Media & 2008 US Election: Is Democracy at Risk?

[LordofDirT]

There are over 10 different parties in the 2008 presidential contest, yet only 2 parties are shown on television in general. Are we experiencing an undemocratic election? Especially in times of surprise and hardship, I feel that we as U.S. citizens should be given information on all the candidates. Without adequate information the citizens can not chose wisely and the republic fails.

 

[Evo]

There are over 10 different parties in the 2008 presidential contest, yet only 2 parties are shown on television in general. Are we experiencing an undemocratic election? Especially in times of surprise and hardship, I feel that we as U.S. citizens should be given information on all the candidates. Without adequate information the citizens can not chose wisely and the republic fails.

Mainstream tv stations don't give time to unelectable candidates. Having looked at what's out there, there is no one of interest, IMO.

 

[LordofDirT]

The reason the candidates are unelectable is because the media gives them no coverage.

 

[Astronuc]

Ron Paul did a press conference with Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin back on September 10 in Washington DC. Bob Barr was invited, but decided to his own thing. Barr wasn't interested in the other alternatives - only himself.

Third-Party Candidates Gather In Show Of Unity
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94481300
by Ari Shapiro

Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas convened the group. In the Republican presidential primaries, Paul raised millions of dollars on the Web and mobilized legions of young voters to his cause. He is now running for re-election to his seat in Congress, unopposed, as a Republican.
. . . .
There was one empty chair next to the other candidates, set aside for former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia. Barr is the Libertarian Party's candidate, and he decided to hold his own conference immediately after the unity event.

Barr told the audience at his press conference, "I'm not interested in third parties getting the most possible votes. I'm interested in Bob Barr as the nominee for the Libertarian Party getting the most possible votes."

 

[LordofDirT]

I didn't mean to make a blank statement, of course third parties get some coverage. But not nearly as much. If coverage of party A gets a hypothetical ratio of 1 to 100, with 50 and 50 split up among parties A and B. which ones have the greater chance to be elected?

I guess what really pissed me off was seeing only two parties in a presidential debate. I want to hear all views.

 

[Astronuc]

Well the alternatives haven't really sounded credible to independents or dems or reps.

Nader's ego keeps getting in his way.

Ron Paul had some wacky and over-simplistic ideas.

I haven't really payed much attention to the others - neither has the majority of the voting public.



Anyone - feel free to write me (Astronuc) in - as a protest vote!

 

[LordofDirT]

Well the alternatives haven't really sounded credible to independents or dems or reps.

However crazy they may be do you think its fair to to give air time to only two candidates? I think there's a very decisive team atmosphere developing in this country, or perhaps its always been here. The two teams are the republicans and the democrats, they hold the power because they are the media. Both sides are at a struggle to convince the american public to put their side in power. I think this destroys our republic.

If the information people receive is on the television, and the television is convincing people how to vote, they are not voting for themselves. Even if you disagree that this is happening, it is something that can happen in the future.

 

[vanesch]

There is something to say about this. In France for instance, the time dedicated to each presidential candidate (or to each party involved in a legislative vote) on national televisions (public and private) is measured and compared by an independent authority during a certain period before the elections:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000821359&dateTexte=

These times have to be equal within minutes.

 

[Art]

There is something to say about this. In France for instance, the time dedicated to each presidential candidate (or to each party involved in a legislative vote) on national televisions (public and private) is measured and compared by an independent authority during a certain period before the elections:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000821359&dateTexte=

These times have to be equal within minutes.

If every candidate had to be given equal air time in the US election there would be 100''s if not 1000's of candidates as every protest group or special interest group would field a candidate to get their views aired.

It would be impossible for the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

[vanesch]

If every candidate had to be given equal air time in the US election there would be 100''s if not 1000's of candidates as every protest group or special interest group would field a candidate to get their views aired.

It would be impossible for the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff.

