McCain's Newest Hero
At a rally last week in Mentor, Ohio, John McCain described Joe Wurzelbacher as"a great citizen of Ohio and my role model."
You can view below on YouTube below John McCain's role model explaining why he doubts Barack Obama's patriotism: "You know, McCain has fought and bled for our country, loves our country. There's too many questions with Barack Obama and his loyalty to our country and I question that greatly."
John S. McCain: Naval aviator. Prisoner of War. War hero. Navy liason to United States Senate. Member of United States House of Representatives. Member of United States Senate. Candidate for President of the United States (2000). Nominee of his party for President of the United States (2008).
And now at age 72,after idolizing a former two-term President (Ronald Reagan) and a respected General (David Petraeus), his hero now is.... Joe Wurzelbacher?
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label YouTube. Show all posts
Monday, November 03, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Uncurious Sarah Palin
Courtesy of Elizabeth Snead's "The Dish Rag," a Los Angeles Times blog, here is the transcript of the portion of Katie Couric's interview with Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin in which the candidate is asked about the source of her "world view":
Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
Couric: What, specifically?
Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.
Couric: Can you name a few?
Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
(You can view these comments beginning at 3:45 of the youtube video.)
Here are a few suggestions for Mrs. Palin:
a)magazines- the traditional, relatively objective newsweeklies, Time or Newsweek; the conservative Republican standbys, The Weekly Standard or The National Review;
b)newspapers- among those distributed widely, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal (she'll like the editorial policy), Washington Post (from the nation's capital, where she hopes to take up residence in a few months), Los Angeles Times; those with a more limited distribution, including the Des Moines Register (which we hear constantly about every fourth autumn and winter in the runup to the Iowa caucuses), Manchester's Union-Leader (same as the last, but for the New Hampshire primaries); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which periodically includes items about current events in Alaska); the Anchorage Daily News.
Any of them- Governor Earmark could have mentioned any number of newspapers or magazines- a conservative-leaning magazine or newspaper to buttress her conservative credentials; a New Hampshire or Iowa newspaper to signal that she always has been interested in national politics; a newspaper nationally known, suggesting that she is sophisticated or cosmopolitan to counter the stereotype of the small-town hockey mom; or a weekly magazine to prove that she is well-rounded. Anything, and her claim to read it need be no more true than her claim(s) to have adamantly opposed the Bridge To Nowhere. Something to demonstrate that she has an interest in an event occurring anywhere outside of Juneau, Anchorage, or Wasilla, asode from victory for the Palin and McCain ticket.
Courtesy of Elizabeth Snead's "The Dish Rag," a Los Angeles Times blog, here is the transcript of the portion of Katie Couric's interview with Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin in which the candidate is asked about the source of her "world view":
Couric: And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this to stay informed and to understand the world?
Palin: I've read most of them, again with a great appreciation for the press, for the media.
Couric: What, specifically?
Palin: Um, all of them, any of them that have been in front of me all these years.
Couric: Can you name a few?
Palin: I have a vast variety of sources where we get our news too. Alaska isn't a foreign country, where it's kind of suggested, "Wow, how could you keep in touch with what the rest of Washington, D.C., may be thinking when you live up there in Alaska?" Believe me, Alaska is like a microcosm of America.
(You can view these comments beginning at 3:45 of the youtube video.)
Here are a few suggestions for Mrs. Palin:
a)magazines- the traditional, relatively objective newsweeklies, Time or Newsweek; the conservative Republican standbys, The Weekly Standard or The National Review;
b)newspapers- among those distributed widely, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal (she'll like the editorial policy), Washington Post (from the nation's capital, where she hopes to take up residence in a few months), Los Angeles Times; those with a more limited distribution, including the Des Moines Register (which we hear constantly about every fourth autumn and winter in the runup to the Iowa caucuses), Manchester's Union-Leader (same as the last, but for the New Hampshire primaries); the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (which periodically includes items about current events in Alaska); the Anchorage Daily News.
