Well it didn't last long now did it. CNN managed to turn a novel and fresh approach into a sketchy affair of limited value, and all faster than you can say,"entertainment"or"waste of time."
Since this spectacle, CNN has been on the ropes about accusations of planted questioners from the other side but this thing made you think that maybe they had to go there just to find something pithy. After all, what we heard from the faithful included in-character cable-guy type questions about the 2nd amendment, guns guns and more guns, the confederate flag and the bible. I'm not talking about substantive questions either. These were Blue collar T.V. routines that showed people things that would, at the very least, make the out-of-character cable-guy cringe.
Instead of the suspected planted questions, Republicans should be furious about CNN's portrayal of them as a bunch of 6-toed inbreds. There were over 4000 questions to choose from; was this the best they could do? I don't think so, I think this is further evidence that CNN has lost it's way. Call me way too serious but I don't view the election process of the leader of my country as simply entertainment.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
CNN Dem Debate Eight
There will be a time when the democratic nominee is picked-but it shouldn't be now-even if the news media is beginning to act that way. The CNN democratic debate we just witnessed was as weak as it gets. They rolled out Wolf Blitzer again to lead what should have been a charge like we saw last week from Tim Russert but instead he seemed over his head and let Senator Clintons platitudes rule the day. To make matters worse, after the debate, Anderson Cooper let three Cinton friendlies praise her for a come-back-kid performance. James Carville, being practically on her team and David Gergen, a former advisor to President Clinton and Trojan Horse type friendly J.C. Watts decided for the rest of us who's foot work most resembled what it takes to win our affection. I ain't buying it folks, this is not unbiased news coverage and it is why we keep electing the wrong leaders.
Frankly, if you were to gauge performance in this debate based on real substance, Senator Clinton would not be in the top five.
Remember it's not forbidden to be outright critical or suspicious of news organizations or their journalists and just accepting them as credible because they've been around a long time is to be remiss.
Let's face it Wolf Blitzer was lax in his duties. One glaring example was letting Senator Clinton give a one word answer to the question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. This was something that given her previous answers on this issue, should have been ceased upon. It's omission let Senator Clinton off the hook and instantly created suspicion as to whether all candidates were being treated equally.
There was more of the same in the leading question about what is more important, human rights or national security. He was so hell bent on setting up his one word answer wishes that the context of the issue was left behind, confusing everyone. When he finally got to Senator Clinton, having sized up the situation, complied looking decisive, even if the question was like asking which is your favorite child. I never said she wasn't good at politics.
This is the dangerous time in a campaign when the pundits depart from paying attention to a candidates words in favor of less difficult tasks like sizing up "how they come across." You know, their poise, or toughness or the "fire in their belly" and so on. This serves two primary purposes, they get themselves off the hook from doing the tedious job of objectively determining who's best for the country and it allows their personal preferences to seep in more convincingly.
In other words it"s hard for smart people to to align themselves with vague policy such as Senator Clintons "fiscal responsibility" cure for Social Security or her "aggressive negotiation" approach with Iran. So they talk about how she "got back in the game" or "she seems to want it more than the other candidates." Remember, it's supposed to be about how much we want her not the other way around.
Frankly, if you were to gauge performance in this debate based on real substance, Senator Clinton would not be in the top five.
Remember it's not forbidden to be outright critical or suspicious of news organizations or their journalists and just accepting them as credible because they've been around a long time is to be remiss.
Let's face it Wolf Blitzer was lax in his duties. One glaring example was letting Senator Clinton give a one word answer to the question about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. This was something that given her previous answers on this issue, should have been ceased upon. It's omission let Senator Clinton off the hook and instantly created suspicion as to whether all candidates were being treated equally.
There was more of the same in the leading question about what is more important, human rights or national security. He was so hell bent on setting up his one word answer wishes that the context of the issue was left behind, confusing everyone. When he finally got to Senator Clinton, having sized up the situation, complied looking decisive, even if the question was like asking which is your favorite child. I never said she wasn't good at politics.
