Debate

[David Kirk]

According to my dictionary -

debate |diˈbāt|
noun
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
• an argument about a particular subject, esp. one in which many people are involved : the national debate on abortion | there has been much debate about prices.
verb [ trans. ]
argue about (a subject), esp. in a formal manner : the board debated his proposal | the date when people first entered America is hotly debated.
• [with clause ] consider a possible course of action in one's mind before reaching a decision : he debated whether he should leave the matter alone or speak to her.


Has anyone seen one of these? I've seen guys stand behind podiums and give their stump speech and tell half truths or even bald faced lies and now I've seen guys walking around a room filled with folks that were told to not say anything while the same guys gave the same stump speech and told more half truths and bald faced lies but I've yet to see a "debate" as defined above.


What am I missing?

Dave

[avalonracing]

The current formula:

Candidate #1: Blah blah blah (insert stump speech here)
Candidate #2: Is not... Blah blah blah
Candidate #1: Is too (rebuttal) Blah blah blah
etc

[Geoff]

+1

I would love nothing more than an event were the canidates ask each other questions and the modierator only keeps time/order. Or better yet the mics only works while your clock is active after that you would only be talking to the few that can read lips. There all to good by this point the only significance of a "debate" is to see if some one screws up/miss speaks.

G - btw Dave PM sent

[jhcakilmer]

I agree, they've done nothing for my perception, and/or understanding of the candidates. They both are being controlled by their campaign managers/team.....IMO, I think this hurts McCain more, than Obama, since McCain has always been seen as a "free-wheeler", going left and right on certain issues.....it's unnatural to hear him only going right.

Also, it's been said that McCain likes the so called "town hall" style debates, but since he has to stand for a long periods, and move around it really extenuated his age....he seemed very stiff.

Personally, I think McCain would be doing better if he skipped the "debates", but that's just my perception.

[Geoff]

I agree, they've done nothing for my perception, and/or understanding of the candidates. They both are being controlled by their campaign managers/team.....IMO, I think this hurts McCain more, than Obama, since McCain has always been seen as a "free-wheeler", going left and right on certain issues.....it's unnatural to hear him only going right.

Also, it's been said that McCain likes the so called "town hall" style debates, but since he has to stand for a long periods, and move around it really extenuated his age....he seemed very stiff.

Personally, I think McCain would be doing better if he skipped the "debates", but that's just my perception.

I think he is stiff (physically) because of war injuries. I know he has limited arm movement at least.

[SadieKate]

I didn't watch last night's debate, but I did watch the VP debate and was struck by the fact that the moderator did not stop the candidate and tell them to answer the question. For example, when a candidate blatantly says s/he is not going to answer the question but "talk straight" and then proceeds with an off-topic rehearsed speech, the candidate should be called to order. Otherwise, what is the point of a debate?

I don't think Ifill is alone in this lack of asserting control and because of this, I really don't watch any debate for content. Nothing new is said that will sway a voter who decides on issues rather than personality.

[Tobias]

What am I missing?That honesty can’t work.

There are two possibilities:

1) They are both morons.
2) They know we don’t want to hear the truth.

Our system requires them to sound optimistic and promise us that everything is going to be better in order to get elected. If they even hint at leveling with us we won’t vote for them. It’s really that simple IMHO. On that basis I ignore everything they say and depend as much as possible on their voting record. Everything else is just spin to get votes. It has to be.

I didn’t even watch the debate last night – that’s how sick I am of the entire process.

[fiamme red]

In the present debate format, I wonder why both candidates even have to be in the room at the same time?

[PoppaWheelie]

In the present debate format, I wonder why both candidates even have to be in the room at the same time?

Or even talking, really. Two tape players with pre-recorded stump sound-bites would have been enough.

Who's idea was it to have have a ONE minute "discussion" after each question?!?? Yeah, like that was ever going to work...!

[1centaur]

Also, let's do away with "uncommitted" real time tracking meters. First, those people are not really uncommitted, as you can tell from their responses, phrase by phrase. To the extent those people are either self-selected or network selected to create the lemming instinct in the home viewers, they can influence outcomes and that is very dangerous.

Second, even if neutral screeners with an exceptional instinct for people pretending to be uncommitted did an excellent job of getting only people who could really go either way this close to the election, do we really want either people of that mentality telling us what works or the candidates' strategists analyzing those lines word by word to design debate responses that "work?"

Debates can bring out character under pressure more than anything else at this point. Perhaps they can help clarify differences for somewhat casual observers. I'd love to see them on a stage without an audience, face only in the spotlight, with questions on the screen to respond to and a microphone that turns off after a given number of seconds. No moderator needed.

[thwart]

What am I missing? An anti-cynicism drug.

The candidates don't want to say anything that will get thrown in their face repeatedly in "attack ads", so they talk around things and stay generally vague, except about cutting taxes and being tough on terrorism (and now, Russia, too).

I would agree that McCain would be doing better overall if he hadn't gone ahead and adopted the Rove strategy, IMHO.

The process is pretty broken, but the only folks who can push it back in the other direction are... us.

[Acotts]

That honesty can’t work.

There are two possibilities:

1) They are both morons.
2) They know we don’t want to hear the truth.

Our system requires them to sound optimistic and promise us that everything is going to be better in order to get elected. If they even hint at leveling with us we won’t vote for them. It’s really that simple IMHO. On that basis I ignore everything they say and depend as much as possible on their voting record. Everything else is just spin to get votes. It has to be.

I didn’t even watch the debate last night – that’s how sick I am of the entire process.

Problem with voting records are that no votes are straight forward. There are a million reasons to vote, or not vote for a bill regardless of your stance on the issues.

BTW, I think these debates are pointless. I keep hoping I will learn something, but I never do.

[Tobias]

BTW, I think these debates are pointless. I keep hoping I will learn something, but I never do.In that case you've learned that you are wasting your time like the rest of us. ;)

[David Kirk]

As I understand it both sides sit down and negotiate the ground rules and they have to come to some agreement as to how long and who gets to talk at what time and crap like that. Since they are both wanting to look their best (or at least not look stupid) they agree on very little. So the least common denominator ends up being what we got last night.

It would be cool if they didn't have a say in how it worked and it was run like any other "debate" where the question was asked and then a controlled conversation took place. They would each state the merits of their position and explain why the others position is incorrect. The moderator would have huge power to call each of the debaters out and make them stick to the question. In the case of the supposed "town hall" thing we saw last night the person asking the question would have the option of interrupting the "answer" and telling the candidate that they have strayed and are not addressing the original question.

Of course neither side will ever agree to this situation as it might make their candidate look stupid or God forbid honest. I say that if the candidates don't wish to look stupid then they should do their research and know their facts inside and out and be able to articulate them in that format.

I also wish I was younger, smarter, stronger and that I could fly.

Dave

[Climb01742]

some commentator made an interesting point a week or two ago. that with cellphone cameras and youtube, every word a candidate says, in every setting, at every moment, can be captured, and be seen by the world, forever, over and over again. so the risk of unplanned candor, or truth seeking out, is huge, and as a result, candidates are even more cautious and bland than ever before.

when lincoln debated douglas, a few dozen or few hundred people heard their words. those words could only travel as few miles. the price of honesty or unpopular truth was lower. so perhaps it got told more often. the price of honesty today is universal, eternal life.

talk about unintended consequences of youtube, eh?

[michael white]

some people think it's important to elect an ambulatory president--although history has shown us otherwise.

anyway, it appears we had a valuable opportunity to see the opponents take turns shuffling around without falling, just so we could judge for ourselves.

[David Kirk]

some people think it's important to elect an ambulatory president--although history has shown us otherwise.

anyway, it appears we had a valuable opportunity to see the opponents take turns shuffling around without falling, just so we could judge for ourselves.

I can live with that standard because I'm sure I can shuffle faster than any of them and then I'll be KING!

dave

[Pete Serotta]

sounds like last night again.... :)

I didn't watch last night's debate, but I did watch the VP debate and was struck by the fact that the moderator did not stop the candidate and tell them to answer the question. For example, when a candidate blatantly says s/he is not going to answer the question but "talk straight" and then proceeds with an off-topic rehearsed speech, the candidate should be called to order. Otherwise, what is the point of a debate?

I don't think Ifill is alone in this lack of asserting control and because of this, I really don't watch any debate for content. Nothing new is said that will sway a voter who decides on issues rather than personality.

[Ti Designs]

Our system requires them to sound optimistic and promise us that everything is going to be better in order to get elected. If they even hint at leveling with us we won’t vote for them. It’s really that simple IMHO. On that basis I ignore everything they say and depend as much as possible on their voting record. Everything else is just spin to get votes. It has to be.


Honesty doesn't work in politics, but just once I would like to see a front runner adopt the tactic just to see what would happen. If Al Gore had said the recount process was dividing the country and damaging the power of the supreme court, would he have been elected four years later? After every debate someone checks the claims made and points out who was correct or incorrect. So why do the candidates spend weeks memorizing vote counts and what the other guy voted for over the last 20 years. So what if one of them said "I'm not going to respond to figures and attacks, that's what news corrispondents and David Letterman are for"? If that was Obama's first statement, what would Mcain do?

The debate last night reminded me of the Monty Python skit about the argument. He's here for an argument - and NOTHING ELSE.

[Viper]

The VP debates have been more of a debate and more fun to watch. The problem with Presidential debates is both candidates are trying work the count, get on base with a walk, instead of looking for the pitch to hit. No homeruns, weak singles and low scoring.

Debates should address issues, where one can prove their point, defining their purpose, process and benefits to the citizens of America, but they should involve wit which crushes the opponent. Debates should be yes, professional, but also personal; leave the man's wife, family, faith and dog out of it, attack everything but his shoes.

If I were Mc'Cain, I'd have gone in there with the goal of making O'bama appear to be a little schoolboy who never served his country in anything other than denim jeans or a fancy suit, a man incapable of handling an issue more pressing than his food shopping bill.

If I were O'bama, I'd have gone in there with the goal of making Mc'Cain seem aloof, elderly, tired, disconnected from the American Jane and Joe, a career politician from last century.

