Clueless Media Refuses To Vet Candidates
The mainstream media, or "Fourth Estate" (as it likes to call itself), is supposed to play an important role in how America chooses our presidents. It is supposed to "vet" these candidates, which means digging into their backgrounds and exposing any dirty laundry -- or refuting stories of dirty laundry -- while the voters still have time to make up their minds before they vote. Once again, however, the media is doing a particularly dismal job of doing so.
What astonishes me about this whole sorry state of affairs is that most of the dirty laundry eventually comes out -- but usually too late to make much of a difference. As just one example, Barack Obama wasn't faced with the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright until after he had pretty much sewn up the Democratic nomination. By that time, it was too late for Democratic voters to consider an alternate candidate.
Sometimes, however, the dirty laundry doesn't even get mentioned. I was continually astonished during the 2008 race at what a free pass John McCain was given by the media, who never brought up his involvement with the Keating Five scandal, and certainly never informed the public that McCain was at the center of one of the worst accidents ever on a U.S. Navy ship (in which 134 airmen died). Do you recognize the name U.S.S. Forrestal in connection with McCain? Bizarrely, the subject never even arose during the entire campaign.
Of course, a lot of these incidents are pushed on the media by opposing campaigns. Perhaps the media ignores some of these because they prefer not to feel "used" in such a nakedly political fashion, but that's a pretty weak excuse, really. Just because someone suggests a story about some nastiness from another candidate's past doesn't mean you can't do your own research and find out what is true and what is pure smear about the charge. That's part of the job of political journalists, or it should be (it certainly used to be).
Of course, there are two dynamics which might have an influence on the timing of such mudslinging. During the primary race, candidates from the same party are going to try to highlight different scandals than what the opposing party would focus on. This is a polite way of saying there are some subjects that are deemed off-limits for attack from fellow partisans. Mud slung within a political party is different than the mud slung by the other party, because during the primaries the idea is to damage the candidate, but not the party. In the general election, the main strategy is to damage both the opposing candidate and his or her party, in the hopes of convincing moderate or undecided voters that they are both too extreme. This is one explanation why some scandals are still "sitting on the shelf" -- since they are opposition research that is waiting for the best moment for unveiling. Even so, this merely describes the various campaign operations. The media is supposed to be floating above all of that, as a sort of referee or fact-checker.
This year, there are some astonishing stories which simply have not yet been told -- or not fully, at any rate. Donald Trump is being attacked by his Republican rivals right now on some old quotes he's given in interviews (most effective so far has been his previous stance on abortion). But there's obviously plenty of other dirt that could be dug. Trump has been married three times, and his affairs and divorces were prime tabloid fodder, all throughout the 1990s. His bankruptcies have been brought up by other GOP candidates, and one ad prominently featured a "parking lot for limousines" that Trump wanted to build by kicking an old lady off her property. But it's impossible to believe that one old lady was the only person (or small business, for that matter) who was economically harmed or threatened by all the times Trump has used the bankruptcy laws. Bankruptcy means bills don't get paid, leading to economic suffering for those to whom the debts are owed. They're also public court documents, which should make finding such dirt fairly easy.
I don't mean to dump on Trump alone, though. Ted Cruz has his father stumping for him, but his dad Rafael is a preacher who is pretty extreme in some of his views on theology and the role it should play in politics. He's out there giving speeches, and yet his name hasn't even really been mentioned in the press. If it was hard for Obama to distance himself from a radical preacher, how hard would it be for Cruz to do so when the preacher in question is his own father?
Marco Rubio has a history of financial dodginess, which was briefly brought up during a debate and then completely ignored by the media. But the truly shocking thing about Rubio is that his brother-in-law was part of a drug smuggling ring in Florida, who went to jail when he got caught. This isn't a blood relation, but later on when Rubio was in the Florida state government, he helped his sister's ex-con husband get a real estate license without ever mentioning his familial relationship. How many people outside Miami have even heard this story?
