Lance sighting in DC

[BigDaddySmooth]

My missus works in the news business and has been fortunate to cover some news stories of interest. She broke the Elizabeth Smart case in Utah, met the President at the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics (also met Bonnie Blair, Carl Lewis and Cal Ripken, all very cordial folks). She won a Murrow and met Brian Williams, Paula Zahn and Charles Osgood, again, pretty open and humble professionals. Well, yesterday, she went to a news story where LA spoke. Afterwards, eventhough she knows I'm not a big fan, asked for his autograph nonetheless. Now, granted, he has probably given thousands of autographs so the luster must be tarnished for ole Lance. I mean, he is a multi-millionaire an all...pretty important in the grand scheme of things. She even mentioned to 'Big Tex' that I'm serving in the other, forgotten war (not that it should matter but she threw it out there anyway). Didn't matter to ole Lance. He signed it and almost even made eye contact w/her. Wow! What a guy. Where is Greg Lemond when you need him :rolleyes: ?

Anyone want a LA autograph? :cool:

[Chris]

Number one: Even though I don't know you, it sounds like you married out of your league. :)

Number two: If you send me the autograph and $50.00 for my trouble, I will throw it away for you...

[Steelhead]

I've got three differennt Velonews with LA on the cover, all autographed covers and a sports illustrated with LA as Sportsman of the Year, autographed. They are in a box somewhere in my attic.

[RPS]

Is the underlying issue here that Lance supposedly endorsed McCane this morning? What's driving the latest bashing?

[SoCalSteve]

My missus works in the news business and has been fortunate to cover some news stories of interest. She broke the Elizabeth Smart case in Utah, met the President at the 2002 Salt Lake Olympics (also met Bonnie Blair, Carl Lewis and Cal Ripken, all very cordial folks). She won a Murrow and met Brian Williams, Paula Zahn and Charles Osgood, again, pretty open and humble professionals. Well, yesterday, she went to a news story where LA spoke. Afterwards, eventhough she knows I'm not a big fan, asked for his autograph nonetheless. Now, granted, he has probably given thousands of autographs so the luster must be tarnished for ole Lance. I mean, he is a multi-millionaire an all...pretty important in the grand scheme of things. She even mentioned to 'Big Tex' that I'm serving in the other, forgotten war (not that it should matter but she threw it out there anyway). Didn't matter to ole Lance. He signed it and almost even made eye contact w/her. Wow! What a guy. Where is Greg Lemond when you need him :rolleyes: ?

Anyone want a LA autograph? :cool:

What's your point?

Just askin'

Steve

[Ray]

Is the underlying issue here that Lance supposedly endorsed McCane this morning? What's driving the latest bashing?
I doubt it - if it was, I'd probably be in on it! :p

Edit - I just read a couple of quick articles. Sounds like LA invited both candidates to one of his cancer forums. McCane accepted, the other guy had, uhhh, other commitments this week. Sounds like he wants both of them to make all sorts of promises to the cancer community that they'll never be able to keep. But I didn't see anything about an endorsement. If he did, and I was undecided, that would pretty much be the last nail in the McCane's coffin for me :cool:

-Ray

[chuckred]

reports excellent assistance both from the LA Foundation as well as from him personally...

Like him or hate him, I don't really care, but I do believe the un-qualified bashing is unwarranted...

Show a bit of class...

[RPS]

But I didn't see anything about an endorsement. If he did, and I was undecided, that would pretty much be the last nail in the McCane's coffin for me :cool:
[/I]
-RayIt was reported on Good Morning America this AM. Maybe they jumped the gun and got it wrong -- don't know and don't care who he endorses. Basically I'm not influenced by celebrity endorsements one way or the other.

Ray, you are hardly undecided, so I doubt it matters much to you either. I'd bet you think 0bama walks on water and wouldn't change your mind unless he struggled for air in a baby pool. ;)

[Ray]

Like him or hate him, I don't really care, but I do believe the un-qualified bashing is unwarranted...

Oh come on. I suppose we shouldn't bash A-Rod or Pappilbon (however you spell that jokers name) or Kobe or any of those arrogant Nascar drivers. Or Amy Winehouse or Madonna for that matter. Its what we do. Its kind of fun if thoroughly stupid and meaningless. They get paid well for the privilege. Why should Lance be different?

-Ray

[Ray]

It was reported on Good Morning America this AM. Maybe they jumped the gun and got it wrong -- don't know and don't care who he endorses. Basically I'm not influenced by celebrity endorsements one way or the other.