Any of them- Governor Earmark could have mentioned any number of newspapers or magazines- a conservative-leaning magazine or newspaper to buttress her conservative credentials; a New Hampshire or Iowa newspaper to signal that she always has been interested in national politics; a newspaper nationally known, suggesting that she is sophisticated or cosmopolitan to counter the stereotype of the small-town hockey mom; or a weekly magazine to prove that she is well-rounded. Anything, and her claim to read it need be no more true than her claim(s) to have adamantly opposed the Bridge To Nowhere. Something to demonstrate that she has an interest in an event occurring anywhere outside of Juneau, Anchorage, or Wasilla, asode from victory for the Palin and McCain ticket.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Palin And The Bush Doctrine
No portion of Sarah Palin's interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson has received as much attention as the exchange on the "Bush Doctrine" which took place in the first of the interview's three segments. Here are the transcript and the YouTube video:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
In light of all the debate about whether Governor Earmark should have known what the "Bush Doctrine" is, I figured I would hunt down the doctrine as it was first enunciated. Apparently, the National Security Strategy was released by the White House on 9/20/02. In an article written in December, 2002, Keir A. Lieber, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government & foreign Service at Georgetown University, argued that it contained four elements:
1. preemption, "use of military force against terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism that attempt to gain or use WMD." (This is inaccurate on three counts: a)not premptive war, but preventive war; b) the state does not need to be a sponsor of terrorism or attempt to gain or use destructive weapons; c)not "WMD," chemical and biological weapons- which, unlike nuclear weapons, are not of mass destruction- also qualify);
2. military primacy, apparently intent to build up military force sufficiently to deter any potential rival from attempting to compete with us;
3. a new multilateralism, in which "the Bush administration appears to reject the single-minded pursuit of multilateralism for its own sake; that is, as something inherently necessary for international legitimacy or morality;"
4. the spread of democracy, which "commits the United States to spread democracy worldwide and promote the development of "free and open societies on every continent." (This really is the core of "neoconservatism.")
Obviously, the Liebers write favorably about the Bush Doctrine- but then this was late, 2002, when it looked like Iraq and Afghanistan were going to turn out fairly well. And they make the philosophy look fairly complicated.
Nevertheless, the core of the Bush Doctrine has come to be known as principle #1, the euphemistically-termed "preemption." Here is George F. Will, in a column entitled "The Bush Doctrine at Risk," on June 22, 2003 (after it began to appear that our Iraq policy had sprung a leak) writing
And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.
And here and here is a YouTube video of President Bush arguing "we must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and contront the worst threats before they emerge"- and Senator McCain agreeing with him.
Unless Governor Earmark is a foreign policy intellectual on par with academics holding a Ph.D. in international relations (and maybe not even then), she, like Bush, McCain, Will, and most of us, would understand the Bush Doctrine to be about preemptive/preventive war.
She didn't. But I don't find that the most disturbing aspect of her answer, or rather, her process of fishing around for an answer. James Fallows, writing in atlantic.com on 9/12/08, captures the concern effectively:
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
She didn't know and, at least up till now, didn't care. And that is in an individual who hopes to be the first in succession to the presidency of the United States. And an individual who was chosen by an erratic 72-year-old who has put politics above country while cynically claiming "Country First."
No portion of Sarah Palin's interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson has received as much attention as the exchange on the "Bush Doctrine" which took place in the first of the interview's three segments. Here are the transcript and the YouTube video:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
In light of all the debate about whether Governor Earmark should have known what the "Bush Doctrine" is, I figured I would hunt down the doctrine as it was first enunciated. Apparently, the National Security Strategy was released by the White House on 9/20/02. In an article written in December, 2002, Keir A. Lieber, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and Robert J. Lieber, Professor of Government & foreign Service at Georgetown University, argued that it contained four elements:
1. preemption, "use of military force against terrorists or state sponsors of terrorism that attempt to gain or use WMD." (This is inaccurate on three counts: a)not premptive war, but preventive war; b) the state does not need to be a sponsor of terrorism or attempt to gain or use destructive weapons; c)not "WMD," chemical and biological weapons- which, unlike nuclear weapons, are not of mass destruction- also qualify);
2. military primacy, apparently intent to build up military force sufficiently to deter any potential rival from attempting to compete with us;
3. a new multilateralism, in which "the Bush administration appears to reject the single-minded pursuit of multilateralism for its own sake; that is, as something inherently necessary for international legitimacy or morality;"
4. the spread of democracy, which "commits the United States to spread democracy worldwide and promote the development of "free and open societies on every continent." (This really is the core of "neoconservatism.")
