Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Politics

Journal pudge's Journal: Sunday Thoughts 28

Journal by pudge

Debates

On NOW with Bill Moyers, Moyers interviewed George Farah of Open Debates, the anti-CPD group I've mentioned many times before. Farah is the guy who wrote No Debate, the book I've lauded many times before.

It was a pretty good story, and they covered most of the main points of why the CPD is illegal, undemocratic, and generally bad for everybody except for the two candidates.

It is becoming increasingly too late to change anything for this year, but if enough people tune out and complain this year, maybe things will change for next year.

To be fair, some things have changed for the better. The Memorandum of Understanding was made public, and the candidates did not select the moderators. But they still had the power to change the moderators if they wanted to, and the CPD selected largely inoffensive moderators to begin with (although Bob Schieffer offends me, but largely because he is inoffensive and otherwise not very good at what he does ... if you are unfamiliar with him, watch Face the Nation some Sunday morning on CBS, or just wait until his debate comes up over the next few weeks; maybe in this space I'll review the moderators of each press conference^W^Wdebate instead of the debates themselves).

I'll miss Thursday's debate (well, I wouldn't say I'll be missing it!), as I'll be fishing off the coast of Vancouver BC, but that's what TiVo is for.

Predicting Winners

Also on PBS on Friday was a story (Real audio) on NewsHour about some unorthodox ways of picking the winner. There was one I've heard many times before in different forms, predicting a winner by economic conditions.

One guy also said weather is a decent predictor, that bad weather (such as a particularly bad hurricane season) reflects poorly on the incumbent. That same man, however, advocated a broader approach, using many different methods and averaging them together.

A third method was to use a market, like a stock market. If Bush "stock" is higher than Kerry "stock," he is more likely to win. They illustrated the point by asking 20 people on the street how many jelly beans were in a jar. The guesses ranged from about 300 to 10,000, but the average -- about 1400 -- was closer to the actual number -- about 1350 -- than any of the individual guesses.

All three methods picked Bush as the winner, although they were careful to note that the methods were not necessarily reliable (duh).

Undermining

In a democracy, you must be able to criticize your leaders. But is there a line between criticizing and undermining?

John Kerry has slammed Bush incessantly over his handling of the war in Iraq. Fine. But is it fine to slander our allies who have chosen to go along with our war in Iraq ("Coalition of the Bribed") or the prime minister of Iraq ("you can almost see the hand underneath the shirt today moving the lips"), whose support we and the people of Iraq need to accomplish the goals?

The reason I say these things cross the line from criticizing to undermining is not merely because they are exceptionally harsh of our allies, but because they seem designed to actually harm the mission, to ridicule people into not wanting to continue. Does Kerry think these things will only affect American voters? Does he think people in Great Britain or Australia might be more or less likely to support their respective government's actions in Iraq after saying their countries were bribed? Does he think people in Iraq might be more or less likely to support Allawi, in both words and deeds, after saying he is a mere puppet of the U.S.?

Can he see at all past the effect his words are having on the election, and does he care? As I've noted before, his rhetoric in recent weeks seems to be focused more on getting out of Iraq than completing the mission there, and this only adds to my concern over the matter.

Pessimism

I am still optimistic about our chances for success in Iraq. When I say that, people look at me like my head is spinning around. How could you possibly think that, I'm asked. I cited Senator John McCain, from the Armed Services Committee -- who knows a lot more than any of us do, and is largely regarded as a straight-shooter, about Iraq -- who said a week or so ago that he believes elections are still possible by January.

This week, General John Abizaid, head of Centcom -- who knows a lot more than any of us do, and is largely regarded as a straight-shooter, about Iraq -- said he read the intelligence estimate of July and that he believed it was "overly pessimistic," that elections were still possible, that the people are not on the verge of civil war or turning against the Americans, that the insurgents have not won a single engagement against the US or Iraqi forces.

At least I am in good company, if people think I am crazy for being optimistic.