Due to the drastic downturn in the economy and the prolonged War in Iraq, all O'bama has to do is show up and work the count; O'bama saves his passionate voice for the podiums at the outdoor rallies within the few, key states.

[SadieKate]

I can live with that standard because I'm sure I can shuffle faster than any of them and then I'll be KING!

daveHow's your winking and grimacing?

[SadieKate]

sounds like last night again.... :)Whew, I can stop worrying that I missed something.

Instead, went out for a trail run and enjoyed the beauty of an autumn sunset on the face of Smith Rock 23 miles away. I think I made the better choice.

[jhcakilmer]

I think he is stiff (physically) because of war injuries. I know he has limited arm movement at least.

Yes, I understand that....what I don't see, is why would he want those features accentuated in this type of debate. When voting for someone, it's important to me that the person, not only be able to fill the cognitive needs, plus be able to deal with the physical demands of the position.

[jhcakilmer]

some people think it's important to elect an ambulatory president--although history has shown us otherwise.

anyway, it appears we had a valuable opportunity to see the opponents take turns shuffling around without falling, just so we could judge for ourselves.


what historical references do you mean.....FDR. I don't think we can compare many (if any) of the modern presidents to FDR, that's a very high standard.

[Joellogicman]

some commentator made an interesting point a week or two ago. that with cellphone cameras and youtube, every word a candidate says, in every setting, at every moment, can be captured, and be seen by the world, forever, over and over again. so the risk of unplanned candor, or truth seeking out, is huge, and as a result, candidates are even more cautious and bland than ever before.

when lincoln debated douglas, a few dozen or few hundred people heard their words. those words could only travel as few miles. the price of honesty or unpopular truth was lower. so perhaps it got told more often. the price of honesty today is universal, eternal life.

talk about unintended consequences of youtube, eh?

The Lincoln Douglas debates were very cerebral affairs addressing critical issues of the day: http://www.nps.gov/archive/liho/debates.htm

The electorate expected and appreciated their would be leaders' intellect. Far from being the insult it is today, Ivy Tower Intellectual was an aspiration for a would be President.

In my opinion, whether Obama and McCain could raise the level of their debates to that of Lincoln and Douglass is not the question. The real question is would the public accept and appreciate intelligent in depth discourse or would the knee jerk reaction be these people are using big words and spouting high falutin concepts just to make themselves look special.

The populace demands its leaders come across from the common denominiator not the aspirational height. We are getting what we ask for.

[tomwd3]

The populace demands its leaders come across from the common denominiator not the aspirational height. We are getting what we ask for.

Don't count me in with that we. I'm not getting what I'm asking for.

I can assure you, that I don't want to have a beer with my president.
I'd like to think they were taking the job very seriously and working thier a$$ off.

[Joellogicman]

Don't count me in with that we. I'm not getting what I'm asking for.

I can assure you, that I don't want to have a beer with my president.
I'd like to think they were taking the job very seriously and working thier a$$ off.

but then I once had a bunch of similarly educated colleagues in a meeting claim I was pompous for quoting the Spoon River Anthology - and we are in Illinois.

I do not know when it became popular to equate intellectual aspiration with pomposity, but it certainly is the case.

[72gmc]

McCain's gambit with the first debate raised an interesting possibility in my mind, which is the single-candidate opportunity. To flesh it out to its full idealistic glory: Actually assert neutral "public financing" rules on the debates, tell the parties they can take or leave the rules proposed not by them but by a neutral party, and warn the candidates that if they don't like the requirements they don't participate--but the other candidate(s) can still choose to take part. And perhaps (gasp!) a popular third party candidate can take the empty seat. Talking points and rehearsed speeches would still happen, but the candidates would have to be more careful about their pandering.

And everyone goes to the debate on bicycles.

[Ray]

Everyone wants politicians to "tell the truth", but we each want them to tell the truth we want to hear (there very rarely being one objective TRUTH). And, if they did, it wouldn't be the truth that very many other people wanted to hear. Maybe they are telling someone's version of the TRUTH and we just don't like it? They understand this. So they tell as much of their truth as they can while still appealing to as many people as they can and pissing off as few as they can. And if you think that's an easy line to walk....

For all of the lowest common denominator stuff that's inevitable in debates (and campaigns in general), the debates do give people who aren't very familiar with the candidates a chance to size them up. Voting for president is, for better or worse, always a gut call on character, based on how many presidents are elected despite holding positions that most Americans disagree with. And the debates give people an opportunity to see how the candidates think, how they relate to others, how they cope with pressure and some levels of adversity, how quick they are on their feet, how calm, how impulsive, how whatever. For lack of a better term, whether they can picture them as president. Whether they want that individual visiting in their living rooms on TV for the next four years.

Its a very long way from perfect, like everything else in life, but it still serves a purpose. And probably does so as well as it can in our mass-media age. It evolved into this over a long period of time, after all.

BTW, has anyone seen what upper level high school "debates" have turned into these days? It's all about talking at incredibly high speed (puts your average cattle auctioneer to shame) trying to jam as many facts and arguments into an allotted time as possible. It has less to do with actual communication and exchange of ideas than any other form of using words I've ever witnessed. In comparison, the presidential debates are the epitome of a great process of communication. If you think you want a REAL debate, well, be careful what you wish for...

-Ray

[Tobias]

They would each state the merits of their position and explain why the others position is incorrect. The moderator would have huge power to call each of the debaters out and make them stick to the question. In the case of the supposed "town hall" thing we saw last night the person asking the question would have the option of interrupting the "answer" and telling the candidate that they have strayed and are not addressing the original question.Seriously Dave, we'd have to have national debates on whom to empower with that much power as moderator.

Do you think most moderators are impartial? I don't know about you, but I can tell you pretty much who the liberal and conservatives are in the media. As it is, the media is very biased and won't ask the tough questions that need to be addressed.

[Elefantino]

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(Short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
(Pause)
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right.
(Pays money)
A: Thank you.
(Short pause)
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up.

[Tobias]

Honesty doesn't work in politics, but just once I would like to see a front runner adopt the tactic just to see what would happen.Have you seen what happens when late-night shows ask people on the street questions about basic politics? It’s embarrassing. We should be ashamed as Americans that so many of us are complete morons. How can these people even function in society? If politicians told us the truth I’m certain it would go right over most people’s head.

Do you think that many dropouts that are high on drugs while working late-night at a fast food joint understand the importance of the national debt? I think it would shock us all to know how many Americans don’t even know what the national debt is not to mention how big it is.

Notice most all questions people ask in debates follow the same pattern – “what will your administration do for me and/or my family above what the other guy is promising”. Hate to sound cynical, but we’ve become a nation of whores (pardon my English) ready to sell our votes to the guy with the biggest wad of cash. And the funny part is that we are getting screwed for our own cash.

What was it that Kennedy said so eloquently? Maybe someone should remind us again.

[David Kirk]

Seriously Dave, we'd have to have national debates on whom to empower with that much power as moderator.

Do you think most moderators are impartial? I don't know about you, but I can tell you pretty much who the liberal and conservatives are in the media. As it is, the media is very biased and won't ask the tough questions that need to be addressed.



I would say you pose a tough question here and likely the stumbling block of my grand plan.

One thing I always think about - biased is in the eye of the beholder. I listen to NPR and they seem pretty much toward the center to me and when I watch Fox news they seem very far right and when I watch Keith Oberman he seems far left to me. I seriously doubt that many agree with me on this. If you watch and like Fox I doubt you'll think that they are biased to the right, you'll think they are the center and "correct" and so on.

To me it always seems to me like folk cry bias when their guy gets asked a tough question and they think it's normal when they get thrown a softball. Nature of the beast I think.

How about this? The guys that run the debate ask the public to submit questions and state if they are registered as a red guy, a blue guy or a independent guy. They put all the red questions in a red hat, all the blue in a blue and and so on. The they all sit down and the moderator pulls equal numbers of blind questions from the hats and reads them to the candidates. There will of course be some wackjob questions but there are american wackjobs so that stands to reason. The two things the moderator needs to do are pull the questions from the colored hats and keep the candidates on task. If they stray from the answer their mike gets shut off and the move on to the next candidate. I can guarantee that they wouldn't have their precious mikes cut more that once.

Pie in the sky I know but one can dream of the day when we have a true democratic process.

dave

[David Kirk]

What was it that Kennedy said so eloquently? Maybe someone should remind us again.

Wasn't it something like "I'll have a car come pick you up Norma Jean"?

No not that one. Hope bout the "ask not......" deal?

Dave

[RPS]

The two things the moderator needs to do are pull the questions from the colored hats and keep the candidates on task. If they stray from the answer their mike gets shut off and the move on to the next candidate. I can guarantee that they wouldn't have their precious mikes cut more that once.That's very subjective -- judging whether the candidates are answering the original question. And if the moderator(s) are biased, it would be reflected in the shutting off.

I prefer debates when questions come from a panel which makes it easier to ask tough questions.

[RPS]

What was it that Kennedy said so eloquently? Maybe someone should remind us again.Altruism is not all that natural for most of us. People are hard wired to be selfish for the most part to promote survival of the species.

BTW, one older man asked during the debate why we are not asked to make a significant sacrifice. I’d have to play it back to hear again exactly what was said.

[Ti Designs]

Notice most all questions people ask in debates follow the same pattern – “what will your administration do for me and/or my family above what the other guy is promising”. Hate to sound cynical, but we’ve become a nation of whores (pardon my English) ready to sell our votes to the guy with the biggest wad of cash.


Isn't there another thread on the forum about the whores catagory?

[SadieKate]

That's very subjective -- judging whether the candidates are answering the original question. And if the moderator(s) are biased, it would be reflected in the shutting off.

I prefer debates when questions come from a panel which makes it easier to ask tough questions.I know, I know! A new game show called "Americas got Politicians" with a panel of three moderators. If two hit the button, the mike is cutoff. The giant buzzer sound is critical to this show.

[cadence90]

I agree with a lot of the opinions stated here, but the entire process is becoming pure, boring spectacle and ridiculous.
5 things should be changed:

1) Debate format; neither the "2 candidates standing behind their CliffsNotes-burdened podiums..." nor the "2 candidates in such an 'intimate and engaging town hall setting'..." formats work. Either have real round table discussions or a less rigid, more interactive stand-up debate format. Debates in Congress are more animated than these have been.