Over on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has a long history that's barely been touched by the media. Partly this is because it wasn't until a scant few weeks ago that the mainstream media even admitted he was running for president, but even so it's surprising that none of his past has really been exposed yet. Sanders has an interesting life story, including living on an Israeli kibbutz for a period. He also fathered a son out of wedlock -- that right there would seem to be somewhat politically newsworthy, and yet it hasn't even been mentioned. Sanders also is going to have to eventually fight the story that "he went on his honeymoon to the Soviet Union," which is technically true but nowhere near as sinister as it sounds at first (he went on a sister-city trip with a dozen people and scheduled his wedding right before the trip -- the two events were really unconnected). Bernie also visited Cuba and Nicaragua, which (again) is going to eventually become a topic of discussion in the political arena.
The only candidate with frontrunner status (I admit I'm ignoring those with no chance -- like Jeb Bush's involvement in the Terri Schiavo scandal and all the bizarre stories in Ben Carson's autobiography) who has been exhaustively vetted is Hillary Clinton. This is due to the fact that she's undergone a very long vetting process that begun at least a quarter-century ago. She was attacked as Bill's wife, she was attacked for Hillarycare, she was attacked (on a more subdued level) as a New York senator, she was attacked when she ran for president back in 2008, and she's been attacked nonstop since she became Secretary of State Clinton. Her opposition doesn't even need a real scandal to attack her, since they're always more than willing to make one up on the spot. This can be summed up as: Blow some smoke about Clinton. Then loudly scream, "Hey, everyone -- there's smoke! There must be fire there somewhere!" So it's pretty much guaranteed that Clinton will face "scandals" throughout her term in office, should she win the presidency. Millions of dollars will likely be spent examining these "scandals," if the past is any prologue. But Hillary Clinton's a special case. She's been through the wringer as the wife of a president and as a previous presidential candidate herself. None of the other candidates are in a similar situation.
I don't bring up all these "scandals" for all the other candidates to sling mud myself. Most of them aren't all that scandalous, and most of them may not even be true (or may have been taken wildly out of context). But here's the key thing -- all of these stories are well known to these candidates' opponents. I learned about almost all of them through snarky comments to mainstream media articles online, as commenters trashed one candidate or another. Each time my eyebrows were raised, I (very superficially) looked into them, to see if they were even remotely hinged in reality. It doesn't take much research to find these stories -- most of them can indeed be found on Wikipedia or through a quick web search for old news articles. Virtually all of them are defensible, from the candidates' viewpoints. There are explanations or at least mitigations for most of them.
The point is that even though snarky web commenters to political stories in the mainstream media are well-versed in all of these stories, the media refuses to even acknowledge they exist. Sooner or later they might rise to the level of a question in a debate or town hall, which then forces the media to actually spell out the issue to the public (as when Hillary was asked about the transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches by an average citizen, for example). This is somewhat backwards, though. Why should the public be doing the job of the investigative journalists? Why are people already talking about these things online when the media refuses to? The campaigns may want to hold some opposition research story back to time its release for maximum political impact (and damage), but the press isn't supposed to be concerned with this sort of strategizing.
My real complaint boils down to timing. No matter which candidates the two parties nominate, this stuff will likely come out at some point. But, like the Reverend Wright scandal, they may come out far too late for primary voters to do anything about them. The voting has already begun. Now is the time to be vetting the candidates from top to bottom. Now is the time for debunking stories that are overblown. Now is the time for deep research into the truth of some of these accusations. Because now the voters have the opportunity to process such stories and make their choices in the voting booth for the good of their own party. After the nominations are locked up will be too late for that to happen.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
I believe this road is starting to wind and where we're going is starting to hide - Paul Westerberg
Wow, CW, this article causes a lot of thought. Is this a joke article or what. It's not written as such so I'm going to assume you're serious.
Investigative journalism and a true "fourth estate" role has been dead for quite a while. Sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you.
Access and ratings!!!
Seriously, if the MSM did do the investigative and fourth estate role, your blog and others like you wouldn't exist.
The analogy I have is this. I'm a CC Math Prof. We're not a small school. Somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4 of our students are in developmental math. That is grade and middle school math. The stronger subgroup is taking HS math content. My line is "If K-12 did a better job with math, I wouldn't have one."
I may say more about the actual content but have a few chores to complete first (this was a self-indulgent break; vote well in CA, legal is good), my friend.
