Obama General Discussion II

[Irvine511]

Except she was looking into the right camera. Many lazy people in the media (and in this forum, apparently) clearly didn't understand what was going on.

we know this now, but her producers really suck if they can't address such a simple issue as this.

but no camera, web or not, is going to make her any less of a national embarrassment/blind prophet.

 

[joyfulgirl]

we know this now, but her producers really suck if they can't address such a simple issue as this.

but no camera, web or not, is going to make her any less of a national embarrassment/blind prophet.

Spoiler

Psst...please clear your PMs so I can send you a message. Sorry, everyone else.

 

[Irvine511]

Spoiler

Psst...please clear your PMs so I can send you a message. Sorry, everyone else.

just did.

 

[anitram]

but no camera, web or not, is going to make her any less of a national embarrassment/blind prophet.

From the NY Times:

Last week, Bachmann was in Iowa, setting off alarm bells about her possible presidential ambitions and delivering a speech in which she claimed that the founding fathers had “worked tirelessly” to eradicate slavery. She then cited John Quincy Adams, who was not a founding father.

Bachmann is not a zealous fact-checker, as we learned when she claimed the president’s trip to India would cost the taxpayers $200 million a day, based on an Indian newspaper report quoting an unnamed provincial official. In the real world, many founders, like Thomas Jefferson, expressed reservations about slavery but still kept hundreds of slaves, who were the basis of their personal wealth. Others, like John Adams, never owned slaves and opposed the institution but compromised on the matter of all men actually being created equal in order to bring the southern states into the union. And not a single one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence envisioned in any way, shape or form a democracy in which people of Michele Bachmann’s gender would sit in the halls of Congress.

But Bachmann was speaking to the lore of the far right, which strips the founding fathers of their raw, fallible humanity and ignores the fact that, in some ways, we’re wiser.

Maybe she’ll make Sarah Palin look good.

Another idiot.

 

[Irvine511]

From the NY Times:



Another idiot.

this is cleansing:


YouTube - Chris Matthews Hammers Tea Party Leader Over Bachmann's Slavery Error

 

[PhilsFan]

Wow, we finally get to see what STING/Strongbow/adam4bono looks like in real life.

 

[yolland]

No discussing other members in the third person, please. Including banned or suspended ones.

 

[maycocksean]

this is cleansing:


YouTube - Chris Matthews Hammers Tea Party Leader Over Bachmann's Slavery Error

Russo was kind of dumb to go on Matthew's show in the first place. It's like those liberals that call up Limbaugh. You know you're going to be shouted down, you know you're going to be made to look like a fool, why would you set yourself up like that?

I concede it was amusing to see a conservative on the receiving end of these kinds of tatics for a change. I still don't feel that Matthew's approach in this interview does much to elevate the tone of discourse.

Bachman's speech was absurd though.

 

[Irvine511]

I still don't feel that Matthew's approach in this interview does much to elevate the tone of discourse.

Bachman's speech was absurd though.

imho, it was appropriate to the situation. what she was suggestion -- essentially, turning George Washington into Jesus, or the deification of the "founding fathers" -- is so incredibly offensive, that the only possible response is derision. the woman not only doesn't have any grasp of history, worse, she *thinks* she has a grasp of history, but only enough to twist it to her own devious ends. she deserved to have her knuckles rapped, and she got it.

she and Matthews also have a history. i know that Matthews annoys many, not least some people in here, but i find his love of (and knowledge of) history and of the political game itself to be so compelling that i'll excuse his jaunts into hyperbole if it produces such an epic smackdown of a politician who revels in her own willful stupidity.

 

[maycocksean]

imho, it was appropriate to the situation. what she was suggestion -- essentially, turning George Washington into Jesus, or the deification of the "founding fathers" -- is so incredibly offensive, that the only possible response is derision. the woman not only doesn't have any grasp of history, worse, she *thinks* she has a grasp of history, but only enough to twist it to her own devious ends. she deserved to have her knuckles rapped, and she got it.

No doubt.

But she'd already dug her own grave. Russo could have been called to account without the shouting down and interrruping.

