This is a fascinating topic, if depressing for me.
For the record, that one was debunked promptly by the right-wing HotAir site:
For the record, I want to stress I was making a general comment about the misbehaviour of both
fringes. Just making sure that's clear.
Reasonable voices exist on both sides--even a member of the leftist Kos, the root of all internet evil for right wingers (responsible for the pregnancy smear),
comes down on mysogyny and classism in the blog.
I actually think I'm way more reasonable than them and more interested in civil discourse, but hey, that's bias for you.
Perception of a public figure is formed by a mix of the person's public persona, policy positions, and who he/she chooses to spend time with, etc. And, anti-Obama types must be hoping, by repeated accusations thereof. It's actually more rational than it might seem.
My issues with perception is how easily is can be coopted by these fringe elements more than facts (a lot of these things have a basis in some fact--which all good lies do btw). In a perfect world, the media would present equally a candidates public persona, position, etc. But it doesn't. It expresses the salacious bits of each, which are the ones that stick.
I still remember the interviews in Pennsylvania where some people questioned whether Obama was a Christian (not to mention "regular" people in my hometown, which shocked me silly). This was after the media had debunked the claim that he's Muslim. The Palin situation as well if anything should show how quickly the mainstream media disseminates erroneous information. Hopefully, this situation will be put under wraps as well.
But given how fast information goes, I'm concerned about the sticking power of salacious rumor and circumstancial junk. I still think perception from the average outlets is not a rational basis on which to judge leadership. Maybe before it was. I've been thinking about this a lot because I've spent some time last week and this week, trying to keep facts straight and debunking junk from both the right and the left. A lot of what I found out debunked made it into the television outlets, not to mention the papers. Not to mention people waving around circumstatial junk as "facts." My question is--how many people have the luxury of time and the interest to navigate through this junk?
It might give someone a bump at the polls, but when the truth is revealed, it often backfires on them.
You're far more optimistic than I, Terry. Often, but not always. Maybe I feel that way because I'm on the opposite side of history (requisite bias claim), so to speak. There were a lot of mistakes done in the Kerry campaign, but I think the whole issue with his record, the unsubstatiated smears, affected people's decisions. No, I'm not saying it decided the election per se, but that it fed into an atmosphere where personality and character based on smears actually *mattered*. That coupled with the amount of air time and pages written devoted to trivial nonsense (An analysis Palin and McCain's hug on the Times!) this election cycle contributes to my pessimism on the importance of facts for all sides.
Re taxes:
This is not my area clearly, which is why I'd love for people to weigh in on (well politics as a whole is not my area
). I am for the democratic platform however, like Paul mentioned ages ago, I do think government should provide for those who need help, especially in this economy. I am perfectly aware of the smaller government approach and its pros (my whole fam leans to that), but it's not what I believe in.
More info:
Comparison of their approach to the economy from the Christian Science Monitor
Since this is not my area (and I've blathered enough), I'll let the
AP\'s cited economists deal out the cons of McCain's economic plan to be fair on thread:
However, there are worries that the higher deficits that are expected because of the tax cuts could drive up interest rates, raising the cost of money for businesses and result in less investment, not more.
This plays with McCain's remark-- "the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it"
The article has much more stuff on
both, I encourage anyone to read it.
Factcheck says:
That drew applause, but the fact is that earmarks amount to only $16.9 billion in the current fiscal year, according to the Office of Management and Budget. Meanwhile, the deficit is expected to be more than $200 billion in 2009. And McCain's tax cuts will add billions more to future deficits unless offset by spending cuts, which he so far has not been willing to identify.
alcyone