S
Trump evidently did not learn from his "My mother didn't fuck an orangutan" lawsuit against Bill Maher. The Canadian dirty trickster's attack ad has gotten much more attention since the Donald has threatened a frivolous "If you quote me, you're lying" law suit. This round goes to Cruz and Trump's a baby-killer to boot. This has me worried. I'm afraid that Trump might win second place in SC.
"If it was hard for Obama to distance himself from a radical preacher, how hard would it be for Cruz to do so when the preacher in question is his own father?"
So you seriously can't see the difference between "Gawd damn America" and "Gawd is going to destroy America for June 26th"? Well, let me explain. That genocidal Gawd thingy never smited any tribes for being exceptional even if they were exceptionally racist. On the other hand, there was that one time long, long ago in a sinister fairy tale when He rained down fire and brimstone on two whole cities full of sodomites. I hope this helps because I think the media has done a fine job of vetting the Cuban Canadian. I used to think that he was eligible to be president, but now I think that is very questionable, OK?
I think it's amusing that the High Priest of Hocus Pocus is cherry-picking the Big Book of Multiple Choice to determine that Trump's not a christian. I really thought that Trump's public displays of not knowing anything about christianity were pretty convincing, but maybe Frank knows the flock better than I do.
Most of these stories or "scandals" are known if one pays attention. Those who don't miss more than just these stories, after all.
Most of these "scandals" are also BS, as we all know.
However, if we really want to get into the weeds with what we mean by electability on the Dem side, then you've hit the nail on the head.
Sanders will lose popularity with each new revelation from the GOP machine. HRC has already been through that. She'll go up or down by a pct point or two, but everyone has already made their mind up about her. Sanders is more of an unknown and, as such, is capable of being defined by his GenElection opposition.
On the GOP side, the question is more interesting. Nothing here hurts in the primary, but in the General???
A great thing I read earlier today said something to the affect of the base strategy for the GOP is a winner in midterms but a loser in Prez. They've lost 5 of 6 popular votes for prez b/c the base simply isn't large enough to do the Prez turnout. It can work for Dems b/c we're a center-left country (despite the right-wing noise machine's statements to the contrary). But right wing is not a majority, therefore a base strategy is a losing proposition.
Could their revelations hurt their anointed? Depends on the nominee (probably not Trump; Rubio couldn't handle the scrutiny in all probability; Cruz loses in any case; others?) Who knows?
Just keep in mind with regards to Clinton's "scandals"...
OBAMA's FBI is not going to waste so much money, time and effort with over 150 agents investigating a "faux scandal"...
One the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ, the media will cover it like there is no tomorrow... They won't have any choice in the matter...
Michale
One the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ,
ONCE the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ.......
Michale
If a story can be found by ordinary means, it's already out there, so it's "not news". To become "news", it needs a "hook" -- such as the fact that another candidate is talking about it.
@dan,
good point. the MSM doesn't seem to like doing negative stories about candidates unless there's some entertaining angle on it. as you say, conflict with another candidate is an angle they'll run with. since candidates for the same party won't go after their primary opposition on issues that are too close to criticizing the party base, that conflict angle doesn't show up until the general.
JL
[Once] the FBI forwards a recommendation of indictment to Obama's DOJ, the media will cover it like there is no tomorrow... They won't have any choice in the matter...
yes, soon the FBI and the free world will have access to all the sordid details of hillary clinton's lovers, male and female. it'll be the story of the millenium, and make the 'blue dress' seem quaint by comparison.
JL
yes, soon the FBI and the free world will have access to all the sordid details of hillary clinton's lovers, male and female.
Yes...
of course, that's only if you actually BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth when she said that all she deleted was "personal" emails....
. it'll be the story of the millenium,
It sure was when it was General Patraeus who was being accused.. I don't recall ANYONE from the Left Wingery claiming that this was all much ado about nothing..
Of course, Patraeus had a '-R' after his name, so...... :D
Michale
of course, that's only if you actually BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth when she said that all she deleted was "personal" emails....
Husband: "It seems so utterly ridiculous and a complete waste of time.."
Wife: "What?? The Benghazi Hearings??"
Husband: "No. Putting Hillary under oath.."
