lay it off on the Republicans because his party controls Congress.
Ah, but his party won’t be the one controlling Congress. So, again, it will be the Repubs’ fault.
Oh, and never mind the fact that appointing a U.S. senator to a cabinet position may violate the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause.
Since people are too busy trying to learn which party controls Congress, I’m sure small matters like that will need to be dealt with later, Fred.
(though I believe in practice he would have made a decent President, except for the fact that he chose Palin,
It makes sense, given your background and priorities, that you would be against McCain and for Obama because of Sarah.
Plenty of other people, as you yourself noted, have done the same thing and for similar reasons.
But, then again, that’s the difference. Moderate as you see yourself, Mitsu, your ability to judge is either or, just like ours.
and finding out Charlie Gibson’s answer on the Bush Doctrine was wrong…
Bush’s Doctrine is manifold. You’d first have to understand Bush before you could understand his doctrine, and it may turn out that future Presidents may employ BUsh’s doctrine differently and thus change its meaning. Still, in this decade, at least, if you don’t understand Bush, and I dare say that includes most Democrats and some Republicans, then you won’t be able to accurately define his Doctrine.
far inferior? far superior? so what? how does mitsu’s skill at survey questions translate to anything meaninful either way?
It is part of Mitsu’s ability to make correct judgments. Which, in turn, is part of Mitsu’s ability to judge Obama’s qualifications vis a vis a Sarah Palin. It is also a necessary barometer for validating Mitsu’s thoughts and conclusions concerning other topics like the economy, defense, Obama, etc.
I couldn’t watch the entire Gibson interview myself. I’d always thought that Gibson was something of a tw@t, but to see this mouthbreathing talking head peering over his half-glasses in what he supposed to be his best professorial “Paper Chase” manner infuriated me.
I’ve participated in more oral exam committees than I care to think about, and anyone doing that summer stock professor crap would be laughed by the other committee members for his cheap theatrics.
The proper way to sweat a doctoral candidate (the whole idea, so they realize that, far from being the end of their learning, a Ph.D. in physics or chemistry is a learner’s permit, nothing more) is to make them apply the fundamentals of the field to their dissertation. (They’ve usually forgotten a lot of undergraduate material by that time.) Then box them in on the issues and bore in with pointed questions that don’t hint at the answer (“Would you say that A > B, A that and the candidate is painfully aware that he has a lot left to learn.
Sorry, that should have read:
(“Would you say that A > B, B > A, A is in no fixed relationship to B, or that there is a fixed relationship but you don’t have the information to decide? In the latter case, what further information would you need, and how would you acquire it?” That sort of thing.)
Two hours of that and the candidate is painfully aware that he has a lot left to learn.
The Bush doctrine is very simply that the U.S. will attack countries pre-emptively to prevent potential threats from developing into actual ones.
Nothing complex or vague about it at all.
As for blaming Obama’s popularity on media bias, this theory creates some mysteries.
1. How did Bush II, a committed conservative, get elected to national office twice? Do the math. Millions of Americans who voted for Bush in 2004 voted for Obama in 2008. These voters determined the outcome. Were they smart, savvy and informed in 2004, then, suddenly made ignorant and foolish in 2008?
2. Very nearly all American “conservatives” insist that the media bias is blatant, consistent and powerful. They scoff at anyone who doesn’t agree. “C’mon, it’s obvious,” they sing in chorus. But if it’s so obvious, why couldn’t the millions of Americans who voted Republican year after year see it in 2008? Why is it that so many movement conservatives detect this bias and see through it, while the average, aggregate American voter could not in 2008?
3. What accounts for Obama’s global popularity and Bush’s global unpopularity? Do the news media in every country have a liberal bias?
Bogey Man showed his weakness !
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine
A) There are multiple parts to the Bush Doctrine
B) The Bush Doctrine evolved
Only liberals seemed not to understand the Bush Doctrine. Palin’s answer to the snotty Gibson was SPOT ON.
On point B)
Out of the National Security Strategy, four main points are highlighted as the core to the Bush Doctrine: Preemption, Military Primacy, New Multilateralism, and the Spread of Democracy.[18]
Peter from Alaska: (Juneau where he lives? Alaska ‘nother one.)
Harding was killed by southeast Alaska! I guess we are good for something. (shellfish poisoning)
Has this inspired T-shirts with comments like the following?
“Southeast Alaska’s contribution to civilization:
Contaminated shellfish that killed President Harding.”
Why is Paris Hilton popular?
Because they have no sources of information outside the media. Forty years ago Walter Cronkite was “the most trusted man in America.” Only now, with the rise of the Internet, do interviews with him surface that make clear he’s a raging moonbat.
Similarly, look at Dan Rather. He pushed some, shall we be charitable and say “questionable” documents seeking to throw an election. Leaving aside the authenticity of the documents, Rather stood by them and said they came from “an unimpeachable source.” That was a flat lie. The source (an anonymous woman handing them furtively to a political partisan) was about as “peachable” as one can get.
Rather’s indignation and attempt to brazen out his untenable position furor spoke volumes, and strongly suggests that the same shenanigans had happened before, but the media just hadn’t been caught at it.
Members of the media have themselves admitted the media’s liberal bent, and “journalists” campaign contributions run 9:1 to Democrats. Their politics is beyond dispute.
Why are liberals so obsessed with popularity? (It strikes me as incredibly immature, frankly. Adults base their decisions on what they think is right, not on what’s popular.)
And who cares what the rest of the globe thinks about anything? Do they care what we think? No. I recommend returning the favor.