That's foreseen, that's why candidates need 500 signatures from persons in public office (mayors, city counselors, members of parliament, ...) before they are accepted as a candidate. These don't need to be people from the candidate's party and they don't mean that they endorse the candidate, only that they consider him/her a "suitable" candidate to present himself/herself, exactly to avoid the above mentioned abuse.

 

[Borek]

That's foreseen, that's why candidates need 500 signatures from persons in public office (mayors, city counselors, members of parliament, ...) before they are accepted as a candidate. These don't need to be people from the candidate's party and they don't mean that they endorse the candidate, only that they consider him/her a "suitable" candidate to present himself/herself, exactly to avoid the above mentioned abuse.

In Poland it works similar, you need 100,000 signatures - but you are not limited to public persons. That's 100,000 out of around 38,000,000 population. Then you are given some amount of time on public TV and you can broadcast (almost) whatever you want. It works similar during Parliament elections, just the numbers (signatures, minutes) are different.

 

[vanesch]

These don't need to be people from the candidate's party and they don't mean that they endorse the candidate, only that they consider him/her a "suitable" candidate to present himself/herself, exactly to avoid the above mentioned abuse.

One could think that this is a bad idea as people would not get signatures from members of the established parties already. This turns out not to be true at all. In fact, left wing fringe candidates get easily signatures from moderate right wing persons (as they think that this will undermine the moderate left wing candidates), and vice versa.

 

[Benzoate]

Well the alternatives haven't really sounded credible to independents or dems or reps.

Nader's ego keeps getting in his way.

Ron Paul had some wacky and over-simplistic ideas.

I haven't really payed much attention to the others - neither has the majority of the voting public.
Anyone - feel free to write me (Astronuc) in - as a protest vote!

What oversimplistic ideas do you think Ron Paul has? Much of what Ron Paul says about how government ought to function greatly resonates with most of the public ; During those debates between the republicans , Ron Paul won a lot of those debates Removing all of are troops from different parts of the country is and not instigating wars overseas is oversimplistics? Reducing the size of government and eliminating failed federal programs like FEMA and eliminating IRS is oversimplistic? Having a foreign policy based only free trade is oversimplistic?!? He is the only candidate who has identified the root cause of why the prices of goods like gasoline are going up. All Obama and Mccain want to do is sustained are empire around the world and continued to reduced the value of the dollar. Ron Paul is the only candidate who realizes that we need to reduced are spending due to the debts we owe to other countries with the addition of our own debt we created;

Ron Paul generally sides with the public , unlike Obama and Mccain, Paul is one of the few candidates who sees this bailout as a bad idea just like much of the country. Noticed that the mainstream media is now paying attention to what Ron Paul is saying about are current financial crisis. Ron Paul has received many recognitions and awards from the prestigious austrian school of economics , So he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the Economy. MCcain even confessed in a debate he knows nothing about the economy.

 

[Evo]

What oversimplistic ideas do you think Ron Paul has? Removing all of are troops from different parts of the country is and not instigating wars overseas is oversimplistics? Reducing the size of government and eliminating failed federal programs like FEMA and eliminating IRS is oversimplistic? Having a foreign policy based only free trade is oversimplistic?!? He is the only candidate who has identified the root cause of why the prices of goods like gasoline are going up. All Obama and Mccain want to do is sustained are empire around the world and continued to reduced the value of the dollar. Ron Paul is the only candidate who realizes that we need to reduced are spending due to the debts we owe to other countries with the addition of our own debt we created;

Ron Paul generally sides with the public , unlike Obama and Mccain, Paul is one of the few candidates who sees this bailout as a bad idea just like much of the country. Noticed that the mainstream media is now paying attention to what Ron Paul is saying about are current financial crisis. Ron Paul has received many recognitions and awards from the prestigious austrian school of economics , So he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the Economy. MCcain even confessed in a debate he knows nothing about the economy.

Just look at his website and some of the nutty, IMO, things he's for. Ever listened to him answer questions from the public? He didn't know what global warming was, he did say he'd heard something about it. There is a very good reason he was pretty much ignored - people checked him out.

