Barack Obama will never take money from lobbyists. Just like Barack Obama will use public campaign financing. Just like Barack Obama was sure the surge would not work. I'm no patternoligist but my truthiness radar does detect one.
Oh by the way the media is soooo not biased. Check out the link. Fox News $0 to Republicans? Just one more reason not to trust statistics.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I trust statistics, just not other people's opinions about them, including yours not to trust them.
ReplyDeleteFor all of those out there who don't have enough to think about here's something for you: what is a pattern? Please define... When you're done with that try "opposite". I think you will find that they are "merely" subjective.
Here's to patternology!
Up front, my statistics are no secret: 6'0'', 180 lb., liberal, journalism. And this is no secret as well: Journalists tend to lean left. One final universal truth: Politicians say a lot of things they don't necessarily mean to follow up on. It's about being elected. I'm not condoning it, but that's how it is no matter how much you are perceived as a STRAIGHT-TALKING MAVERICK or how much CHANGE you promise.
ReplyDeleteWe have two media darlings running for president in McCain and Obama. I see gushing, overt or not, coming to both candidates unlike I can remember in '00 or '04. But I find it hard to take this guy Tate's research seriously when he omits who in these media organizations he's polling. The vast majority of people working for media orgs aren't journalists. And only a fraction have anything to do with covering any kind of political race.
I also find it hard to believe that so many so-called journalists of this poll are openly contributing money to campaigns. I know many newsrooms strictly bar any kind of contributions from journalists (accountants, copy boys, HR can give though). I'm not so naive to think that some journalists don't, dare I say it, compromise their ethics to give money to a party, but these numbers seem a bit inflated. Seem is the key word; I don't know.
As far as Fox goes, Tate doesn't seem to count their parent company owned by Rupert Murdoch, Newscorp. If we're going to tallying up who contributes to whom and then point fingers, I think it's a good idea to look at the overlords of these companies. The Murdochs of the world ultimately dictate coverage. Like it or not it's a business. If people are watching/reading, who cares what's on; it's selling. People want to hear about Obama, a fresh, photogenic character on the scene, and not dusty, often boring McCain and his suspect relationship with the pariah president and dubious foreign policy remarks Obama would never get away with.
Yes, Obama changed his previous claim to abide by public financing. But now in February, the (Republican) chairman of the Federal Elections Commission said McCain was breaking the law in trying to opt out of his own devotion the public financing system.
Here's the deal (bear with me): McCain filed for public financing in August when his campaign was limping along like a dying dog. Therefore, he gets tax dollars for his campaign and agrees to spending limits. Fast forward to December, and his campaign begins to turn around since his only competition was Mitt Romney's slow train to Creepville. McCain saw an opening and needed a loan to stay alive. He uses the federal money as collateral for the loaned $1 million.
By Super Tuesday, it's clear he'll have the nomination after Romney and Huckabee tank. Now he wants to have the option to spend as much money as he can in preparation for the presidential race. He realized that he would have to abide by those spending limits he agreed to. So he'd always given himself an out structured around his slick campaign finance lawyer, former head of the FEC, Trevor Potter: The campaign figured if they tanked themselves, they could (possibly) under law opt out of the system, then opt back in in order to pay off his creditors even though he knew he'd be out of the running, and to also be able to sign that original loan with the said credit while maintaining his ability to opt back out in case his campaign is revived. Whew. Tangled, but that was their thinking that they figured legal.
So then the FEC head says it's illegal, you can't take that loan and overspend since you took public financing. Thing is, the FEC is currently short of the needed amount of commissioners to rule on such a question, due to some wrangling in Congress over a shady candidate that was part of the U.S. attorney scandal. So they're short and can't rule on it. McCain is free to say, "Fuck off, I'll do what I want. You can't do anything about it." Meanwhile, I believe Congress has made headway in the commissioner-naming process, but, like anything in the federal govt., it's going at a snail's pace. But the point is that McCain has changed his position as well, illegally I might add, but that doesn't get much coverage because of the toothless FEC, and it isn't part of the media's narrative of him as a straight-talker.
And, yeah, Obama takes money from lobbyists, but still promises to be a new kind of candidate. I would say that's impossible claim to back up considering our current election system. You need money, plain and simple. He shouldn't say things those things I guess. But he did. I don't think it's that big of an issue. If the issue of lobbyists (and i.e. Obama's) involved in campaigns is a big deal to one, then I would say check out the flip side.
All in all, it's our system. They make promises they can't back up, we get huffy (and rightfully so I guess) and demand something new. Both Obama and McCain have tried to represent a new kind of quality and authenticity in their candidacies, something different from the shitpile Bush has left. Who is closer to their respective claims? That's up to us as individual voters with our own set of ideological beliefs and perceptions. Or is it just a matter of the lesser of two evils?
You really want to know why I don't trust statistics? Statistics thinks it has the power to tell me what I am likely to do in any given situation based on what? Historic personal facts? I don't like any "mathematical theory" trying to control my actions! I thought my distrust of math was well known but I guess I must explain.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a boy my mother and I would sit on the living room floor and practice multiplication tables with a pile of skittles. If I got the answer right my mother would split them up and let me eat them. Now, when it came to multiplying by zero my mother asked the question, what is five multiplied by zero? Like any logical person I looked at the skittles and ansered five. How can you multipy by nothing? (yes Conrad, zero skittles is not something, just an empty space on the living room floor) My mother told me the correct answer was zero and took the skittles away! From that day forward I decided "mathematics" may have infected my mother but it would never infect me! Then began the (pattern?) of sleeping with my math teachers in order to pass the classes. So I guess "statistics" would say there is a 100% probability that if I went back to school I would sleep with my math teachers.