2) 2 minutes; 90 seconds; 1 minute to answer a complex question? Forget it: the only possible response in such a short time frame is the standard campaign stump speech sound bite; and the short time response actually helps/promotes evasiveness. I'd rather see an hour-long, 3-question debate on 1 issue (economy, foreign policy, energy, etc.) each time, even if it meant having 4 or 5 debates instead of 1 or 3.

3) Get new moderators. Regardless of their party affiliation (preferably none of course); all 3 to date have been completely ineffective in my opinion. I don't know who, but there must be people out there who are better able to manage the situation and interject strongly rather than cower.

4) Internet questions? Why? If one is going to have a "town hall" debate, I for one want to see the person asking the question and gauge the candidates' relationship with that person, not listen to a vacuous reply to a question emailed from who knows where.
"Thank you very much for asking that question, Mr. Eggman Walrus Goo Goo G'joob...I see that you live in Russia, now, you know, let me tell you...." :rolleyes:

5) Cancel absentee and early voting except for those who really need it, i.e. primarily military personnel on station. Both those options will make Nov. 4 lees relevant over time, and I honestly don't see the need. As one commentator said recently, "If someone is too lazy to get off their couch and go to their polling station on Nov. 4, then why let them vote at all?"

[1centaur]

One thing I always think about - biased is in the eye of the beholder. I listen to NPR and they seem pretty much toward the center to me and when I watch Fox news they seem very far right and when I watch Keith Oberman he seems far left to me. I seriously doubt that many agree with me on this. If you watch and like Fox I doubt you'll think that they are biased to the right, you'll think they are the center and "correct" and so on. dave

There have been academic studies on media bias, so I presume they try to get past eye of the beholder.

While Keith Olberman may baldly state his opinion, and Fox tolerates jingoistic blowhards like Sean Hannity, most media bias is subtle, though not incredibly so. Look for story selection, adjectives, tone, which type of man on the street response they choose to include in the story and ask yourself if there is a point of view in evidence without counterbalance, even if it is your point of view. Journalists should not be expressing points of view directly or indirectly.

Here's a not so subtle example of media bias: Campbell Brown of CNN on the pre-debate show last night said to the panel, "Don't you think one of McCain's problems tonight will be that he is a Republican and it's been Republicans in power for the last eight years who failed to regulate the financial industry?" or words to that effect. This is the same Campbell Brown who pounded McCain's campaign adviser the day of the Palin pick 5 times in 5 minutes with the "C'mon, you have to admit she has no real experience" line while only tossing out a brief, sotto voce, "I'm not saying Obama has tons of experience but, come on!" This is not a left wing rant, but it is exactly what liberals are saying to each other all day long. I am not convinced that major media types even recognize what they are doing - everyone they associate with probably thinks the same way so they view it as mainstream and middle of the road.

[cadence90]

Altruism is not all that natural for most of us. People are hard wired to be selfish for the most part to promote survival of the species.

BTW, one older man asked during the debate why we are not asked to make a significant sacrifice. I’d have to play it back to hear again exactly what was said.
Brokaw: "All right, gentlemen, I want to just remind you one more time about time. We're going to have a larger deficit than the federal government does if we don't get this under control here before too long.

Sen. McCain, for you, we have our first question from the Internet tonight. A child of the Depression, 78-year-old Fiorra from Chicago.":

"Since World War II, we have never been asked to sacrifice anything to help our country, except the blood of our heroic men and women. As president, what sacrifices -- sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?"

McCain: "Well, Fiorra, I'm going to ask the American people to understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate.

I first proposed a long time ago that we would have to examine every agency and every bureaucracy of government. And we're going to have to eliminate those that aren't working.

I know a lot of them that aren't working. One of them is in defense spending, because I've taken on some of the defense contractors. I saved the taxpayers $6.8 billion in a deal for an Air Force tanker that was done in a corrupt fashion.

I believe that we have to eliminate the earmarks. And sometimes those projects, not -- not the overhead projector that Sen. Obama asked for, but some of them that are really good projects, will have -- will have to be eliminated, as well.

And they'll have to undergo the same scrutiny that all projects should in competition with others.

So we're going to have to tell the American people that spending is going to have to be cut in America. And I recommend a spending freeze that -- except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we'll just have to have across-the-board freeze.

And some of those programs may not grow as much as we would like for them to, but we can establish priorities with full transparency, with full knowledge of the American people, and full consultation, not done behind closed doors and shoving earmarks in the middle of the night into programs that we don't even -- sometimes we don't even know about until months later.

And, by the way, I want to go back a second.

Look, we can attack health care and energy at the same time. We're not -- we're not -- we're not rifle shots here. We are Americans. We can, with the participation of all Americans, work together and solve these problems together.

Frankly, I'm not going to tell that person without health insurance that, "I'm sorry, you'll have to wait." I'm going to tell you Americans we'll get to work right away and we'll get to work together, and we can get them all done, because that's what America has been doing."

Brokaw: "Sen. McCain, thank you very much. Sen. Obama?"

Obama: "You know, a lot of you remember the tragedy of 9/11 and where you were on that day and, you know, how all of the country was ready to come together and make enormous changes to make us not only safer, but to make us a better country and a more unified country.

And President Bush did some smart things at the outset, but one of the opportunities that was missed was, when he spoke to the American people, he said, "Go out and shop."

That wasn't the kind of call to service that I think the American people were looking for.

And so it's important to understand that the -- I think the American people are hungry for the kind of leadership that is going to tackle these problems not just in government, but outside of government.

And let's take the example of energy, which we already spoke about. There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy.

I believe in the need for increased oil production. We're going to have to explore new ways to get more oil, and that includes offshore drilling. It includes telling the oil companies, that currently have 68 million acres that they're not using, that either you use them or you lose them.

We're going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy.

But each and every one of us can start thinking about how can we save energy in our homes, in our buildings. And one of the things I want to do is make sure that we're providing incentives so that you can buy a fuel efficient car that's made right here in the United States of America, not in Japan or South Korea, making sure that you are able to weatherize your home or make your business more fuel efficient.

And that's going to require effort from each and every one of us.

And the last point I just want to make. I think the young people of America are especially interested in how they can serve, and that's one of the reasons why I'm interested in doubling the Peace Corps, making sure that we are creating a volunteer corps all across this country that can be involved in their community, involved in military service, so that military families and our troops are not the only ones bearing the burden of renewing America.

That's something that all of us have to be involved with and that requires some leadership from Washington."

Complete Debate 2 Transcript. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/07/presidential.debate.transcript/)

[cadence90]

There have been academic studies on media bias, so I presume they try to get past eye of the beholder.
True. I'd rather listen to the "straight talk" from the insiders themselves. ;)

"Two senior Republicans, unaware that microphones were still running after a TV interview, let loose today with harsh criticism of Sarah Palin as their party worked to defend its vice-presidential nominee.

A tape of the exchange between Republican strategist Mike Murphy - who worked for John McCain during the 2000 election - and conservative columnist Peggy Noonan quickly made the rounds on the internet, creating the latest in a series of Palin-related distractions.

When NBC news political director Chuck Todd asked rhetorically whether Palin is "the most qualified woman they could have turned to", the tape shows Noonan replying: "The most qualified? No! I think they went for this, excuse me, political bull**** about narratives."

She later added, "Every time the Republicans do that, because it's not where they live and it's not what they're good at, they blow it."

Noonan published a Wall Street Journal column earlier today that praised Palin as "powerful" and "a clear and present danger to the American left, and to the [Barack] Obama candidacy".

Murphy echoed Noonan's candid assessment, asking Todd on the live microphone, "You know what's really the worst thing about it? The greatness of McCain is no cynicism, and this is cynical." "

- September 03, 2008

[SadieKate]

5) Cancel absentee and early voting except for those who really need it, i.e. primarily military personnel on station. Both those options will make Nov. 4 lees relevant over time, and I honestly don't see the need. As one commentator said recently, "If someone is too lazy to get off their couch and go to their polling station on Nov. 4, then why let them vote at all?"The entire state of Oregon is, I believe, without polling stations. All done by mail.

[William]

The entire state of Oregon is, I believe, without polling stations. All done by mail.

Since when????



William

[David Kirk]

OK..... everyone is biased. Media is biased, you are, I am, the pope is.......everyone is. If you are human and you've seen or heard of the candidates you are biased in some way.

If we accept this where do we go with debates? No one can host, hold or moderate a debate as they are biased even is they don't know it. Maybe we just axe the idea of debates and we only listen to what the candidates say and forget the spin put out there innocent or otherwise by the media. I know the answer to this silly rhetorical deal of course not but what is the real answer? I certainly don't know the answer to this.

One last zenish thought - when is it media bias and when is it common sense? By this I mean if we had the ultra right white supremacist party guy up on the screen and Solidad says something along the line of " hey skinhead guy - aren't you a wackjob?". She of course would be right but she's also biased. What's more important? Being right or non-biased? The only folks that would be upset are his fellow white supremacist friends and everyone else would be cheering. And at the same time if he's not invited on in the first that is bias in another sense. Someone is editing content long before it gets to us.

When Campbell Brown stated that Palin wasn't ready for the job she was echoing the thoughts of tens of thousands of viewers. It's a good question and thought. Is she ready. To not ask is biased in one direction and to ask is biased in another. It's a lose-lose.

I will be the first to say that I have no clue as to what to do. I feel like as long as we the public go along and truly demand something different we will get what they feel like giving us.

dave

[SadieKate]

Since when????



William
Apparently, Oregon has been 100% vote by mail since 1998.

http://www.sos.state.or.us/executive/votebymail/history.html

[girlie]

ELITE plan (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1078617442?bclid=537018608&bctid=1842856410)

Just for Fun.
No point.
aye,
girlie

[kgreene10]

I'm surprised by many of the comments here about the debates. Although we certainly deserve as much information as possible about the candidates and their policies, the debates this time out have been far more informative than any I can remember in recent memory. Most of the two candidates' campaigns have in fact been about the issues. It makes me wonder whether viewers who claim that all they hear is "blah, blah, blah" aren't in fact listening.