I haven't seen any mention of him in mainstream media since the novelty wore off ages ago.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

LordofDirT, are you complaining that third party candidates in general don't get coverage, or is there a particular one you have in mind. If so, are you going to vote for that candidate? One way to get the media to pay attention to your candidate is to vote for them. If you won't vote for them, why should you expect anyone else to do anything for them?

 

[quadraphonics]

However crazy they may be do you think its fair to to give air time to only two candidates?

Yes, considering that none of the other candidates have a chance of coming anywhere near winning. We have enough to worry about choosing between viable candidates without subjecting ourselves to hours of nonsense from kooks in the name of "fairness."

I think there's a very decisive team atmosphere developing in this country, or perhaps its always been here.

It has been around for many, many decades.

The two teams are the republicans and the democrats, they hold the power because they are the media.

No, they hold power because we employ a winner-take-all election system. This means that other parties have no chance of getting elected, and even if they somehow did, the two major parties would have a huge incentive to cooperate in marginalizing them.

The things that separate two-party systems from multi-party systems are much deeper, and more systemic, than media coverage. Countries with real multi-party systems typically employ parlaimentary systems, in which the government is necessarily formed by a coalition of parties. Votes are cast for parties, not candidates, and seats assigned to the parties in proportion to the votes they receive. The downside of such systems is that they are susceptible to gridlock, and that the government is at the mercy of any of the parties in the coalition, who can pull out and force elections at any time.

There are advantages to both types of democracy, but it's crucial to note that this stuff is designed into the Constitution explicitly. It is not driven by media coverage. Indeed, it predates modern media by a large span. The media simply reflects the realities of our electoral system, and forcing the media to act differently wouldn't accomplish anything but to waste everyone's time and money on marginal parties that are not relevant. If significant numbers of people were actually interested in Ron Paul or Ralph Nader, the major media would rush to cover them more. They are businesses, after all, not political operators. But the fact is that Americans, in general, are just not impressed with their ideas, and no amount of exposure is going to change that. These media conspiracy theories are simply a refuge for people who don't want to admit that the reason for the unpopularity of their ideas is that their ideas are bad.

Both sides are at a struggle to convince the american public to put their side in power. I think this destroys our republic.

Considering that this has been going on since the very beginning of our Republic, which happens to be the longest-standing republic on the face of the Earth, I don't think there's much evidence for that stance.

 

[Benzoate]

Just look at his website and some of the nutty, IMO, things he's for. Ever listened to him answer questions from the public? He didn't know what global warming was, he did say he'd heard something about it. There is a very good reason he was pretty much ignored - people checked him out.

I haven't seen any mention of him in mainstream media since the novelty wore off ages ago.

Oh really? I will post a list of recent clips of Ron Paul appearing on FOX news, the network that banned him from the debates. He is aware of Global Warming. He just doesn't think humans are completely responsible for the cause of global warming since many natural elements and phenomena contribute to the warming of the earth. Did you know in the 70's that scientists use to believe the Earth was heading towards another ice age. MCCAIN confessed he doesn't know how the economy works for crying out loud!




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlgByE1jDRA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4k-eMP_6zE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfUKZOHtRs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSNnembIJ_c&feature=related

And there are plenty more recent clips of Ron Paul speaking out on the presidential candidates and on the Bailout

 

[LordofDirT]

I support Obama, if anyone was wondering. Why would anyone assume I supported a third party simply because of my concern about fairness in the media?

 

[Benzoate]

I support Obama, if anyone was wondering. Why would anyone assume I supported a third party simply because of my concern about fairness in the media?

I never said you were supporting a third party candidate. Its glad to see someone who acknowledges other candidates that are not mainstream.

 

[LordofDirT]

I never said you were supporting a third party candidate. Its glad to see someone who acknowledges other candidates that are not mainstream.

Sodium, I'm assuming that's your first name, I wasn't talking about any of your posts.

