Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:12 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
But the point is, by and large people have the opportunity for exit. It's not only that they don't have to work for a particular business; even if there's only one business in town they can leave the town, not that that's always a great option.
I agree in principle, but I want to insist that practically speaking, this is really hard for a lot of people.

Quote:
But regardless, it's unclear what the alternative is. Government make-work?
Put like that, no. On the other hand, the WPA was helpful for a while, and there remain lots of things that need doing that wouldn't just be make-work.

Quote:
A lot of libertarians would favor a Charles Murray/Milton Friedman style negative income tax so that even when the corporation goes away, people still have enough financial power to have an option.
Don't know enough about this to comment meaningfully.

Quote:
I guess it depends on what you mean by monopolies. I don't know that it ever--and I mean ever--happens that you get a true, 100% monopoly without government assistance. You'll get your 90%ers, though. This can be bad, but of course curing this problem can often be worse.
Oligopolies would have been a better word choice. As to the last sentence, that's too vague for me to want to take up right now.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:18 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Obama Tax Relief for the Lower 95%

Welcome back, piscivorous.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:20 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
Once again, I think you're equating libertarianism with Objectivism (Rand's system). Randroids are actually only a small subset of libertarians, albeit a loud and annoying one.
I see, thanks again for the clarification. As I mentioned earlier, my contact with libertarians basically consists of Randites, so I am evidently missing the distinctions you're pointing out. Megan McArdle recently suggested, for example, that she could tolerate certain kinds of government that didn't fit the Randian version of libertarianism that I've been familiar with. I'm glad to know there are those that aren't as extreme and absolutist about the role of government.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
Also, I don't see why things like deregulation of the airlines, legalization of drugs, lowering of taxes, legalization of prostitution, elimination of the draft/selective service, and reduction of welfare services means living under tyranny or amounts to becoming slaves. I'm not a libertarian, but "private tryanny" seems far too strong for what would result.
Absolutely, I agree. It's too late for me to elaborate, but I agree that those things are all reasonable forms of conservative thought, whether I agree with the particulars of them or not. What I consider slavery is the outcome of unfettered free enterprise.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
They changed quite a lot during the Reagan era, and they've never changed back. Remember, we used to have a 91% marginal tax rate for the top earners before Kennedy. The top rate got steadily lower since then. In the 50s, conservatives were thought (by Walter Lippman, I believe) no longer to exist. That's changed a bit too.
Yeah, LOL, that's funny about "conservative no longer exist." That idea persisted at least through 1964 and LBJ's crushing defeat of Goldwater. Lot of people thought we had entered a liberal golden age and a permanent one party state. Then 1972 happened...

Okay, I'm going to bed, so if you write a detailed response, I might not see it...
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-28-2008, 05:37 AM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

I'm sorry, but several here have expressed the sentiment that unregulated (or even under-regulated) free markets inevitably march towards corporate monopolies, and I just can't let such an absurd statement stand.

Every monopoly in American history (and, indeed, every large corporate oligarchy), came about as a direct result of the government pissing in the pool of the free market. A true market economy NEVER would have resulted in Standard Oil or Bell Telephone, nor the many monopolies which FDR aided in exchange for unionization concessions.

The fact that the government occasionally busts up large monopolies and trusts doesn't change the fact that Big Government is what propped them up in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-28-2008, 06:06 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara Davis View Post
I'm sorry, but several here have expressed the sentiment that unregulated (or even under-regulated) free markets inevitably march towards corporate monopolies, and I just can't let such an absurd statement stand.

Every monopoly in American history (and, indeed, every large corporate oligarchy), came about as a direct result of the government pissing in the pool of the free market. A true market economy NEVER would have resulted in Standard Oil or Bell Telephone, nor the many monopolies which FDR aided in exchange for unionization concessions.

The fact that the government occasionally busts up large monopolies and trusts doesn't change the fact that Big Government is what propped them up in the first place.
I think there's something to that. But what would you say about Microsoft? That the government abetted them by buying many copies of Windows and Office?

I think it's also not so simple as you make it -- that "Big Government propped them up" -- without dealing with the reality that a large enough company (or small group of large companies) begins to have significant clout over the government. ADM? Oil companies? Big Tobacco? Boeing?