My issue is not with the substance of what Matthews said, it's his approach. This is straight of the Hannity/Limbaugh playbook. And I get why they--and Matthews--do it. It's entertaining. Heck, I admit it, I was entertained. It would have been much more boring to allow Russo to finish his attempts to change the subject before asking him the same question again.

I just question whether we really dislike the Fox News ethos because of their approach, or just because we dislike their views.

 

[Irvine511]

I just question whether we really dislike the Fox News ethos because of their approach, or just because we dislike their views.

this is an interesting question, but i'd counter by asking if you could find a Democratic equivalent of Michele Bachman spouting the equivalent of her blatant distortions of american history. while i agree with you on tactics, i don't think there's the same level of egregiousness on the left that there is on the right. i don't think that Olbermann and Rush are the same person, and i don't think that Matthews is the same as Hannity. there are very different degrees we're dealing with, not just in their place on the political spectrum but also in their willingness to bend history (or more) to suit their agendas. i also don't think there's the coordination on MSNBC that you have on Fox.

but what do i know?

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I just question whether we really dislike the Fox News ethos because of their approach, or just because we dislike their views.

I'd say it's the approach. Like I said recently, the fact that they're conservative in and of itself doesn't bother me. I may not agree with, like, I dunno, 95% of what they say/believe, but okay, they're promoting the conservative worldview, fine. I don't care. Always good and interesting to hear another side to the story. And there's been many conservatives whom I've listened to who come off as respectful, genuine, intelligent, and reasonable, and I like hearing what they have to say as a result whenever I see them on TV.

But Fox News promotes the conservative mindset in the absolute worst way possible. If I were a conservative watching Fox News, I'd be insulted and embarrassed that they think they're speaking for me. They employ the fringe fear tactics instead of actual legitimate arguments so often, they show the crazy nonsensical conservative view instead of the rational, mature one. Not always, I'll give them this. Every so often they do have somebody there who makes a genuinely good point and who actually dares to challenge something and has the logic and facts to back up what they're saying. But most of the time I've caught the channel, it's the former situation I see so much more often than the latter. And I just think that's sad. Conservatives deserve a better means of delivering their side of the debate.

And I don't care what political party line you tow, for god's sake, before you talk about a political issue on national TV, get your damn facts straight. If you act as though you know what you're talking about when it's obvious you really don't, I'm sorry, you deserve to be called out on it. Don't like it? Then apologize for your misunderstanding-slip-ups happen to everyone, it's okay to admit you made a mistake, unless you knowingly spread misinformation, in which case you're just a jerk-and brush up on the issue you're discussing before you open your mouth about it again.

And when you are called out for your ignorance, don't blame it on the other side and make it sound like it's some sort of "conspiracy" or whatever to attack you.

Again, I say this to both sides. It's something we all could do well to remember.

Angela

 

[maycocksean]

this is an interesting question, but i'd counter by asking if you could find a Democratic equivalent of Michele Bachman spouting the equivalent of her blatant distortions of american history. while i agree with you on tactics, i don't think there's the same level of egregiousness on the left that there is on the right. i don't think that Olbermann and Rush are the same person, and i don't think that Matthews is the same as Hannity. there are very different degrees we're dealing with, not just in their place on the political spectrum but also in their willingness to bend history (or more) to suit their agendas. i also don't think there's the coordination on MSNBC that you have on Fox.

but what do i know?

I think your assessment is spot on. My point was not to make an argument that "see the left does it too." I simply didn't care for Matthews shouting down Russo and interrupting him, that's all. I was speaking to one specific incident not trying to broader statement.

The truth is I watch very little television, particularly the news. I never watch Fox News. I mostly get my news through NPR.

 

[yolland]

Where was the hyperbole in that? All I heard was yelling. I couldn't get through more than about 4 minutes.

But I stopped watching all network news years ago because every one of them had become infested with this kind of grandstanding, so I'm no longer in any position to say who's the Worst. Americans spend more time screeching at each other about what our pundits say than about what the actual politicians they're nominally evaluating do; it's disheartening and pathetic. When DeLillo wrote 25 years ago about TV being the ultimate arbiter of reality, that nothing was real until you saw it on television, it was mostly just funny. TV's no longer as singularly powerful, but now we seem to be at a place where one's own opinions don't feel valid or worthy of being acted upon unless you can find some pundit to mirror them back to you, someone with that assumed aura of moral authority you don't have. I know, I know, bah humbug...