I think people need to have a little more discussion on televisions effect on the proper functioning of a republic. Obviously television can be used to manipulate, otherwise advertisements would not be prosperous. I don't think it's a very big stretch to say that the media is manipulative also. News channels are like giant shadow advertisements for the two opposing political parties.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think people need to have a little more discussion on televisions effect on the proper functioning of a republic. Obviously television can be used to manipulate, otherwise advertisements would not be prosperous. I don't think it's a very big stretch to say that the media is manipulative also. News channels are like giant shadow advertisements for the two opposing political parties.

Any such discussion needs to be grounded in the actual effects of television, which you are inflating into a grand conspiracy. Isn't it possible that the "prosperity" of advertisements has to do with exposing people to information about products and services that they genuinely want in the first place? That's not to deny that there is also a "manipulative" effect at work, but I don't think that the success of advertisements, on its face, demonstrates much of anything very compelling about audience manipulation.

News agencies have an interest in people consuming more news. If they do anything to manipulate their audiences, it is to that end. They would sell both the major parties down the river in a heartbeat if they thought it would make them money; indeed, trashing the performance of said parties is a staple of many news programs.

 

[vanesch]

They are businesses, after all, not political operators.

One would not like to take the risk, would one ?

 

[Benzoate]

Any such discussion needs to be grounded in the actual effects of television, which you are inflating into a grand conspiracy. Isn't it possible that the "prosperity" of advertisements has to do with exposing people to information about products and services that they genuinely want in the first place? That's not to deny that there is also a "manipulative" effect at work, but I don't think that the success of advertisements, on its face, demonstrates much of anything very compelling about audience manipulation.

News agencies have an interest in people consuming more news. If they do anything to manipulate their audiences, it is to that end. They would sell both the major parties down the river in a heartbeat if they thought it would make them money; indeed, trashing the performance of said parties is a staple of many news programs.

What you must not realize is that most people who watched mainstream news are completely dissatisfied with what topics mainstream news covers. People only put up with mainstream news because for many, (mostly anyone above the age of 60) think that it is the only credible source to received their information .

The majority of americans want a third party candidate to received more airtime from the mainstream news media. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1336 ; I supposed that is why 50 % of americans don't vote. But the the newsmedia gives the two main presidential candidates the authority to say who is allowed to participate in the debates. That is why Ross Perot wasn't in the 1996 presidential debates because Dole didn't want Perot taking away any votes.

Luckily sometimes in the not so far distance future, the Internet will become people prominent source for receiving information about the third party candidates since the Big six news corporations will no longer be considered the gatekeepers of all information.

 

[SpecificHeat]

I didn't mean to make a blank statement, of course third parties get some coverage. But not nearly as much. If coverage of party A gets a hypothetical ratio of 1 to 100, with 50 and 50 split up among parties A and B. which ones have the greater chance to be elected?

I guess what really pissed me off was seeing only two parties in a presidential debate. I want to hear all views.

If in fact you really Do "want to hear all views," you are in the miniscule minority.
Most everyone wants to hear only their own view parroted by someone higher up the food chain. I believe this is particularly true of Democrats.

Now of course virtually every Democrat in America would disagree with that, but it rather proves the point of people NOT wanting to "hear all views."

Q.E. Almost D.

 

[quadraphonics]

What you must not realize is that most people who watched mainstream news are completely dissatisfied with what topics mainstream news covers.

Hardly. I do not watch TV news of any kind, for exactly that reason.

People only put up with mainstream news because for many, (mostly anyone above the age of 60) think that it is the only credible source to received their information .

If you say so. I stopped putting up with TV news ages ago. Not because it's a part of some bipartisan conspiracy, but simply because it's garbage.

The majority of americans want a third party candidate to received more airtime from the mainstream news media. http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1336

That link states that 56% of Americans want there to be a third party. It doesn't say anything, that I could find, about media coverage of non-mainstream parties.

But the the newsmedia gives the two main presidential candidates the authority to say who is allowed to participate in the debates.

It's not the news media that grants that authority, but the two-party system itself. If the media outlet hosting the debate won't go along with the conditions the major candidates suggest, then the major candidates will simply choose not to participate, and that will be it for the debate. If a third party were viable, major party candidates couldn't pull such a stunt, as the news media would happily hold the debate without them.