Hmm...you know what, I hear the local university has a pretty good looking math department. Maybe me and "statistics" have a shot after all.
Hellcat, you blow my mind!
First off he says these numbers come from federal records, not polling.
Second, your right Obama is more interesting than McCain. It is not hard to see by watching the big three and CNN who is getting preferential treatment. I just watched Candy Crowly interview Obama this week and she was practically gushing. She would give him two or three ways to avoid the question in the actual question. The whole thing was laughable. So considering most people get their news from the "big three" yes, no? then how can people come away with any other viewpoint than Obama is the better candidtate? Just a shred of fairness would be welcome.
Maybe I would be railing on McCain more if I ever heard anything about him.
You can single out any one of Obama's issues such as taking money from lobbyist when he said he would'nt and say that they in and of themselves are not big issues. However, when there are so many issues like this they begin to add up. Everytime Obama is asked about these things his camp simply says it's not a big deal and he gets away with it. Would Bush get away with those answers?
I think besides being friendly with a former terrorist and at least one shady businessmen (Rezco)the Clinton camp had it right when they said "If your campaign is premised on rhetoric and the rhetoric is not your own, and your campaign is premised on promises, and you are breaking them, there are problems," (talking about plagarizing a speech from Gov. Patrick of Mass)
So I guess my real problem is the media letting him get away with his responses to these problems and maybe Mr. Tate's research Shows part of the reason why.
I can't really comment on the Crowley interview; didn't see it. I don't know what tough questions she allowed him to avoid. But I don't doubt any kind of gushing, and, again, there's enough of it going around.
ReplyDelete(Side point: Whether it seems pure or not, these reporters have to worry about access to candidates. Many people grumbled that he shut of the press quite a bit overseas, while others wailed that he had anchors of the three majors and others like Crowley following him. Back to access, I do know he gave interviews to the networks and CNN, maybe more, I'm not sure. When he's on a jam-packed trip and demand for him, not only from the American press but the European as well, is high, they take whatever they can get. And if it means saving your high and hard fastballs for another day, so be it. Not to say that's what happened, but remember there's more to this cat-and-mouse game than meets the eye.)
As someone who watches the cable networks all day, I feel like McCain gets plenty of coverage. I'm not saying more than Obama, especially this past week with him overseas, but it's not so miniscule that anyone should claim they never hear about him.
You point out Bill Ayers, a particularly consistent talking point of conservative radio/TV. Yeah, the guy did some acts that no one would want to be associated with. But Obama was a child during that time. Ayers lived in the same Chicago neighborhood. He threw Obama a fundraiser. Obama didn't beg him to do it. Again, politicians, like it or not, take money where they can get it, especially when it's legal, as Ayers fundraiser was. I agree, knowing his past, it might be a good idea to stay away. Money, especially when you're a young, ambitious politician, talks though.
The only explanation given by Deval Patrick was that he and Obama routinely discuss talking points and speech ideas. Make what you want out of that.
I don't know where the Obama-Rezko relationship actually leads. They were old friends, Rezko contributed to campaigns, Obama lived next to Rezko's wife and paid well over value for a small piece of land between their houses. It should make Obama uncomfortable, yet I haven't heard solid evidence. The campaign has returned any and all Rezko-related money, but no matter if there was impropriety.
If we want to talk about shady dealings with businessmen, we can bring up the Keating Five, one of which was Sen. McCain. Circa 1989-1991, McCain and four other senators were involved in talks with Charles Keating, a homeboy of McCain's (and especially McCain's wife whose family business was cozy with Keating) , who was part of Lincoln Savings and Loan, which was going to tank due to the economy and their own incompetence. Keating held several meetings with the senators in discussions of a Lincoln bailout. Though McCain claims he knew what they were doing was wrong, he continued to sit in on the meetings. All in all, they got caught and were forced to testify in front of Senate Ethics Committee. One or two of the senators were accused of wrongdoing, McCain and John Glenn were given slaps on the wrist, though that doesn't change the fact that they were involved, knew what was about to happen and did nothing. Shady. In the midst of the Gulf War in '91, the fallout from the hearings received scant attention.
Fair enough...I guess most every politician has gone through and done most of the same things Obama has, it is just his turn I guess.
ReplyDeleteThis election, if close, could really turn ugly like 2000 it seems. This is really my first time following one even remotly close but there seems to be a lot more emotion involved here than in past elections.
Either way the country will probably be just fine. My only real hope is that whoever gets elected, the process goes smoothly and everyone can be confident the final outcome is just.
I agree, I hope it is all on the level. 2004 was particularly nasty with the smears aimed at Kerry's Vietnam service by groups not officially affiliated with Bush. Kerry could/should've countered not with his own smears, but with a backbone. Alas, he didn't and many point to that a prime evidence of his downfall.
ReplyDeleteI have all the respect in the world for McCain, but I feel he is tending toward that direction; lately he's been throwing around vague references to Obama's lack of patriotism, and claims that Obama is sacrificing success in Iraq for his own political gain. These are prime accusations of treason being tossed around quite casually, like the Roves of the world are whispering into his ear. I hope things don't stay that way. McCain is an honorable man. But those baseless, sub-human accusations are saddening. I also hope MoveOn and the like on the left will stay honorable throughout.
This all seems to be a referendum on Obama. That's what it will be the whole way. He's new and relatively untested. It comes down to judgement if you're in the voter stuck between the two. Experience does not always equal proper judgement. It will be very close to the end. I think that anyway. We'll see....