Sarah Palin "Political"

[maddog]

Hi Rob!

While it is politically incorrect to say such a thing, you do know the Facists were socialists, don't you? They had far more in common with the US far left (Daily Kos crowd) than with anyone on the US right.

It's not politically incorrect. Fascism is a far-right ideology (Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and some South American dictators) and Socialism is a far left ideology (Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro). Fear, repression, nationalism and militarism are hallmarks of both. This is where the confusion comes in. They look the same because they use the same tools to maintain control. So the Daily Kos/Move.org crowd would rather hang out with Mao than Mussolini. John Birch Society would be the opposite.

There are many things I do not like about the Patriot Act and some of what is going on.

I read the Patriot Act (the first version from 2001, not the renewed version. the renewed version isn't much better). That was painful but I believed it was important enough to do. Searches without a warrant and gag orders. It's unamerican (fear and repression?) and certainly not Patriotic. BTW, I'm a Librarian. (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/31/nyregion/31library.html). Not one of these four. There's still a lot of fear in our profession.

So no, I don't blame a parent for a child's mistake. If all of Palin's kids were pregnant and doing drugs and in trouble with the law, then I'd see a pattern.  On this one I agree with Hawk.

If the child is a minor and the parent is a politician then it's perfectly fine. I probably should have used minor instead of child in my above posts. Sorry to have mislead you. :(

--Ray.

[maddog]

Now I have a question for you guys. Have I made you think about these things or do I just sound like a nut job? If it's the former, I can stop posting. If it's the later, I have to stop posting. :)

--Ray.

[Hawk]

Don't stop posting. I like a healthy discussion, even though I may seem somewhat set in my ways.  ;D

It's always good to hear other viewpoints, especially if they differ from mine.  ;)

Every once in a while one will slip in and make me stop and think, but after the 57 years I've spent on this planet, and doing the things I've done, it's not many that slip in.  ::)

[Gwizz]

It is your opinion and you have a right to it.

A question for you. 

Today I was asked if I knew what Obama stands for.  I said change.

He said, what kind of change.  I said I don't know.  I don't think anyone does.

What does Obama stand for?  What kind of change?

[Hawk]

The jingly kind of change.

More change in his pocket. Less change in your pocket.  ;D

[maddog]

What does Obama stand for?  What kind of change?

It's pretty standard stuff... jobs, economy, health care, ending the war.... Funnily, McCain is running on the same thing now. When he was in the primary, it was all about the war and status quo, now it's about change too. How republicans grew arrogant with power and he'll stand up to them. How they forgot who they represent. So on...

It's going to be an interesting two months!  :)

--Ray.

[thomasjordan]

Fact to Fact

With an eye on ABC.

By Jim Geraghty

St. Paul

[maddog]

I wouldn't trust this too far. The article from from the National Review which is a conservative paper. For unbiased fact checking goto http://www.factcheck.org/ as it is run by a non-partisan organization (See: http://www.factcheck.org/about/).

--Ray.

Fact to Fact

With an eye on ABC.

By Jim Geraghty

St. Paul

[thomasjordan]

Annenberg neutral?  Hardly.

I did a search on Obama and produced 10 pages of hits.  All but a handful were Annenberg articles critical of McCain and positive towards Obama.  Only a couple of hits were critical of Obama.

I also found no references at that site to Obama's connections with Annenberg.  A google search produces thousands.

So again, Annenberg neutral?  Sounds more like they are covering for one of their own, to me.

[maddog]

So again, Annenberg neutral?

Another way to look at it is that the McCain campaign is a little more loose with the facts. Not that Factcheck.org is giving a pass on Obama though either. I think Obama works harder to be accurate at what he says. Although, factcheck did fry him on omitting a single word about one of McCain's positions on Afghanistan which was appropriate. Obama screwed up and the missing word made McCain words look far worse than they are.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

Second in the list.

--Ray.

[thomasjordan]

Ray:

I think "nuanced" is the word you are looking for.  He was so "nuanced" during the Saddleback interview that even the liberal media cringed.  The few times he actually made a firm statement, the liberal media really cringed because they were very extreme positions, such as the position he took at Saddleback on partial-birth abortion and when does life begin.  "Above my pay grade" really wasn't a very good answer, even to liberals.

All politicians typically avoid trying to give a specific answer.  Obama is just better at it than most, which is what makes it so difficult to define just exactly what he does stand for.