In other countries it’s even worse, believe me. I lived in Europe for many years, and know whereof I speak. State-controlled media — as in the UK and France, for example — make no pretense of even-handedness.
I give O points for political savvy.
He avoided three elections by having his opponent’s signatures disqualified in one and having (illegally) unsealed divorce documents for two others.
So, until he got Soros’ money and the MSM tongue-bathing, against a Republican who is so liberal a number of conservatives stayed home, he hadn’t won an election in the usual way. Or, perhaps, he’d won in the Illinois way but not the American way.
I was thinking further about the Gibson interview. Palin was nice. I suppose she had to be. I wouldn’t have been (only one of the myriad reasons why I’m not in pollitics).
I’d have pushed back, hard, and refused to accept the subordinate role that Gibson intended me to take. It is imperative to establish equality of footing in that kind of situation.
Given Gibson’s manifestly superior attitude, I’d have been waiting for the first question that wasn’t absolutely brilliant, and then asked Gibson how long he’d had to prepare for this interview, and how many staff he’d had researching for it. Then I’d have looked over my glasses a la Gibson, and with evident disappoinment said , “X weeks, Y staff, and that’s your question?
Then I’d give a superficially polite and patient but perfunctory answer, as if dealing with a dull-witted child.
Other techniques: Rephrasing your interlocutor’s question in a patronizing fashion is also effective (“You’re groping toward the issue of …”), as is characterizing his thought processes (“You’re on the right track, but a bit short of the mark” or “I believe you meant X, not Y, but your confusion is understandable. The distinction is a bit subtle unless you’re knowledgeable in this matter.”
If necessary, take charge of the whole exchange. (“Are you asking X, which is [insert “incorrect,” or other pejorative characterization here], or did you mean Y, which is [insert “irrelevant,” or some such here]?” “What do you mean by X? Are you referring to X in the context defined by [some obscure person], or that used by [some other obscure person]? Please elaborate.”)
Message: treat me with respect, or take your ego home with you in a doggie bag. I can make nice, or I can throw elbows under the basket all night long, if you like. Your choice.
Why is Paris Hilton popular?
Paris is Barbie… she is what a modern woman would imagine a real barbie would be really like, without being the insipid cartoonish caracature we refer to as barbie.
certain women have been very popular with women because they embody some fantasy that reflects an image that they would like to be.
she is the holly go lightly of the new millinium…
even more interesting her ability to act and not have to care at all as to any outcome, is kind of like the primitive freedom that movements have been promising them to, that with no responsibility or repercussions that mean anything.
Why are liberals so obsessed with popularity?
they are struck in a juvenile period… like the saying that if your young and not socialist you have no heart, and if your old and socialist you have no head.
ergo, the perpetuation of youth to perpetuate this artificially created hedonistic eden of youthful sinning and irresponsible acting without repurcussions…
the media promotes this all over… 30 is the new 20, 50 is the new 30… kellog cereal the mom takes the pants back and they fit, and she can go out and get laid by a young guy like the daughter.
creames, botox, age inapropriate clothing, lack of limit on endulgences, injuries acting out something you used to do in the past…
socialists are promising (falsely) changes that will lead to, and ultimately in, a school kind of juvinile world where you have no bills to pay, and you do your home work, and a principal watches over you and keeps you safe, if you get pregnant you dont have to raise the kid, if you get sick you go to the nurse, and you eat in a caffeteria, and where the heirarchy is about the important people, the populat people, and that is all that matters.
also media people are safe to worship… they ask nothing but adoration, and maybe a vote or two, they return happiness. the analogies of media as god or such are closer than we would like to realize when our religous sense doesnt have a religion to keep it busy.
1. How did Bush II, a committed conservative, get elected to national office twice?
Gore and Kerry are two of the main reasons.
These voters determined the outcome. Were they smart, savvy and informed in 2004, then, suddenly made ignorant and foolish in 2008?
We’re not Democrats so we don’t automatically think people who vote for our prefered candidate are smart. Have you been looking at conservatives through filtered lenses so much that this has not yet become clear for you?
2. Very nearly all American “conservatives” insist that the media bias is blatant, consistent and powerful.
I think there’s a failure to communicate here. When we talk about “bias”, we are talking about lying, manipulating, scum bags that talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. Bilal Hussein is only one example: Dan Rather and ABC news another.
why couldn’t the millions of Americans who voted Republican year after year see it in 2008?
Do you somehow think that all someone needs to do is to be able to see things on an intellectual level and then they become immune from manipulation? That is manifestly false, you know. Do you really believe that “seeing the light” and voting for Obama in 2008, after voting for Bush, is somehow evidence against media manipulation and lies?
Why is it that so many movement conservatives detect this bias and see through it, while the average, aggregate American voter could not in 2008?
Why is it that so many conservatives saw through the WMD argument while many Democrats said they got fooled? We don’t say we got fooled by Bush/Rove/Cheney or got manipulated or got a bait and switch pulled on us. Given that Bush has been widely said to have manipulated folks with WMD, do you really believe those same people are now immune to Obama? Get real.
@Bogey Man
Why is it that so many movement conservatives detect this bias and see through it, while the average, aggregate American voter could not in 2008?
The Pew Research Center, which took the time to investigate the issue of perceived media bias, came up with a decidedly different conclusion.
When majorities of Republicans, Independents and Democrats all say that the media was in the tank for Obama, that indicates that not only “movement conservatives” hold that opinion.
Very good point Gringo. But alas, it supports Bogey’s broader thesis.
Virtually all Republicans and so many Democrats are very well aware of the bias, so it will have no effect on their voting decisions. They will take everything they read with the same grains of salt you do.