Ray, you are hardly undecided, so I doubt it matters much to you either. I'd bet you think 0bama walks on water and wouldn't change your mind unless he struggled for air in a baby pool. ;)
I was ever so slightly joking. I don't care if or who Lance endorses. I'm likely to vote for Barack unless he's caught with a live boy or a dead girl. And maybe then :D

-Ray

[johnnymossville]

I doubt it - if it was, I'd probably be in on it! :p

Edit - I just read a couple of quick articles. Sounds like LA invited both candidates to one of his cancer forums. McCane accepted, the other guy had, uhhh, other commitments this week. Sounds like he wants both of them to make all sorts of promises to the cancer community that they'll never be able to keep. But I didn't see anything about an endorsement. If he did, and I was undecided, that would pretty much be the last nail in the McCane's coffin for me :cool:

-Ray

besides that, who needs lance when you have mamook iminajihad and the coveted Hamas endorsement. :p

kiddin, sorta.

[Chris]

Oh come on. I suppose we shouldn't bash A-Rod or Pappilbon (however you spell that jokers name) or Kobe or any of those arrogant Nascar drivers. Or Amy Winehouse or Madonna for that matter. Its what we do. Its kind of fun if thoroughly stupid and meaningless. They get paid well for the privilege. Why should Lance be different?

-Ray

WORD!

[RPS]

I was ever so slightly joking. I don't care if or who Lance endorses. I'm likely to vote for Barack unless he's caught with a live boy or a dead girl. And maybe then :D

-RayI like an honest man. :)

It’s hilarious how serious some take this stuff – even when dismissing it by joking about it.

A local woman (I’ll assume black due to her name) was arrested for threatening a couple at their home after following them in her car because they had an anti-0bama bumper sticker she didn’t like.

Granted the bumper sticker was crude and tasteless, but it wasn’t explicitly racist as she claimed. And even if it were, it doesn’t justify threatening a couple at their home for expressing their views (however backwards and offensive one thinks of them).

As I was reading the article in the paper, I kept wondering what she expected to accomplish. Did she think her tirade and threats that got her arrested would make this couple rush to remove the bumper sticker? Politics can be so entertaining.

[William]

I was ever so slightly joking. I don't care if or who Lance endorses. I'm likely to vote for Barack unless he's caught with a live boy or a dead girl. And maybe then :D

-Ray

Naw, he just likes Mc Cain's oatmeal (which is endorsed bTW by George W. , Dick Cheney, and Carl Rove and Scooter).




Just Sayin'





William ;)

[Steelhead]

I'm not LABashing - just saying that his autographs don't mean much to me anymore like they used to. I will probably sell them on eBay, except for the Velonews from 1999, circa US Postal that is a cool cover and his autograph is on it. I think I am gonna put that one in my office.

We've got Lance the cyclist and Lance the cancer fighter.

As Lance the cancer fighter goes - more power to him and I can't wait till this years' Livestrong Ride, which I have already started my fundraising.

As for Lance the cyclist - hard to say.

[johnnymossville]

It’s hilarious how serious some take this stuff – even when dismissing it by joking about it.

.


Maybe the woman coulda got the couple to change their mind? hehe OUCH!

[Chris]

I was ever so slightly joking. I don't care if or who Lance endorses. I'm likely to vote for Barack unless he's caught with a live boy or a dead girl. And maybe then :D

-Ray

WORD! WORD!

[mikki]

reports excellent assistance both from the LA Foundation as well as from him personally...

Like him or hate him, I don't really care, but I do believe the un-qualified bashing is unwarranted...

Show a bit of class...

Agree. I am happy he does some good with the LAF and all..why take the time for so much bashing and all? Waste of time.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Keep it cordial regarding the politics or I will shut this one down pronto. :no:

Thanks.

BBD

[Ray]

Keep it cordial regarding the politics or I will shut this one down pronto. :no:

Thanks.

BBD
Just out of curiosity, Dave, did the politics get UN-cordial here? I know the preferences of some of the folks in this thread and they know mine and all I saw was joking about it. Did anyone actually say anything offensive? Jeepers, I hope it wasn't me. If so, I missed it completely. We've had semi-serious political threads and this one is just messing around.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

Just out of curiosity, Dave, did the politics get UN-cordial here? I know the preferences of some of the folks in this thread and they know mine and all I saw was joking about it. Did anyone actually say anything offensive? Jeepers, I hope it wasn't me. If so, I missed it completely. We've had semi-serious political threads and this one is just messing around.