Ads

I heard quite a bit about that windsurfing ad with Kerry, without paying any real attention to it. From what I heard, I believed the ad was from Bush or the GOP. Then I saw the windsurfing ad, and it wasn't: it was from some random 527. I was annoyed that people were saying it was from Bush ... but then I saw it again, and it was from Bush. There's two completely different windsurfing ads.

The 527 ad was considerably more silly, with computer animation, goofy fonts, and complete with a surfer girl doing the voiceover. My confusion was broadened by Capital Gang, which showed this 527 ad opposite a Kerry ad, that claimed Bush was running "a juvenile and tasteless attack ad." So someone on Capital Gang is lying to its viewers, saying this far more juvenile ad from a 527 is what Kerry is referring to. Nice job, CNN. You fooled me, at first.

Regardless, Kerry's statement is asinine. He appeared on several comedy shows -- The Daily Show, Letterman -- in recent weeks making juvenile comments about the President, and he runs attack ads against Bush all the time. Heck, this "Juvenile" ad is itself an attack ad, and juvenile ("Waaaah! I'm telling mom!").

(I don't address whether any of what Kerry says is "tasteless" because I think one could easily believe all, or none, of these ads are tasteless ... it's pointless to even discuss.)

Forgeries

This is still such a huge media story, it is not going away any time soon. It covers media bias, dirty tricks, elections, anonymous sources, and truth.

I am still waiting for Mapes -- a left-wing partisan whose goal was to get Bush with a story she was convinced was true, regardless of the facts she could prove -- to get fired. It can't happen soon enough.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sunday Thoughts More

Sunday Thoughts

Comments Filter:
  • They've actually been accurate since their inception.

    Here is a link to the homepage [presidentialmarket.org].
  • Okay, let's say the ideal open debate system get set up just like you want it.

    1) What compels the Dems and Reps to show up for the open debate?

    2) Regardless of whether they participate in the open debate, what prevents the Dems and Reps from arranging their own two-party debate in addition?
    • What compels the Dems and Reps to show up for the open debate?

      The same thing that compels them now.

      Regardless of whether they participate in the open debate, what prevents the Dems and Reps from arranging their own two-party debate in addition?

      See above answer.

      It's all up to the candidates now, as it has always been. Nothing will change that.
      • Hmm. So the only reason things would change would be if the new arrangement is of greater benefit to these two parties than the old arrangement.
        • Hmm. So the only reason things would change would be if the new arrangement is of greater benefit to these two parties than the old arrangement.

          Correct. And that greater benefit would be political: if enough people complain, they lose political points by not changing. That's why calling, writing, etc. is so important.
          • Yep. I think this has still got an long way to go, though. As long as they're both (R&D) losing political points over it, they have to lose a heck of a lot of them before it becomes significant. Basically it means a third party has to become a serious threat before things change -- which would be the case anyway.

            Hey, here in Canada for the recent election there were four candidtes in the debates and they still kept the Green Party out even though there had been five candidates in the debates for the pr
            • Basically it means a third party has to become a serious threat before things change -- which would be the case anyway.

              No no, it doesn't mean that at all. Third parties are a minor part of what is wrong with the debates. The fact that there is no meaningful confrontation, that the parties control the content and form to the detriment of the viewers, etc. is where the major problems lie.
              • They was done once, in Canada in the mid-90s. It was a variation on the town-hall format, but the moderator checked back with the original questioner to see if the question had been answered to their satisfaction.

                If not, the moderator took up the question, and rephrased it more pointedly. Repeat for a total of three times, until the questioner is satisfied or the candidate is declared to have evaded the question.

                The first time it was tried, we had an instant scandal! A young waitress nailed the Prime Mini
                • Something similar happened in the U.S. to George H.W. Bush. He was asked by a voter a question about whether he really understood the economic problems facing society. He started talking about growth etc., but what she wanted to know is if he personally experience economic hardship like the rest of them.