The truth is we didn’t suspect the level of fraud that was put forward in order to let’s put it bluntly, not only defeat Sarah, but to deligitimize her as a woman, a mother, and a capable executive. The
trig trutherism was the first round, which still holds some adherents among Andrew Sullivan’s research assistants and this new site; Palin Deception, which was mockingly linked by Jim Treacher. Then came the phony connections to the Alaskan Independent Party, the implication that she supported Pat Buchanan, the whole ‘dinosaurs and cavemen, motif; from the daughter of a science teacher, the distortion of the invocation by the Kenyan witch doctor (these people would turn around with a straight face, and insist she didn’t know Africa was not a country) the dowdification of her prayer for the troops, the whole Troopergate and Monegan
distortions, the lies about the Bridge to Nowhere.
For every lie she swatted down, a half dozen came in their place. These were mostly policy or belief
related question.
Than came the vulgar teeshirts, the bumperstickers that said she was a Republican but not a woman, the Larry Flynt porn; all of this was designed to deligitimize her personally. The Gibson and Couric interviews were conducted in such a partisan version; and then further bowdlerized so that they could tease ‘I could see Russia from my house’ which was a snippet from a discussion of Russia’s historic proximity to Alaska which Tina Fey repeated; because she didn’t know any better, and frankly because she is not a decent person; more on this later. Couric’s interview was worse, because
it actually included advice from Sarah’s opponents camp, in edition to the editing. In order to make room for all this dross, s good deal of her actual record had to be buried. Her capital’s paper, the AD News helped out in that regard. Youtube buried
segments like her interview with Charlie Rose, that
featured Janet Napolitano, other interviews where
she shined. Her opponents back in Alaska, engineered this Troopergate report to direct maximum possible damage, despite their thread bare case. The Biden/Palin debate where Biden was as accurate as those durvry questions, was spun as some great exhibition of wisdom, when derangement was a better diagnosis. Tina Fey, continued to caricature Palin’s record, while complaining that anyone could do it; and she was getting tired of continuing the role. Sarah went on SNL proving she was a good sport, also showing the great contrast between her and Tina; the material was almost entirely as bad as that Tim Robbins segment, 16 years ago. She thankfully
avoided some of the set up lines, like a cuecard
that suggested she would review NBC’s license
certification, because of their choice of
programming. But Tina, supposedly the kind girl due to her part in 30 Rockdespite meeting the object of her ridicule, didn’t recognize honesty and generosity of spirit; Sarah had offered to babysit for her daughter. For she did this demeaning performance several more times, including when
McCain appeared on the show; suggested disloyalty
and the diva meme. Oddly this would have seemed
ironically apropo since Mean Girls, Tina’s screen writing credit, featured a clique of suburban high school girls who set upon an outsider, a home schooled missionary’s daughter who doesn’t fit in.
played by Lindsay Lohan. Interestingly the greatest victim is the Math teacher played by Tina, who is
accused of criminal activity without foundation. Interesting several years all parties to this film played their part in savaging Sarah; art imitating life. The way the wardrobe story was spun along
with the false charges of incitement against Obama
completed the template. Even with this backdrop, 750 million dollars in Campaign funds, they still only won by 6 million votes and as of this moment are two short of a filibuster proof Senate.
If the coverage of Palin was as easily falsifiable as Narciso claims it is, why did so many conservative and/or Republican voters believe it?
As Mitsu pointed out, it wasn’t just people ideologically opposed to Palin who criticized her qualifications. Her critics included conservative luminaries and lifelong Republicans from George Will to David Brooks to David Frum, Christopher Buckley and others.
Even our very own Occam’s Beard is certain that he is more capable of fielding media queries than Palin is. And if he believes Palin is — after years in public office — less prepared to take on the blow-dried television press than he is, how could he possibly believe she is prepared to assume the presidency?
And Pee Wee raises an excellent question: If the media bias is so blatantly obvious, why would anyone let it effect their vote?
In order to be effective in a wealthy, free, open society like the U.S., media bias would have to be subtle enough to escape notice by conservatives themselves, unless of course conservatives are a small enough minority not capable of electing someone to represent them.
Conservatives are either going to have to accept responsibility for their own failure to attract voters (and media readership/viewership), or shrink to a smaller and smaller minority.
Occam’s Beard,
I like your suggestions as to how Palin should have handled Gibson, but I see two basic flaws in that approach.
1 – The MSM was already doing everything it could to paint Palin negatively in the eyes of the public.
Your suggested exchange method would have been appropriate in a private or semi-private meeting – but would have been spun, at best ,as “evasion” by Palin when described by the MSM, or at worst as evidence probably that Palin was something of an unpleasant shrew.
2 – Gibson still retained the ability to cut and hack the interview at his discretion.
Anything Palin did that undermined Gibson’s self percieved “superiority” would have been left on the cutting room floor and never seen by the general public.
Sometimes, I swear I’m not making myself
understood. After the degree of counterfeiting,
the historical record, editing of interviewtranscripts, those interviews repeated by the likes of Tina Fey, the original “Mean Girl” well she didn’t play one in the film, but she became one through her actions
as illustrated above. It wears down the resistance
of all but the most resilient. The Ziegler poll is a testament to this. As for Brooks, Noonan, Parker,
they wanted to vote for an African American liberal
but were too dishonest to say that was their preference. We’ve been here before, most notably in 1964, when the Establishment thought to wipe it’s hands of the likes of Goldwater, but they were
the future. The same thing we are told by Kathleen Parker, that the social right should be jettisoned because they’ve only been important in winning 6 of the last 9 contests.