Obviously, the Liebers write favorably about the Bush Doctrine- but then this was late, 2002, when it looked like Iraq and Afghanistan were going to turn out fairly well. And they make the philosophy look fairly complicated.
Nevertheless, the core of the Bush Doctrine has come to be known as principle #1, the euphemistically-termed "preemption." Here is George F. Will, in a column entitled "The Bush Doctrine at Risk," on June 22, 2003 (after it began to appear that our Iraq policy had sprung a leak) writing
And overshadowing the military achievement is the failure -- so far -- to find, or explain the absence of, weapons of mass destruction that were the necessary and sufficient justification for preemptive war. The doctrine of preemption -- the core of the president's foreign policy -- is in jeopardy.
And here and here is a YouTube video of President Bush arguing "we must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and contront the worst threats before they emerge"- and Senator McCain agreeing with him.
Unless Governor Earmark is a foreign policy intellectual on par with academics holding a Ph.D. in international relations (and maybe not even then), she, like Bush, McCain, Will, and most of us, would understand the Bush Doctrine to be about preemptive/preventive war.
She didn't. But I don't find that the most disturbing aspect of her answer, or rather, her process of fishing around for an answer. James Fallows, writing in atlantic.com on 9/12/08, captures the concern effectively:
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
She didn't know and, at least up till now, didn't care. And that is in an individual who hopes to be the first in succession to the presidency of the United States. And an individual who was chosen by an erratic 72-year-old who has put politics above country while cynically claiming "Country First."
Saturday, September 13, 2008
John McCain, Outraged
It's amazing the things John McCain finds "disgraceful." In a speech to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on September 12, Barack Obama contended
Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions "disgraceful."
Did the Arizona senator really refer to a provision geared to preserving American jobs "disgraceful?" Politifact.com explains
In this item, we’ll focus on whether McCain called a requirement for the federal government to buy American products "disgraceful."
Indeed he did.
McCain has repeatedly voted and spoken against requiring the government to buy American-made products. He argues that such a requirement hurts trade and doesn’t guarantee the lowest prices for taxpayers.
In a 1997 article in Defense Daily, McCain criticized the requirement as "the worst, most disgraceful aspect of the legislative process in Washington. I can not be more strong in my views without using four letter words. It’s crazy for us, because ball bearings are made in a certain state, to somehow prevent the United States Defense Department from purchasing ball bearings if they meet quality standards from our allies."
In 2005, he specifically mentioned motorcycles during Senate debate on a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
"Lastly, I am also disappointed that the bill once again this year contains a department-wide 'buy America' requirement, and specific language directing the Secret Service to purchase American-made motorcycles. I firmly object to all 'buy America' restrictions, as they represent gross examples of protectionist trade policy."
Disgraceful. A strong word usually reserved for something an individual finds abhorrent.
Like Social Security. As you can see and hear in this youtube video, in July, 2008 John McCain responded to an inquiry at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, by asserting
Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.
That's the way Social Security works. Retirees are paid by present-day workers, some obviously young. The system currently turns a surplus and is robbed to pay for items in the general budget, given the passion of Repub presidents for running huge deficits. As any informed United States senator would know, the program is an intergenerational transfer necessitated by our concern as a society for the well-being of Americans as they age. And what do we have if Social Security is not funded by "paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today?" Perhaps a welfare program, but certainly not Social Security.
John McCain on Social Security: "disgraceful." John McCain on saving American jobs: "disgraceful." And John McCain himself?
It's amazing the things John McCain finds "disgraceful." In a speech to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers on September 12, Barack Obama contended
Because John McCain didn’t just oppose the requirement that the government buy American-made motorcycles, he called Buy American provisions "disgraceful."