-Ray

. . . "messing around" isn't always viewed that way by everyone who sees the thread. You may know you're messing around and the person you've aimed it at may, but not everyone else does--and that can result in the kind of total meltdown we had several months ago that resulted in political threads being banned.

I'd much rather be safe and be viewed as a d*ck by some than have it suddenly go downhill and explode into overall rancor. It's just been too easy for that to happen lately. Again, just trying to help Pete out best I can. I don't claim to be perfect.

BBD

[Ray]

. . . "messing around" isn't always viewed that way by everyone who sees the thread. You may know you're messing around and the person you've aimed it at may, but not everyone else does--and that can result in the kind of total meltdown we had several months ago that resulted in political threads being banned.

I'd much rather be safe and be viewed as a d*ck by some than have it suddenly go downhill and explode into overall rancor. It's just been too easy for that to happen lately. Again, just trying to help Pete out best I can. I don't claim to be perfect.

BBD
I got that you perceived it that way and I wasn't in any way accusing you of being a richard. I was just wondering who said what that made you see it that way? If it was something I said, please lemme know so I can try to be more aware next time. I just didn't perceive anyone turning a pedal in anger in this thread.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

The "mamook iminajihad and the coveted Hamas endorsement" statement seemed to have great negative potential, as did the simple fact that in less than one page this thread had gotten a good start on politics, race, AND Lance bashing. Bring all those together and the pot is simmering, IMHO . . .

BBD

[Ray]

The "mamook iminajihad and the coveted Hamas endorsement" statement seemed to have great negative potential, as did the simple fact that in less than one page this thread had gotten a good start on politics, race, AND Lance bashing. Bring all those together and the pot is simmering, IMHO . . .

BBD
OK, fair enough. I'll try to cool it on the Lance bashing at least ;)

-Ray

[fiamme red]

Wasn't he at RAGBRAI just the day before?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/NEWS/80722033/-1/BUSINESS04

Armstrong thanked the crowd for coming out, and compared RAGBRAI to Tour de France. About RAGBRAI, he said, “The crowds were a little friendlier, there was a little more beer. A little more pride, a little more pork chop.”

Armstrong encouraged the crowd to buy RAGBRAI bandanas since the proceeds benefit the Embrace Iowa 2008 Iowa Disaster Fund. “I have embraced Iowa,” Armstrong confessed.

This won’t be the last RAGBRAI for the seven-time Tour de France winner. “We will be back every year. Because this is cycling in America,” he said.

[BumbleBeeDave]

OK, fair enough. I'll try to cool it on the Lance bashing at least ;)

-Ray

I appreciate it!

BBD

[johnnymossville]

Point Well Taken Bumble-Bee. Sorry about that. Politics. blah.

John

[Austin]

I think I can help to clarify the erroneous reports about Lance making a political endorsement. My wife works for the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) and is currently at Ohio State University with him, John ??????, and 1,000 other leaders in the fight against cancer. (Please excuse the ??????, this website appears to have a filter in place which won't let the candidates last names appear on this blog). The senator will be addressing a town hall meeting tonight prior to the National Livestrong Summit. Barack ????? was invited to participate in the town hall meeting, but declined. See the LAF link below for their response to the erroneous reports of a politcal endorsement and for a link to view the town hall meeting. Note that the town hall meeting is a live feed beginning at 6:30 EST.

http://livestrongblog.org/?tr=y&auid=3838560

[Pete Serotta]

Dave thanks.....PETE

[rnhood]

I think I can help to clarify the erroneous reports about Lance making a political endorsement. My wife works for the Lance Armstrong Foundation (LAF) and is currently at Ohio State University with him, John ??????, and 1,000 other leaders in the fight against cancer. (Please excuse the ??????, this website appears to have a filter in place which won't let the candidates last names appear on this blog). The senator will be addressing a town hall meeting tonight prior to the National Livestrong Summit. Barack ????? was invited to participate in the town hall meeting, but declined. See the LAF link below for their response to the erroneous reports of a politcal endorsement and for a link to view the town hall meeting. Note that the town hall meeting is a live feed beginning at 6:30 EST.

http://livestrongblog.org/?tr=y&auid=3838560


I am glad we have at least one candidate that takes the fight against cancer seriously. And I have to give a lot of credit to Lance, he continues to relentlessly champion this fight. Awesome individual.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . that I have to say that if I were running for president and had to make a choice between a foreign policy tour of the Middle East and Europe which was probably planned several months ago OR attending Lance's cancer town hall meeting, I'd probably do the foreign policy tour.