An example of how overwhelming and deceitful this can be is with the latest stylist controversy. They say 114,000 was spent on those things, yet at least
on the NY Times link, they have no trackback to the FEC site. Meanwhile the total campaign tab for Obama is now at 750 million dollars, how much of those expenses are itemized and more importantly where did the money come from. We’ve seen how
‘the small donor’ exception was a canard.
In fairness, Bogey Man, I am also certain I could field media queries more capably than Obama does.
Or would, if he got anything other than softball queries. (“Would you please tell us how wonderful you are? You would? OK, let’s move on to the next question.”)
How about a real question: “If you were elected President and new untainted evidence arose of Bill Ayers’ crimes that were not subject to the statute of limitations, would you support his prosecution for those crimes? Would you pardon him? If so, and you were confronted by the families of Ayers’ victims, what would you tell them when asked why you had pardoned him?”
I would dearly love to interview Obama with the gloves off. That would be for openers. He would cry. Guaranteed.
I would pursue him on whether he’d known Ayers at Columbia (“What role did Obama play in the anti-apartheid movement there? How many people were involved? How is it possible that you didn’t know Ayers then, when you worked on the same organizing committee?”). When he said he didn’t know Ayers, I’d look over my glasses and give him a “Really?” and let that one hang in the air for a whie. Then I’d follow up with why he moved to Chicago, a city with which he had zero previous connection, to work at an obscure left-wing law firm when he presumably had lots of other opportunities. I’d ask him how he met Michelle, and whether he was introduced by Ayers/Dohrn (the latter being Michelle’s coworker at the time). I’d ask him if he understood why people disbelieved him when he claimed this extraordinary series of coincidences was just that. I’d ask him whether he would admit it if he and Ayers had been best buddies all along (which they obviously were), and if not, why not? Would he be ashamed of his connection with Ayers? Isn’t he a “distinguished professor of education?” Why would he be ashamed to admit any connection, if Ayers is now such a stand-up guy?”
Those are just a few thoughtlets off the top of my head. Given some time and some research, I’d come up with a thoroughly structured set of questions that locked in Obama and either pinned him down to the truth, or made obvious that he was lying. I could assure you that Obama would have sweat rings that reached his beltline when I finished with him. A lawyer friend once said I’d missed my calling as a prosecutor.
I don’t think either Palin or Obama is ready to take on the Presidency, and suspect that Obama himself has recently drawn that sobering conclusion. Notwithstanding that epiphany, he’s going to have to do so.
No sweat, O-beard. I’d just as happily play Obama hitting your pathetically hypothetical, speculative, are-you-still beating-your-wife spitballs out of the park.
Like this:
Q: “If you were elected President and new untainted evidence arose of Bill Ayers’ crimes that were not subject to the statute of limitations, would you support his prosecution for those crimes? Would you pardon him? If so, and you were confronted by the families of Ayers’ victims, what would you tell them when asked why you had pardoned him?”
A: Whoa Obie, that’s a lot of ifs, isn’t it? Let’s stick to one hypothetical at a time, that way it might be less obvious that you’re using this interview to float allegations you’ve dreamed up about events you’ve invented wholecloth.
Something you should know, Obie, as a journalist, is that our justice system has a little thing called a trial, where the accused get to defend themselves. Your question implies that I’d be in a position to pardon someone before they were convicted. If you’re going to ask these questions, at least know the basics.
But let’s ignore your ignorance of essential details and get to the issue of pardons. I would treat Bill Ayers no differently than anyone else, of course. Since you haven’t said what his hypothetical crimes are in your invented case — would it be something like shoplifting, or something like lying to Congress about an arms-for-hostages deal with Iran — how can you possibly expect me to give an answer?
What’s that Obie? You want your mommy? Look, we’re just getting started. Here’s a hanky. Don’t worry, it’ll be okay…
Speaking of not knowing basics, Presidents do have the power to pardon people who haven’t been convicted. See Ford’s pardon of Nixon.
Next question.
So I take that you’d pardon for some crimes, but not others? For which crimes would you pardon him? On what basis would you make that decision?
You’ve foolishly taken the bait, because we’ll now spend the whole interview discussing your terrorist buddies, and for which crimes you’d consider pardoning them, and how you’d justify it.
When the interview is over, you’ll be lucky to get a job as a shoeshine boy at O’Hare.
And here’s a tip: never engage in personal vituperation in that sort of interview situation (e.g., characterizing the interviewer as “ignorant,” or getting cutesy with patronizing dimunitives or phrases such “we have this little thing called a trial,” that sort of thing). Getting huffy or snarky means you lose in the eyes of onlookers.
For the interviewer, the goal is to ask questions that in a transcript come across as perfectly reasonable requests for information, even if they’re not.
That for the interviewee is to provide what in a transcript superficially purport to be perfectly reasonable, cool-headed answers. The knife fight takes place at a nonverbal level.
Thanks O-Beard.
So you’re admitting that the point of your interview would simply be to bloody Obama with innuendo and taunts, not to uncover facts ignored by the lesser Grand Inquisitors in the mainstream media.
Isn’t that exactly what you purport the mainstream media did with Palin? And wasn’t vituperation exactly what you counseled for Palin?
You wrote: “For the interviewer, the goal is to ask questions that in a transcript come across as perfectly reasonable requests for information, even if they’re not.”
Layer upon layer of hypotheticals are patently unreasonable. Every thinking American is familiar with the “are you still beating your wife” formulation. None would think your reprise of it was “reasonable” nor, certainly, convincing.
And your assumption that Obama would continue to simply swat down every invented allegation you threw up is equally risible.