This is the dangerous time in a campaign when the pundits depart from paying attention to a candidates words in favor of less difficult tasks like sizing up "how they come across." You know, their poise, or toughness or the "fire in their belly" and so on. This serves two primary purposes, they get themselves off the hook from doing the tedious job of objectively determining who's best for the country and it allows their personal preferences to seep in more convincingly.
In other words it"s hard for smart people to to align themselves with vague policy such as Senator Clintons "fiscal responsibility" cure for Social Security or her "aggressive negotiation" approach with Iran. So they talk about how she "got back in the game" or "she seems to want it more than the other candidates." Remember, it's supposed to be about how much we want her not the other way around.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Iran; The Beat Goes On
One of the news services I like is Reuters. Today I checked their web page and found an interesting story titled "Military finding more Iranian arms in Iraq." That stuck me as a little peculiar because recently the news has been a bit more encouraging on that count as well as on U.S. Soldier and civilian casualties. In fact I thought I had read recently that fewer Iranian made munitions had been found. I couldn't remember where and after thinking on it I even wondered if I had.
Just keeping track of what you think you know about this war is difficult. It would be hard enough if you could believe most of what you read or hear but you can't and it makes it nearly impossible. It requires vigilance and a personal conviction that few people can find time for.
The article cited Major-General Rick Lynch whose command includes southern Baghdad to Kerbala and Najaf. He made his case and since he's a high level U.S military man who would seem to be well informed-what's not to believe-right? Maybe, but it really is just a piece of a puzzle. There was a lot to the story that perplexed me. I stared at the page and wondered as my eyes wandered. When I refocused I was on "related stories" where I saw another story titled "U.S sees decline in Iran-linked bombs found in Iraq." I thought what the #@^%!
So I thanked the age of technology for this little mishap and quickly clicked on it and sure enough, there was a story that was polar opposite, all on the same Reuters page.
This story was about 10 days old (dated November 1, 2007) and cited Army Lt. General Ray Odiemo. I knew he was the top commander in Iraq for day to day operations. Again a well placed high ranking official who should be believable.
Like the other article there were plenty of qualifiers and once again it didn't leave me feeling any closer to the truth .
My point is that watching these day to day reports has no real value and in fact is just plain misleading.
I had a sense that the prior page wouldn't last so I went back and shot a copy and sure enough when I was done the "related stories" article was gone. I guess some Reuters web master staffer realized it looked a little silly and scrubbed it. But I got my copy and I can look at it any time I want to remind myself just how far we are from the truth.
Just keeping track of what you think you know about this war is difficult. It would be hard enough if you could believe most of what you read or hear but you can't and it makes it nearly impossible. It requires vigilance and a personal conviction that few people can find time for.
The article cited Major-General Rick Lynch whose command includes southern Baghdad to Kerbala and Najaf. He made his case and since he's a high level U.S military man who would seem to be well informed-what's not to believe-right? Maybe, but it really is just a piece of a puzzle. There was a lot to the story that perplexed me. I stared at the page and wondered as my eyes wandered. When I refocused I was on "related stories" where I saw another story titled "U.S sees decline in Iran-linked bombs found in Iraq." I thought what the #@^%!
So I thanked the age of technology for this little mishap and quickly clicked on it and sure enough, there was a story that was polar opposite, all on the same Reuters page.
This story was about 10 days old (dated November 1, 2007) and cited Army Lt. General Ray Odiemo. I knew he was the top commander in Iraq for day to day operations. Again a well placed high ranking official who should be believable.
Like the other article there were plenty of qualifiers and once again it didn't leave me feeling any closer to the truth .
My point is that watching these day to day reports has no real value and in fact is just plain misleading.