<<I am glad we have at least one candidate that takes the fight against cancer seriously.>>

Just because one candidate doesn't attend a town hall meeting organized by your wife's employer does not necessarily mean that candidate doesn't "take the fight against cancer" seriously.

BBD

[goblue]

Barak is kinda busy right now...

[Tobias]

Just because one candidate doesn't attend a town hall meeting organized by your wife's employer does not necessarily mean that candidate doesn't "take the fight against cancer" seriously.But his smoking does.


Just Sayin’

[Ray]

. . . that I have to say that if I were running for president and had to make a choice between a foreign policy tour of the Middle East and Europe which was probably planned several months ago OR attending Lance's cancer town hall meeting, I'd probably do the foreign policy tour.

<<I am glad we have at least one candidate that takes the fight against cancer seriously.>>

Just because one candidate doesn't attend a town hall meeting organized by your wife's employer does not necessarily mean that candidate doesn't "take the fight against cancer" seriously.

BBD
Thanks Dave. Its like saying that McCane doesn't care about international relations because he's not overseas right now. Rather absurd. Although Tobias makes a good point about the smoking, although I think also somewhat in jest.

-Ray

[Tobias]

Although Tobias makes a good point about the smoking, although I think also somewhat in jest.

-RayNot in jest Ray. I'm openly critical of people who smoke knowing the connection to cancer and other health issues. For me it shows a lack of personal discipline.

Will his smoking affect my vote? No. I wouldn't vote for him anyway based on the issues. Still, I think he's an idiot for smoking.

[Ray]

Not in jest Ray. I'm openly critical of people who smoke knowing the connection to cancer and other health issues. For me it shows a lack of personal discipline.

Will his smoking affect my vote? No. I wouldn't vote for him anyway based on the issues. Still, I think he's an idiot for smoking.
OK fair enough. I think smoking is stupid too, although I'm a bit more forgiving about people getting sucked into it when they're young and having trouble quitting - I've seen too many good people deal with that struggle for years. But I think its unrelated to whether someone can be a force for good in the fight against cancer. Its possible to have your personal foibles but still work tirelessly for the public good. I'm not talking about the election or any particular candidate or politics in general anymore - just that ANYone can work to fight cancer even if they've been unable to quit smoking (or eating processed food or breathing terrible air or drinking chemically poisoned water). Or work for the public good on many causes, even if they are personally victims of it.

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . have to deal with the issue that Mr. Hood brings up, though perhaps he does it unintentionally.

That's "one-issue" voters who will judge the candidate and possibly vote based on the one issue that matters most to them. In Mr. Hood's case it seems to be support--or lack of it--for cancer research. It could also be abortion, the environment, highway construction, etc., etc. . . .

To get elected the candidate must constantly balance their statements on a huge variety of issues to gain support/avoid losing support from this large block of voters. ????? these past few days may have alienated cancer research supporters, but he's reaped a public relations and media bonanza from his foreign tour. Yesterday on the wire there were only a few photos of ?????? at some function, but there were dozens of ?????. His speech at the victory column in Berlin attracted a huge crowd, made incredible, impressive images, and the whole tour seeks to address a very real concern of voters--does this foreign relations neophyte have what it takes to handle himself with the rest of the world?

Given the obvious media coup that he's achieving this week, I can't blame him or his planners at all for skipping a relatively small event like Lance's "town meeting" and seeking to do damage control with one-issue cancer voters in the 3 months left till election day. His personal action of giving up smoking in the past year should help him do that, IMHO.

BBD

[johnnymossville]

He did give up smoking in the last year, but he's smoking again now. That is, if you can believe his statement that he's smoking again. After all, if we are smokers, we all quit since we finished our last one and haven't smoked our next. :p

[Tobias]

Given the obvious media coup that he's achieving this week, ....snipped......

BBDLots of media attention doesn’t necessarily transfer to support. A Martian landing on the Eiffel Tower would draw lots of press coverage also but wouldn’t get many votes here. He’s an oddity and the press will follow as long as it sells papers and air.

It was reported this morning that his support in Minnesota, Michigan and Colorado is down significantly. In Colorado, a major swing state, the other guy is tied or leading. Maybe in the long run substance will prevail over fluff.

I’m glad the American people are finally starting to wake up to reality. Movie stars’ and famous athletes’ opinions on politics have no more value than anyone else’s. A dumb message delivered by a pretty face with a confident-sounding voice is of no greater value. Photos with military men doesn’t mean they support his plan. Meetings with heads of states doesn’t mean they respect him or value his vision (he should know that better than anyone since he’s willing to meet with Korea, Iran, and Cuba). What he expects to gain by seeming “presidential” is exactly what he would give to the lunatics running these countries – credibility.

