Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Off Topic Sarah Palin for VP!

The suggestion was, Roger, that some members of the forum have been venting elsewhere that this particular thread has been conducted in a less than friendly and polite manner.

Interestingly, the members in question - whoever they may be - appear to come from both sides of the political divide. (I'm always of the general view that if both sides are complaining of being mistreated in a political debate, it usually means something's being done right. )

Wendy and Bethy - who have read the thread - do not seem to be of the opinion that the debate has been conducted impolitely for the most part. So unless those members who are unhappy complain at an official level, with specifics of their concerns, we'll be taking this no further.

I think, perhaps, when politics is the subject under discussion, people's passions can easily allow them to see insult where none is intended. Perhaps more so than in other debates, when it is so close to their hearts.

Perhaps everyone could bear that in mind when posting and just take a moment or two to add an extra layer of courtesy, a little extra care in how they frame their words, to help smooth things along.

LabRat

Despite my resolution to stop reading this thread because I'm being convinced more and more to not vote (I really need to start looking for facts myself instead of being swayed by arguments and being convinced that neither party should be in office), I was confused by one thing.

Who are the 93-7? The media is more than 100 people, so could you clarify this, Roger?

Karen - I can't speak for Roger, but the percentages I've seen in a number of [obviously left leaning] Poli Sci text books is somewhere in the 85-90% range for members of the media who vote Democratic. I would imagine that he meant percentages there, but I'm sure he'll clarify when he's able .

Carol

Yes, the numbers refer to percentages. Lazy fingers. Sorry.

If I remember the registration numbers from the story I read last year, roughly 50% of people in the print and TV media are registered as Independents, about 25% are registered Democrats, and about 3% are registered Republicans. The rest are Other...

I started with Wikipedia's rundown as a primer here --it's a good stepping stone to other information. There's a lot of juicy stuff there--a brief history, links to watchdog groups, etc.

The often quoted one I've seen was done by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party.[15] This leaves 24% undecided or Independent. (from Wikipedia) There are tons of others, but the results are more or less the same.

It's always a good idea to try to read/watch from a variety of sources (then see who convices you) as opposed to holding out for a strictly unbiased view IMO. I think that sometimes the identity of the person writing an editorial is more important than the publication itself too.

alcyone

Apologies, I meant the nominee facts. Every time I read something here, it gets disputed by someone else, then that's disputed, then expanded on, then it gets lost in the shuffle. So it's time I went looking on my own.

No worries, at this point, I just have a bottomless bag o' links and a lot of restless energy.

Happy hunting.

alcyone

Here's an interesting article I read on Obama today.

Obama article

It's actually on a UK news(paper?) website, by a UK writer, so it's coming at it from a slightly different approach.

It doesn't discuss the positives or negatives of the issues on either side, but I thought he made interesting points about Obama as a candidate.

Bethy

I read as a very interested outsider, whose country has been very impacted by American decisions since the end of their Civil War (Okay, so they invaded what was to become Canada during their wee rebellion against Britain a million years ago... oh and the war of 1812... which the Euros refer to as the Napoleonic Wars and which started a tad earlier than 1812...)

Okay refocusing here:

Paul wrote:
Yes! Paul, important point!

I've followed US elections for some years (political junkie confession) and I've thought this election particularly has seen more propaganda, from all candidates, although some more than others.

Why? not sure, but I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the way in which the internet has been used. News cycles are momentary, and obsess with the trivial, personal details. As well, I see so little respect for the other side.

Why? That's a scary thing to see happening in America which, and I know this sounds corny, has demonstrated more than most other countries on earth, Voltaire's statement: "I disagree with what you say say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At any rate, I don't think that most of those who disagree with me have been "skewed by propaganda" but have reached their different conclusions in an informed and reasoned way, based on different principles and values than mine, but no less valid.

And Roger, as always, I stand in awe at your command of information. (although, at times I do disagree with your conclusions, but hey, I was , at one time a card-carrying member of the NDP )

c.
.

Can I join your fan club too?

Roger, you are my CHAMPION. It is SO refreshing and gratifying to read your posts!