Baa daa dum... :D
Michale
of course, that's only if you actually BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton was telling the truth when she said that all she deleted was "personal" emails....
i'm not quite that... "evian" - but she's also a bright enough lawyer that i find it highly unlikely they'll uncover enough hard evidence to indict. that's just wishful thinking on your part, i believe. in my opinion it's much more likely that the investigations uncover something personally embarrassing, like romantic trysts or snarky comments about world leaders.
JL
"McCain was at the center of one of the worst accidents ever on a U.S. Navy ship (in which 134 airmen died)."
In all fairness, McCain was at the center of the disaster, but in no way contributed to the wartime cut-the-safety-to-improve-sortie-rates mentality that allowed the disaster. He gave aid to the injured and took fragments from exploding stuff. Looking past causation, the damage control effort was one of the US Navy's finest hours. The fire fighting specialists were mostly wiped in the by initial fires and explosions and everybody else had to improvise. In the US Navy, as the slogan went back then, "every sailor is a fire fighter."
The Keating Five Scandal was a fair cop, or would have been if anybody had bothered.
i'm not quite that... "evian" - but she's also a bright enough lawyer that i find it highly unlikely they'll uncover enough hard evidence to indict. that's just wishful thinking on your part, i believe.
Just as I believe that it's wishful thinking on your part that the FBI won't..
Do you HONESTLY believe that a man of Comey's integrity, a cop's cop, a man that WORKS for President Obama would be devoting so many resources and time and manpower and there is nothing there??
I mean, honestly... Forget the Democrat/Republican Left/Right issues..
Just look at things objectively..
Would it take THIS long for almost 200 hundred special agents, who are ALSO "bright" lawyers, if there wasn't anything there..
THAT is the one thing that ya'all simply refuse to accept...
Comey's FBI wouldn't be spinning their wheels for nothing..
That's the entire crux of the issue..
But, hay.. I could be wrong...
You want to join in the Great Weigantian Hillary Does The Perp Walk Wager?? So far, 3 Weigatians have declared and gone on record....
You want to be the fourth?? :D
Michale
Journalist Tom Wolfe coined the phrase "hypocritical Victorian gent" to describe the reluctance of the mainstream press to report questionable behavior among the rich and powerful and/or well connected/ well regarded. To the extent that there still is a mainstream press, the phrase still fits.
Would it take THIS long for almost 200 hundred special agents, who are ALSO "bright" lawyers, if there wasn't anything there..
Nor would all these "bright" lawyers be STILL investigating if all there was a snarky comment or a romantic rape or sexual assault..
Michale
@michale[17],
what's the wager? comey gets full marks for due diligence, but if there were something to find, wouldn't he have found it already?
JL
what's the wager? comey gets full marks for due diligence, but if there were something to find, wouldn't he have found it already?
How do we know he hasn't?
The fact that the FBI's investigation has widened to include the Clinton Foundation surely indicates that SOMETHING incriminating was found...
As to the wager...
Will the FBI forward to the DOJ the report with a recommendation of indicting Clinton and/or senior staff..
If the FBI forwards the report AND a recommendation of indictment.. I win...
If the FBI forwards the report with a recommendation of NO indictment... ya'all win...
If the FBI simply forwards the report with NO recommendation, it's a push....
In short, we ALL agree that Comey is a man of integrity that has been recognized and validated by the Right *AND* the Left.
If Comey explicitly states that there is nothing illegal here, I will respect that...
Michale
There is a further monetary aspect to the wager, in the form of donations to CW.COM, but to be perfectly frank and to the best of my knowledge, that's something that is between me and Neil..
John M and Liz have joined in on the wager insofar as accepting Comey's determination, but I don't think they are aware of or party to the monetary/donation aspect of the wager..
Further, the wager expires at the beginning of the 2016 Weigantian Fund Raiser or when the FBI releases it's report.
Whichever comes first...
Michale
Will the FBI forward to the DOJ the report with a recommendation of indicting Clinton and/or senior staff...
how do you define senior staff? there's upwards of fifty people who could be considered senior staff. as far as i'm concerned, unless hillary "does the perp walk" herself (or perhaps her TOP assistant, a-la scooter libby), you're out of luck.