I might as well complain that the news media is conspiring to keep me down because they wouldn't permit me to debate the candidates, or even propose questions for them. But that's stupid: they're conspiring to make money, and there's no money in airing fringe nobodies. The reason the media doesn't treat third-party candidates like the equals of the major party candidates is because they manifestly are not equals.

And, again, all this complaining about TV is ignoring the fact that we've had a two-party system since the late 1700's, many decades before the invention of TV (or even anything resembling mass media as we know it). This conclusively demonstrates that the media are not the differentiating factor. Which, as I mentioned previously, is old news to every political scientist in the world. It's uncontroversial that winner-take-all election systems (like we have) favor two-party systems. Until you change the electoral structure of the US government, we're going to have a two party system, no matter what the media does.

 

[Benzoate]

Hardly. I do not watch TV news of any kind, for exactly that reason.



If you say so. I stopped putting up with TV news ages ago. Not because it's a part of some bipartisan conspiracy, but simply because it's garbage.



That link states that 56% of Americans want there to be a third party. It doesn't say anything, that I could find, about media coverage of non-mainstream parties.



It's not the news media that grants that authority, but the two-party system itself. If the media outlet hosting the debate won't go along with the conditions the major candidates suggest, then the major candidates will simply choose not to participate, and that will be it for the debate. If a third party were viable, major party candidates couldn't pull such a stunt, as the news media would happily hold the debate without them.

I might as well complain that the news media is conspiring to keep me down because they wouldn't permit me to debate the candidates, or even propose questions for them. But that's stupid: they're conspiring to make money, and there's no money in airing fringe nobodies. The reason the media doesn't treat third-party candidates like the equals of the major party candidates is because they manifestly are not equals.

And, again, all this complaining about TV is ignoring the fact that we've had a two-party system since the late 1700's, many decades before the invention of TV (or even anything resembling mass media as we know it). This conclusively demonstrates that the media are not the differentiating factor. Which, as I mentioned previously, is old news to every political scientist in the world. It's uncontroversial that winner-take-all election systems (like we have) favor two-party systems. Until you change the electoral structure of the US government, we're going to have a two party system, no matter what the media does.

Just because a presidential candidate is not running for the Democratic or Republican nomination does not make that candidate a nobody. Look, most republican and so called republicans are not satisfied with the nomination of Mccain and many columnists and political pundits want Palin to dropped out of the race , but yet Mccain receives all the attention from the News media. Most 3rd candidates aren't popular because they aren't funded by expensive political parties like the Grand Old Timers party and the DEMONCAT( Party. Polls showed that Ron Paul won most of the debates on FOX news. He received the most funds from supporters in one day, and he received most of the military funding at the time he was running for the Republican nomination.(Didn't know why he think he win the nomination). Yet Fox News does not invite him back to the debates.

And The media does have a strong influence on how people will vote, whether we like to admit it or not. You think people would know who Obama is if someone didn't point a camera in his direction? Its all about Public relations and Ron Paul had bad PR people. PR people advising Ron Paul would not have changed my support for Ron Paul , because unlike most people in this country, I look at the candidate who offers the best solutions to our current problems , and the candidate who is selective when it comes to which problems government should attack and which problems government should live alone. I don't care about what the candidate looks like, what college they attended , because college is overrated as American Idol, there are lots of brilliant people who never attended college and there are a lot of idiots who come out of college.; In fact, one of the founding fathers never finished elementary school and he was a polymath.

sorry for the pointless ramble , but this election is a joke! Presidential elections are overrated. I laugh out loud all the time when these presidential candidates purport that they are going to change the way Washington is run and how gov't works, but nothng ever changes. government spending increasing each presidential election cycle

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And The media does have a strong influence on how people will vote, whether we like to admit it or not. You think people would know who Obama is if someone didn't point a camera in his direction? Its all about Public relations and Ron Paul had bad PR people.