Did the Arizona senator really refer to a provision geared to preserving American jobs "disgraceful?" Politifact.com explains
In this item, we’ll focus on whether McCain called a requirement for the federal government to buy American products "disgraceful."
Indeed he did.
McCain has repeatedly voted and spoken against requiring the government to buy American-made products. He argues that such a requirement hurts trade and doesn’t guarantee the lowest prices for taxpayers.
In a 1997 article in Defense Daily, McCain criticized the requirement as "the worst, most disgraceful aspect of the legislative process in Washington. I can not be more strong in my views without using four letter words. It’s crazy for us, because ball bearings are made in a certain state, to somehow prevent the United States Defense Department from purchasing ball bearings if they meet quality standards from our allies."
In 2005, he specifically mentioned motorcycles during Senate debate on a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security.
"Lastly, I am also disappointed that the bill once again this year contains a department-wide 'buy America' requirement, and specific language directing the Secret Service to purchase American-made motorcycles. I firmly object to all 'buy America' restrictions, as they represent gross examples of protectionist trade policy."
Disgraceful. A strong word usually reserved for something an individual finds abhorrent.
Like Social Security. As you can see and hear in this youtube video, in July, 2008 John McCain responded to an inquiry at a town-hall meeting in Portsmouth, Ohio, by asserting
Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.
That's the way Social Security works. Retirees are paid by present-day workers, some obviously young. The system currently turns a surplus and is robbed to pay for items in the general budget, given the passion of Repub presidents for running huge deficits. As any informed United States senator would know, the program is an intergenerational transfer necessitated by our concern as a society for the well-being of Americans as they age. And what do we have if Social Security is not funded by "paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today?" Perhaps a welfare program, but certainly not Social Security.
John McCain on Social Security: "disgraceful." John McCain on saving American jobs: "disgraceful." And John McCain himself?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
McCain In Full Pander Mode
Senator John McCain at the CNN/YouTube debate on November 28, 2007, responding to Anderson Cooper's question "Is waterboarding torture?":
And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.
Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.
My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.
(Applause)
Fast forward to February 13, 2008. The Senate approves by 51 to 45 an intelligence authorization bill containining a provision, sponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D.- Cal.), which would restrict the C.I.A. to the 19 intelligence techniques authorized by the Army Field Services Manual, which prohibits eight specific techniques, including waterboarding. And John McCain, under attack from the far right of his party? He joins 42 other Repubs in voting against the measure. (Five Republicans vote "aye" and one does not vote.)
Score it a victory for Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter & Co.- and a defeat for candor.
Senator John McCain at the CNN/YouTube debate on November 28, 2007, responding to Anderson Cooper's question "Is waterboarding torture?":
And again, I would hope that we would understand, my friends, that life is not "24" and Jack Bauer.
Life is interrogation techniques which are humane and yet effective. And I just came back from visiting a prison in Iraq. The Army general there said that techniques under the Army Field Manual are working and working effectively, and he didn't think they need to do anything else.
My friends, this is what America is all about. This is a defining issue and, clearly, we should be able, if we want to be commander in chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, to take a definite and positive position on, and that is, we will never allow torture to take place in the United States of America.
(Applause)
Fast forward to February 13, 2008. The Senate approves by 51 to 45 an intelligence authorization bill containining a provision, sponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D.- Cal.), which would restrict the C.I.A. to the 19 intelligence techniques authorized by the Army Field Services Manual, which prohibits eight specific techniques, including waterboarding. And John McCain, under attack from the far right of his party? He joins 42 other Repubs in voting against the measure. (Five Republicans vote "aye" and one does not vote.)
Score it a victory for Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter & Co.- and a defeat for candor.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
A YouTube Debate: Ridiculous
How deep have we become mired in artificial (computer technology once was referred to as "artificial intelligence") superficiality?
Last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential debate was shallow, inspid, a stunt. Nevertheless, I am pretentious enough to comment on some of the questions and responses (my comments in parentheses).
Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah, before lapsing into his 128-word question: "What's up? I'm running out of tape. I have to hurry." (Are we really interested in Zach's schedule?)
Unidentified (third questioner): "All of you say you'll be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test..." (O.K,. I get it- you're the teacher, the one with the knowledge, and we're the uninformed students.)
Unidentified questioner: "Is (sic) African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery? I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get." (Wrong. Three candidates were queried- Edwards and Richardson against, Kucinich in favor.)
Mary and Jen: "If you were elected President of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?" Good question, and after the response of Dennis Kucinich and before those of Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, host Anderson Cooper helpfully rephrased the question: "Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?" An even better question would have been: "Senators Dodd and Biden, you alone among the candidates were in the United States Senate at the time President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Were you right to support a bill which in part defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman?"
Mitch from Philadelphia, before implying in his 116-word question that he's opposed to a pullout from Iraq: "Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation..." (Please, tell us more about your "blankin" anger.)
Unidentified questioner, mother of an American soldier: "How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?..." (What exactly are these "political games?" And who is playing them? Are, say, George W. Bush, General Petraeus, and John Murtha "playing games?")
Unidentified questioner: "Dear Presidential candidates, see those flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son. Someday, mine will join them..." And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?" (John McCain served; so did Jim Webb. Note to Chris Matthews and others: service in the military does not bind someone to a pro- or anti- war position.)
Another "questioner": "Hey, there, my name's Jackie Broyles. And I'm Dunlap." (went on to ask numerous questions about Al Gore in a Southern accent- Aren't we so impressed with ourselves making fun of Southerners?)
Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in vain?" (Anderson, these folks are running for President of the United States. None of them is going to say American soldiers are dying in vain, so I regret that you are being denied participation in the sound bite of the century... True, Senator Gravel stated that the soldiers are dying in vain, but he can afford to be honest, given that he's not going to be nominated for President, Vice-President, or anything else. The former Alaska Senator could form his own political party- and be denied its nomination.)
Sheena Currell: "I'm from (inaudible), South Carolina. Who was your favorite teacher and why? (And what's your favorite color?)
Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan: "Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. (Brandishing a rife) this is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Tell me your views on gun control." Joe Biden, pithily: "I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help." A good moment, which obscures the likelihood that a meaningful answer could have been elicited if the debate sponsors hadn't gone for the cheap and dramatic visual with the outrageous characterization of a weapon (allegedly illegally obtained) as a baby. Rather, the candidates should have been asked their views on registration, straw purchases, and/or other specifics about gun control; or asked how an effective gun control measure, one which is not circumvented as the questioner bragged he had, can be enacted.
And Senator Biden had the best comment of them all, in response to the question from Jason Koop (is this guy related to C. Everett Koop?) of Colorado Springs: "... I would like for each of you to look to the candidate to your left and tell the audience one thing you like and one thing you dislike about that particular candidate. And remember, be honest." (Because as we all know, politicans always are honest when you tell them to be.) "Dennis (Kucinich) and I have been friends for twenty-five years. I think this is a ridiculous exercise." He didn't mean it in regard to the format of the debate itself, but could have.
This is not to say that the questioners are vacuous, thoughtless, or even especially self-indulgent. Other debates have included from the public questions which were on-point, eliciting somewhat revealing answers. The problem is with the YouTube format. Sure, it's possible that this silly superficiality is the wave of the future. But why now? You want a sound system for your car that not only is technologically advanced, but which works. And if your car tires are the latest in technology, but haven't been tested, I don't want to be your passenger.
How deep have we become mired in artificial (computer technology once was referred to as "artificial intelligence") superficiality?
Last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic Presidential debate was shallow, inspid, a stunt. Nevertheless, I am pretentious enough to comment on some of the questions and responses (my comments in parentheses).
Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah, before lapsing into his 128-word question: "What's up? I'm running out of tape. I have to hurry." (Are we really interested in Zach's schedule?)
Unidentified (third questioner): "All of you say you'll be able to work with Republicans. Well, here's a test..." (O.K,. I get it- you're the teacher, the one with the knowledge, and we're the uninformed students.)