I agree with David Kirk that the current solution to bias avoidance is ridiculous. The media now substitute opposing spin for real reporting. Then each side takes liberties with facts and the newscasters aren't sufficiently well-informed to "set the record straight." Newscasters should be dogged pursuers of truth rather than the MC at a three ring circus. Obviously, there are many instances when "truth" isn't the point or the facts are under dispute, but too much of the time we allow countervailing opinion to make it seem as though there is no objective reality and all is merely perception.

[jhcakilmer]

Altruism is not all that natural for most of us. People are hard wired to be selfish for the most part to promote survival of the species.

BTW, one older man asked during the debate why we are not asked to make a significant sacrifice. I’d have to play it back to hear again exactly what was said.


I'd have to agree....evolutionary biology has shown us that even certain seemingly "altruistic" behavior may not be so altruistic......kin selection, and reciprocal altruism.

Also, I certainly agree with that questioner....we should be making sacrifices. This whole ideal that we should have our taxes lowered, during a war is a perfect exam of selfishness (or republican policy......oh, no he di'it :no: ....... ;) ) Anyway, previous generations (WWI and II) new what we had to do, and give up.....but ofcourse they believed in what they were fitting for.......okay, I better stop....

Also, as far as the media bias goes, I've started watching BBC world news......still some bias, but not a fraction of our national media!!!

[Ray]

I agree with David Kirk that the current solution to bias avoidance is ridiculous.

Maybe the best way to avoid bias is to eliminate moderators and have the candidates just question each other. Candidate A asks candidate B a question of his or her choice - candidate B takes up to, say, five minutes to answer, and then candidate A gets five minutes to respond. Then they each take 2 minutes to counter points made in the first round. Then switch sides, with candidate B asking candidate A the question. This way the bias is limited to that of the candidates, and nobody's asking them to be unbiased - their biases / points of view are the whole point. That way they each set part of the debate agenda but also have to respond on issues they might prefer not to. I'd like it more - not sure if the viewing public would.

-Ray

[David Kirk]

Maybe the best way to avoid bias is to eliminate moderators and have the candidates just question each other. Candidate A asks candidate B a question of his or her choice - candidate B takes up to, say, five minutes to answer, and then candidate A gets five minutes to respond. Then they each take 2 minutes to counter points made in the first round. Then switch sides, with candidate B asking candidate A the question. This way the bias is limited to that of the candidates, and nobody's asking them to be unbiased - their biases / points of view are the whole point. That way they each set part of the debate agenda but also have to respond on issues they might prefer not to. I'd like it more - not sure if the viewing public would.

-Ray

Hey Ray, that is good.

dave

[jhcakilmer]

Maybe the best way to avoid bias is to eliminate moderators and have the candidates just question each other. Candidate A asks candidate B a question of his or her choice - candidate B takes up to, say, five minutes to answer, and then candidate A gets five minutes to respond. Then they each take 2 minutes to counter points made in the first round. Then switch sides, with candidate B asking candidate A the question. This way the bias is limited to that of the candidates, and nobody's asking them to be unbiased - their biases / points of view are the whole point. That way they each set part of the debate agenda but also have to respond on issues they might prefer not to. I'd like it more - not sure if the viewing public would.

-Ray

Good ideal in theory, but letting them "run free" I think would open a whole new pandora's box. They'd probably focus on each others perceived weaknesses, and not really focus on issues important to the public.

I think a strong moderator gives direction, keeps each canidate civil, and focused....or at least tries!

[Ray]

Good ideal in theory, but letting them "run free" I think would open a whole new pandora's box. They'd probably focus on each others perceived weaknesses, and not really focus on issues important to the public.
I don't think there's any problem with them focusing on each other's weaknesses - those are an important part of the puzzle. They wouldn't do it if those weaknesses didn't matter to the voters because they'd just be seen as being nasty rather than engaged on issues. As in any other format, they'd do what they'd perceive would win 'em the most votes, which means they'd better be talking about what the voters are interested in!

I think each would go after their opponents weaknesses on issues that the public cared about where they thought they could score the most points. If they were the ones choosing the questions and they asked about stuff nobody cared about, the blame goes right back to them and they pay the price. If a moderator asks the same question that nobody cares about, the candidates don't take any heat because they were just responding to the moderator. But if one of the candidates asks about something not on the public's radar, they either convince them its important enough to PUT on their radar (I believe that's called leadership), or they suffer a penalty for wasting the viewer's time with a dumb question.

Isn't this kind of what the Lincoln Douglas debates were, just with MUCH longer response times?

-Ray

[cadence90]

The entire state of Oregon is, I believe, without polling stations. All done by mail.
Correct.

[johnnymossville]

I actually felt pretty good after the debate last night. Of course I had to sprint for the remote to turn it off before the commentators started yapping afterward.

[Louis]

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.



E, are you still taking those "Being Hit on the Head" lessons? How are they going? :D

[SadieKate]

Correct.
Wasn't looking for your verification, but vote by mail would seem to fall into your category of voters who are too lazy to go to a polling station.

[Louis]

So far this thread has focused on the Debates, but IMO this is just part of a much larger problem of political accountability. Have you ever watched Prime Minister's Questions on C-SPAN? Haven't you ever wondered why there isn't a similar exercise in this country? Have you ever compared an interview conducted by a BBC reporter to one conducted by an American reporter? Talk about hard ball vs soft ball.

IMO the political system in the US is set up in such a manner as to make it as easy as possible for incumbents to remain incumbents. Anything that makes it more difficult for the politicians is therefore not allowed. Why anybody even bothers to listen to a presidential press conference (or the debates) is beyond me. Nothing substantial is ever answered. As long as Americans are willing to put up with this it will continue. Who makes the laws? At what rate are incumbents re-elected? By a massive margin.

Aside: Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for term limits. I think they're stupid. It should be up to the voters to "throw the bums out." If they are unwilling to do that, then they'll just have to live with the results.

By the way, what percentage of eligible voter actually get off their @ss and vote? It's a ridiculously small number. (Hopefully that will change somewhat this year.)

Louis

[rounder]

I agree that the debates are disappointing. Both candidates gave answers that are designed to be safe and score points however they can. The part that bothers me the most is media bias. I think that is is natural that journalists have opinions (do most people agree that George Will is conservative). What bothers me the most, though, is that journalists seem to be trying to make the news, rather than reporting the news, in order to sell books, newspapers, etc.. I know that the newspaper industry is under stress these days for trying to compete with the Internet for advertising dollars.

I was listening to NPR on the way home tonight and they were announcing that someone would be appearing on the show tomorrow to discuss his/hers new book about the armegeddon of the financial world. One of the basic concepts of the financial world is that its health is pretty much based on confidence. I do not believe that journalists should gloss over the reality that we are in a financial crisis. But, announcing scary news about banks and the economy is what leads to runs on banks, bailing out of security holdings, and general overall panic. I think that it is irresponsible for journalists to be trying to cash in or to advance their careers based on today's bad news, rather than objectively reporting the news.

[chuckroast]

Hey Girlie, loved the video. It was better than the debate, thanks.

[Ahneida Ride]

demolican: Blah. Blah. Blah :confused:
republocrat: Blah. Blah. Blah :confused:

[RPS]

ELITE plan (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1078617442?bclid=537018608&bctid=1842856410) Thanks, that is funny. Was trying to remember who inspired that.......Streisand and a couple of other Hollywood types maybe? Not sure but if I recall correctly none actually moved as promised. :rolleyes:

[cadence90]

Wasn't looking for your verification, but vote by mail would seem to fall into your category of voters who are too lazy to go to a polling station.
I agree.

I didn't mean to verify. OR has done it since 1981 in some elections and since 2000 in all elections, in order to save money (but this method costs the campaigners themselves more money).

Saving money is fine, but Presidential elections occur only every 4 years; there must be other ways to save money. The process also extends the voting period by a minimum +/- 2 1/ weeks, further reducing the impact of Nov. 4, and while there is some protection against fraud (for instance voters have to sign their ballot and their signature is checked against the original at the county courthouse) I think the the potential still does exist that ballots could simply not be processed, either by mistake (for instance my mail carrier, who is a real nut-case, has lost my incoming and outgoing mail many times), or maliciously. Anyone can mail another's envelope. I'm also not convinced that the Florida 2000 "lost" 3,000+ ballots is an impossibilty under this process.

If the process ensured that the vote was mailed say only on Nov. 1-4, with some stamp that ID'd that the mailer was actually the voter (for instance filling in a dedicated number or something like that on the ballot and on the envelope), then it would seem more secure.

One can't receive a new (not renewal) driver's license or open a checking account by mail, etc., for instance; I just think that people who want to vote should show up in person, on Election Day and cast their ballot. Just my opinion; maybe I'm already an old fogey...I don't even own a cell-phone. :)

[RPS]

What bothers me the most, though, is that journalists seem to be trying to make the news, rather than reporting the news,Agree 100 percent. When I watch old reports I notice a huge difference. The question I ask is whether they do it because it works better (i.e. -- we are more likely to watch) or because they think that's what we want to watch. Either way I wish they would stop and just report as objectively as humanly possible.

[cadence90]

ELITE plan (http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1078617442?bclid=537018608&bctid=1842856410)

Just for Fun.
No point.
aye,
girlie
Hilarious!

B. C. would be cool, Newfie not so much, but Canada is still too close to Rusha for my taste....

I'd go back to Italy, (even though Toronto, of all places, is in fact, or was at least a few years ago, the 2nd largest Italian-populated city in the world).

[RPS]

If the process ensured that the vote was mailed say only on Nov. 1-4, with some stamp that ID'd that the mailer was actually the voter (for instance filling in a dedicated number or something like that on the ballot and on the envelope), then it would seem more secure.Not to change the subject too much, did you guys see where ACORN in Vegas fraudulently signed up voters using Dallas Cowboys starters? How stupid is that? Not that being dishonest isn’t bad enough.