Like this:
Q: ”What role did Obama play in the anti-apartheid movement there? How many people were involved? How is it possible that you didn’t know Ayers then, when you worked on the same organizing committee?”
A: As you may know, Obie, college is a very busy time. In addition to taking a full load of credit, plus honors seminars, I had to work at a part time job. I did, however, as you mention, find it necessary to do what I could to oppose Apartheid.
As you may recall, at the time the Reagan administration declined to protest apartheid and the president himself referred to the apartheid regime as a friend and “bulwark against communism.” History proved him dead wrong and while my role in the movement against apartheid was miniscule, I’m proud of it nonetheless.
I’m curious. What is your concern about my role there? Why do you ask? Do you feel there is something wrong with opposing Apartheid?
As for Ayers, he was much older and not part of my circle of acquaintances. As I mentioned, I was a very, very busy man at the time — he probably was too — and so never had he chance to get to know him.
Again, are you suggesting that it may have been wrong for me to oppose Apartheid because Ayers was also active in opposing it? If you’re not suggesting that, what is the point of your question?
You know, I get a sense, Obie, that your goal in this interview isn’t to find out what I think or know or to answer any questions the public might need to know. Instead, you are clearly attempting to throw down a barrage of innuendo and guilt by association in the hope of forcing me to consume the entire interview on defending myself, rather than on discussing my policies, my record and what I would do as president.
Let’s make a deal: from here on. You ask straight questions, I give straight answers. Don’t you agree the public deserves that?
Nothing of the kind. I’m not asking about his wardrobe, or his children. I’m asking about his values — perfectly fair topic.
No. You missed the point. Vituperation is directed at a person qua person; criticizing the person’s questions or perspectives is fair game. If you re-read my hypothetical dialogue with Gibson I did not criticize him personally, but rather characterized his questions adversely, and /or required him to focus them better. Big difference.
There were no layers upon layers of hypotheticals. The secondary questions were follow-ups to presumed answers to the initial questions. If Obama said he wouldn’t pardon Ayers, I’d ask him why not. If he said he would, I’d ask him why. Those aren’t layers of hypotheticals; they constitute a series of questions investigating the interviewee’s views, so voters can judge the man’s values. It’s the sort of thing the media should have done.
To reiterate, patronizing the interviewer (“Obie”) makes you look bad, and so I’d be thrilled if you did that. But my follow-up would be “Senator Obama, you raise an interesting point. You took a full course load of credit, plus honors seminars, and reflect admirably on your industry and diligence. So why won’t you release your college transcripts, or even disclose your course of study in college?”
“So before happening to move to Chicago, you never met Ayers, despite working in the same movement, at the same university, living three blocks apart for two years, marrying a coworker of Ayers’s wife, once again living in proximity to him, and his hosting your political coming-out
party? Those are all just coincidences? Is that your answer?”
All my Christmases just arrived at once with that response, which is exactly what any adverse interviewer is hoping for. Play the victim. Look defensive and evasive. Then go home and update your resume, because you’re done.
Think about this: what would your reaction be if Palin had said something like that? Case closed.
Realistically, you’d have been done after sticking your foot in your mouth about pardons. On that issue alone I’d have given a thirty procto exam with a splintery phone pole on the con law regarding Presidential pardons. You’d never recover.
First, I’d lock you in on the viewpoint you expressed.
“So a pardon has to await conviction?” (Await your response.)
“And the Constitution enforces that requirement on the President?”
“Senator Obama, how long have you practiced law?”
“And you have lectured on constitutional law, is that correct?”
“And how long have you taught constitutional law?”
“You consider knowledge of the Constitution desirable for a lawyer, do you not?”
“And would I correct in thinking that it’s even more important for a professor of law?”
“Is there any law more important than that in the Constitution?”
“In fact, wouldn’t it be fair to say that knowledge of the Constitution is the sine qua non of a competent lawyer?”
“And isn’t the President sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution?”
“So if a President were to act unconstitutionally, he would be violating his oath of office, would he not?”
“So do you consider any Presidents as having acted unconstitutionally in granting pardons?”
“Senator, in your experience in teaching con law, have you ever come across article II, section 2?”
“I happen to have a copy of that article with me here.” (And believe me, I would.) “Could you direct me to the proviso that an individual be convicted before he can receive a pardon?”
Next stop: O’Hare shoeshine kiosk.
Sorry O-Beard, but you can’t just make stuff up. There is a written record here, just scroll up to get it.
None of your questions even mention the word values. If you wanted to ask about values, wouldn’t you have to at least use the word?
Senator Obama, tells us about your values?
Senator Obama, what are your values as regards Apartheid.
Senator Obama, what does your college record say about your values.
What you really, mean is that you are convinced that Obama’s presence in activities that included Bill Ayers reflects badly on his values. And that you believe that Obama had lied about how well he knew Ayers.
Do you really think the average American couldn’t see that that is what you’re really trying to say, but are attempting to say it through a set of comically hypothetical, risibly presumptive “questions?”
You admit as much by claiming that your questions about Ayers are actually about “values.” I’m sure you’ll agree that Obama’s well smart enough point out that, absent presumed guilt, your questions are pointless, by your own admission.
You claim your questions aren’t hypothetical because, wait for it, hypothetically, Obama would have to answer them in a certain way that would validate your assumptions.
The fact that your pre-emptively bragging about winning the interview (debate?) on points because your hypothetical questions would, hypothetically, elicit the desired responses from Obama, says it all.
Indeed, I didn’t know presidents could pardon people who hadn’t been convicted. Take whatever big-bragging comfort you can in that, but know Obama would never make the same mistake.
And what’s all your pre-emptive victory claim about, anyway?