I'm a little busy here... what with relatives and friends coming up from the coast to escape IKE... But you are eloquently making great points, and I'm not so frustrated that I don't have time to jump in.



I'm not trying to infer this is "war," but speaking of champions... here's a little fix for ALL of us!




Especially us "FOX" fans!



Cain for McCain

Response to the TimesOnline article linked above.

This is why it's so tricky to maneuver through this political landscape.
I had read this article today and this distortion made me wince:

The problem here is that Obama's position as "extreme" is based on faulty evidence.

Factcheck (non-partisan) notes this:

(In this current climate, factcheck and politifact are my enclaves, there's very few others I will trust)

Anyway, in the article, Baker was referring to Obama's turn around in speaking of a common ground in his speech vs. his votes on the bills as inhumane "extremism."

Factcheck notes that Obama could have covered up/lied/misrepresented his position (it's all very complicated in the legalese), which is a totally legitimate criticism (although everyone misrepresents, it's a matter of if this is a big deal to one, I rush to add); we can speculate forever on his reasons, it makes no logical sense. Also, if a person's belief is strongly pro-life, well, that's what it is. These are deadenders.

However, the accusation of "extreme," which the article solidly puts forth as evidence of the disjunction between Obama the politician and Obama the speech-giver is distorted. It is another matter and one that can be looked at with respect to evidence. Going by factcheck (whose legitimacy I trust more than Baker's), Obama's position does not seem to be any more extreme than any mainstream pro-choice (that is Clinton herself was more entrenched in the pro-choice camp actually and called Obama on it). In fact, this article (also incorrect in the bill according to Factcheck and published before its analysis) notes:

(Politifact Confirms)

Now, what gets me is how easily faulty perceptions of character spread (what kind of person votes for infanticide?!). Because, in this case, one thing is to call anyone's views as "pro-choice" and another to call them "extreme," without solid evidence (unless all pro-choice are extreme, which is another deadender). In any case, I do not think it's a fair accusation based on the facts present.

alcyone (therapy, therapy, therapy)

Nice diversion, Cap. , I can appreciate those politics. I know I sound like a broken record, but I think Dean's "shirtless" state of the union would be a hit. I haven't heard yet what Dean thought of Sarah Palin as VP choice, not that his opinion means any more that anyone else's, but as a fan of both, it'd be fun to know.

TEEEEEEJ

^
Heh.

Well... since Dean is for McCain and also has an inclination towards beauty queens... safe to say, he's probably OK with the pick.

Kidding.

He probably likes her for other reasons too...

Let me, if you will, provide some insight from an Air Force brat on the subject of "war" and the subject of "winning a war."

Most civilians don't know the three basic ways to win a war. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Most civilians don't need that information to lead healthy, productive lives.

But military leaders do. Here they are, with a few comments.

• Destroy the enemy. This is the classic scenario, to destroy your enemy's fighting force on the battlefield and thereby destroy your enemy's ability to fight. This was how Napoleon was defeated in Russia. His army marched in with around four hundred thousand troops, then marched out again months later (after a horrible winter) with about forty thousand troops.
• Destroy your enemy's ability to make war. This was the outcome of the American Civil War. Sherman's march through Georgia was not a punitive expedition, it was intended to split the Confederacy's fighting forces from their supply bases. It worked, too, even if it took many months to finish up the killing. It was also the immediate agent which brought about the end of the Cold War. Russia and her satellites could no longer afford to keep up with American military spending.
• Destroy your enemy's willingness to make war. This was what happened in August of 1945. The Emperor of Japan was not willing to continue a conflict which had taken so many lives and which had ruined the Home Islands, so over the objections of most of his Cabinet, he ordered an end to the conflict by surrendering to the US. It was also the ultimate reason North Vietnam defeated South Vietnam in 1975. The United States, as a nation, was unwilling to assist South Vietnam against the final invasion from the North despite treaties and mutual defense pacts. America never lost a major battlefield engagement to North Vietnam or the Viet Cong.