Can you imagine going in to vote as Tony Romo or Terrell Owens? :rolleyes:

[SadieKate]

I just think that people who want to vote should show up in person, on Election Day and cast their ballot. Just my opinion; maybe I'm already an old fogey...I don't even own a cell-phone. :)This is really off topic for this thread, but I understand all your arguments. Unfortunately, I've also had to travel for business out of state as well as care for a parent in the hospital on election day so getting to a polling station 60 miles away would have been impossible. I also used to have a significant enough commute that voting in person was very difficult and I never knew when I'd be caught in a meeting and traffic. I started voting absentee a long time ago so that I could always know that I voted - even if it meant a postal postal worker could send the envelope into the abyss. Living in Oregon just means it is even easier for me.

And there are a heck of a lot of people in Eastern Oregon a long, long way from polling station locations.

How about just limiting what the campaigners can spend? They aren't visiting the sparsely populated rural areas anyway.

[cadence90]

Not to change the subject too much, did you guys see where ACORN in Vegas fraudulently signed up voters using Dallas Cowboys starters? How stupid is that? Not that being dishonest isn’t bad enough.

Can you imagine going in to vote as Tony Romo or Terrell Owens? :rolleyes:
What's ACORN?

Doesn't Tony vote for Jessica and Terrell for himself? :rolleyes:

[cadence90]

This is really off topic for this thread, but I understand all your arguments. Unfortunately, I've also had to travel for business out of state as well as care for a parent in the hospital on election day so getting to a polling station 60 miles away would have been impossible. I also used to have a significant enough commute that voting in person was very difficult and I never knew when I'd be caught in a meeting and traffic. I started voting absentee a long time ago so that I could always know that I voted - even if it meant a postal postal worker could send the envelope into the abyss. Living in Oregon just means it is even easier for me.

And there are a heck of a lot of people in Eastern Oregon a long, long way from polling station locations.

How about just limiting what the campaigners can spend? They aren't visiting the sparsely populated rural areas anyway.
Not OT at all. Those reasons are all very legitimate, and you're a responsible person.
It's the "flunkies" I worry about, but they would be under any process.
Maybe mail-in is a better system. I honestly hadn't thought (living in LA) about the huge distances in many states.

I had a good friend who lived as a sheep rancher way out of Yoncalla...I'm sure any polling place was miles and miles (more than 60 for sure) away. Not that it was close (and this is OT), but I loved Coos Bay.

I guess one could limit campaign financing; the reason as I understand it is that the campaigns feel forced to begin their operations, etc. much earlier in order to get their message out to early voters = spend more money (not only in OR obviously).

[Geoff]

Yes, I understand that....what I don't see, is why would he want those features accentuated in this type of debate. When voting for someone, it's important to me that the person, not only be able to fill the cognitive needs, plus be able to deal with the physical demands of the position.

Huh? I'm pretty sure the job description does not incould being able to lift 50 lbs or any such physical requirements. Both canidates have undergone the required health screening. This just sounds discrimitory. Also what evidence do you have that he cant fill teh physical demands of the office? Nobody seemd to mine when FDR was in a wheel chair, but that was a well kept secret for some time.

[johnnymossville]

physical demands?

When JFK wasn't juiced on pain pills he was on crutches. How old was he?

[jhcakilmer]

You guys really aren't comparing our contemporary candidates to FDR, and JFK........are ya?

Plus, yes....physical health should come into play when voting for a president. Since if that individual become incapacitated it's kind of hard to fulfill his job, and promises he made during his campaign.

It was always a question, during Regan's elections, so why wouldn't it be now?

Also, how is it discriminatory, to consider the totality of a candidate? Mental, physical, etc?? Technically, we're only electing a president, the VP wasn't our choice, and I'd like to be reasonable confident that he will make it through the term.

You really have to look at everything when making a decision this important!

[Tobias]

One last zenish thought - when is it media bias and when is it common sense? ......snipped.......

When Campbell Brown stated that Palin wasn't ready for the job she was echoing the thoughts of tens of thousands of viewers. It's a good question and thought. Is she ready. To not ask is biased in one direction and to ask is biased in another. It's a lose-lose.Dave, great point, but I’d have to first differentiate between common sense, the truth, and being right as they affect bias.

For me it’s difficult because they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For instance, if the media reports only the truth that supports their particular ideology, it doesn’t make it wrong or false, but it is bias. If they ridicule Palin for making a mistake but intentionally don’t do the same for Obama, they may be right, correct, reporting the truth, but IMHO are still biased.

To complicate things far more than that, there is the subtle bias that only media (beyond reporters) can utilize; and I’m not sure we’d even know or notice. An example would be to play on the emotions of the American people – again if meant and timed to support their ideology. I have to question whether the timing of the release of the upcoming movie of a young black man who wins the Heisman Trophy wasn’t timed to help Obama. Whether the movie is good or not is of no consequence. However, if I were in their shoes and wanted to influence the electorate I’d release it this week. Why? Because it shows a poor black man struggling against all odds. That’s a very strong message yet it has nothing to do on whether Obama is qualified or not. In that sense I see it as media bias (sorry but I don’t believe timing was a coincidence).

And then there are all the movie star and entertainment types who push their personal agenda --like Madonna, Sheppard, Goldberg, etc... -- who are going after Palin even though she is a woman. Why does it seem that entertainment is dominated by Democrats? I know there are Republicans too, but why don’t we hear more from them? If as outspoken are they blackballed to a greater degree? If so, that would be an internal bias within Hollywood that would be near transparent.

And then there is the equivalent of reverse discrimination in TV to correct past mistakes. A few years back they agreed to portrait minorities on TV shows as more intelligent, successful, and far more capable. And that’s a very good thing, provided it’s not overdone or abused. So if a show like 24 has a black president who is “perfect” for lack of a better word, and then follows it with a white corrupt and mean-spirited president, are they sending a subliminal message?

OK, so much for conspiracy theories.

[goonster]

vote by mail would seem to fall into your category of voters who are too lazy to go to a polling station.

Some polling stations in Ohio had lines that were hours long in '04.

Those voters were, in effect, punished for voting in person that year.

[goonster]

did you guys see where ACORN in Vegas fraudulently signed up voters using Dallas Cowboys starters?

No, I didn't see that.

However, I did hear the interview with David Iglesias (former NM U. S. Attorney), who despite intense political pressure to prosecute voter fraud and despite investigating ACORN in particular, found no evidence of systematic voter fraud.

It's a non-issue. The premise, which everyone hints at but noones dares to speak out loud in public, is that thousands of undocumented aliens are voting illegally. There is simply no evidence that they are. Undocumented immigrants keep as low a profile as possible, and registering to vote is not part of the m.o. I have friends who are poll workers, and they do not perceive this to be a real problem.

[SadieKate]

And then there are all the movie star and entertainment types who push their personal agenda --like Madonna, Sheppard, Goldberg, etc... -- who are going after Palin even though she is a woman. Why does it seem that entertainment is dominated by Democrats? I know there are Republicans too, but why don’t we hear more from them? If as outspoken are they blackballed to a greater degree? If so, that would be an internal bias within Hollywood that would be near transparent.And yet, California has managed to elect two Republican actors to play governors.

[RPS]

No, I didn't see that.The use of famous football players’ names that so many know seemed stupidly funny to me – that was it. Many reports like this one over the last two days.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hvb0LfZQ5mY-X8PYSvYxTe3QGgdgD93LVDS80

It's a non-issue. The premise, which everyone hints at but noones dares to speak out loud in public, is that thousands of undocumented aliens are voting illegally.Since you bring this up: I happen to disagree -- fraud is too common. There is conclusive proof that many are registered to vote and the government knows about it, but they just can’t or won’t do anything about it. I wish I could tell you the specifics of how I know but I can’t. I can only say that it is due to random sampling of registered voters due to a process not related to voting. I’m sure you can figure it out yourself.

BTW, I'm an immigrant myself so I don't have an ax to grind on this.

[RPS]

And yet, California has managed to elect two Republican actors to play governors.Neither were very good actors, so by default they made better governors. ;)

[goonster]

I'm an immigrant myself so I don't have an ax to grind on this.

Same here.

I wish I could tell you the specifics of how I know but I can’t. I can only say that it is due to random sampling of registered voters due to a process not related to voting.

Do tell. Surely this process is a matter of public record. I thought perhaps you meant juror summonsing, but that can't be it.

[1centaur]

When Campbell Brown stated that Palin wasn't ready for the job she was echoing the thoughts of tens of thousands of viewers. It's a good question and thought. Is she ready. To not ask is biased in one direction and to ask is biased in another. It's a lose-lose.dave

She should have asked, once or twice. When she asks 5 times in 5 minutes (the grillee eventually prefaced his 4th response with, "no matter what you wish the answer to be, Campbell") when it's clear she would never take that approach to Obama's lack of experience, that's bias; she wanted the viewers to walk away thinking "wow, Palin has no experience."

She could have said Palin seems like a breath of fresh air and at least had executive experience unlike Obama and been echoing tens of thousands of viewers as well. That's not journalism, however. Last I knew, journalism school was supposed to drill into its students the who, what, where, when, why and how routine. I took a class in high school in which one of the assignments was reading the front page of the Boston Globe to find indications of bias (BTW this was with a liberal teacher in one of the most liberal towns in America - Amherst, MA). Once that is your intellectual task, the reality is overwhelming - there were very few stories that did not have the writer's own views expressed through adjectives that simply did not need to be there to convey the story. If those adjectives reflect your views, you may not see bias.

I agree that everyone is biased. Where we may disagree is that I think there's a professional journalistic approach that can be learned that takes seriously the goal of removing the bias from the job. I find that professionalism seriously lacking among most, but not all, journalists in the mainstream media. I think the populace will employ the wisdom of crowds to figure out what's real and important without being steered by the guy on the TV. In fact, I think the crowds will do better if the are not being steered.

[Viper]

Neither were very good actors, so by default they made better governors. ;)

I wouldn't be surprised to see Ahnuld in a Cabinet-level position for a President O'bama. Environment Czar or some Financial Reform Task Force. Seriously.

[David Kirk]

She should have asked, once or twice. When she asks 5 times in 5 minutes (the grillee eventually prefaced his 4th response with, "no matter what you wish the answer to be, Campbell") when it's clear she would never take that approach to Obama's lack of experience, that's bias; she wanted the viewers to walk away thinking "wow, Palin has no experience."