Obama had the camera put on him because he was 'new' and 'interesting'. The same happened with Ron Paul. So many people were in love with Ron Paul until they realized what a loon he is. I can't believe people still love him so much. If Ron Paul wasn't 'different' and 'interesting' and hadn't caught the media's eye do you think there would be nearly as many people that still wish he were running? He got his obligatory fifteen minutes.

 

[FrancisZ]

I have to level with you folks: I'm probably not voting Republican this election day. So far I have positive impressions of Obama (for the most part); and I want him to win. I think it would be good for the country, and I believe in him sincerely.

But that having been said, I still really do feel sorry for Palin. She certainly does not come across as being highly qualified by any measure; but then again--and maybe this is just me being cynical--there are very few politicians that I have ever encountered in my life, who are ever really qualified to do what we elect them to do either. Maybe it comes after getting your feet wet. I don't know.

To me: the one difference here being that they aren't somehow all subject to the same frequent pop quizzes that Ms. Palin has been as of late.

And I'm not saying of course that you shouldn't know where they stand, or how they react to pressure, or that they aren't well prepared. But maybe the media really just wants her to fail too.

It's to the point actually that it is entirely too painful for me to even watch--like somehow the passion of the Christ, when they are scourging Him, is somehow less gruesome to my eyes.

The media is just tearing this woman to shreds.

And I don't think it is fair, mainly for the reason that they aren't doing the same thing to all politicians, all of the time, who are also on the political stump. I just don't get that feeling anyway. It seems more esoteric.

Of course, you could argue, that this is really just desserts: the Democrats "revenge," so to speak, over that so-called "Obama inexperience" farce the Republicans were spewing out several weeks ago; and to which I agree entirely--they were unfair; it was b.s.; and I don't respect that sort of thing.

However, to be noted also: it still hasn't come to a rest for Palin yet; and the news media really seem to be piling onto her like no one before. Maybe Nixon.

I honestly do not take any joy at all, in seeing someone get hurt like this so repeatedly. Frankly, I think it's very cruel. Almost Roman even. I mean: my might as well feed her to the lions already, and get it over with.

Not to change the subject, but consider this for a moment: Martha Stewart...

In this case at least (the Palin case): I can't say that I really believe much that the media is sticking it to Palin, merely on account of the fact that she is a woman in a position of authority.

I do however sense that the news media has this sort of way of singling people out on occasion--and by a variety of means--whom they, frankly, do not like for one reason or another; and which may not necessarily be important to judging a personal worthiness, by any of the rest of our standards.

Certainly "they" (the Media) as mere humans, aren't above a degree of shallowness from time-to-time also. And as a consequence: they CAN very nearly end up deciding the American collective conscious impression of the person in question; albeit, rather unfairly.

Martha Stewart, to me at least, was an example that kind of cruel labeling.

You might recall she was in recent history, sentenced actually to serve time in prison for basically a whiter collar crime (insider trading). She did serve it; and even in spite of the fact, still has her own domestics pastimes television program.

But honestly--in your heart of hearts--did you really feel that she deserved it to go to prison. I haven't even seen her show

No, to me at least: she just deserved to be slapped with a major fine (and most likely got that anyway also).

But then compare the degree of what she had done, with someone like Bill Gates--who even further back in time, was once on trial for monopolizing softwares.

And the major difference there, in my humble opinion, is that he actually got away with it, while being just guilty of a white collar crime as Martha.

I've read testimony from that case: and he was basically strong-arming companies like Netscape, because they wouldn't play ball with him in Windows bundling packages. .

And yet still, somehow, has never been convicted of anything to my knowledge since.

Meanwhile, back in the day, I remember it was really looking for a while like they might actually break up Microsoft (al la the AT&T of 80's).

But no (and correct me if I am wrong): his case was actually thrown out of court on some kind of legal technicality--the judge was accused of basically being hurtful, mean, and biased; and there was possibly a mistrial of some sort thereafter.

