pudge's Journal: New Hampshire Debates

Edwards says that every time you talk about change, the "forces of status quo" come out to attack you, and directly implied that because he was for change and Hillary was attacking him, why, she must be for the status quo!

And then he said -- this is just boggling -- that the issue of lobbyists is very personal to him. Lobbyists. I can see abortion, or war, or taxes, or many other issues being very personal to you. But ... lobbyists? There is nothing inherently good or bad about lobbyists. Everyone who petitions the government on behalf of others is a lobbyist. That is part of any representative system.

I said it four years ago, and I'll say it again: Edwards is either really stupid, or he really disrespects the intelligence of the public.

The Democratic debate last night most prominently featured the candidates arguing about which of them had the best self-narrative. "I am for change," "I am for experience," "I am for freedom of choice," "I am for helping everyone." They really didn't talk about the issues much, it was mostly an argument about who has the best way of approaching the issues, who has the best story, who has the best image.

And incredibly, Hillary closed her comments with a claim that the Democrats covered the issues better than the Republicans.

Not that the Republicans were great, but they mostly stuck to the issues and ideas, and not to the personalities or personal stories or narratives.

Shrug.

Oh well, I expect a lot less tonight, not because I think Chris Wallace isn't as good as Chuck Gibson (I think he is quite a bit better), but because the fix is already in. They have excluded Ron Paul, signifying that this debate is for the nation, not for New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire GOP thus withdrew its support of the debate. Very poor decision by Fox, and undermines the whole thing.

Heck, if I were a GOP candidate attending, I would consider not going at all, and absolutely would speak out against the decision.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Charity

[75th Trombone]

lobbyists? There is nothing inherently good or bad about lobbyists. Everyone who petitions the government on behalf of others is a lobbyist.

I'm a reasonably big fan of yours, but you do this thing every once-in-a-while, where you take someone literally and avoid interpreting their words as they meant them. It seems fairly obvious to me that his definition of "lobbying," in this case, is big corporations with deep pockets swaying congressmen to vote the way the corp wants them to, which may be contrary t

Re:

[pudge]

lobbyists? There is nothing inherently good or bad about lobbyists. Everyone who petitions the government on behalf of others is a lobbyist.

I'm a reasonably big fan of yours, but you do this thing every once-in-a-while, where you take someone literally and avoid interpreting their words as they meant them. It seems fairly obvious to me that his definition of "lobbying," in this case, is big corporations with deep pockets swaying congressmen to vote the way the corp wants them to, which may be contrary to what their constituents want, or what's in the public's best interest, or what's constitutional, or some other desirable thing.

Yes, I know that is what he meant. But the problem is that the distinction is fallacious. He is basically saying "anyone who lobbies for a corporation is bad, but if you lobby for a charity or somesuch, then it's OK," which is utter nonsense. Yes, he meant "big corporations with deep pockets swaying congressmen to vote the way the corp wants them to," but THAT IS NOT INHERENTLY BAD.

Let's say Microsoft is lobbying for more money for science and math education in public schools, while Greenpeace is lobbyi