If he wins as expected it should go down as the greatest marketing success of all time.

[BumbleBeeDave]

If he wins as expected it should go down as the greatest marketing success of all time.

. . . who wins these days does so as a result of marketing. Doesn't matter who the candidate is.

BBD

[Tobias]

. . . who wins these days does so as a result of marketing. Doesn't matter who the candidate is.Agree…….to a point. Doesn’t it depend on how naïve we can be longer term? Can brilliant marketing conceal the truth indefinitely? Or is 3 months enough?

Marketing deception reminds me of when Detroit tried selling us crappy cars based on chrome, new paint colors, and pretty tires while the American people gradually shifted towards Japanese products with superior substance (smarter design, better build quality, and improved durability). We may be slow but eventually we get it right.

Marketing may be powerful, but so is common sense.

[Ray]

Maybe in the long run substance will prevail over fluff.

I’m glad the American people are finally starting to wake up to reality.

A dumb message delivered by a pretty face with a confident-sounding voice is of no greater value.

If he wins as expected it should go down as the greatest marketing success of all time.
I have to call BS here Tobias. I get that you REALLY don't like 0bama. That's fine. I REALLY don't like Bush and I don't much care for the current version of McCane either. But to pretend that the other side lacks substance just because you disagree with them is just wrong. Listen to an in-depth interview with 0bama and tell me its all fluff. Its not. You may think he's dead wrong on almost every issue, but he's thought deeply about this stuff and has a nuanced understanding of the complexities we face. I think the same is true of McCane. I'd even concede that the same is true of Bush, although many would disagree with me on that.

Look, IN MY OPINION Bush is the worst president of my lifetime and that includes Nixon. I can't believe that he thinks the direction he's taken us is the right one. But he does. And he clearly had a substantive agenda and got a lot of it enacted. IN MY OPINION it was a terrible one, but it was substantive. The last two elections stung me to the bone - they made me realize that about half of Americans want to live in a VERY different world than I want to live in. That's a HIGHLY substantive difference and I find it fairly depressing, as do many on your side. But you all won the last two so you probably find it slightly less depressing :cool:.

But I wouldn't contend that Bush won because of a lack of substance - he won because slightly more people (or enough people in the right states in 2000) agreed with the direction he wanted to take the country than the direction Gore or Kerry did.

If you really believe that a candidate can come through the debates and primaries and news talk shows and the blogs and everything else JUST on marketing, I'd contend you're just trying to soften the blow you'll feel IF your guy loses. Nobody can do it without marketing, but you're kidding yourself if you think they can do it without substance too.

What the typical swing voter ends up making a decision on is another question. Those who usually don't make up their minds until the end are often called, rather condescendingly, "low information voters", which I think is true of some of them but not others. But I'll freely admit that if 0bama wins this election, its gonna be because a lot of people think he's more likely than McCane to bring the cost of gas down. And they probably will only conclude that because he's not from the party that's presided over the last few years when the current mess was taking shape. I think these voters are just being stupid if they think ANYone can actually bring the cost of gas down over the next four or eight years. Whoever gets elected is going to need to be all over a long terms strategy for energy and I think they both realize that, but lots of voters just want someone to ease the pressures they're feeling right now and I think that's an unrealistic hope, as understandable as it may be.

But the fact that some voters won't vote based on much substance doesn't mean the candidates are without it.

Disagree with me and my candidate all day long. Vehemently - I know that you do. Fine. That's what democracy is for. But saying that your side has a monopoly on 'common sense' or 'substance' and my side is just full of fluff and too stupid to see through slick marketing is just a cheap shot. I have more respect for you and those who agree with you than that and I'd hope you would have more for me and those who think the way I do.

-Ray

[fiamme red]

If he wins as expected it should go down as the greatest marketing success of all time.I have two words for you: Karl Rove.

http://tinyurl.com/2yjbgq

MCCA*N: I've always respected Karl Rove as one of the smart great political minds I think in American politics. I've always respected him. We never had any ill will after the initial South Carolina thing. After we had the meeting with President Bush we moved on. I've seen Karl Rove many times when I've been over at the White House. We've always had pleasant conversations.

QUESTION: His tactics don't, you don't disapprove of them? They don't make you nervous?