So, I agree that government helped these big companies get bigger, and stay that way, but I don't think it's as much of a one-way street as you make it sound. It's more like Zinn's view of history -- that the small group of those who have power work together to keep hold of it.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-28-2008 at 06:11 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:22 AM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I think you're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians, whether rights- or utility-based, know that there have to be rules of the playing field before a market economy can function.
Alan Greenspan.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:34 AM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
At the risk of making more noise about very squishy terms, I'd argue that at least one fundamental aspect of capitalism has always been around, and is always around in state-controlled economic systems, too: the individual's desire to maximize his or her own gain. Even if money is non-existent or strictly controlled, and most every good or service is doled out by the government, and all work is supposed to be for the good of the community or the state, there are always things that people identify as scarce resources, and people will seek out ways to improve their chances of getting them (or more of them).
That's still just business. Or greed or self-interest. None of which defines capitalism or is sufficient to establish it.

You're making exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about. Capitalism is what capitalism and capitalism alone does. Both the desire to maximize one's own gain and the practice of exchanging scarce resources have always existed. Capitalism is just a few hundred years old.

I should clarify what I'm saying about libertarians in this regard, in light of Bobby G's comment. Yes; some libertarians do know not to confuse business or self-interest with capitalism, but that's not how they sell their ideas, is it?

They don't exactly come out and say that you can run a successful business and work in your own self-interest without buying into the government-controlled (and necessarily government-controlled) monetary and fiscal system that establishes capitalism.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-28-2008, 08:49 AM
nyc123 nyc123 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop View Post
How can anyone be dumb or arrogant enough to still defend libertarianism? Did you watch Greenspan, possibly the top libertarian of them all, specifically admit that his IDEOLOGY was wrong??? Might want to try glancing at the front page of any newspaper. It's over guys...just let it go. Why do I suspect I'll still be hearing "Well, marketsmarketsmarketsmarkets..." for the rest of my life?
Because the alternative is a Washington bureaucrat setting the price of milk every week, maybe you think that's OK. The credit default swaps were only viable financial instruments with tax-payer insurance (Fannie/Freddie) "waiting in the wings" - so to speak. Ultimately, they amounted to little more than fraud. Now, if government were to actually enforce a few really sensible regulations, and enforce contractual obligations (something it can do better from the outside of the business world) I doubt anybody would mind; it's the government owning and running everything that they (and I would hope, you) want to avoid.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:39 AM
MemeInjector3000 MemeInjector3000 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 16
Default dump Jesus for victory in 2012

Good to see that critics of libertarianism exist somewhere in the universe.

While I agree that the current financial crisis has been a blow to their creed, I think that libertarians will remain a powerful force in US politics -- way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. It will remain the de facto worldview (or dream) of much of corporate America. At its core, after all, libertarianism is just a rationalization for personal greed, which is everybody's favorite sin.

Indeed, all the Republicans need to do is dump the Jesus freaks/Huckabee/Palin wing of their party and become more libertarian and they'll win elections into perpetuity. (Shhh... don't tell anyone...)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:42 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray View Post
You're making exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about. Capitalism is what capitalism and capitalism alone does. Both the desire to maximize one's own gain and the practice of exchanging scarce resources have always existed. Capitalism is just a few hundred years old.
Right. This is a point not well understood. Captialism is a stage of historical development based on the methods and means of production, and as you say, only dates back to approximately the 1600s. It didn't exist before that. Trade and motivation and greed and currency have always existed; but not capitalism.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:45 AM
MemeInjector3000 MemeInjector3000 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 16
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Please no more libertarians. These goofs don't live in the real world. Most are just Liberals that want to smoke dope and not pay taxes.
Funny, my standard line about libertarians is that they are "conservatives who like to smoke dope."
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:49 AM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Yes. Alan Greenspan. He also thinks there have to be rules of the playing field.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:55 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: dump Jesus for victory in 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MemeInjector3000 View Post
At its core, after all, libertarianism is just a rationalization for personal greed, which is everybody's favorite sin.
Exactly! Basically, the owner class needed an intellectual framework to justify systems of exploitation, so they developed the capitalist creed that is the national religion in the United States. Every literate American can recite Matt Welch's entire argument by the 7th grade, not only because it is amazingly simplistic, but because the assumptions of free enterprise are so deeply embedded in our culture. You literally cannot grow up with any basis awareness of the world around you and not be regularly bombarded with the numerous myths that justify this system.