You write:
“Given Gibson’s manifestly superior attitude, I’d have been waiting for the first question that wasn’t absolutely brilliant, and then asked Gibson how long he’d had to prepare for this interview, and how many staff he’d had researching for it. Then I’d have looked over my glasses a la Gibson, and with evident disappoinment said , “X weeks, Y staff, and that’s your question?”
So your claim that getting personal means losing is rather obviously bogus. As I said before, you advocate one thing for Palin, then claim that every same thing would send Obama to shoeshine land.
Once again, I’m no political (or economic) genius. But since this is a blog, all I have to have is enough chutzpah to speak my mind in the company of so many smarter than me.
Simply, the joke’s over, and Obama will have to produce. As many have said, including me, he can no longer vote present. Although I believe he was “Peter Principaled” long ago, he’s in for it now. Hopefully, he has chosen well and will be but a mouth piece for some good decisions. And if you liked the Clinton Administration II, you should be OK. He’s PE, and I have no choice but to hope he does a good job. I am still more worried about the hill.
As we ALL (left, right, etc.) know, once McCain picked Governor Palin, all attention was focused on destroying her, while Biden – as much as possible – was yanked off stage and sent to the outback. The left is scared of her. That’s a no brainer. I too, could never be a politician. I would have walked out on Katie, and punched Charley boy out the first time he slid those glasses down, and looked down his nose at me.
The left was much more comfortable with McCain, because he is, after all, a rino. The media was very helpful in bringing him to the front of the republican ticket. He was their choice, not mine.
Scared of Palin?
Why?
The results are in. She was a disaster for the Republicans. She probably lost the election for McCain or, at best, prevented it from being a lot closer than the landslide it was.
Even better, she’s divided the Republicans between the people like Brooks, Frum and Will and the wingnuts. Going to be very tough to win in elections with that kind of schism in place.
Care to wager the GOP will move her off the stage as quickly and quietly as possible? You’re on.
For liberals, she’s a gift that keeps on giving.
Attaboy, get into the really tough, hard-hitting questions.
Seriously, are you so simple that you think that the best way to find out about a politician’s values are to ask him in so many words? Why not just ask for his stump speech and be done with it?
To find out a politician’s values, one needs to look at the decisions he’s taken. Obama hasn’t taken any decisions, so we have to inquire into his history, and he’s fighting us every step of the way by not releasing records. Not a good sign.
Never mind that. What does your college record say, period? And why haven’t you released it? (What indeed does it say about Obama’s values? I’d very much like to know the answer to that question.)
Of course that’s what I’m getting at, and why Obama is trying to hide. He’s obviously lying about his Columbia days, when he clearly became joined at the hip with Ayers (who recognized him as a comer in leftwing politics). Otherwise, why would he refuse to divulge any information about his time at Columbia? Let me put it this way: if Obama had blown the doors off Columbia (academically, not literally; the latter is more Ayers’s style) in a serious course of study, he would have put it on his website. Doesn’t that make sense?
No, not at all. You misunderstood the questions before by thinking that they would be delivered all at once. They were the Q portion of a Q&A; on the ground, each subsequent question would depend on the answer to the previous ones. I wasn’t presuming any given answer, but just showing an exemplary line of questioning if Obama had answered in a certain way.
The trick to this is to anticipate every possible type of answer he could give (e.g., denial, admission, ducking, throwing out a red herring, changing the subject), and have planned how to advance the questioning from that point. That’s why I’d have had the relevant bit of the Constitution to hand in discussing pardons. Just in case…
I’m afraid you don’t quite get it. It’s not a debate; it’s an interview. The interviewer has nothing to lose; he’s trying to extract information from the interviewee, if necessary by getting under his skin. That’s why an intemperate response (huffy or snarky) means you (as the interviewee) lose.
Not at all. The critical point on the “that’s your question?” tack is the tone with which one says this. I appreciate that you probably thought that I’d have that sarcastically, but I wouldn’t have; the tone would be more one of sadness and disappointment, with at least an affectation of charity. Deadly.
I’m not going to rub that in, but notice the way the questions are structured. Locking in on details first, to eliminate wiggle room later, then boring in for the kill. If you had been Obama in that exchange, you’d have agreed — indeed, could hardly disagree — that the Constitution was paramount in our legal system, that any competent lawyer would know the Constitution, that you’d been a practicing lawyer for n years, that you had taught constitutional law (at least as an adjunct prof) for years, that Presidents were bound to follow the Constitution, etc.
So by the time the trap is sprung, the interviewee would be totally locked in, with no way off the hook. Viewers would draw the unavoidable conclusion that the interviewer was an incompetent lawyer.
I know Obama himself doubtless would not have made the same mistake, but I pursued the matter in some detail to show how one can exploit a miscue like that. That’s the type of line of questioning I’d use on Obama re Columbia, Chicago, Ayers, etc. It’s what the media should have done if they were doing their jobs: eliciting the truth from the man, despite his best efforts to conceal it.
Landslide? Not hardly. Prop 8 in California passed by exactly the same margin as Obama over McCain; was that a landslide against homosexual marriage?
Landslides are things like Nixon v. McGovern, where Nixon took 49 states and McGovern…1. That’s a landslide.
Sorry, just to follow up re Obama and Columbia. Obama has refused even to divulge his major at Columbia. Not just his grades, but even the courses he took.
Odd, isn’t it? “I was a (cough) major at Columbia, and graduated with a degree in (cough cough).” Not disclosing grades, OK, if they’re not so good. (Obama’s not stupid, so presumably his grades weren’t that bad.) But not even divulging your major? Peculiar.