Unidentified questioner: "Is (sic) African-Americans ever going to get reparations for slavery? I know you all are going to run around this question, dipping and dodging, so let's see how far you all can get." (Wrong. Three candidates were queried- Edwards and Richardson against, Kucinich in favor.)
Mary and Jen: "If you were elected President of the United States, would you allow us to be married to each other?" Good question, and after the response of Dennis Kucinich and before those of Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson, host Anderson Cooper helpfully rephrased the question: "Senator Dodd, you supported the Defense of Marriage Act. What's your position?" An even better question would have been: "Senators Dodd and Biden, you alone among the candidates were in the United States Senate at the time President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Were you right to support a bill which in part defined marriage as strictly between a man and a woman?"
Mitch from Philadelphia, before implying in his 116-word question that he's opposed to a pullout from Iraq: "Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation..." (Please, tell us more about your "blankin" anger.)
Unidentified questioner, mother of an American soldier: "How many more soldiers must die while these political games continue in our government?..." (What exactly are these "political games?" And who is playing them? Are, say, George W. Bush, General Petraeus, and John Murtha "playing games?")
Unidentified questioner: "Dear Presidential candidates, see those flags over my shoulder? They covered the coffins of my grandfather, my father, and my oldest son. Someday, mine will join them..." And how many family members do you have serving in uniform?" (John McCain served; so did Jim Webb. Note to Chris Matthews and others: service in the military does not bind someone to a pro- or anti- war position.)
Another "questioner": "Hey, there, my name's Jackie Broyles. And I'm Dunlap." (went on to ask numerous questions about Al Gore in a Southern accent- Aren't we so impressed with ourselves making fun of Southerners?)
Anderson Cooper: "Senator Obama, are the soldiers dying in vain?" (Anderson, these folks are running for President of the United States. None of them is going to say American soldiers are dying in vain, so I regret that you are being denied participation in the sound bite of the century... True, Senator Gravel stated that the soldiers are dying in vain, but he can afford to be honest, given that he's not going to be nominated for President, Vice-President, or anything else. The former Alaska Senator could form his own political party- and be denied its nomination.)
Sheena Currell: "I'm from (inaudible), South Carolina. Who was your favorite teacher and why? (And what's your favorite color?)
Jered Townsend from Clio, Michigan: "Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. (Brandishing a rife) this is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban. Tell me your views on gun control." Joe Biden, pithily: "I'll tell you what, if that is his baby, he needs help." A good moment, which obscures the likelihood that a meaningful answer could have been elicited if the debate sponsors hadn't gone for the cheap and dramatic visual with the outrageous characterization of a weapon (allegedly illegally obtained) as a baby. Rather, the candidates should have been asked their views on registration, straw purchases, and/or other specifics about gun control; or asked how an effective gun control measure, one which is not circumvented as the questioner bragged he had, can be enacted.
And Senator Biden had the best comment of them all, in response to the question from Jason Koop (is this guy related to C. Everett Koop?) of Colorado Springs: "... I would like for each of you to look to the candidate to your left and tell the audience one thing you like and one thing you dislike about that particular candidate. And remember, be honest." (Because as we all know, politicans always are honest when you tell them to be.) "Dennis (Kucinich) and I have been friends for twenty-five years. I think this is a ridiculous exercise." He didn't mean it in regard to the format of the debate itself, but could have.
This is not to say that the questioners are vacuous, thoughtless, or even especially self-indulgent. Other debates have included from the public questions which were on-point, eliciting somewhat revealing answers. The problem is with the YouTube format. Sure, it's possible that this silly superficiality is the wave of the future. But why now? You want a sound system for your car that not only is technologically advanced, but which works. And if your car tires are the latest in technology, but haven't been tested, I don't want to be your passenger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Party Of Deception The Huffington Post, gushing about the Kennedy memorial service in Boston last night, exclaimed that Senator Orrin Hatch...
-
In April, President Donald Trump asked French President Emanuel Macron "why don't you leave the EU?" The same month,...
-
This is not about the fraud that is Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Nor is it about the fraud which is Florida Governor Rick Sc...