A good example is one we are being bombarded with daily during the election: raising taxes during a recession will collapse the economy. Funny how with conservatives reality never matters. This is exactly what they promised during the first years of the Clinton administration: his tax increases would throw the country into a deep recession. And then the exact opposite happened. But reality never alters the tenets of conservative faith, so we must endure the same nonsense talking points this year, and for the rest of our lives.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-28-2008, 10:24 AM
JimN JimN is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin
Posts: 33
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Funny, but living under socialism doesn't feel much different to me than capitalism did.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-28-2008, 01:01 PM
fedorovingtonboop fedorovingtonboop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyc123 View Post
Because the alternative is a Washington bureaucrat setting the price of milk every week, maybe you think that's OK. The credit default swaps were only viable financial instruments with tax-payer insurance (Fannie/Freddie) "waiting in the wings" - so to speak. Ultimately, they amounted to little more than fraud. Now, if government were to actually enforce a few really sensible regulations, and enforce contractual obligations (something it can do better from the outside of the business world) I doubt anybody would mind; it's the government owning and running everything that they (and I would hope, you) want to avoid.
I guess you're gonna have to convince me this is worth replying to...
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-28-2008, 02:22 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Libertarians have lost some juice but they will still be around. One big reason for this is that many are not happy with our dominant 2 party system. From what I gather many are now eschewing any party affiliation and are registering as "declined to state." So, as off the wall some of these third parties are people will look at them closer due to fatigue with the same 'ole, same 'ole. Also, this particular party has a political/economic intellectual framework to work from that goes way beyond Ayn Rand. Sure, from what I gather most of their apologists seem to be Austrian econimists like Von Mises, Hayak, Rothbard and the like and appear to be weak on a social contract but these thinkers are way more credible than the Objectivist crew with Ayn Rand at their helm.

John

Last edited by bkjazfan; 10-28-2008 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 10-28-2008, 03:38 PM
nyc123 nyc123 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop View Post
I guess you're gonna have to convince me this is worth replying to...
I think it is important to find common ground. If you believe that the concept of individual private property exists, you have a bit of libertarian in you. I am not an anarchist, nor do I agree with "nut-jobs" but I do see where a drop of the libertarian axiom can help keep power in check.

You were speaking of Alan Greenspan recanting his ideology, I would ask you, what is (*was*) his ideology? You call it libertarianism, I don't recognize it as anything except power corrupted.

As the CEO of a (practically) unaccountable corporation that can print as much paper money as it wants and in so doing, set the price of it, I would argue that the Chairman of the Fed has far too much power. I would also argue that a congress with an ideologically-aligned president has too much power.

Greenspan held interest rates at impossibly low levels for so long (ignoring his own 1996 "irrational exuberance" speech) that a big contraction was inevitable. The longer we wait (and each bailout just kicks the can down the road a few months/weeks) the more painful it will be and the more we enslave future taxpayers.

Ken Lay et al were held accountable for their actions by government, which is very good, but we should all work hard to keep the government from becoming Ken Lay (x 100) - transparency and monitoring government in equal measure to business is a good thing, eh?

When I say "government" you say "George Bush"... wouldn't it have been nice to have a limited executive branch lately? Why not always?
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 10-28-2008, 03:51 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray View Post
That's still just business. Or greed or self-interest. None of which defines capitalism or is sufficient to establish it.
Okay. But I still think that one of the things that defines capitalism is the admission that self-interest is a universal human trait, and that it's better to work with that assumption rather than to try to suppress it.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 10-28-2008, 04:02 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

I don't think Alan Greenspan was a libertarian when he headed the Fed since many of that party don't believe in central banking. In fact, I am sure they think it's one of the main culprits in this economic meltdown along with the billionaire Wall Street bailout (rescue) plan.

John
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 10-28-2008, 04:51 PM
Micha Elyi Micha Elyi is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1
Default Who elected Alan Greenspan king of the libertarians?

Who elected Alan Greenspan king of the libertarians? Certainly not libertarians; as head of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan was a regulator.