MCCA*N: It's not so much whether I approve of his tactics or not. It's that he has a very good, great political mind. Any information or advice and council he can give us, I'd be glad to have. I don't think anybody denies his talents. So I'd be glad to get any advice and council. We would obviously decide whether to accept it or not.

[Tobias]

Ray, sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent. I apologize if I sounded like I was questioning your intelligence. His I’ve questioned, but not yours.

This is not about Bush, and it’s certainly not about disliking 0bama as an individual, but rather disliking the hype around him based on promises that are impossible to be kept. The “lets stand for change” (whatever the hell that means) slogans make me want to puke. I find them offensive and insulting and can’t understand why other Americans don’t feel the same way – but that’s my problem.

BTW, my man is not in the race. I like “M” better than “O” but only because I see him as the lesser of two evils (or inadequate choices). “M” would have been a great choice 8 to 16 years ago, but now it’s past his prime IMO.

I’m going to drop this because 0bama and the hype surrounding him makes my blood boil and I have more enjoyable things I can and should be doing.

I have to call BS here Tobias. I get that you REALLY don't like 0bama. That's fine. I REALLY don't like Bush and I don't much care for the current version of McCane either. But to pretend that the other side lacks substance just because you disagree with them is just wrong. Listen to an in-depth interview with 0bama and tell me its all fluff.They are very clever. How can I or anyone disagree when they don't state how they will accomplish the impossible. But do I really need to know more than it's impossible to know that it doesn't matter? I don't.

[Tobias]

I have two words for you: Karl Rove.I missed when he entered the race. :rolleyes:

[Ray]

Ray, sorry if I offended you, it was not my intent. I apologize if I sounded like I was questioning your intelligence. His I’ve questioned, but not yours.
Part of what's going on here, I think, is that, while I believe both candidates have loads of substance (and I think we've probably each made up our minds on who we're supporting based on their positions on issues), the people who tend to decide these elections are the "low information" swing voters I referred to earlier. As a result, the candidates have to spend an inordinate amount of time going after them. And emotional appeals lacking in substance seems to be the way to get 'em. So you see 0bamas "change" message and it makes your blood boil (and it doesn't exactly thrill me either) and I see McCane saying "Country first" and it makes mine boil. Look, both of these guys represent significant change relative to the incumbent, although 0bama arguably more, and both of them put their country first, fer chrissakes. But these simple messages are part of what sells with the swing voters who don't have an even remotely firm ideology. The candidates have plenty of substance and SOME of their marketing does too, but plenty doesn't. On both sides.

I'm cool with a truce :beer:

-Ray

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . the hype around him based on promises that are impossible to be kept.

. . . ALL the candidates make these--a lot of them! Have been for as long as I've been paying attention. :rolleyes:

BBD

[torquer]

. . . "messing around" isn't always viewed that way by everyone... BBD
Witness the fuss over the New Yorker magazine O'bama cover.

Interesting that all the letters in the current issue (the first to appear since the "offending" one, only two weeks ago) deal with that cartoon. Pretty thorough range of reactions to the parody, although, as one might expect, all the letter writers are at least leaning towards O'bama, if not outright partisans.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Witness the fuss over the New Yorker magazine O'bama cover.

Interesting that all the letters in the current issue (the first to appear since the "offending" one, only two weeks ago) deal with that cartoon. Pretty thorough range of reactions to the parody, although, as one might expect, all the letter writers are at least leaning towards O'bama, if not outright partisans.

. . . critics and unhappy people tend to write letters to the editor much more often than those who agree. Doesn't surprise me a bit that the majority of letters on that issue would be from people who are unhappy at the use of the cover. I would also hazard a guess that The New Yorker has a reputation that would tend to polarize opinions about the magazine anyway.

BBD

[torquer]

. . . critics and unhappy people tend to write letters to the editor much more often than those who agree. Doesn't surprise me a bit that the majority of letters on that issue would be from people who are unhappy at the use of the cover. I would also hazard a guess that The New Yorker has a reputation that would tend to polarize opinions about the magazine anyway.

BBD
Actually, Dave, my point was that a broad spectrum of reaction (at least on the part of New Yorker readers) was represented in the letters; one calls the cartoon "inartfull" in that it "provides ammunition to further the very thing it satirizes." Another writer is "laughing at the people who are perpetuating such lies." The final letter "nervously hail[s] the New Yorker's right to freedom of speech."

The New Yorker used to be famous for not publishing readers' letters. Their relatively recent inclusion definitely improves this already fine magazine.