Unless, for example, Ayers had been a TA of his, and Obama’s coursework would make that apparent.
That would explain his reticence handily. In fact, it’s hard to think of another reason why he’d want to keep his major a deep dark state secret.
You don’t get to make stuff up, O-Beard, remember?
“To find out a politician’s values, one needs to look at the decisions he’s taken. Obama hasn’t taken any decisions, so we have to inquire into his history.”
The most essential, universally known decision Obama made was to oppose the Iraq war at a time when his opponents, his own party and most of the country favored it. The consensus is that decision is what got him the nomination.
Ten seconds at Google gives us this:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/
Obama’s money-where-his-mouth-is decisions on FISA, Immigration, funding the Iraq war and health insurance for children.
But no, O-Beard, you want to throw down some cockamamie barrage of innuendo about what you don’t know about Obama’s 25-year-old Columbia University report card. Worse, you flaunt the depth of your delusion by pretending that your fabrication that Obama “hasn’t made any decisions” won’t get the flick-of-the-wrist debunking it begs for.
Yet again your entire line of questioning presumes guilt and, worse, your pre-emptive bragging presumes that the average American Republican swing voter — the ones who got Obama elected — wouldn’t see right through that.
And you really have the chutzpah to complain that Gibson is arrogant? Talk about condescension. The entire point of your interview is to “trap” Obama on constitutional law, his forte.
As you may recall, Palin couldn’t even name a Supreme Court case that mattered to her. More important, remember how the “conservative” media howled about the unfairness and/or irrelevance of such a question.
How obvious do you want to make it that the lynchpin of your analysis is the application of double standards?
Playing Palin in your mind, you think you’d destroy Gibson by pointing out that his questions were poorly researched. Yet here you are on fishing expedition in a swimming pool, inventing hypotheticals because you have zero facts about Obama and Ayers, other than that the two lived in the same city and were, occasionally, at the same place at the same time.
What you don’t understand and voters did is that even if Ayers and Obama were every bit as friendly as you nakedly presume they were, it is an irrelevant detail, given all the other evidence we have about Obama’s character and values.
You made the mistake of plain speaking in your ludicrous assertion that Obama “has made no decisions.” The conservative media noisemakers you’re trying to imitate are smarter than that. They always left it vague at: “We don’t know enough where he came from and what he’s done.”
What voters showed they knew, of course, is plenty about where Obama came from and what he’s done. More than enough to reasonably answer any questions about what kind of president he will make.
Contrast that with the right-wing media noisemakers. They screamed at the top of their lungs that Obama is a Marxist with a secret past. This made it so much easier for Obama to win the debates. When he showed up and gave mostly straightforward answers — relative to the norm — it cemented the deal for swing voters, who became convinced that Obama’s critics on the right were delusional.
The non-delusional could see all along that Obama, very, very far from a Marxist terrorist-sympathizer, was preparing to appoint a cavalcade of economists and national security experts from the very center of the establishment.
Low and behold, reality has dawned and is showing, day after day after day, how monumentally silly it is to assert that Obama’s Ayers connection is relevant, given that, as president, he’s surrounding himself exclusively with centrist and center-right establishment officials — most with impeccable credentials.
As a liberal, I do hope you’ll keep using your delusions, O-beard. They helped elect Obama and will, I suspect, keep on helping.
Leftists like Bogey were always misogynists at heart. Now they have an open excuse, instead of just conservative women bloggers to harass. This would, indeed, make Sarah Palin the gift that keeps on giving for those that like to attack women and to use government power against those without any power at all (Elian Gonsales, Waco, Iraq, Afghanistan, forced flu vaccinations, etc)
Ridiculous. Some totally unknown wanker in the state senate in the middle of nowhere runs his yap and then holds himself out as a sage after making the cheapest of all cheap bets by telling mush-headed liberals (not looking in any particular direction here) exactly what Party apparatchiks have declared to be the Party line. He staked out an extreme position with the expectation that either a) it would gain traction, and he could point back to it later, or b) if it were proven wrong, it would sink without trace. So no points awarded for that, especially because ultimately he was wrong anyway.
Evidence: you don’t hear squat about that decision now, do you? When is the last time Obama even mentioned Iraq in a speech? He recently admitted that he would have to assess Iraq in light of conditions on the ground — something that all candidates, except him, have maintained all along (he was originally going to pull out troops in 16 months, come hell or high water; now he’s backed off that). And he’s keeping Gates on board. If he thought Iraq was a disaster today, why would he do that?
Because Obama’s original bleat was proven wrong. You don’t hear squat about the Messiah’s opposition to the surge either — also proven dead wrong. Now it’s all about the economy, “hope,” “change,” and anything else that will appeal to the cognitively disenfranchised.
It’s clear at this juncture that Obama was 100% wrong about Iraq, and had he been in office 18 months ago, we’d have choppers lifting people off rooftops there today.
Where he reversed his position.
Didn’t go to college, did you? It shows. Report cards end at high school.
Answer me one question: what did Obama major in?
You don’t know. Neither do I. Neither does anyone else in America, as far as I know.
Where did I say that?
No, you need to work on reading comprehension. First, it was you I trapped, and it was child’s play to do so. If you re-read the thread, my original question was not directed to Obama’s knowledge of con law (until you opened that can of worms) but rather, in essence, whether he would pardon Ayers today knowing what he now knows. That cuts to his values, without the simpleminded expedient of asking him what his values are.
The dearth of facts is exactly what I’m trying to address.
Then why does Obama hide the relationship? “Just a guy in the neighborhood?” A guy who has babysat for him, and hosted his coming-out party? No sale.