Yup, the statists around here are trying yet another cram-down of their talking points in order to throw the discussion off track and distract attention from yet another colossal failure of their unbridled regulation-lust.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 10-28-2008, 05:02 PM
fedorovingtonboop fedorovingtonboop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
Default Re: Who elected Alan Greenspan king of the libertarians?

"golly-gee, you're smart"...he says as he stared, lovingly....
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 10-28-2008, 05:22 PM
fedorovingtonboop fedorovingtonboop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

i can't find anything significant to disagree with there but as i said in another post somewhere...there's really just not much reason to have them around. all those common sense moves you described can just be filed under "common sense"....there's really no reason to have a whole separate category for it, let alone be forced to wade through numerous diavlogs about them where they exhibit a total lack of humility. if there were ever a time for them to shut up it would definitely be right now.

Last edited by fedorovingtonboop; 10-28-2008 at 05:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 10-28-2008, 09:05 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by fedorovingtonboop View Post
i can't find anything significant to disagree with there but as i said in another post somewhere...there's really just not much reason to have them around. all those common sense moves you described can just be filed under "common sense"....there's really no reason to have a whole separate category for it, let alone be forced to wade through numerous diavlogs about them where they exhibit a total lack of humility. if there were ever a time for them to shut up it would definitely be right now.
Well said. Can we stop with endless stream of "How many angels can dance on a pin" libertarians.? If BHTV wants out-of-touch intellectuals, why not try a few marxists or Monarchists. At least they'd be a change of pace.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 10-29-2008, 04:02 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by threep View Post
Eight years of a nefarious common political enemy would probably tend to cause you to underestimate the number of people you would sharply disagree with if the focus was turned inwards.
If this was a response to my earlier "Go liberaltarianism!", you might find this interesting reading.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 10-29-2008, 04:39 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Intolerable Failure

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
Well said. Can we stop with endless stream of "How many angels can dance on a pin" libertarians.? If BHTV wants out-of-touch intellectuals, why not try a few marxists or Monarchists. At least they'd be a change of pace.
Agreed. I'll leave it to The Editors:
Quote:
Libertarians are like furries: the internets full of em, but they are not a significant political constituency.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 10-29-2008, 06:28 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
You'll be pleased to know, btw, that Slate published how the staff is voting:
You'll be unsurprised to realize that our little pissant is afraid to give the link to the Slate story, since the arguments given alongside each vote are solid, and in many cases, come from people who used to like McCain, but are turned off by the sort of bile that kidneystones epitomizes.

Read them for yourself.

Also worth reading, at the same link, the current and past Slate editors' arguments about the difference between a journalist having a preference and having a bias, another concept way too nuanced, I'm sure, for our resident Larry Johnson Wannabe.

Keep 'em coming, ks! You've become my new favorite wingnut!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 10-29-2008, 08:40 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 1
Yes, but the Bradley Effect applies to at least one infamous Slatista. Hint: Deploy the moose.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y s璲uela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 10-29-2008, 09:30 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
Inspiring Stuff: Online Fund-raising scam. Big money from big donors. All money, all the time.

Don't miss the 'Anthony Robbins Obama' infomercial!

A whole new scale of corruption. You'll be pleased to know, btw, that Slate published how the staff is voting:

Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 1
Bob Barr: 1
Not McCain: 1
Noncitizen, can't vote: 4

Just like the run-up to the Iraq war: one-sided media coverage.

What could possibly go wrong?
Democracy is a messy affair. People, opinions, clouded judgment and obsession.
But take comfort, once BO is ensconced in the oval office, his health care plan will allow you to remedy those renal rocks that have soured you to the electoral process. Even though your condition is preexisting, take some comfort.. hope is on the way. Once the lasers blast the source of your discomfort to bits, your thinking should clear.

Cheers!
Best wishes.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 10-29-2008, 09:36 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
... the difference between a journalist having a preference and having a bias ...
Following up, here are some excerpts from Politico's reflection on press coverage of the two candidates, by John Harris and Jim VandeHei (Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor, respectively):

Quote:
The Project for Excellence in Journalisms researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

Whats more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, lets just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business wed take an educated guess nothing so scientific as a Pew study that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues.

So what?