JL
I'de be willing to define "Senior Staff" as:
Huma Abedin
Cheryl Mills
Jake Sullivan
James B. Steinberg
Jack Lew
Anne Marie Slaughter
Michale
personally i think it would have to be abedin or clinton herself indicted, but for the purposes of our wager i'll agree to the six you've listed, plus hillary and bill.
JL
(let's say for the sake of argument that if there's no indictment then you lose, and if someone important but lower on the totem poll gets indicted then it's a wash.)
(let's say for the sake of argument that if there's no indictment then you lose, and if someone important but lower on the totem poll gets indicted then it's a wash.)
Someone lower than the list above + Bill and I can agree to that...
Michale
and the stakes will be our usual, admitting fault via t-shirt?
if i win, you wear:
http://rlv.zcache.com/hillary_clinton_is_my_hero_t_shirts-r2fdf904b607d4733904d5505050dcfe6_jf4o6_512.jpg
if you win, i wear:
http://rlv.zcache.com/liar_liar_hillary_clinton_t_shirts-rd6751119b26540cfba90602aa56e1afb_jyrs6_324.jpg
here are two candidate statements profiles on politifact:
Candidate #1:
True (1%)(1)
Mostly True (6%)(6)
Half True (16%)(15)
Mostly False (18%)(17)
False (39%)(37)
Pants on Fire (19%)(18)
Candidate #2:
True (25%)(40)
Mostly True (26%)(42)
Half True (21%)(34)
Mostly False (14%)(23)
False (12%)(20)
Pants on Fire (1%)(2)
without looking, would anyone care to guess who the two candidates are?
JL
extra credit if you can guess which of the candidates still in the race for the white house has the LOWEST percentage of false statements.
if i win, you wear:
http://rlv.zcache.com/hillary_clinton_is_my_hero_t_shirts-r2fdf904b607d4733904d5505050dcfe6_jf4o6_512.jpg
Whoaa!! Now THAT is playing dirty!!!
OK.. OK...
But if I win, then YOU wear:
http://i.imgur.com/h1V4nkY.jpg
:D
Michale
if i win, you wear:
Ouch.. THAT is really REALLY low...
But OK...
But if *I* win, then YOU wear:
http://i.imgur.com/h1V4nkY.jpg
:D
Michale
ok then michale, you're on.
oh, more extra credit for anyone who can guess which candidate still in the race is rated as the biggest liar (lowest percentage of statements rated true, highest percentage rated false).
oh, more extra credit for anyone who can guess which candidate still in the race is rated as the biggest liar (lowest percentage of statements rated true, highest percentage rated false).
Donald Trump...
Michale
@michale [35],
incorrect.
JL
although trump's statements did win lie of the year for 2015, he is not the lowest-rated candidate.
to check candidates individually, here's the link:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/
and for the lazy among us, answers posted on FTP 377 (toss of a coin)
JL
CW
Nice read.....Although I must admit to some small disappointment that you did not call out the media for caving so easily to the candidates when they start crying liberal media bias on those occasions that they do ask a hardball question.
Since the advent of the 24 hour news cycle and the large amount of 30 second sound bites required to provide repetitive looping in the "situation room" to my point of view the media has ridden the downward spiral of fear of being excluded from a candidate if they actually report on subjects not favorable to that candidates point of view.
I also find that the "4th estate" or the 4th arm of corporate corruption in politics, depending on how you view it, no longer bands together and calls out the odious behavior of politicians when they do scream liberal media bias. It used to be that the media as whole would rise above the naturally competitive nature of the business to call out those politicians caught trying to put lipstick of a pig...Now I guess the advertising dollars are more important than good ethical behavior.
One cant help but wonder if things would be different if more news rooms were run by real journalists vs a businessman in journalists clothing....
speaking of real journalists, hey CW do you think you could re-run my numbers and make one of those neat little graphic comparisons?
Hey CW
The biggest and most influential scandal, in my opinion of course, is that Obama didn't learn a dang thing from Wright.
He sat through all those sermons and ended up doing the opposite... maintaining the status quo rather the effecting needed changes.
You can claim it may have affected votes if people had learned about it earlier, but you can't claim it would have justifiably affected votes, because unfortunately Obama didn't absorb any of it.