And though, honestly, I could never want to see Bill Gates go to prison either (not that that would happen); just to take this back to the point I was originally trying to make: I really think that the honest-to-goodness reason ultimately, why someone like Martha Stewart got it stuck to her as badly as having to serve jail time--and while someone like Bill Gates gets off pretty much Scot free--is due almost entirely to the perception the public already had of her, as being someone very unlikeable to all of us somehow.

Martha was, by all accounts I've heard anyway (and why shouldn't we believe that? Nyah! ) a complete female dog-type lady-person; and Bill, on the other hand, was just sort of this benign windows toting nerd, that--just like any good American (being sarcastic again)--made his way in the world via that good old-fashioned yankee ingenuity we hear so much about.


Seriously. Remember how people deeply respected Bill Gates, even at the time. The man dropped out of Harvard, and still managed to become one of the wealthiest Americans ever to live. And that is admirable. But remember also that he (to a degree at least) still did something dishonest.

Martha Steward did something dishonest too; but a lot of people (oddly enough) still resented her even in spite of her very successful television show.

And so, I think (again) in her case at least (and not so much Palin's) that it might well gave been because she was merely the wrong gender to some people. That is the unique bias they had toward her at the time. Palin's bias is that the media merely considered her stupid.

Palin is NOT qualified to be "head of state," no; and neither was Bush. And they've called him stupid as well, as I recall.

But I what I don't remember (so please refresh my memory if possible) is when and where he was ever put up to as many of these pop quizzes that she has been getting decked with all month. If anything, they portrayed him as the "great memorizer."

The media can make or break a person. And I wish they'd stop it already.

 

[Benzoate]

Obama had the camera put on him because he was 'new' and 'interesting'. The same happened with Ron Paul. So many people were in love with Ron Paul until they realized what a loon he is. I can't believe people still love him so much. If Ron Paul wasn't 'different' and 'interesting' and hadn't caught the media's eye do you think there would be nearly as many people that still wish he were running? He got his obligatory fifteen minutes.

All you can say is Ron Paul is a 'loon' but I bet you can't give reasons to back up why he is a loon. Tell me what is SOOOOOO refreshing about Obama?

Obama is nothing new; He is about as refreshing as my birthmark The only reason people initially paid attention to him is because he is black(There , I said it!)He is indeed like all the other politicians in Washington: He is infact no different from John Kerry or Bill Clinton . 30 years ago, Carter suggested to the American people that they should inflate the treads of their tires to save energy ; All Ron Paul wants to do is balance are budget and cut spending drastically and we are at a time where government spending has reached its peak and it will do nothing but add more problems ; Mccain and Obama want to continue to increase spending ; Government isn't always the solution to solving all are problems . He is the mouthpiece of the American People. Our representatives don't represent anybody but their own interests. If they really did give a crap what the American public thought, they would not have passed a bill that would bailout these banks.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I never said that Obama's 'newness' and 'interest' didn't come from him being black. I'm actually quite certain that is the major reason he has gotten as much attention and support as he has. That and people being tired of the republicans in office (whether the perception of there being a difference is accurate doesn't matter, that's still the perception).

As far as Ron Paul goes I (as in I personally) think he is a loon for his desire to overturn Roe v Wade, pull out of NATO, pull out of the UN, dispose of the IRS, dispose of the Department of Education, and in short his focus on supposed "states rights" potentially taking us back to a collection of bickering and disparate colonies. We could go on all day and would need a seperatethread to really discuss these ideas though so I am just saying they are my personal opinion and my opinion is not entirely uninformed.

 

[quadraphonics]

Wow, this thread went on a wild jag...

I don't particularly like either of the parties, myself. But let's keep some perspective: the important thing in a democracy is to have more than one party. The rest is a matter of taste. As far as the two-party system goes, it's a direct consequence of the electoral system designed in the Constitution. So, we need to either change the Constitution (which is going to require a prolonged, widespread local and state movement towards parlaimentary systems) or accept it and move on.