[RPS]

But to pretend that the other side lacks substance just because you disagree with them is just wrong. Listen to an in-depth interview with 0bama and tell me its all fluff. Its not. You may think he's dead wrong on almost every issue, but he's thought deeply about this stuff and has a nuanced understanding of the complexities we face. I’m not sure what is meant by fluff, but can see how objective thinkers would jump to the conclusion that a “dead wrong” answer that can’t be a viable solution is political fluff. If they were indeed dead wrong, one would have to assess whether it’s based on lack of ability or simply to obtain votes. In the latter case it would suggest to me that the candidate in question doesn’t think much of his constituents, so in either case having bad or “dead wrong” solutions is not a good thing.

In engineering for instance, if a person designed a bridge or building that would collapse upon the first strong gust of wind, I would judge the work and his ability as lacking substance. Whether the design is “fluff” or not is semantics.

[RPS]

But I'll freely admit that if 0bama wins this election, its gonna be because a lot of people think he's more likely than McCane to bring the cost of gas down. And they probably will only conclude that because he's not from the party that's presided over the last few years when the current mess was taking shape. I think these voters are just being stupid if they think ANYone can actually bring the cost of gas down over the next four or eight years. Sadly I think you are correct (don’t want to use the word "right" with you ;) ), although it doesn’t say much about the average American.

[RPS]

But the fact that some voters won't vote based on much substance doesn't mean the candidates are without it.True, but I think many voters go on “gut” feeling because they don’t trust information.

Beyond campaign issues, when it comes to judging politicians, IMO much comes down to “reading” the guy. We probably all read signs from body language, facial expression, eyes movement, etc… without even being aware. Your read may lead to resounding trust while Tobias or others may be more skeptical. In my case I read the eyes; and can usually tell when people are honest or are telling me what they think I want to hear.

Another issue I see that complicates judging 0bama is that he’s a lawyer and is supposed to be an articulate, confident, and convincing speaker. That’s what they do and are trained to do – and should therefore excel in public speaking; not unlike movie stars like President RR. Whether his polished delivery has the same affect on all listeners and viewers is doubtful. I tend to think that scientific types are more objective and base opinions more strictly on facts, or content. Delivery is far less important.

Additionally, IMO lawyers can also become an issue in politics for some people in that they often have the remarkable ability to argue either side of just about any issue with equal passion; hence how can anyone know for sure where they stand on issues if they have been trained (or have a God-given gift) to represent both sides of the same issue as convincingly and with equal passion?

[Ray]

RPS, you tossed a lot out there and since I called a truce with Tobias I'm not gonna get into all of it, but a quick response is in order.

First, the people commonly referred to as "low information voters" are the ones I was referring to probably voting for either side for extremely shallow, non-substantive reasons. This doesn't mean my opinion of Americans in general is low. Just of this very small but influential percentage of the electorate. Most folks have thought pretty hard about stuff and come down more or less on one side or the other on any given issue. But those who don't, while not huge in numbers, are hugely influential because the country is so divided. They're the 8-10% (to pick a number out of the air) who are undecided when everyone else has long since made up their minds. And they decide elections. So, for better or worse, candidates have to try to appeal to them. Which they can't do effectively with sophisticated arguments. So the 0bamas of the worlds try to get them with general "change" arguments and the McCane's of the world try to get them with heart tugging appeals to a very basic definition of "patriotism".

Second, I think it is very possible to disagree vehemently with someone and think they're wrong without thinking they're idiots who just "drank the kool-aid". They may just have a belief system or experiences that are extremely different than mine. So I go in with a level of assumed respect and expect the same in return. Dead wrong doesn't mean lacking in substance. To use the most extreme example in recent history, Hitler was not without substance but he was dead wrong (and I'm NOT comparing anyone in this race or recent American history to him - its just an extreme example to make the point).

Finally, yeah, lawyers can argue either side of a case effectively. And good politicians can figure out ways to communicate complex ideas simply. These are related skills. Engineers are really good at dealing with questions that have very clearly "right" and "wrong" answers but, in my experience, they suck at nuance and gray areas. In a democracy, the "right" answer is the one you can convince the most people of. By definition. Lawyers tend to make better politicians than engineers. I have no problem voting for someone with a legal background to make and enforce laws. A good politician can bring people around to his or her point of view on enough stuff to earn their vote. I didn't agree with Reagan on much, but he was a great politician. You may feel the same way about 0bama someday.

And, yeah, I agree its ultimately a gut call. Its just that most people take the time to make it an informed gut call. Some don't and they get to vote too.