Rob

[Gwizz]

I'm home from a 4 day, about a 1000 mile trip.

Since I didn't have to drive, I spent my time listening to the radio, all types of stations by both parties, looking at Campaign signs and wallpapered cars.  Of the last, Obama had 3 times as many wallpapered cars as McCain.  While I spent some time talking politics, everyone was very friendly even when we disagreed.   

Most of what I'm writing is not political.  But I think I'll write it all together anyway since this is a list of some of what we did on the trip and I'm tired and a part is political.

I discovered two nuclear power plants that I didn't know about, that are no more than 100 miles from me.  Five others I did know about.  I believe only one of these 5 may be in operation and one was removed completely. Only bare ground remaining.  Had a good discussion about oil production and it was as confusing as ever.  The cheapest gasoline I was told was being sold at cost to help tourists.  I Heard a comment saying that Obama has done nothing for his state of Illinois as a Senator.  I have never thought about looking that that angle. 

We found two standard gauge Steam locomotives in Oregon.  One had its' rods recently removed and the tender's water tank was fully rusted out. It needs lots of work.  It was on a tourist RR running on about 15 to 20 miles of mostly abandoned coastal trackage using an F9, (I think). There was a two stall engine house but it was locked up with no windows.  I was unable to find anyone that knew anything about the RR. what was in the engine house and some who did not know a railroad was across the street.  There was also one RDC car that looked like it might run but needed some misc. work.  there was a couple of passenger cars and one open air passenger car and some tank cars. At least one tanker was used for diesel fuel.  The rails had a slight shine to them.  There was two stations on the line that was being used.  Only one had a passing track.  The other very small station  just came to a point where local businesses had dumped sand and gravel on their crossing covering the track for a debth over the rails of about 2 or 3 inches.  I'm assuming the F9 and two cars stop just short of blocked crossing then backed 15 or so miles back to the main station.  I'm going to Goggle the track to see what it looks like and what is on it.  The local lumber mill may ship lumber in box cars in the other direction.  There were 6 or 7 empties on their siding.   

The other locomotive was about the same size, a  2-8-0 but looked in much better shape and was about 100 to 150 miles South from the other Oregon operation.  I was part of what looked like a newly formed open air museum.  The track it was on seemed to still be in use, but I saw no freight cars at all.  The rails were very rusty, but with a slight recent shine.

I found a 3 foot gauge passenger car from the Illwaco RR.  It has received some attention and is finally under cover next to a museum in Illwaco Washington.  There should have been a second newly constructed passenger car with it,  but I was unable to find it. Hopefully in covered storage somewhere.  I doubt this narrow gauge will ever run again, at least where it once ran since the tourist trade has expanded so much that nearly all the right of way is now covered with buildings.  While Illwaco does have a harbor, the pier where the RR met the ferries from the Portland Oregon area is all but gone with only a few piling still showing above the water line. 

[Gwizz]

I thought I would look up Obama's record of Senate accomplishments in Illinois.

I guess they are not for public viewing among other things.

A politician really has no rights of privacy if he wants to get elected unless he has something to hide.

 

1. Occidental College records -- Not released

2. Columbia College records -- Not released

3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "not available"

4. Harvard College records -- Not released

5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released

6. Medical records -- Not released

7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- "not available"

8. Law practice client list -- Not released

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released

10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released

11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"

14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"

In fairness this information could be old as it was sent to me by a friend who received it from a friend and so on. 

Maybe some of the above information has since been released.

How can people understand who to vote for without knowing the personal history of a political candidate?

[thomasjordan]

I thought I would look up Obama's record of Senate accomplishments in Illinois.

I guess they are not for public viewing among other things.

A politician really has no rights of privacy if he wants to get elected unless he has something to hide.

 

1. Occidental College records -- Not released

2. Columbia College records -- Not released

3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "not available"

4. Harvard College records -- Not released

5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released  Validated by the news media.  Selective Service registration was not required when he turned 18.  It was reinstituted not long after that, and he registered when he was 19

6. Medical records -- Not released They have been released according to the news media

7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- "not available"

8. Law practice client list -- Not released

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released

10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released

11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None  The correct answer is ONE, but it was unsigned

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"

14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"

In fairness this information could be old as it was sent to me by a friend who received it from a friend and so on. 

Maybe some of the above information has since been released.