I had a sense that the prior page wouldn't last so I went back and shot a copy and sure enough when I was done the "related stories" article was gone. I guess some Reuters web master staffer realized it looked a little silly and scrubbed it. But I got my copy and I can look at it any time I want to remind myself just how far we are from the truth.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Dem 7
For someone like myself who desperately wants change in our government, this debate was a winner. Senator Clinton bared all. If you saw this debate you peaked into a future with her as President and I didn't like what I saw. I was left wondering if this candidate really owns a soul. This was a sort of desert mirage performance, fading in and out of existence. Not exactly the makings of a future leader of the free world.
Some of the issues went like this. She kinda-sorta likes Gov. Spitzers plan to issue drivers licenses to undocumented workers, formerly known as illegal immigrants, who were formerly known as illegal aliens and why not three different licenses for three different categories of, well, them. But she doesn't want to burden the states because it's a national failure so lets let her do it from Washington, you know, like she did with health care!
Recently she said that President Bush couldn't pass his immigration reform because he had no more political capital. Trust me, these two share the same bank accounts.
Then there is her brilliantly simple fix for Social Security. That's it, fiscal responsibility. I wonder why no one ever thought of that before?
On the subject of releasing Presidential material from the national archives, she tried to attribute the delay to the bureaucracy at the archives. Maybe, but it's a big Government that she is trying to be in charge of and if as Senator she can't make something happen with the National Archive how can she run the government. Unless just maybe she's not quite telling the whole truth!
Then there was the so called Kyl-Lieberman amendment that she voted for that above all gives Iran's leaders more power to rally the support of the Iranian people. Oops. I think we all remember how fear spawns patriotism don't we. Also do you really believe that she cares if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a designated terrorist group or not? No, she's just pandering to the power brokers she believes are important to her election and acting tough again for political reasons, pure and simple. Btw why is Liebermans name last on this one? Just a few more guys who never served in the military beating the war drums.
Also did you notice that the fire that Senator Obama drew from Senator Clinton for his naivety and lack of experience in suggesting that we negotiate with Iran is all but forgotten. He just didn't use the right words. It's vigorous diplomacy silly, you were so close.
As Senator Dodd pointed out, polls have showed that 50% of voters say they would never vote for her. I bet that number wasn't trimmed much by this performance.
Some of the issues went like this. She kinda-sorta likes Gov. Spitzers plan to issue drivers licenses to undocumented workers, formerly known as illegal immigrants, who were formerly known as illegal aliens and why not three different licenses for three different categories of, well, them. But she doesn't want to burden the states because it's a national failure so lets let her do it from Washington, you know, like she did with health care!
Recently she said that President Bush couldn't pass his immigration reform because he had no more political capital. Trust me, these two share the same bank accounts.
Then there is her brilliantly simple fix for Social Security. That's it, fiscal responsibility. I wonder why no one ever thought of that before?
On the subject of releasing Presidential material from the national archives, she tried to attribute the delay to the bureaucracy at the archives. Maybe, but it's a big Government that she is trying to be in charge of and if as Senator she can't make something happen with the National Archive how can she run the government. Unless just maybe she's not quite telling the whole truth!
Then there was the so called Kyl-Lieberman amendment that she voted for that above all gives Iran's leaders more power to rally the support of the Iranian people. Oops. I think we all remember how fear spawns patriotism don't we. Also do you really believe that she cares if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a designated terrorist group or not? No, she's just pandering to the power brokers she believes are important to her election and acting tough again for political reasons, pure and simple. Btw why is Liebermans name last on this one? Just a few more guys who never served in the military beating the war drums.
Also did you notice that the fire that Senator Obama drew from Senator Clinton for his naivety and lack of experience in suggesting that we negotiate with Iran is all but forgotten. He just didn't use the right words. It's vigorous diplomacy silly, you were so close.
As Senator Dodd pointed out, polls have showed that 50% of voters say they would never vote for her. I bet that number wasn't trimmed much by this performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)