As far as the corporate media and Republicans go as it relates to Hillary, neither is a source that can be counted on to butcher the sacred cows they all hold dear.
A brief review of the scandals the Repubs have wasted their time on shows they have no problems with her warmongering, corporatism or general neolibcon ideology that affects every policy she pursues.
It took a journalist from The Intercept to ask Hillary to release her speech transcripts.
And you aren't hearing anything from Repubs or the corporate media about her ongoing refusal to release them. Coddling bankers is something the corporate media, Repubs and Hillary all have in common.
It is only because of the work of ACTUAL journalists and Bernie's campaign that so many of Hillary's scandalous actions have been exposed and (briefly) debated recently... and all you hear from Repubs is crickets.
Bernie wouldn't be a serious threat to Hillary if people were happy about her heretofore un-discussed actions that the media and Repubs were eager to keep swept under the rug.
And then, of course, we have our ever growing "defense" budget, wars to maintain our empire, campaign finance and the legalized corruption it breeds, anything related to Israel, the fact that the Global War On Terror has caused a 500% increase in the number of terrorists, making us less safe despite the trillions spent, and countless other issues...
... Americans are denied any exposure of these scandals through efforts of partisan advantage or corporate media.
In fact, when they are discussed, such issues are carefully crafted to avoid any hint of their scandalous nature.
If you're going to write a piece on scandals, some mention of the very real way our Establishment limits what can even be classified as a scandal would seem to be in order.
That would be a real service to our country.
A
Hey CW
Your filter ate another comment...
A
Was it good? :)
Hi Liz
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that you won't like it.
A
Be careful out there! :)
John From Censornati [1] -
"The road goes on forever and the party never ends."
-Robert Earl Keen
Heh.
Speak2 [2] -
As for "access and ratings" -- scandals (the juicier the better) always get high ratings. The media fall all over themselves once the story breaks. But some stories never break. Remember the John Edwards love child story? The National Enquirer broke it, I believe. Once it was out there, everyone else jumped on board (I say this as a former Edwards supporter, just to prove my non-bias in this case). The ratings are always there. It's the editorial decision of what to investigate and what rises to the level of "news." And when.
JFC [3] -
I am also having second thoughts about Trump after that ad foofaroo. You're right -- Trump has not learned the lesson that the threat of lawsuits intimidates just about everyone in American life... except politicians. Lawsuits just drag all the details out in the light, and that's great if you want more PR for your position.
Speak2 [6] -
Yeah, people who pay attention online know these stories, but the mainstream media reaches a far wider audience. My main point is when they pick up these online threads, and when they ignore them.
dsws [10] -
That's a good point about the hook of another candidate. Well, it's a good point for television news, at least. Newspapers I expect more of (I know, that dates me). I briefly addressed this point in the article, but I didn't go into it very deeply:
A GOP candidate will not attack another Republican on certain issues. But a Dem will. Sometimes that drives when the story breaks into the MSM. The difference between the primary scandals and the general election scandals.
Michale [13] -
I thought serving members of the miliitary didn't have either a "D" or an "R" after their names? Doesn't the UCMJ have something to say on this matter? Hmmmm?
Heh... couldn't resist.
TheStig [16] -
My point isn't that the Forrestal rumors about McCain (that he was hotdogging while on the flight deck) were true, it's that they NEVER EVEN WERE AIRED in any way whatsoever. I mean, all you have to do is look McCain up on Wikipedia to see a bare-bones version of what happened, and yet even though the man was running for president, nobody in the media even bothered -- even for a "debunking the smear" type of story? Compare that to Kerry and the Swift Boats... sometimes the media cares, and sometimes it shrugs.
TheStig [18] -
OK, I gotta look that Tom Wolfe quote up... heh...
Michale [19] -
Oh really? See: Ken Starr and the Starr Report. How many millions and how many years did that take?
[24] -
Well, I have no part in these side bets, but I have to say, that's a pretty specific definition of the terms. The Gamesters of Triskelion would be proud, and I do not say that lightly (as you know).
nypoet22 [29] -
OMG! I think all of us here would pay good money for a photo of Michale wearing a "Hillary is my hero" T-shirt!