She could have said Palin seems like a breath of fresh air and at least had executive experience unlike Obama and been echoing tens of thousands of viewers as well. That's not journalism, however. Last I knew, journalism school was supposed to drill into its students the who, what, where, when, why and how routine. I took a class in high school in which one of the assignments was reading the front page of the Boston Globe to find indications of bias (BTW this was with a liberal teacher in one of the most liberal towns in America - Amherst, MA). Once that is your intellectual task, the reality is overwhelming - there were very few stories that did not have the writer's own views expressed through adjectives that simply did not need to be there to convey the story. If those adjectives reflect your views, you may not see bias.

I agree that everyone is biased. Where we may disagree is that I think there's a professional journalistic approach that can be learned that takes seriously the goal of removing the bias from the job. I find that professionalism seriously lacking among most, but not all, journalists in the mainstream media. I think the populace will employ the wisdom of crowds to figure out what's real and important without being steered by the guy on the TV. In fact, I think the crowds will do better if the are not being steered.

I think that we for the most part agree. I think that everyone, no matter how well trained or how self controlled will be biased or at a minimum will appear to be biased. To expect that we can ever have a non-biased media is a pipe dream so I wonder what we do to minimize the bias and to make it so more folks can buy into what we are being told by the media.

I grew up watching Uncle Walter Cronkite and it might have just been that I was too young to notice a bias but my gut feeling is that most would have been fine having him moderate a debate and to not make one camp cry foul.

In the end for me this is a very disappointing deal and the situation as it is is unacceptable and at the same time totally understandable.

dave

[1centaur]

BTW, after all the teeth gnashing about the Obama book from the VP debate moderator, I thought she was a very neutral presence. In fact, even though I would say all four moderators are clearly liberal, we are 3 for 3 on pretty neutral performances. They are showing the kind of performance that is possible. I would also put Tom Brokaw in the league of those who did a good job being relatively neutral in the anchor chair over the years.

[93legendti]

I would say you pose a tough question here and likely the stumbling block of my grand plan.

One thing I always think about - biased is in the eye of the beholder. I listen to NPR and they seem pretty much toward the center to me and when I watch Fox news they seem very far right and when I watch Keith Oberman he seems far left to me. I seriously doubt that many agree with me on this. If you watch and like Fox I doubt you'll think that they are biased to the right, you'll think they are the center and "correct" and so on.

To me it always seems to me like folk cry bias when their guy gets asked a tough question and they think it's normal when they get thrown a softball. Nature of the beast I think.

How about this? The guys that run the debate ask the public to submit questions and state if they are registered as a red guy, a blue guy or a independent guy. They put all the red questions in a red hat, all the blue in a blue and and so on. The they all sit down and the moderator pulls equal numbers of blind questions from the hats and reads them to the candidates. There will of course be some wackjob questions but there are american wackjobs so that stands to reason. The two things the moderator needs to do are pull the questions from the colored hats and keep the candidates on task. If they stray from the answer their mike gets shut off and the move on to the next candidate. I can guarantee that they wouldn't have their precious mikes cut more that once.

Pie in the sky I know but one can dream of the day when we have a true democratic process.

dave
3 debates:
The Dem candidate picks a moderator for 1 debate. The Repub candidate picks a moderator for 1 debate. The 2 moderators pick the moderator for the 3rd debate. This is much like the AAA system for picking arbitrators.

[David Kirk]

BTW, after all the teeth gnashing about the Obama book from the VP debate moderator, I thought she was a very neutral presence. In fact, even though I would say all four moderators are clearly liberal, we are 3 for 3 on pretty neutral performances. They are showing the kind of performance that is possible. I would also put Tom Brokaw in the league of those who did a good job being relatively neutral in the anchor chair over the years.


Agreed. The issue from my lazyboy is not only have the moderators been non-biased but they have also been very hands off and not done much in the way of "moderating". In a way the two things go hand in hand I suspect. If the moderator chides Obama for not answering a question he might get crap from being biased against him so it appears to me that for the sake of appearances the moderators just keep the chair from floating away.

I'd love to see a moderator say something like - "that's all very interesting Mr. Senator but it doesn't address the question - would you care to actually address the question?"

I won't hold my breath for that one.

dave

[RPS]

I won't hold my breath for that one.Even if biased we can still learn from the debates if we read between the lines to “guess” what they are really thinking.

An example that comes to mind (because he has repeated it many times) is Obama’s reference to his mother dying of cancer and having to argue with the insurance company. It was undoubtedly very emotional and painful for him, and to retell it must have been difficult, but his wording suggested to me that he may think insurance policies should be open-ended. Obviously we all want everyone to have health insurance and unlimited medical care (that’s a given), but it would have been nice for someone to have asked at what point does coverage end based on a policy – or a legal contract. And if we are not going to abide by contracts, why have them?

I often see in the news those who claim foul and want their home covered for flood damage when they didn’t pay premiums for flood insurance – or something very similar. If in dire financial situation they often appeal to the media to fight the greedy insurance companies on their behalf, and it normally works because people generally feel sorry for them. Sometimes insurance had it coming, but mostly coverage was not included in the policy. But the critical underlying issue to resolve is simply whether we are going to honor contracts or not – that’s the real issue for me. That we should all have health insurance is a given, but will Obama want those who didn’t pay premiums to receive the same exact coverage? He didn’t specifically address that issue but I can “guess” what the answer is. Since I don’t need a direct answer, I feel debates are not a total waste of time. Biased or not.


BTW: Health insurance is too complex and expensive to have an answer I like. Obama's and McCain's plans are just as big a mystery to me.

[Climb01742]

I'd love to see a moderator say something like - "that's all very interesting Mr. Senator but it doesn't address the question - would you care to actually address the question?"

for me, that's biggest thing missing. some way, if one exists, for making the candidates actually answer the question. barring that, simply making it painfully clear they're ducking the answer. truth may be the first casualty of war, but it sure gets wounded in debates.

[SadieKate]

Ifill's comments about her ability to direct the candidates to answer the questions are at the end of this video following a bit on the latest SNL skit.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27034267#27034267

[Tobias]

for me, that's biggest thing missing. some way, if one exists, for making the candidates actually answer the question. barring that, simply making it painfully clear they're ducking the answer. truth may be the first casualty of war, but it sure gets wounded in debates.What many are asking for here is not only the truth, but specifics on matters of fact. And that would be political suicide. Politicians are as broad and vague intentionally so they have room to maneuver and wiggle around later as needed. It’s the only way they can start at one extreme of their own party to get the nomination, move to the center to get elected, and then be themselves afterwards. I don't see how they will ever answer questions directly.

If both McCain and Obama were specific at all, they would undoubtedly contradict many things they claimed during the primaries. And computer-aided fact checkers would be all over them in a second.

[johnnymossville]

We all know about the lawyer and politician ducking and dodging that goes on, that's nothing new. A good lawyer/politician can make his client and jury believe just about anything with some well spoken words. This is why the "content of one's character," that is, stuff like past associates, the church he chooses to belong to, financial backers, previous jobs, experience, friends and biography (not just autobiographies) matter when deciding, for me anyway. They've gotta be an open book. All those things together form our opinions and hunches about a person better than what some "journalist's" spin does.

That "Content of one's Character" like King said back in the 60's matters to me more than how well a guy reads a speech from a teleprompter that was at least partially written by handlers. Where he stands on issues I cherish are important also, but with those he also needs the support of congress, the courts, and a majority of the people of the USA on election day at least. Hopefully those roadblocks balance out any stupid ideas and radical tendencies (right or left) he may have. That's why whatever you say or how you feel about Bush, he really didn't do much without the willing majority consent of all parties, branches of government and the voters. We got what we asked for there. Good and Bad. Deal with it.

But hey, what do I know? not much. One thing for sure, we live in interesting times.

[Climb01742]

if the market keeps going south, what will any president be able to do? interesting times, indeed.

guess i picked the wrong week to give up sniffing glue. :rolleyes:

[Tobias]

if the market keeps going south,...snipped....Climb, a prime example of why I avoid playing Monday morning quarterback.

Had congress not passed the rescue plan, what would be saying today? Who knows? Maybe things would have been better than they are today, or maybe worse. Either way it’s best to accept the present and move on.

[1centaur]

The logic behind the rescue plan still holds, but its effects will come too late for what's now happening. I could give you some very scary scenarios for the next few weeks that are not at all unlikely.

Underneath it all, let's say every major bank in the western world was nationalized. Would they then lend to each other? I think so. Would they lend to companies, knowing they themselves were not going to be bankrupt? I think so. If banks were lending again and were in no danger of going bankrupt, would investors return to the markets? I think so.

We are seeing a form of delayed panic, but humans are physically incapable of continuous panic. I think we'll feel a lot better in a few months, and maybe a lot worse somewhere along the way. A Friday in October before a G8 meeting would be an interesting time to send a signal to the folks who are going to decide this thing.

[Climb01742]

nationalizing banks seems a likely scenario. hard to see how else commercial paper starts flowing again.

and i wonder if all credit default swaps will just be declared null and void?

[1centaur]

Been wondering about CDS lately. When Lehman was on the edge traders were called in over the weekend to find offsetting trades in a "netting" session and very few were found. I suspect a lot of counterparties are just fine (JP Morgan, for example), and I don't like the idea of tearing up contracts between two parties that remain willing and able to perform. That said, does anyone know how many write-offs would have to be taken if 20% of the counterparties could not perform? Also, if you are long a cash instrument and short CDS and the CDS goes away, do you just sell the cash instrument (yet more unwelcome selling pressure)? Plenty of questions, not enough time, just have to make a stab at the solution and muddle through. Deal with unintended and unexpected consequences later.

Sorry to those who don't like the inside baseball, but since climb asked... :)

[Climb01742]

isn't the value of outstanding CDS in the very big trillions (as if there was a small trillion)? don't they dwarf other liabilities, hence their weapons-of-mass-destruction-ness?

BTW, what's your take on buffet as SofT?

[1centaur]

The trillions are in the big range but probably double counted - buys and sells counted as two rather than a net zero. Those trillions make me think canceling them is impracticable.

WB seems an unlikely Treasury secretary - too little patience for the politics - but he could be a special adviser and have the same halo effect.