When General Petraeus was quoted as saying

he was referring to the first way to win a war. Why? Because that's what most civilians in America and the UK and Canada think that's the only way to "win" any war, including the war against terror. But you can't plant a flag on a hill that doesn't exist. You can't occupy the homeland of an enemy who doesn't have a home base. If you want to make the case that the Iraq war was a mistake (or that it was exactly the right thing to do), you must do so from social, political, historical, and the military points of view. Picking just one POV and running with it presents an incomplete picture.

Let me add that the general was also not saying that this conflict is "unwinnable." He simply meant that victory must be defined by destroying either the terrorists' ability or willingness to make war. By those criteria, the war is not yet won, but is winnable. It's simply much more difficult to determine when that might happen for such a nebulous and variable enemy.

Hope this helps and doesn't spread gasoline on the fire.

One thing I discuss with my students isn't necessarily the whole 'No one died when Clinton lied' bumper stickers they have around here [which really only serves to remind me that Clinton lied - go figure. Took me ages to get the 'Bush lied, people died' reference. ].

Anyway - we discuss whether today, in 2008, can we TRULY know if going into Iraq was a huge mistake or the smartest thing we ever did [or somewhere in the middle]. The answer is - regardless of what anyone thinks now - we CAN'T know. Twenty years from now, we could look back and say, 'You know, even after the Surge and the Iraqis taking over things went to hell in a handbasket. Surely there was a better way to oust Saddam and deal with his ties to terror and genocide and human rights violations.' *OR* We could say 'Wow. Look at all the democracies in the Middle East and the extreme decline in Radical Islam since Iraqi Freedom started. That was the right way to deal with Saddam. Wonder what would have happened if GHW had done more in '91.' [but I'll leave that argument out of here]

The answer is, we can't know until we have some time between us and the event. Presidents aren't 'graded' by historians [not the media and whoever who would likely give Bush whatever comes after F at the moment] for 10 or 15 or 20 years after they leave office because it takes time to get perspective on what happened. *I* haven't seen a 'grading scale' with Clinton on it yet [that doesn't mean they're not out there, but I haven't seen one]. And actually, the last time I purposefully went out and sought one in... 04?, HW wasn't on there either. I've seen others since then but have only glanced at them as I wasn't looking for one to use at the time and I don't recall anything about them.

Anyway - that goes along with what Terry said. I think. Or someone else. I forget .

Carol

I just wanted to clarify, because I have seen on other websites people claiming that the bills Obama voted against were unnecessary because there were "already laws in Illinois that protect these children". That is, I have seen people claim that what happened at Christ Hospital (leaving aborted babies to die, unattended, in the hospital's dirty linens room) was clearly illegal under existing laws, and no additional laws were necessary.

The laws already in effect in Illinois covered "viable fetuses", or what FactCheck, above, calls "infant[s] that would otherwise live." The babies left to die at Christ Hospital were deemed "pre-viable", and thus were not protected by current Illinois law.

It is my understanding that the determination as to whether these babies were "viable" was not done on an infant-by-infant basis. That is, prior to being aborted, the babies (based, I assume, on the number of weeks of pregnancy) had already been deemed "pre-viable". According to nurse Stanek's testimony, these babies were issued birth certificates upon their birth, and, when they died they were issued death certificates.

Unless FactChecks has data to back up their claim, I think the assertation that "perhaps most" people would not call what happened at Christ Hospital infanticide is more opinion (dare I say bias?) than fact. It is certainly true that "many" don't. I will say those who *do* consider it infanticide are sincere in their beliefs... that is, they are not merely playing games with words in order to smear Obama.

But this is the problem, because this wanders into the pro-life/pro-choice debate and we shouldn't, because we have even less chance of reaching a common ground. That was never my point and I would suggest it is not the point of the misrepresentation, either (otherwise the accusation would be of being pro-choice, not "infanticide" which has a different weight)

If you're pro-life, as factcheck states with the example of Alan Keyes, it will always be infanticide. If you're pro-choice, this is a situation where it is important to consider what is at stake with the right to choose, etc, etc. I do not have the legal background to be able to dive into that argument, nor do I think that it's a discussion I should have with people not in the pro-choice camp.