Before answering the question, indulge us in noting that the subject of ideological bias in the news media is a drag. The people who care about it typically come at the issue with scalding biases of their own. Any statement journalists make on the subject can and will be used against them. So the incentive is to make bland and guarded statements. Even honest ones, meanwhile, will tend to strike partisans as evasive or self-delusional.

Here goes anyway.

There have been moments in the general election when the one-sidedness of our site when nearly every story was some variation on how poorly McCain was doing or how well Barack Obama was faring has made us cringe.

As it happens, McCains campaign is going quite poorly and Obamas is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

[...]

Responsible editors would be foolish not to ask themselves the bias question, especially in the closing days of an election.

But, having asked it, our sincere answer is that of the factors driving coverage of this election and making it less enjoyable for McCain to read his daily clip file than for Obama ideological favoritism ranks virtually nil.

The main reason is that for most journalists, professional obligations trump personal preferences. Most political reporters (investigative journalists tend to have a different psychological makeup) are temperamentally inclined to see multiple sides of a story, and being detached from their own opinions comes relatively easy.

Reporters obsess about personalities and process, about whose staff are jerks or whether they seem like decent folks, about who has a great stump speech or is funnier in person than they come off in public, about whether Michigan is in play or off the table. This is the flip side of the fact of how much we care about the horse race we dont care that much about our own opinions of which candidate would do more for world peace or tax cuts.

If that causes skeptics to scoff, perhaps they would find it more satisfying to hear that the reason ideological bias matters so little is that other biases matter so much more.

This is true in any election year. But the 2008 election has had some unique and personal phenomena.

One is McCain backlash. [...]

[...]

Beyond the particular circumstances of McCain v. Obama, there are other factors in any race that almost always matter more than the personal views of reporters.

The strongest of these is the bias in favor of momentum. A candidate who is perceived to be doing well tends to get even more positive coverage (about his or her big crowds or the latest favorable polls or whatever). And a candidate who is perceived to be doing poorly tends to have all events viewed through this prism.

Not coincidentally, this is a bias shared by most of our sources. This is why the bulk of negative stories about McCain are not about his ideology or policy plans they are about intrigue and turmoil. Think back to the past week of coverage on Politico and elsewhere: Coverage has been dominated by Sarah Palins $150,000 handbags and glad rags, by finger-pointing in the McCain camp, and by apparent tensions between the candidate and his running mate.

These stories are driven by the flood of Republicans inside and out of the campaign eager to make themselves look good or others look bad. This always happens when a campaign starts to tank. Indeed, there was a spate of such stories when Obamas campaign hit turmoil after the GOP convention and the Palin surge.

For better or worse, the most common media instincts all have countervailing pressures. Countering the bias in favor of momentum is the bias against boredom. Weve seen that several times this cycle an outlying poll number being pumped to suggest big changes in a race that is basically unchanged. Theres a good chance youll see this phenomenon more in the next week.

Then there is the bend-over-backward bias. This is when journalists try so hard to avoid accusations of favoritism that it clouds critical judgment. A good example were stories suggesting Palin held her own or even won her debate against Joe Biden when it seemed obvious she was simply invoking whatever talking points she had at hand, hanging on for dear life.

Finally, one of the biases of journalists is the same one that is potent for almost all people: the one in favor of self-defensiveness. Thats why, even though we think ideological bias is pretty low on the list of journalistic maladies in this election, it is not viable for reporters to dismiss criticism out of hand.
The whole thing is worth a read.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 10-29-2008, 09:41 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Yes, but the Bradley Effect applies to at least one infamous Slatista. Hint: Deploy the moose.
Wasn't that hilarious (or telling?) how he was the only one who wouldn't give a reason for his vote?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 10-29-2008, 10:31 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

I just skimmed the politico story, so if this was addressed, then just say that to me.

Couldn't it be that McCain's campaign, given this year's situation for Republicans, has a much harder road to hoe? And if that's true, should that be reflected in the press coverage? Like, "McCain campaign did bad thing B today" versus "the difficult times for Republicans keep on forcing McCain campaign to make difficult choices, which is why it did bad thing B today"?
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 10-29-2008, 10:38 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Not really. He's given reasons before in Kausfiles as well as on bloggingheads. The main reason: McCain would spend his capital to pass comprehensive immigration-reform, Obama would spend his capital to pass healthcare reform. Mickey likes Obama's healthcare plan and--you probably didn't know this--doesn't like comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, even if he were against Obama's healthcare plan, he would still favor Obama because he thinks Obama's healthcare reform is more reversible than McCain's immigration reform.