How can people understand who to vote for without knowing the personal history of a political candidate?

[Gwizz]

Thanks Rob for the update. 

I wonder how up to date the news media is;  I guess I'm just too skeptical.

[djf01]

8. Law practice client list -- Not released

That's a pretty tough ask isn't it?

I'd have thought this would be covered by Client/Attorney privilege?  ie not all his ex-clients would want it known they engaged his services.

[djf01]

Can some of you guys help me?

I'd like to get a handle on how far left/right/centre you think certain media info sources are.

When I was in the states in '04 I got to watch quite a bit of TV, but found the proportion of clearly targeted media (editorial policy deliberately & explicitly shifted left or right to attract a specific audience) higher than I've seen anywhere else.

We don't get a real lot of US TV news here in Oz, most of it off the wires - so usually NBC/CBS etc (our TV networks have rights sharing affiliations, and will usually run one story from the States in the evening news to fill out the content - between our 6min of dommestic news and 20 min of sport reporting).

Our TV media - as part of the requirements of having a broadcasting license - have an obligation to report news, and to do so in a "balanced" manner.  This doesn't happen of course, but there is very little explicit ultra right stuff - or ultra left stuff.

Print media here is not as regulated, but the number of papers is not real high, so they don't really try to target a specific audience.

Radio is more like TV in the states (at least on the right), lots of right and ultra-right/conservative programs - often designed to bait lefties and get them to ring and an be humiliated (it *is* very entertaining). 

We have a thing called the ABC, based on the British BBC.  It's a publicly funded broadcaster - think PBS with money.  Their charter is even more strict about balanced reporting, and they have a politically controlled oversight board.  But ... by definition this is run by a bunch of public servants who believe in public broadcasting  , so they are obviously going to have leftie views, and this is reflected in editorial approach - no matter how hard they try no to.

Our ABC tends to dominate the left, especially in radio, so there aren't really any commercialised radio targeting the left as there is the right.

Newsprint tends to lean right.  The main Sydney and Melbourne papers have an editorial policy of being "small l liberal" in their views, which means nothing like what it sounds.  Here "the Liberals" are our right wing party - named so because they aren't! (ie trying to broaded their appeal to left with name rather than policy).  Small l means a lefty conservative - or just to the right of centre.  ie the centre if you excluded everyone on welfare who their advertisers aren't interested in.

Most of the rest of the print media is owned by News Corp/Murdoch, and they are further right leaning.  They (almost) always endorse "Liberal"/Right candidates, but essentially they are more self serving than anything.  Because they are often the only paper in town, they can't explicitly target a right audience or alienate all their leftie readers.

The other service we get is SBS, a bit like the Aussie ABC but with next to no money.  It was set up (prior to cable) to give our substantial immigrant population access to non-english language content.  It broadcasts a news from most major countries around the world, including and English Language news show from Germany - which gives an interesting perspective on American news - and "the News Hour with Jim Lereah" as it's US offering.

It's clearly the best US news show on free to air Aussie TV, but when I was in the states and I had the choice of 500 motel cable channels, it *still* seemed the best in terms of even handedness and trying to be balanced.  I suspect it might be like the Aussie ABC, they try hard but still might lean a bit left - after all, they are a PBS show, but I don't know, and was hoping someone could position of your media for me.  I only know of a fraction of your outlets, and a lot of it I haven't seen for years, buy I'll chart (Right to Left) where I *think* it fits and invite comment:

Denis Miller Show - Right/Far Right - Probably moderate by some of the offerings (the only one I can remember to be honest), but still clearly targeting a right leaning audience.  Dunno if it's still running. I won't comment on the standard of humour other than to say I still watched it a bit.

Average Republican - Right

Fox News - Right - I thought was trying to deliberately report the right's perspective as news, and it's target audience was the centre of the right/ absolute middle of the road Republican

CNN (2004) - Slightly Right.  I understand that's changed a bit since then, and they've moved to the left of centre a touch - too much competition on the right - but in 2004 they were still trading on their Gulf War I reputation and presenting themselves as "credible" news, but seemed to be more all out support for Bush & Iraq war - more in a patriotic rather than partisan way - just more than I would associated with critical journalism holding people to account.  I met a Canadian who was adamant CNN was controlled by and just a mouthpiece for Bush and the far right.