Note that factcheck also tries to stay clear from the pro-life/pro-choice debate. It says on top:

So what happened at the hospital is not the issue (again, that's the realm of the pro-choice/pro-life debates), the issue for factcheck's clarification is what the bill is being used for in politics--it's used as evidence of Obama's extremism towards the wide public (echoed by the TimesOnline article, for ex.).

However, within the realm of "pro-choice," there's considerable evidence against this--suggested by the fact that the bills were opposed by pro-choice orgs like Planned Parenthood, not just Obama acting alone (as the extremist wing of the pro-choice stance). The insinuations surprise me, considering the earlier critique that Obama was not pro-choice enough because he claimed to be ok with to the state restricting late term abortions (making exceptions for the woman's health). I looked at his record and am at pains to see how he's any more extremist than your average pro-choice--his record mirrors Hillary as far as my untrained eye could see.

In my view, it is a case of distortions and oversimplifications, considering that the accusation means to scare off the center, which might assume that the bills directly promote infanticide. These are in fact:

Now, if you're staunchly pro-life they do lead to infanticide by your worldview. For many pro-choice, however, there are shades of gray. If one is pro-life, it might make no difference ("pro-choice all support infanticide"), but if you're pro-choice, especially, I think it's a good idea to get the full story and not just the keyword, before taking it as gospel, like the news has.

Considering the near half divide of pro-choice/life in female voters (50%-43% pro-choice from Gallup (published Sept. 3), making the details known is important. Many polled don't consider it a dealbreaker, but labeling it "infanticide" might push it there. So even if the people are genuine the claim is misleading (again parting from the premise that it's directed at independent women who lean pro-choice (statistically).

I don't think factcheck made any claims like the one you express here. The line is:

I think that's an accurate statement. Then they speak of the existing laws and, note, they also point out the space for the critique you seem to be voicing for those laws:

Which would explain what happened with Illinois law from your perspective (again keeping it within the legal frame), if I'm reading you right.

So overall, I think you misunderstood factcheck, because you went at it from the pro-life perspective. Like I said factcheck is not interested in debating "viability" or "life" (they know that if you see these as clear-cut you're already in another issue), they're interested in looking at how these claims misrepresent Obama and the legal situation, which is significantly more complicated than killing infants (as the push and pull over definitions show). So I don't think factcheck shows bias here. They simply carve out a space where the interpretation is not so solidly in "infanticide" or "not infanticide." Those are not the terms of their argument.

Those are not the terms of my argument either--those belong in the pro-choice/pro-life debates like I said. My objection is to the claims of "extremism" put forth through incendiary language and its implications.

Yes, it's to be expected that the campaigns do this, both obviously, but I deplore it all the same, especially for how it spreads.

alcyone

FactCheck says Obama misrepresented the contents of the bill, and asks, "But does this mean... that he supports infanticide?" So, I assumed that their definition of infanticide as the killing of infants "that would otherwise live" was their way of saying, "no, he doesn't support infanticide" because "most" people apply the term only to viable infants, and the aborted infants were non-viable. Thus "most" people would agree that what was being done at Christ Hospital was not infanticide. As I say, I would question this assumption.

Anyway, my main intent for writing was merely to clarify that what was being done was, in fact, legal, and the only way to stop the procedure (assuming one wanted to stop it) would be to pass a bill such as SB 1082 or the BAIPA.

I found a pretty entertaining web page of Sarah Palin Tribute Editorial Cartoons . They aren't all pro-Palin, but what's funny is to see how obviously desperate the left is getting. Here's my favorite so far. [img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ObDz2JQfhTE/SM3hv7Z9o7I/AAAAAAAAApA/3ID95GvI33s/s400/SPVP.bmp[/img]

TEEEEEEEJ

WHOOT!!! here's another one that's right up this messageboard's alley!!! [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ObDz2JQfhTE/SM3onqf5AQI/AAAAAAAAApI/Lx_S2jlV8-I/s400/spvpsuper.bmp[/img]

TEEEEEJ