Sorry, I guess it wasn't so quick after all :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

Engineers are really good at dealing with questions that have very clearly "right" and "wrong" answers but, in my experience, they suck at nuance and gray areas.Ouch, that hurts.

Although IMO it says more about you than me.

There is a big @$$ difference between not being able to see shades of gray and knowing when there is no gray. When in perpetual darkness, it’s easy to miss the difference.

[Ray]

Ouch, that hurts.

Although IMO it says more about you than me.

There is a big @$$ difference between not being able to see shades of gray and knowing when there is no gray. When in perpetual darkness, it’s easy to miss the difference.
I'm a planner. I've been working my whole career with engineers. There's always a difference of perception and approach. The best planners (of which I immodestly consider myself one) have a strong technical understanding to go along with their policy emphasis. And the best engineers can get outside of the technical details and understand the policy realities, opportunities, and constraints that they operate within - I'll assume you're one of those. In solving technical problems, there are SOMETIMES no gray areas. In dealing with human problems (which politics almost ALWAYS deals with), there are ALWAYS gray areas. It literally takes someone as bad as Hitler before the shades of gray are no longer operative. He, thankfully, was a rare bird that way.

I painted with too broad a brush to make a point. But I stand by the point. And, as a good engineer, you are duty bound to disagree :cool:

-Ray

[RPS]

I'm a planner. I've been working my whole career with engineers. .......snipped............But I stand by the point. And, as a good engineer, you are duty bound to disagree :cool:

-RayWith all due respect, if you honestly think for a second that the few engineers you deal with on bike trails or development projects are representative of all or most engineers then you don’t deserve an answer.

I honestly hope our paths don’t cross. Life is too short to deal with prejudice.

At least I got a laugh or two out of this. You exist on the outer fringes and then lecture me on the virtues of a middle ground? :crap:

[Ray]

With all due respect, if you honestly think for a second that the few engineers you deal with on bike trails or development projects are representative of all or most engineers then you don’t deserve an answer.

I honestly hope our paths don’t cross. Life is too short to deal with prejudice.

At least I got a laugh or two out of this. You exist on the outer fringes and then lecture me on the virtues of a middle ground? :crap:
RPS, I'm sorry to have this get personal - it wasn't my intent. And I don't mean to "lecture" and apologize if it comes off that way. I was trying to make a humorous comparison between planners and engineers, who've always had a rocky relationship. I guess it didn't come off. FWIW, I'm not talking about the engineers I deal with on trail and bike path projects - we're never at cross-purposes on those. I'm talking about 20+ years of transportation planning that involved LOADS of highway projects, transportation modeling, etc. The biases coming in were different and the conflicts were real. And a lot of us got very good at understanding those biases (our own included) and working together very effectively. And some didn't. I generally did fine working with traffic and civil engineers. Part of that was maintaining a sense of humor about my own shortcomings with them and them with me. That's what I was going for here and obviously missed badly.

If I'm on the outer fringes, it just shows how far the center has moved right. I used to be a moderate and I've gotten more conservative and now I'm considered a raving liberal! Oh well. All you know is who I support in this election - you don't really know much about my stand on lots of issues. On some its probably far more conservative than you'd imagine. On others, you'd probably assume right.

-Ray

[Tobias]

Ouch, that hurts.Rick, ignore the absurd BS, it’s not worth taking it personally.

If you follow the money, you’ll see that getting 0bama elected is a conspiracy to crater the economy so that most Americans will have to ride bikes, thereby securing their jobs. This is a bike forum after all. ;)


BTW, technical guys can also make great leaders; and they see all shades of gray just fine. To suggest otherwise if silly. Just look at how many major corporations are run by successful CEOs with technical backgrounds. I’d bet there are more than with legal backgrounds.

When most of us invest our life’s savings in corporations, we want guys at the top that can get things done, not just talk about it. When it’s our money on the line, we want results, not rhetoric.

A while back Warren Buffett was asked if he would prefer O or H to replace him when he retired, and he essentially replied that although he supported them for president, neither was qualified to run his empire.

When you think about it, our standards for president are quite low.

[Ray]

A while back Warren Buffett was asked if he would prefer O or H to replace him when he retired, and he essentially replied that although he supported them for president, neither was qualified to run his empire.

When you think about it, our standards for president are quite low.
You see low standards - I see different criteria. Patreus is a great general - he'd probably suck as a surgeon and probably would suck at running Buffet's empire too. Warren Buffett recognizes that different jobs require different skill sets. Thats all I was trying to say. I realize I butchered it and offended you guys. For that, I apologize.

-Ray