And most Obama voters don’t even know who Pelosi, Reid, or Frank are, so there’s your calibration on their information level.
Yes, that was apparent from the cognitive skills. Prediction: you will be disillusioned with your Messiah within a year.
Virtually all Republicans and so many Democrats are very well aware of the bias, so it will have no effect on their voting decisions. They will take everything they read with the same grains of salt you do.
Most Democrats believe the MSM is biased towards conservatives and big corporations.
So, no, it does not support Bogey’s bogus propaganda points.
lifelong Republicans from George Will to David Brooks to David Frum, Christopher Buckley and others.
A life long Republican is someone who votes for Obama, in Bogey’s world.
That’s a neat way to lie.
You make some good points about Obama’s inconsistencies, O-Beard. They would have made grist for far better questions than your hypotheticals about hypotheticals drawn from what you don’t know about Ayers.
But, of course, your lambaste is also a lengthy confession that you were simply lying when you said Obama has made no decisions and that there’s no way to judge his character other than by finding out whether he sat next to or across the table from Ayers at some post Apartheid rally booze up. You find all kinds of ways to judge Obama’s character and judgment without that. Case closed, OB. You don’t even believe yourself!
What don’t we know about the President elect, let’s stick to what we do know. On the week of
September 11th, he wrote a local op ed, that argued we didn’t need to go after them in Afghanistan or Iraq; as understand them; this was buried in the New Yorker cover piece by Ryan Lizza. He opposed the authorization of use of force, mostly related to the arguments proferred by the likes of Reverend Wright and Father Phleger; most anti-American diatribes. His thesis topic, was on the arms control approaches in the late detente/second half of the Cold War. Those arguments went out of date, right around 1985, yet he still holds them as a recent piece in Arms Control Today would indicate. A quick survey of his lectures at the University of Chicago, suggests far left approaches on a whole series of issues; from the sample exams, and a propensity to not have the students read the actual cases in Civil Rights Law but rely on abstracts by a radical Marxist, Derrick Bell. The total nature of his associations with William Ayers, the scion of Con Edison, turned urban guerilla and later educational theorist is unclear; but they don’t suggest anything good. The misuse of the Annenberg’s Foundation’s funds in the Chicago public schools are also a warning sign. The fact of his nonexistent record in the Illinois legislature
is important. That he won at least three of his races, by disqualifying his opponents by challenging
their signatures, or forcing open sealed court records. The fact that Hamas, the FARC and a number of other foreign hostile factions, signaled the preference for him, was yet another sign. As to the extent and nature of his connections to the anti-Apartheid movement; one has to consider that one of the issues against say the release of Mandela another terrorist, was the rise of a Marxist, anti-American regime to rise in its place, and for South Africa, a resource rich nation, to fall into the place of a corrupt kleptocracy. The first element hasn’t happened yet, the same could have been said of Zimbabwe in the early days though. But this regime is increasing pro Islamist, anti-Western
The final piece of the puzzle is seen how Biden is being shunted over into a closet in the Executive
Office Building. The man who thought “FDR gave fireside chats in 1929” despite his 35 years in the Senate, can’t really be bothered to provide imput. Which is good, considering his imput, against the
Alaska pipeline, for partition of Iraq, for FISA and VAWA has been historically wrongsided at a quantum level. His support by subprime’s leading
players and the credit card issuers really don’t suggest anything good. So clearly on that score, Sarah was a better choice, she would have tempered McCain’s more accomodationist attitudes on energy, foreign policy, the courts, et al. That was why there was a full court press to destroy her,
abetted by all the usual suspects.
Obama has made no decisions of any consequence. (A decision whether to have paper or plastic, which would be momentous in the Obama scheme of things, is effectively no decision at all.) Voting “present” is not a decision. A decision in this context is making a choice on an issue of moment, and being on the hook for the sequelae of that decision. Deciding how best to protect this nation from terrorists, for example.
You’re setting up a straw man again by sharpening my point. I did not say there was no way to judge Obama’s character other than investigating Ayers; I said that, in the absence of any decisions or accomplishments, we must turn to Obama’s history, of which his relationship with Ayers is a part.
And that was true, and remains true.
Furthermore, if Ayers is of no importance or relevance, why hide a connection to him, when one obviously exists.
This grows tiresome, and while I have no doubt that you will one day make a fine adult, I don’t wish to participate further in your education. But you might profitably consider the following questions:
Why does Obama refuse to disclose even his major at Columbia? What possible reason could he have? If you’d gone to college, would you keep secret the subject you had studied? Why would anyone do that? Doesn’t that give you just a pause for thought?
Sorry O-Beard. You can say anything you like here, but when you say up, you can’t then claim you said down.
You wrote:
“I did not say there was no way to judge Obama’s character other than investigating Ayers.”
But you also wrote:
“To find out a politician’s values, one needs to look at the decisions he’s taken. Obama hasn’t taken any decisions, so we have to inquire into his history.”
I’d be happy to let you try to have it either way.
If we don’t need to know details about Ayers to know who Obama really is, why is the Ayers Bonfire of the Hypotheticals the focus of your Grand Inquisition of Obama?
If we do need to know about Ayers to know about Obama’s values, why do you claim to be certain that all the decisions I showed that he has made demonstrate poor character?
And, OB, I don’t blame you for being tired. Must be a lot of work trying to answer for all your self contradictions. Somehow I think you’ll find the energy to keep up the innuendo and trash talk, but not to do any careful thinking about why Fox News talking points only work when the target can’t fire back.
Occam, I don’t think even you can successfully conduct a remedial class in logic to this guy.
His logic paths are all over.