To paraphrase Kidneystones, stop drinking the Andrew Sullivan kool-aid.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 10-30-2008, 12:20 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
Not really. He's given reasons before in Kausfiles as well as on bloggingheads.
But not on the page where every other Slate employee did. Note that some of the writing there was taken from earlier published work; e.g., Hitchens. Presumably, in those cases, the writers were asked to approve linking or excerpting. Which raises the question: why wouldn't Mickey sign off on that?

I recall the BH.tv-based mentions he has made. Just thought it was an amusing oddity. I hardly need to drink Kool-Aid to want to poke fun at Kaus.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 10-30-2008, 12:32 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: No facts, please, BobbyG!

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidneystones View Post
McCain treated him with kid gloves through-out the campaign and that's to McCain's credit.
For someone so whiningly desperate to see Obama defeated that he'll type Ayers/Rezko/Wright until his fingertips bleed, this is truly surreal, even considering the source.

Never mind reality. Let us all now praise John McCain for not doing what it takes to win!

I am beginning to suspect that our own little version of Larry C. Johnson has become a believer in the theory of Time Cube.

If he's not the originator, that is.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-30-2008 at 12:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 10-30-2008, 01:36 AM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

I demand you drink the Kool-Aid!

But seriously, we don't know why he hasn't given an explanation. Maybe he feels that that explanation by itself isn't good enough, and that to have a good explanation he'd need a lot more space. Maybe he didn't want to sort through Kausfiles to give his explanation. Maybe he's got a longer piece coming up where he gives his reasons for and against.

But you know all this. You just want to poke fun at Mickey. What's Mickey ever done to you? Aside from immigration you practically have the same views!

To quote Mr. O'Reilly, Tell me where I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-30-2008, 02:56 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I demand you drink the Kool-Aid!

But seriously, we don't know why he hasn't given an explanation. Maybe he feels that that explanation by itself isn't good enough, and that to have a good explanation he'd need a lot more space. Maybe he didn't want to sort through Kausfiles to give his explanation. Maybe he's got a longer piece coming up where he gives his reasons for and against.

But you know all this. You just want to poke fun at Mickey. What's Mickey ever done to you? Aside from immigration you practically have the same views!

To quote Mr. O'Reilly, Tell me where I'm wrong.
Your speculation is plausible, although for a professional writer not to be able to knock out a paragraph on demand to such a well-formed question ... I dunno.

As to why I like to poke fun at Mickey, I don't really want to get into another one of those debates. I'll just say that he has long bothered me with his protestations that he's a Democrat, voted for Kerry, will vote for Obama, while spending all of his time harshing or even smearing the Dems and ignoring every GOP foible. I'll also say that I find his attitude about immigration disturbing, and that I think he too often resorts to contrarianism as a shtick.

I used to like him, and I liked his contrarianism in moderation, and would be happy to see him come back when he wants to put an effort into things. Toward the end of his time here, he seemed mostly to be phoning it in.

I haven't read Kausfiles in a long time, except by following the occasional link. When he started treating Gateway Pundit as a credible source a few months ago, that was the last straw for sure.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-30-2008 at 02:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-30-2008, 03:41 AM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

You know, I don't have much of a problem treating a lunatic as a credible source for information.

First, by "lunatic" I don't mean someone who's mentally ill. I just mean someone who time and again misrepresents things and repeatedly gives bad arguments for things.

Second, I think we're good enough to know when some statement does and doesn't have the indicia of truth. If it comes from a nut, I'll be more skeptical, but if it sounds likely given background information I already have, I'll give it some credence.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 10-30-2008, 04:43 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
You know, I don't have much of a problem treating a lunatic as a credible source for information.

First, by "lunatic" I don't mean someone who's mentally ill. I just mean someone who time and again misrepresents things and repeatedly gives bad arguments for things.