[goonster]

isn't the value of outstanding CDS in the very big trillions

I've heard 60 trillion total.

It still seems nuts to me that you could buy "insurance" for a bond you didn't own, but what do I know . . .

[Tobias]

We are seeing a form of delayed panic, but humans are physically incapable of continuous panic. I think we'll feel a lot better in a few months, and maybe a lot worse somewhere along the way.I hope you are right, but when the Nikkei is down over 10 percent thus far today, it's hard to see how this can keep going for even a week or two.

Also just read where states like California are starting to have problems meeting their short-term obligations.

[Joellogicman]

the dearth of intellectuals in modern politics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?th&emc=th

[Climb01742]

i say this as half, but only half, of a joke: at what point does china, or middle east SWF, simply buy a sizeable chunk of america? right now, the u.s. is at a 40% discount.

[michael white]

i say this as half, but only half, of a joke: at what point does china, or middle east SWF, simply buy a sizeable chunk of america? right now, the u.s. is at a 40% discount.

yeah, well, it's hard to joke about . . . catastrophic failure throughout the economy. Auto market will definitely collapse; I've read articles predicting that would happen next year anyway, so it's pretty clear not all the Big 3 will survive. The old saying, as goes GM, so goes America? It's happening. The big picture this time just seems really, really big.

[Ray]

yeah, well, it's hard to joke about . . . catastrophic failure throughout the economy. Auto market will definitely collapse; I've read articles predicting that would happen next year anyway, so it's pretty clear not all the Big 3 will survive. The old saying, as goes GM, so goes America? It's happening. The big picture this time just seems really, really big.
And as with the financial crisis, its damn hard to feel sorry for those making the decisions at the top. Its the US automakers addiction to trucks and SUVs and inability/unwillingness to change that has them at the brink. Just as with predatory lenders and all of the financial tricksters in the financial markets. And folks at the bottom are also totally complicit in both. TAKING loans they couldn't afford and continuing to BUY trucks and SUVs, creating the market. But its the folks at the bottom who really end up getting screwed. Maybe something leaner and meaner and better will come out of this at the other end. But in the meantime, how many hundreds of thousands will be on the streets without jobs or places to live? Can our society even survive something like that again? I've never seen it, so I can't pretend to know. But it frightens the hell out of me. More for my kids than myself, but for myself and all of us as well.

-Ray

[CNY rider]

i say this as half, but only half, of a joke: at what point does china, or middle east SWF, simply buy a sizeable chunk of america? right now, the u.s. is at a 40% discount.

Discount to what? :confused:

[Joellogicman]

And as with the financial crisis, its damn hard to feel sorry for those making the decisions at the top. Its the US automakers addiction to trucks and SUVs and inability/unwillingness to change that has them at the brink. Just as with predatory lenders and all of the financial tricksters in the financial markets. And folks at the bottom are also totally complicit in both. TAKING loans they couldn't afford and continuing to BUY trucks and SUVs, creating the market. But its the folks at the bottom who really end up getting screwed. Maybe something leaner and meaner and better will come out of this at the other end. But in the meantime, how many hundreds of thousands will be on the streets without jobs or places to live? Can our society even survive something like that again? I've never seen it, so I can't pretend to know. But it frightens the hell out of me. More for my kids than myself, but for myself and all of us as well.

-Ray

The mid-level luxury brands - Lexus, Infinity, Volvo (owned by Ford) are really sucking wind. Claims to the cotnrary, the US market was not really willing to spend for quality, rather it was willing to tap fictional equity in its homes for quality.

I understand Porsche is still doing alright. I wonder how the drop in oil prices will effect the willingness of the Russian, Saudi and Venezuelan tycoons to spend on Porsches and other ultra-expensive brands?

The sunny side to this is maybe more people will begin to see the light - A lifestyle that requires people to drive tens of thousands of miles a year isn't just environmentally unsound. It is financially unsustainable.

[goonster]

I understand Porsche is still doing alright.

Porsche is poised to assume complete control of VW, so that'll take care of that. ;)

[Tobias]

the dearth of intellectuals in modern politics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?th&emc=thI think you are right; the article describes us as a forum community fairly well, and also the US for the most part. If correct (and I happen to believe it is) the Democratic Party seems to have both ends of society locked up – the rich elite and the very poor (which unfortunately includes too many minorities). And it does seem the Republican Party has been left with just a portion of the middle.

What I find most interesting to ponder is whether that split represents true conservative versus liberal states of mind (not necessarily political), and if so, to what degree does it affect the economy. My “gut” feeling (and I have no data on this whatsoever) is that much of the economic growth that was fueled by creative pie-in-the-sky reasoning (can we say building a house of cards?) based on genius mathematicians with PhDs from the elite Universities creating models that were not conservative enough, and at the other extreme also fueled by too many people buying everything possible on credit – also not very conservative behavior.

The majority here blames the present administration for the economic meltdown, but I wonder to what degree liberal behavior (regardless of party affiliation) should be held accountable. Additionally, I’m curious as to whether those who generally live a conservative lifestyle are hurting as much as those who live on the edge. Also, are conservative states hurting as badly as liberal ones?

[Joellogicman]

I think you are right; the article describes us as a forum community fairly well, and also the US for the most part. If correct (and I happen to believe it is) the Democratic Party seems to have both ends of society locked up – the rich elite and the very poor (which unfortunately includes too many minorities). And it does seem the Republican Party has been left with just a portion of the middle.

What I find most interesting to ponder is whether that split represents true conservative versus liberal states of mind (not necessarily political), and if so, to what degree does it affect the economy. My “gut” feeling (and I have no data on this whatsoever) is that much of the economic growth that was fueled by creative pie-in-the-sky reasoning (can we say building a house of cards?) based on genius mathematicians with PhDs from the elite Universities creating models that were not conservative enough, and at the other extreme also fueled by too many people buying everything possible on credit – also not very conservative behavior.

The majority here blames the present administration for the economic meltdown, but I wonder to what degree liberal behavior (regardless of party affiliation) should be held accountable. Additionally, I’m curious as to whether those who generally live a conservative lifestyle are hurting as much as those who live on the edge. Also, are conservative states hurting as badly as liberal ones?

Conservatism itself has changed. At one time Conservatives thought was closer or at least aspired to classic Lockean philosophy about personal accountability and sustaining oneself.

Many of today's conservatives today focus more on doctrinal religious thought and, to a lesser extent, a certain view of what it means to be an American. Financial and in many ways, personal accountability have become of lessor importance to a group whose talking points focus more on teaching evolution, defining marriage, restricting entertainment options, etc.

Don't know a complete answer to red state blue state economics. Many the states hardest hit by foreclosures are in the Southeast and Southwest. California is hard hit, but some of the worst foreclosure areas include the Central Valley, San Diego and Orange County, which until recently were reliably Republican, if not necessarily conservative.

With the exception of Michigan, the Midwest is the least hard hit by foreclosures. But that is more owing to the fact property values did not spiral in the Midwest the way they did on the coasts. Blue collar and back office white collar jobs in the Midwest are very hard hit. Even without foreclosures the Midwest does not have a lot to be thankful for right now.

[Onno]

The terms "conservative" and "liberal" are in practice now almost useless in reflecting actual categories. They make some sense only in specific contexts. There are too many different kinds of both as adjectives for people, political beliefs, economic policies, social and moral ideas, etc.

As an example of the confusion, I call myself liberal, but am conservative on plenty of issues, including financially, which I take to mean a regulated market, minimal deficits, and so on.

[Ray]

I think you are right; the article describes us as a forum community fairly well, and also the US for the most part. If correct (and I happen to believe it is) the Democratic Party seems to have both ends of society locked up – the rich elite and the very poor (which unfortunately includes too many minorities). And it does seem the Republican Party has been left with just a portion of the middle.

What I find most interesting to ponder is whether that split represents true conservative versus liberal states of mind (not necessarily political), and if so, to what degree does it affect the economy. My “gut” feeling (and I have no data on this whatsoever) is that much of the economic growth that was fueled by creative pie-in-the-sky reasoning (can we say building a house of cards?) based on genius mathematicians with PhDs from the elite Universities creating models that were not conservative enough, and at the other extreme also fueled by too many people buying everything possible on credit – also not very conservative behavior.

The majority here blames the present administration for the economic meltdown, but I wonder to what degree liberal behavior (regardless of party affiliation) should be held accountable. Additionally, I’m curious as to whether those who generally live a conservative lifestyle are hurting as much as those who live on the edge. Also, are conservative states hurting as badly as liberal ones?
It seems to me that same "creative pie-in-the-sky reasoning (can we say building a house of cards?) based on genius mathematicians with PhDs from the elite Universities" that had a hand in the financial mess are also responsible for some of the great technological innovations of the last half century. I don't think the ability to think creatively, to get outside of the box, and solve problems is a liberal or conservative trait. In my professional life, some of the best and worst people I worked for and with were liberals. And some of the best and worst were also conservatives. We tended to only disagree consistently on politics.

I also don't think there's a liberal or conservative "lifestyle". I'm a liberal politically (by current standards - I used to be a centrist), but I live one of the most conservative lifestyles of anyone you'd ever want to meet. I played around and experimented as a kid, but well within the mainstream of the people I grew up around in a solidly middle-class neighborhood in a very red state. My lifestyle now would bore many people to death. I'm very nearly debt free and live well within my means. I have a glass of wine with dinner sometimes and an occasional beer - that's about as hard as I ever party anymore. I've been faithful to one woman for better than 25 years now. I have two kids that were the central focus of our lives while they were at home - nothing is more important to me than family. I've driven faster than the speed limit from time to time, but that's probably about as wild as I ever get anymore.

I know plenty of liberals who live a lot like I do and plenty of conservatives who live like that too. I also know plenty of both liberals and conservatives who live on the edge in all sorts of ways, financially, socially, you name it. I think Obama was basically right in his 2004 speech that the differences between red and blue America are overstated and that there are plenty of religious folks in blue states, plenty of gays in red states, etc, etc, etc. But its easy to pull out the ideological differences and use them to divide and polarize the electorate.