Getting fired up once every four years and blaming a TV conspiracy for keeping your pet candidate out of the race isn't going to go anywhere. Even if we passed media access laws like they have in France, the most it would accomplish is to make the two parties a little more responsive to fringe party concerns. Which might be worthwhile, but, again it would be better to address the issue directly in terms of the election system.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Ron Paul

Thanks for the links to the Ron Paul stuff, Benzoate. I'd caught one of those interviews on the news and I wanted to hear more of what he was saying.

He brings up lots of good points that I wish were being discussed more, like the potential inflation problems that will probably show up from the bailout. But he doesn't have any solution to the inflation thing that could be added to the bill, nor any real solution to the crisis; he just wants to run the entirety of the existing economy and financial system through the woodchipper.

His basic premise seems incoherent to me; he appears to be saying that the reason why everything is out of control now is because we have an ability to control it in the first place. He wants the economy to be restructured so that the government has no way to affect or control it, and evidently everything will just magically take care of itself.

I agree that sometimes we get in trouble because one part of the government or another fiddles around too much but it just doesn't make any sense to me that the measures he proposes will result in a system that works better. Especially all his talk about silver and gold somehow being more "real" than fiat currency. You can't eat gold, it doesn't keep you warm in the winter, and you can't build a house out of it. There's no actual or sensible reason that gold and silver should be the "precious" metals rather than, say, cobalt and tantalum.

Gold and silver only ended up being valuable because they're shiny and stone age people could easily make jewelry out of them and because, like fiat currency, they're compact and portable. They just aren't any more of a solution to modern problems than converting to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum" -based economy would be.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Here's another interview with Paul from yesterday, which I think touches on most of his good criticisms of the bailout (mixed in with proposals that mostly don't sound too hot to me):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/01/roberts.ron.paul.cnn

Yeah, come to think of it, that really sums it up: usually his analysis of situations in domestic affairs or things like the Iraq war I find very good or even spot on exactly what I think, often better than what I hear most other politicians saying. It's just that the solutions he proposes usually seem questionable or downright nutty.

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

I never said that Obama's 'newness' and 'interest' didn't come from him being black. I'm actually quite certain that is the major reason he has gotten as much attention and support as he has. That and people being tired of the republicans in office (whether the perception of there being a difference is accurate doesn't matter, that's still the perception).

As far as Ron Paul goes I (as in I personally) think he is a loon for his desire to overturn Roe v Wade, pull out of NATO, pull out of the UN, dispose of the IRS, dispose of the Department of Education, and in short his focus on supposed "states rights" potentially taking us back to a collection of bickering and disparate colonies. We could go on all day and would need a seperatethread to really discuss these ideas though so I am just saying they are my personal opinion and my opinion is not entirely uninformed.

We are investing more money into education than any other country in the worldhttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-education-total-expenditure-gdp.,yet
are children performed the poorests in fields such as math and science. So lack of money is not the problem . I don't think we need the IRS to fund the US government. The IRS isn't in the constitution. There have been many court cases in this country that challange whether pay federal income tax is constitutionally or not; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

Many people have won those cases are are not paying federal income taxes. Many legal experts are disputing whether we pay for a voluntary income tax. Even former IRS commissioner said, "M. Caplin who said, "our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance." ; We have lots of taxes to pay , in addition to the federal income tax like corporate tax, excise tax, property taxes , local income tax, sales taxes, state income tax, even a 'sin tax'. I suggest you watch John Stossel wonderful documentary on how are money is spent and where they invest are taxes at.

 

[Benzoate]

Here's another interview with Paul from yesterday, which I think touches on most of his good criticisms of the bailout (mixed in with proposals that mostly don't sound too hot to me):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/01/roberts.ron.paul.cnn

Yeah, come to think of it, that really sums it up: usually his analysis of situations in domestic affairs or things like the Iraq war I find very good or even spot on exactly what I think, often better than what I hear most other politicians saying. It's just that the solutions he proposes usually seem questionable or downright nutty.

⚛​

Well , I think that congress passing a bill that would help out wall street is kind of nutty if most Americans are against these bailouts. They are intentionally ignoring there constituents.