Anyhow, Bachmann did seem to be drawing fairly heavy criticism from conservatives online over those comments, I thought (as well she should).

 

[PhilsFan]

I simply didn't care for Matthews shouting down Russo and interrupting him, that's all. I was speaking to one specific incident not trying to broader statement.

I completely agree. I'm a bit pissed that Matthews would do such a thing. Now the conversation is going to be about how he did this interview instead of how stupid Bachmann is, which has to be what the GOP wants. Instead of having to defend her, they'll be able to attack Matthews as a part of the big bad liberal media attacking the Tea Party* and their "grounds root movement."

*Sponsored by Koch Industries.

 

[cobl04]

 

[PhilsFan]

I see them almost every day. Central PA has a lot of conservative idiots.

 

[Canadiens1131]

I completely agree. I'm a bit pissed that Matthews would do such a thing. Now the conversation is going to be about how he did this interview instead of how stupid Bachmann is, which has to be what the GOP wants. Instead of having to defend her, they'll be able to attack Matthews as a part of the big bad liberal media attacking the Tea Party* and their "grounds root movement."

*Sponsored by Koch Industries.

Not to say everything between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh is a horrible, backwards area of the country, but I've lived in SE PA and even in traditionally more left-leaning areas there are a ton of idiots.

 

[Irvine511]

I completely agree. I'm a bit pissed that Matthews would do such a thing. Now the conversation is going to be about how he did this interview instead of how stupid Bachmann is, which has to be what the GOP wants. Instead of having to defend her, they'll be able to attack Matthews as a part of the big bad liberal media attacking the Tea Party* and their "grounds root movement."

oh well. maybe i'm lowering the discourse as well, but i enjoyed the Matthew's tongue lashing of such offensive stupidity. to me, it felt cathartic, and truth be told, i do feel that in some way these people -- the blind prophet Bachmann, the super-hot Esther of white identity Palin -- and their barely literate pronouncements must be stopped. they literally get up and tell lies not about policy, but about easily refutable (refutiateable?) facts about American history. if they are not forcefully called out, then are we not contributing to everyone getting stupider? i think Matthews was reacting to the incredibly offensive notion that Bachmann was trying to say that some slaveholders were just misunderstood, and she's trying to whitewash history so that they may be more like her perfect blond, blue-eyed, lily-white Christ.

 

[maycocksean]

oh well. maybe i'm lowering the discourse as well, but i enjoyed the Matthew's tongue lashing of such offensive stupidity.

I enjoyed it too! I found immensely it entertaining particularly because I agreed with Matthews. (Had it been someone fulminating about something I disagreed with I would have been righteously irritated).

But that we enjoyed is beside the point. The point is the whole reason people like Bachmann and Palin have traction in our culture today is because far too many people would prefer their politicians be entertaining and are willing to tolerate sketchy facts as long as what they're hearing appeals to their emotions and makes them feel good. I don't want to live in a society where the winner is the person who is better at aruging down the other.

And while we're at it, Matthews wasn't quoting Bachmann correctly either. He kept saying that she said the founding fathers ended slavery and/or that slavery had ceased to exist at a time when it hadn't. That really bugged me, because while it strengthened his verbal takedown of Russo, it wasn't quite true. Classic Right-Wing Radio/TV tactic there and deplorable. If Russo hadn't been so bent on staying on message he could have called Matthews on it. The fact is that what Bachmann said was dishonest enough without Matthews having to exaggerate it. Her argument was that the "founding fathers" worked "tirelessly" to end slavery which was a lot of nonsense--completely revisionist. It was not, however, that "slavery ended in 1789" which is what Matthews was suggesting by the end of his rant. It's an important distinction, and if one side is going to take the high road we can't stoop to indulging in that kind of looseness with the facts.

 

[2861U2]

The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?


Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?

 

[PhilsFan]

Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?

... What? We're talking about Bachmann.

 

[Irvine511]

Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?

please do repost whatever right wing blog that's told you that Bachmann was right and Matthews was wrong.

because that's not at all the issue here, but i know you've got to find one item that's open to interpretation and make the argument about that rather than about Michelle Bachmann's ghastly attempts to rewrite American history.

really, what's at issue here is a pundit and not an elected politician.