I think what has caused the current economic problems is a fundamental human trait. Greed. Ideologically I think greed is a somewhat more conservative idea to the extent that 'each guy for himself' tends to encourage it more than 'we need to look out for each other'. But in practice, its not a conservative or liberal trait - people from all over the political spectrum fall victim to it - we probably just rationalize it differently. Gordon Gecko said greed was good. I suppose it can be up to an extent in that it helps fuel innovation and creativity. But it obviously has its downsides when people start believing you can get something for nothing. We've been, collectively, getting way too much for way too little for way too long. And found all sorts of new and creative ways to play with the numbers to build that house of cards. Gravity is asserting itself, as it tends to.

In my worst moments, I fear for the social implications of a major economic dislocation. In my best moments, I think it might be a great opportunity for our society to learn to pull together and get by with less (which we're going to have to do one way or another). And, of course, I hope it doesn't get too seriously bad, regardless of what it leads to. But I don't think it was caused by liberal or conservatives and it doesn't affect liberals or conservatives more or less. I think we're all in it together, whether we want to be or not.

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

As an example of the confusion, I call myself liberal, but am conservative on plenty of issues, including financially, which I take to mean a regulated market, minimal deficits, and so on.

The rap has been that liberal presidents support profligate spending.

Reality suggests otherwise.

FDR ran up deficits, but was dealing first with a huge drop in government income and trying to save the economy. The latter part of his presidency saw the expense of WWII. However, unlike later war time presidents, FDR got the entire nation behind the war effort, encouraging rationing, victory gardens, voluntarism, etc.

The Kennedy administration ran a minor deficit - and smaller than under Ike.

Johnson ran up a deficit, but not for his Great Society push. Rather, Johnson feared asking the tax payers to foot the bill for Viet Nam would push them to join the anti-war demonstrators.

Carter ran a deficit as well. But the economy, still smarting from buried Viet Nam expenses saw both recession and inflation. In any event, his deficits were paltry compared to Reagan and Bush the First.

Clinton actually balanced the budget at the end of his term. (although the national debt remained quite high).

On the other hand, Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, and the champion deficiter of all, GW, were very happy to prepare budgets that spent far more than came in.

[Spinner]

With the exception of Michigan, the Midwest is the least hard hit by foreclosures. But that is more owing to the fact property values did not spiral in the Midwest the way they did on the coasts. Blue collar and back office white collar jobs in the Midwest are very hard hit. Even without foreclosures the Midwest does not have a lot to be thankful for right now.

Other data suggests that Ohio and Indiana are in nearly the same boat as Michigan, with these additional states having an industrial base that essentially mirrors that of MI.

[michael white]

I And it does seem the Republican Party has been left with just a portion of the middle



I would say that most of us liberals on this forum would rank somewhere in the middle. Like myself.

And: in a breakdown of the free world, you look to the leader of the free world, and his party, and what they can do to help.

We can worry about categories later.

best,
mw

[Joellogicman]

Other data suggests that Ohio and Indiana are in nearly the same boat as Michigan, with these additional states having an industrial base that essentially mirrors that of MI.

https://www.totalbankruptcy.com/bankruptcy-articles-american-mortgage-foreclosure-market-turmoil.htm

Sometime in earlier '08.

You are correct, Ohio is there. Indiana is not. Maybe the overall lower population keeps it out.

Interesting the article mentions flipping, but not poor people helped by the government into homes.

Here in Chicago the Sheriff has gone so far as to stop evicting on foreclosures because most of the eviction requests are for owners who invested in properties hoping to flip them and leased the property out to innocent tenants while waiting for housing prices to go up.

When the price went down, the owners simply stopped paying the mortgage. Meantime the tenant has no idea the house is being put into foreclosure until the sheriff's deputies come knocking. Suffice to say it comes as something of a shock for a tennant current on the rent to suddenly learn they have to hit the streets.

[Ray]

Here in Chicago the Sheriff has gone so far as to stop evicting on foreclosures because most of the eviction requests are for owners who invested in properties hoping to flip them and leased the property out to innocent tenants while waiting for housing prices to go up.

When the price went down, the owners simply stopped paying the mortgage. Meantime the tenant has no idea the house is being put into foreclosure until the sheriff's deputies come knocking. Suffice to say it comes as something of a shock for a tennant current on the rent to suddenly learn they have to hit the streets.
My daughter rents a house with a bunch of other college kids. They had just paid their first/last/deposit and gotten settled in last month when someone came by from the IRS and told them that their landlord was forfeiting the house for tax fraud, the IRS was going to be their new landlord and they needed to send all future rent payments to them. Sounded like a hell of a scam for a college neighborhood to me, but they checked it out and it was legit. The IRS took the house in lieu of back-taxes and, since nobody can SELL a house right now, they've evidently just hired a bunch of property managers to keep renting them out so they have SOME money coming in on them. Pretty wild out there. This wasn't even a foreclosure but it probably would have turned into one if the IRS hadn't gotten there first. I hope she gets her security deposit back. Better for everyone than just evicting them, in any case. I'm surprised more lenders aren't doing the same thing on rental properties - they'd recover a little bit anyway.

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

I'm surprised more lenders aren't doing the same thing on rental properties - they'd recover a little bit anyway.

-Ray

The explanation I have read is private lenders are afraid of liability issues from taking on tenants. Easier to manage the house empty than with people paying rent. Possibly the IRS is legally immune from claims for not keeping the house in good condition or should the tenants or a guest get hurt somehow.

Given many landlords manage to profit, legal requirements notwithstanding, it seems the lenders could figure this out if they tried. The only other option is to sell the property at a fraction of the mortgage amount to someone who most likely will rent it out.

[93legendti]

...I'm surprised more lenders aren't doing the same thing on rental properties - they'd recover a little bit anyway.

-Ray
Ray, that's what we're doing in Detroit (if I understand your post). The rental market, at least for the homes I have taken back, is very good. I'm getting more in rental payments than I was in mortgage payments; the house is occupied and usually within 6 months the renter turns the month to month into a land contract and buys the property.

[rounder]

i say this as half, but only half, of a joke: at what point does china, or middle east SWF, simply buy a sizeable chunk of america? right now, the u.s. is at a 40% discount.

climb/1centaur, do you see a way out of this? two weeks ago, we were told by paulson et al that things were bad and we needed to have a bailout immediately because of an impending wordwide financial crisis. so far, they were right and it happened exactly as they predicted. the bailout passed, but you don't read that anything was actually done to avert the crisis. meanwhile, the market swings are wild (probably bin laden is laughing, but hoping that he is somehow getting screwed over this stuff.).

what happens if china/middle east decides to invest (buy shares of companies they like) in the us and take a significant or controlling interest in u.s. companies including financial, transportation, energy, etc.. just wondering. Thanks.

Thanks.

[Climb01742]

1centaur is far more qualified to answer than i am. not that anyone wants to buy GM -- though GM and chrysler are in possible merger talks -- it's sobering to think that the last time GM's market cap was this low was 1928.

the most likely next step in all this economic mess is, de facto nationalization of banks. which will pose a fascinating moment: it seems, economically, that steps makes sense (as much as anything makes "sense" these days) as a way to get commercial credit flowing again and LIBOR down. but philosophically and politically, how will nationalization play within our capitalist system? i was debating this yesterday with someone who works in finance and where we netted was: nationalization sucks...until you think of some of the alternatives. if one of the alternatives is a replay of the 1930s, what's the "right" action?

[Joellogicman]

Ray, that's what we're doing in Detroit (if I understand your post). The rental market, at least for the homes I have taken back, is very good. I'm getting more in rental payments than I was in mortgage payments; the house is occupied and usually within 6 months the renter turns the month to month into a land contract and buys the property.

Is many homes were bought by speculators with low or no money down loans during the property value run up over the last few years. The speculators hoped to sell the properties quickly and profit off the increased equity.

Some of the speculators figured the increased equity alone was not enough, so they also leased the property to third party tenants. When property values collapsed, these speculators just walked away from the loan.

The lender may try to talk about the loan with the speculator. The lender is not going to be talking about the loan with the tenant. The lender no doubt does not even know who the tenant is. If the talks with the speculator go no where, the lender moves to foreclose. Under Illinois law, foreclosure notices are only sent to the speculator. Again, the tenant is left in the lurch.

Once the foreclosure is complete, the lender then moves for possession of the property. It is only when the deputies come knocking that the tenants even learn their landlord was in trouble with the loan.

It sounds to me from what you are saying that you are working with original borrowers. Or otherwise Michigan law provides some way of determining who is actually in the property.

The courts in Illinois are trying to fix the problem.

[Ray]

Ray, that's what we're doing in Detroit (if I understand your post). The rental market, at least for the homes I have taken back, is very good. I'm getting more in rental payments than I was in mortgage payments; the house is occupied and usually within 6 months the renter turns the month to month into a land contract and buys the property.
Makes sense for people looking to own. Different situation in a college neighborhood with a bunch of rental properties (or a non-college rental neighborhood too). No potential buyer, so the lender has a choice to either take the property back and try to sell it in a market where nobody's buying, or hire a property manager to maintain the tenant base and at least keep some cash flowing on the property. Seems like an easy choice to me unless there's some legal restriction keeping them from doing it.

-Ray

[Joellogicman]

Makes sense for people looking to own. Different situation in a college neighborhood with a bunch of rental properties (or a non-college rental neighborhood too). No potential buyer, so the lender has a choice to either take the property back and try to sell it in a market where nobody's buying, or hire a property manager to maintain the tenant base and at least keep some cash flowing on the property. Seems like an easy choice to me unless there's some legal restriction keeping them from doing it.

-Ray

I do not think there would be a legal restriction for a lender to rent a property. At least in a jurisdiction like Chicago, however, landlord's have to meet fairly high standards.

Not saying every rental property in Chicago is great. They are not. But when you have a deep pocket land lord like a mortgage bank, they either have to do a stellar property management job or risk getting sued by tenants, tenant groups, and the Illinois Attorney General.

Most banks decide the risk is not worth the reward and opt instead to sell the properties to vulture funds and private investors. These funds and people may want tenants, but they usually don't want to be burdened by the existing tenant.

In any event, the Sheriff for Chicago is not saying the tenants ought to be allowed to stay in the property. He is just saying the system needs to make sure the tenants get plenty of notice they may have to move.