Woot!
Michale [33] -
OK, that seems fair -- just as funny as the other one!
:-)
nypoet22 [42] -
OK, you lost me. What numbers? Point me in a direction, and maybe I can help...
-CW
altohone [44]
{munch, munch, munch... burp!}
-CW's filter
Heh. OK, I admit it, this site is the jalopy of blogs, when it comes to filters. I try to keep up, but sometimes I get behind unfiltering things. If you could see all the crap that DOES get fileter out of these comments, you'd understand why it's set towards being extra-cautious, though!
-CW
Oh really? See: Ken Starr and the Starr Report. How many millions and how many years did that take?
The Starr Report ain't the FBI and Ken Starr is certainly no Director Comey...
Apples and alligators.. :D
Well, I have no part in these side bets, but I have to say, that's a pretty specific definition of the terms. The Gamesters of Triskelion would be proud, and I do not say that lightly (as you know).
"Oh, Jafar, you're too kind. I'm embarrassed. I'm blushing."
Yago, ALADDIN
:D
Michale
CW -
"Hypocritical Victorian Gent"
The Right Stuff
@CW,
politifact has a page for each of many different political personalities, which indicates how many and what percentage of their public statements have been rated in each category. they have six categories: true, mostly true, half true, mostly false, false and pants-on-fire. i thought it would be interesting to compare candidates' truthfulness (as rated by politifact), and see how it lines up with people's "perceptions" of how trustworthy a candidate is. the link to the politifact list of personalities is in one of my above posts [39]. i put two examples of candidate ratings in post [31], and posted a few details about my comparisons in the comments section of FTP 377 (toss of a coin). thanks for taking a look.
JL
Hi Liz
No thanks.
Careful got us where we are.
So, was I right?
A
No thanks. Careful got us where we are.
Well, I was just trying to avoid visions of you falling out of a tree. Heh.
I will read and consider your post above and let you know my reaction just as soon as I'm not in pain sitting here, typing away ... did something to my back and it is killing me at the moment ...
In other words, Al, don't equate my silence with my complete agreement. :) I'm going to bed now, if that's possible ... :(
Hi Liz
Awww shucks.
I'm flattered you're having visions about me.
But, you know, sometimes limbs aren't far off the ground, and sometimes there's a big pile of leaves below too.
Don't go assuming anything in comments to the lying wingnut equates to normal, honest folks such as yourself... even Plato or whoever came up with the saying would agree that sometimes silence may mean you're too much of an idiot to deserve a response.
Those who assume that is outside the realm of possibilities are all too numerous though.
Hope your back feels better.
A
But, you know, sometimes limbs aren't far off the ground, and sometimes there's a big pile of leaves below too.
Just what we need around here, another cockeyed optimist! :)
I mean that sincerely, I'm not trying to be facetious, here.
I just read your non-brief comment and you may be surprised to learn that I agree with the general gist of it ... the scandals that the media love to focus on are often of the non-serious variety at the expense of shedding light on the scandalous behavior and policies of those politicians for whom the status quo is too much of a comfort zone.
I would only take some issue with your suggestion that President Obama takes comfort in maintaining the status quo. His presidency encountered the strongest of head winds from the get go - whether that be the disastrous GWOT, the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, or, most importantly, the absolute and deliberate intransigence on the part of congressional Republicans from the beginning.
Through it all, the Obama/Biden administration has tried valiantly to right the ship of state - domestically and internationally - with some modest degree of success on both fronts, despite the constant attempts by congressional Republicans to derail any progress. A lesser administration would not have fared as well.
And, as important as I think Bernie Sanders's campaign is, many of his solutions are non-serious, especially from a fiscal policy point of view. On the other hand, Hillary is demonstrating a great weakness in not being able to more successfully challenge or even better his proposals and general premise.
Perhaps, Senator Sanders believes he is making progress just by directing the conversation in a way that highlights the fundamental problems in America but he could be such a better change agent - and mitigate his electability deficit among many voters - if his solutions were more feasible.
I think Hillary will win big if and when she is able to seize on Sanders's own general message and make it her own, supporting it with solutions that can actually work in the current political atmosphere.
My back is a bit better, thanks for asking! :)