Second, I think we're good enough to know when some statement does and doesn't have the indicia of truth. If it comes from a nut, I'll be more skeptical, but if it sounds likely given background information I already have, I'll give it some credence.
Sounds like you don't have much respect for Mickey, either.

;^)

Assuming you're actually talking about GP, hey, whatever floats your boat. I prefer not to have to work unnecessarily at filtering and applying caution when I'm being told something or when I'm looking for something, especially in the way of basic news. Especially given the plethora of other known good and potentially good sources.

I agree that GP is useful, and even credible, as a representative voice of a certain part of the conservative movement. In some sense. Kind of like one guy on the supermax floor not throwing his feces through the bars tells you there's a good chance they're all calm at the moment. And conversely.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-30-2008 at 04:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 10-30-2008, 05:45 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I just skimmed the politico story, so if this was addressed, then just say that to me.

Couldn't it be that McCain's campaign, given this year's situation for Republicans, has a much harder road to hoe? And if that's true, should that be reflected in the press coverage? Like, "McCain campaign did bad thing B today" versus "the difficult times for Republicans keep on forcing McCain campaign to make difficult choices, which is why it did bad thing B today"?
Sounds like an inexcusably favorable way to cover McCain, if you ask me. How tough a row to hoe did Barack Hussein Obama, a black man with little time in national office, have? Especially after the MSM convinced itself that 18 million Clinton Democrats were permanently soured on him and that seven seconds of video of his erstwhile pastor had to be shown and discussed for ten million airtime-hours? How many times did we hear the words "clinging" and "bitter?"

And really, how many excuses do you want to be making for someone who wants to be the President of the United States?

And I would also say that this scenario you describe, in fact, was exactly the sort of coverage McCain got for a long time. Don't forget that the MSM was McCain's base going into this election, and his comeback in the primaries only added to their love for him. Everyone on the planet agreed that it was going to be a tough year for the Republicans, and the near-consensus (among the media, I mean) was that he was the best possible choice, with his maverick/war hero image, respect from his 2000 run, appeal to independents, and all. He and his campaign got away with a lot, for a long time -- both incompetence and ugliness -- before guys like Joe Klein and Richard Cohen (and others) finally had had enough.

Example: There were at worst polite murmurings among the Villagers about his dreadful performance when he tried to steal the media spotlight by giving a speech the night Obama clinched the nomination in June. Almost no one called it for what it was -- a thoroughly classless move. Instead, it was "Well, he shouldn't have used a green backdrop. He should practice with a teleprompter a little more."

Example: When the McCain campaign's meme of choice was Obama as celebrity, much of the Sunday show and op-ed chatter was, "Well, is Obama too much of a celebrity? Is he making a mistake by projecting this image? Here, would you like us to show this Britney ad again, for free?"

And then there's another part, that it sounds like you missed in the Politico article: momentum. When a campaign is going well and a candidate is moving up, that's the story. Ditto in the other direction. Remember the endless gushing over Palin when she was first announced? And after her convention speech? And the self-flagellation the press did for, you know, trying to find out a little something about her background?

And how many stories did you read or discussions did you listen to around then that asked, "Why can't Obama close the deal? Should he have picked Clinton as his VP? Was this a fatal mistake?" And when his fundraising wasn't as high as he had hoped in August, remember the rush of chatter about, "How seriously did he blunder by not taking the $84 million from the FEC instead?"

And lastly, don't forget that Fox News was unabashedly pro-GOP and especially anti-Obama from the get-go, without a meaningful counterweight for most of the race. It's a joke to call the MSM "the liberal media" -- the left fumes about them as much as the right does. One exception I'd accept: MSNBC. However, I'd argue that Obama did as much to boost them as they did Obama, and they only became something more than a fringe channel fairly late in the day. Again, momentum.

So, you know. It's not just "the media." Everybody's a front-runner, and everybody's your brother until the rent comes due.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
... then just say that to me.
Whoops. Sorry for droning on.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 10-30-2008 at 06:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 10-30-2008, 12:04 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Election Fraud You Can Believe In

LOL at the feces thing. But I like Mickey--I'd say I have respect for him. The arguments of his that people say are dumb are ones I don't find dumb, and I'd say he's more or less right about immigration. Don't tell Wonderment.

Or tell him. The ensuing scuffle may be entertaining.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.