 

[Irvine511]

Her argument was that the "founding fathers" worked "tirelessly" to end slavery which was a lot of nonsense--completely revisionist. It was not, however, that "slavery ended in 1789" which is what Matthews was suggesting by the end of his rant. It's an important distinction, and if one side is going to take the high road we can't stoop to indulging in that kind of looseness with the facts.

stop making so much sense, Sean.

 

[2861U2]

because that's not at all the issue here, but i know you've got to find one item that's open to interpretation and make the argument about that rather than about Michelle Bachmann's ghastly attempts to rewrite American history.

really, what's at issue here is a pundit and not an elected politician.

What Bachmann said of course didn't make sense, and I'm not going to try to justify what she might have meant. However, that clip of Matthews (who you just said admire his "knowledge" of history) is just laughable. And it's not just him. People who try to paint the founders as significantly pro-slavery or believe the myriad of untruths about the three-fifths compromise are equally guilty. Again, what Bachmann said was dumb, but there's plenty of ignorance of history to go around.

Did you hear what Chuck Schumer (another elected politician- elected by many more people than Bachmann is, but I digress) said this morning? He said the three branches of the federal government are the House, the Senate and the Presidency. There's a real Constitutional scholar.

 

[Irvine511]

People who try to paint the founders as significantly pro-slavery or believe the myriad of untruths about the three-fifths compromise are equally guilty.

again, what's actually at issue here?

further, JQA was hardly a "founder."

 

[maycocksean]

The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?

Awww, 2861, I thought you'd applaud that one.

Could it be you disagree with disagree with bumper sticker's sentiments? :hopeful:

Tell me if I'm reading the last couple pages correctly, because I'm a little taken aback. Are people here actually believing that Chris Matthews' interpretation of the three-fifths compromise is accurate?

Do tell. What is the correct interpretation of the three-fifths compromise?

 

[maycocksean]

stop making so much sense, Sean.

sorry. Will try to do better.

 

[coolian2]

a friend of mine on facebook tagged me in this photo and included the following comment.

For a laugh, I thought I'd watch her response to the SOTU again, and I noticed something - forgive me if it's been pointed out before.

She's claiming that unemployment spiked in the first of those last three years. And it does look like it - just over 6% to 10.1%.

But hold on. Obama has been president since January 2009. That's two full years. Bachmann is claiming that he's presided over three years of massive unemployment, including the 2009 spike to 10.1%.

In the same graph, she shows the time every year that these figures are released - December. So the last three figures were released as follows:

End 2010 - 9.4%
End 2009 - 9.7%
End 2008 - 10.1%

All in blue. Can you see the problem here? I'm only spelling this out to make sure I cover all my bases.

Obama was inaugurated in January of 2009. But somehow, Bachmann is claiming that he presided in that massive spike of unemployment from ~6% to 10.1%. Literally impossible.

But we all know who was in charge when that wonderful figure was released, don't we?

Yup. G. W. Bush.

So let's get this straight. Between Dec 2005 and Dec 2008, under GEORGE W. BUSH, unemployment went from just over 4% to 10.1%. Including that massive spike of 4% in 2008.

After Obama took over, unemployment has been steadily falling - not as much as we want, sure, but still falling - from 10.1% to 9.4%.

Michele Bachmann and the army of right-wing hacks want you to believe that Obama has caused rising unemployment.

Here's the truth - these guys are either ridiculously stupid, or downright bald-faced liars. Neither of which should be trusted with the task of government.

I really hope this has already been pointed out.

heh heh heh.

 

[cobl04]

The point of posting this was....? Do we really want a thread that devolves into dueling bumper stickers?

a mate who just got back from America posted it on facebook. i wanted to post it on interference because i was curious to see what people would think. i have absolutely zero understanding of American politics. i don't mean to start something.

to show my sincere lack of understanding, Angus Peef said "central PA has a lot of conservative idiots". now the way i understand the word conservative, that is a mindboggling contradiction because if i were to describe someone as "conservative" then you can bet your life savings that they wouldn't have a political bumper sticker on their car.