                  He looked like he didn't understand anything the common man went through -- which he had already been charged with -- and since then, there have been no followup questions or clarifications from the voter
                  • Personally, I don't think the "town hall" format is of much value except to try to get candidates to look bad.

                    As opposed to what the candidates do to each other now? ;)

                    The question you mention sounds substantive to me. Were you saying that the clarification round gives the questioner too much power? Maybe. But that can be fixed with good ground rules.

                    What debate format would you like to see?
                    • As opposed to what the candidates do to each other now? ;)

                      I find more positive value even in scripted press conferences than in irrelevant attacks.

                      The question you mention sounds substantive to me.

                      Not to me. It's one of those gotchas: like hey, you don't know how much a gallon of milk costs, so you're unfit to lead the nation's economy. I don't know how one has anything to do with the other.

                      Were you saying that the clarification round gives the questioner too much power?

                      No, I was not making any
  • Does he think people in Great Britain or Australia might be more or less likely to support their respective government's actions in Iraq after saying their countries were bribed? Does he think people in Iraq might be more or less likely to support Allawi, in both words and deeds, after saying he is a mere puppet of the U.S.?

    If Kerry's claims are true, isn't it appropriate for these citizens to not support their respective governments? I can't tell whether you're suggesting Kerry is intentionally spreading
    • If Kerry's claims are true, isn't it appropriate for these citizens to not support their respective governments?

      No. Kerry supports accomplishing the mission in Iraq, which means staying there until it is done, and getting support from our allies. Getting support from our allies is one of the four goals for Iraq he enumerated last week (all four are things Bush is already doing, but no matter).

      This is not about truth, it is about effective accomplishing of the goals. Let's assume for the moment the cla

  • Allawi (Score:2)

    by jamie ( 78724 )
    Yeah, it would be terrible if someone came out and publicly said that Allawi was, you know, an opportunistic liar [slashdot.org]. That would undermine, and undermining is bad.
    • Yes, it is. Is there some benefit in Iraq, to Iraqis, to their efforts, to say this? No. Is it potentially damaging? Yes. So you don't say it, even if it is true.
      • Is it potentially damaging? Yes. So you don't say it, even if it is true.

        Hmm...I tend to almost always agree with you pudge, that's why I've found it so hard lately to reply to your newly enforced on topic journals, because what would I say every time? "Ya, I second that!"

        But this...I don't know. I would agree with "It would be unwise for American politicians to go out of their way to bring this up, because we didn't choose him, he'll be replaced soon, and because it wouldn't serve any good and
        • The part of you I quoted almost sounded like supressing free speech or willfully ignoring facts to serve some common good.

          Note that I am talking only about American leaders, such as Bush and Kerry.

          And yes, they should not say those things. International diplomacy is very delicate, and the rules are very different. Everything you say must have a purpose. If you compliment someone's handling of one crisis, it is seen as supporting them for something else. Everything is magnified, and an affront like ca

  • "details have emerged showing the U.S. government and a representative of President Bush's reelection campaign had been heavily involved in drafting the speech given to Congress last week by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi."

    Washington Post, 9/30/2004 [washingtonpost.com]

    So basically, you want the Bush campaign to be able to prop Allawi up in front of Congress and mouth the words they've written for him -- and you think it's wrong for Kerry to point out that's what's going on.

    As Josh Marshall says, "The whole Al

    • So basically, you want the Bush campaign to be able to prop Allawi up in front of Congress and mouth the words they've written for him

      Oh please. Even if that is true, which we have no reason to believe, how is it any different than people writing speeches for Kerry or Bush? Oh no, he got help putting his own thoughts into a speech, sound the alarm!

      and you think it's wrong for Kerry to point out that's what's going on.

      Yes, absolutely. He is attempting to hurt our efforts -- with Allawi -- in Iraq.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Now here's something you're really going to like!" -- Rocket J. Squirrel

Close