NBC/CBC/ABC (2004) - Centre/Sightly Right - Again in a nationalistic/patriotic rather than partisan way, just not quite as over the top as CNN.  Most of the reporting seemed extremely superficial - perhaps a deliberate "dumbing down" of reporting - so much so it was hard to identify/categorise any angle, let alone bias.

This may have changed too.  They may well be bending with the left/Obama wind of earlier this year, so I can only really comment on 2004.

But where does someone like Barbera Walters fit into this?

- Dead Centre - Absolute average American's views

- News Hour with JL - closest to my perception of the centre as anything, but possible leaning a fraction left.

I don't recall anything modestly left (like Aussie ABC - or even a left CNN), or bang to the middle of the left (a left equivalent of FOX - something that targets the average Democrat).

- Morgan Spurtock - The supersize me guy - I got to see a few of his TV docos (too far left for Aussie mainstream TV) last year in Finland of all places.  I think he's a to the left of the average democrat, but not by much.

- Mike Moore - Far left.  Not a communist, but still way too far left for my taste, and well to left of most Democrat positions.  Quality of the humour IMHO compensates to some degree.  I enjoyed F911, but I could have done without the conspiracy theories. 

So, am I correct?

Part of the problem is knowing where I stand.  Most people think *they* are in the centre, and it's very difficult to come to terms with just how unorthodox your own views are.  Part of my problem is I have some basic education in economics and have an interest in the subject, and on most economic issues I'm definitely to the right by any definition.  But on most social issues I'm a bit left leaning.  My view is that for most things in life: markets, business, free enterprise are consumer choice are the best was to organise things.  But there are cases where that doesn't always work, and that's where I want my government(s) to focus their efforts.  In short, helping people who really need it, or acting where there is a clear and unambiguous collective interest, while not screwing things up for the rest/most of us.  On most issues I'd prefer my gvt not act at all, but where I do want them to act, it's usually in what is considered a leftist area or in a leftist way.  On right issues, I'd prefer the gvt simpy not be involved at all.

[Gwizz]

  Quote from: Gwizz on Yesterday at 11:43:58 AM

8. Law practice client list -- Not released

That's a pretty tough ask isn't it?

I'd have thought this would be covered by Client/Attorney privilege?  ie not all his ex-clients would want it known they engaged his services.

If I remember correctly, it was made public that he had essentially no clients of his own.  I don't know if that is totally true or not.

I don't know exactly which of the media is mostly Left or Right. 

But, It seems Fox is mostly right and most if not all of the others are mostly Left.  TV and Newspapers.

The radio seems to be mostly on the Right, as you noted.  Those few that are on the left seem to have a mixed bag of programing.

[Hawk]

Well, here's my two-bits on US News media, and don't hold me to the cross as I'm sure there are other opinions on this.

Print-Media: For the most, left leaning (sales seem to be dropping drastically lately)

TV: For the most part, left leaning, with the exception of Fox which is right leaning, although Britt Hume seems to be pretty much unbiased.

Radio Talk Show: Seems, for the most part, right leaning. For some reason left leaning radio talk shows don't fair too well. Could be lack of public interest and/or corruption at the top, middle, and bottom.

Radio News: Pretty much left leaning.

Internet: No matter what your beliefs are, you can find something to substantiate it.  ;D

What do we do? IMHO, the best thing is to watch some of the left and some of the right. The only way to form your own opinion is to know as much as possible about both sides, and then some.  ;)

[Sir Cole Burns]

Like her or not is not the issue. Its what the Republicans intend to do, and so far that is not any different to the way this country has been going. Our enemy is getting stronger in afghanistan, we are ten trillion in debt, that we the people know of. Our boarders are still wide open. we the people are now bailing out all the major financial institutions, which had been givin autonomy by the Republicans, shouldnt we at least get something for this? as far as earmarks go Sarah Palin has already gotton 200,000,000 for alaska this year alone. The rebublicans are for big bussiness. The dems for the people. Our country needs both to exists. Weve givin big tax breaks to high wealth for eight years now. Its time to go in the opposite direction for a while, so that we the people, can catch a break for a change. Its not about race, or creed, or religon. It hasnt been for a long time. Its about wealth and non-wealth!

[Gwizz]

Sir Cole, I agree with some of what you say; But,

McCain is left of center and Obama is far left of center.  There is no candidate for right of center.

Big business is right of center, And, if I read it correctly very big business is now also far left of center supporting Obama.

IMHO, That would make the most likely support for the people, coming from McCain and Palin.

The Obama supporters are throwing the most mud at this point in time and that activity alone blocks any support for Obama.

Also for pointing blame, I believe the Democrats have control of Congress and Congress has been the major force in politics for the last few years.

[Hawk]

You're right that the Republicans are for Big Business, but the Democrats are not for the people, they're for Big Government, and the Republicans have added that to their list too.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats give a rats patuty about you and I. For that, matter no politician does. It's all about self gain.

One of the things I hate about elections, and especially this one, is all the time spent bashing the opponent. Don't tell me what you think of your opponent! Tell me what you're going to do.

This whole election has reverted to playground politics. They're all acting like a bunch of second graders. A pathetic and useless waste of time, but I do believe the Obama crew is doing the lions share.

[maddog]

Well, here's my two-bits on US News media, and don't hold me to the cross as I'm sure there are other opinions on this.

Print-Media: For the most, left leaning (sales seem to be dropping drastically lately)

TV: For the most part, left leaning, with the exception of Fox which is right leaning, although Britt Hume seems to be pretty much unbiased.

Radio Talk Show: Seems, for the most part, right leaning. For some reason left leaning radio talk shows don't fair too well. Could be lack of public interest and/or corruption at the top, middle, and bottom.

Radio News: Pretty much left leaning.

Internet: No matter what your beliefs are, you can find something to substantiate it.  ;D

What do we do? IMHO, the best thing is to watch some of the left and some of the right. The only way to form your own opinion is to know as much as possible about both sides, and then some.  ;)

All of this is pretty much spot on. The trick is to know when you are watching news verses when you are watching punditry. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, Lou Dobbs are all pundits (the list could go on and on!) with a certain ideology to "sell" to the viewer, so watch them with care. The trick is to catch them when they are lying. I've noticed in recent years that the pundits will lie by telling a partial truth. If they had told the full story, the listener would probably have come to the opposite conclusion but since that doesn't fit the ideology of the pundit, they can't tell you the full story. It would ruin it.  ::) In other words, they will only tell you enough to support their ideas but not enough to reach truth.

I think Sean Hannity is the easiest one to catch. I remember him railing about Iraq's 50,000 gallons of Sarin gas (as well as VX and mustard gas) during the lead up to the Iraq war. "He has it! We know he has it!", I remember Mr. Hannity saying. What they didn't tell us on the AM dial was that the information dated back a good 20 years, give or take a couple but not recent information, to the Reagan administration (1988, IIRC). It all turned out to be untrue. :(

It might be useful to keep a pen and paper next to the radio or TV to take notes for fact checking later.  :)

--Ray.

[Gwizz]

I think it is human nature to stretch the truth.  Or, at least, leave out some of the information to make it look different.

It irritates me when a Conservative bends the truth in this way.

For that reason, I've been listening to both sides.  I hope you are willing to do the same.

There are a lot of liberal blogs that are far worse.  They make up lies and promote them or just bend the truth trying to turn truth into a negative. 

For example:

Palin has spent 200 million as Governor of Alaska.  The Governor she replaced had been spending over 800 million.

Palin is in bed with big Oil. The old governor was holding back oil payments.  Palin give it out to the people.

Palin is not a woman.  She is something else.  Not sure where that blog was going, but I can guess.

palin has no executive experience.  She has more than the two liberal candidates put together.

Palin tried to fire the in-law patrol officer.  From what the officer said he did, he should have been fired.

Palin said she didn't fire the officer.  She fired his corrupt boss.  The boss is accusing her of pressuring him.

It is interesting that the investigation was scheduled to go public after the election.  It was moved up to 5 days before the election.  Palin has definitely made some enemies when she cleaned up Alaskan politics.

There are more lies and fabrications.  IMHO the liberals take the trophy for their presentations of the un-truths.

And you are right,  It is important to check everything stated by both sides.  Too few people do this.

[Hawk]

The Hannity/Colmes show is a ridiculous waste of time, and not just because of Hannity either.  ;)

Another show on Fox to take with a grain of salt is Bill O'Reilly. Actually I watch that show as a comedic interlude.  ;D

I don't watch Hannity/Colmes anymore though. I just got sick and tried of their crap. Talk about extreme opposites!

As for the left side, I'll sometimes watch Anderson Cooper. A bit left for my tastes, but not near as bad as others.