Hard News: Some Politics
129 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
James,
I'd suggest reading that American Dynasty book I linked to above before saying:Americans have every right to know who Bill and Hill owe IOUs to, and what this money has been spent on
The IOUs that the current administration have incurred over the past decades make a lot of what is going on in Washington right now, make a little more sense (and they are fairly well researched and annotated too).
And then we have Rupert Murdoch too, who has his own IOUs.....
Darryl,
Maybe Ayam al-Zawahiri paid for the tin-foil lined roof?
One liner of the day fer shure.......
-
As for Fox gunning for Obama, I haven't seen much if any negative press from anyone on Obama yet
you can seriously write that?
-
merc,
being a phony bitch
I stopped reading right there.
-
James- with respect- I'm left-leaning myself but I can tell a comedian from a Fox news hack. The latter simply aren't deliberately funny. One of the curious things about watching the US from abroad (I was born in Vt, so I'm almost an american- I can vote but I'm forever barrred from the mainstream!) is how right-wing the so-called American centre is. Eg, there may have been a time when CNN was a bit liberal- but now? Jon Stewart's "leftism" can seem like clear vision from here.
This is probably a more than a little arrogant, but my understanding of what's goin' on in the US is that it's a lot harder to see what's going on from within the country. Most of the rest of the world watched the build-up to the invasion of Iraq with disgust, derision, fascination and fear. Inside the country, it seemed the flags never stopped waving- nor the Dems caving...
That's one big reason Obama looks so good. You could just about run for any global office on "I'm not opposed to all wars, I'm opposed to a dumb war."
But also with respect: Fox not gunning for Obama? About the first thrity youtube clips if you do a search for Obama relate to exactly that. The list of attacks ranges from snide (middle name that starts with H, Obama "not black enough"!) - to untrue ("educated in a madrassa"- I believe this one was also falsely attributed to Hillary's campaign) to trivial but blown big ("Obama's dirty little secret!" turns out to be he's a smoker) etc etc... You should maybe take a look. You are screwing youirself "in a republican manner" if you don't. :-)
Kerry was cringe-worthy at times: "reporting for duty" was horrible. But he didn't look so bad in the debates. And if lying the country into war, handing the environment and economy over to corporations, running up unheard-of deficits, and thoroughly corrupting the integrity of the public service aren't enough for you, how about mispronouncing newulear and calling your closest advisor "turd-blossom"? Not exactly a class act. -
Back to Novak. If we assume, and I think we can, that Novak has very string insider links to the Senate and Congressional Republicans (his role seems to be as much a journalistic hitman, he says the things they want to say but can't, as anything else), then this piece in the WaPo yesterday is fascinating.
"Gonzales never has developed a base of support for himself up here," a House Republican leader told me. But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.
-
merc,
Sort of off topic, but maybe not...if humans can learn to do this against every instinct in their body, maybe they can resist the urge to war on each other.
http://www.realsurf.com/news/newsitem.php?id=1289 -
merc,
Oh no, I'm a thread killer.
-
This is good: Mad TV iRack Apple Iraq war parody
-
Oh no, I'm a thread killer.
....no, I think it was more my appalling refusal to check my posts using the very advisable preview tab, yet again:
**strong** insider links
-
Another poll that does not bode well for Hillary.
"Half of voting-age Americans say they would not vote for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) if she became the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, according to a Harris Interactive poll released Tuesday."
"Nearly half of the respondents said that they dislike Clinton’s political opinions and Clinton as a person. Fifty-two percent of people also said that “she does not appear to connect with people on a personal level.”
Apparently even more than 20% of Dems say they would not vote for Hill.
-
Simon,
Re: your exerpt from Novak's latest article about Bush being isolated.
Both the House and Senate Repubs were extremely pissed at Bush for firing Rumsfeld the day after the election last year. Their view is that the 2006 mid terms wouldn't have gone so badly for them if Bush had cut Rummy a few months before, by which time it was obvious that he was going sooner or later. They would have held the Senate and Pelosi's majority in the House would have been quite a bit smaller, and even less manageable than it is now.
The House and Senate Repubs think that Bush's keystone cops performances on some on a number of issues have hurt them badly, and they are right. Mind you, their own performances didn't exactly inspire much confidence either.
You have not addressed the issue of the CIA confirming Plame's identiy to a journalist. It rather gets to the heart of the whole Plame circus; either she wasn't covert, or the CIA blew her cover.
-
Rob,
Yes, you are correct, the center of US politics and society is significantly more to the right than in many countries, or many other countries are more to the left than the US, depending on your perspective.
You are also correct; it is a little bit arrogant of you to believe that you have a better understanding of the US by watching it from a far than those that live there. I know from my own experience as a New Zealander who keeps up with what's going on in NZ on a daily basis by reading newspaper and blogs etc, when I go home I find that there is so much more to what is going on that I didn't catch or realize from afar.
Whenever I go back to NZ I am struck by two things, how poorly informed many New Zealanders are about the US and what it is actually like there and what is actually going on, it seems that just about everyone can cite inane and superficial platitudes they have picked up from the media, but not much else. And unfortunately it seems that the certainty with which New Zealanders seem to hold these views is inversely proportionate to their actual knowledge of the subject matter, a most unfortunate combination. As someone who lives in New Orleans and evacuated before and returned after Katrina, I have had the experience of New Zealanders who have never set foot in the US, let alone New Orleans, lecturing me on who did or didn’t do what before and after Katrina. How they think they could possibly know more than people who live there is just bizarre.
Not that I am suggesting that I know everything about the US, I don’t. But I am likely to have a better idea about what is going on and why in the US than people who don’t live here.
-
Whenever I go back to NZ I am struck by two things, how poorly informed many New Zealanders are about the US and what it is actually like there and what is actually going on, it seems that just about everyone can cite inane and superficial platitudes they have picked up from the media, but not much else. And unfortunately it seems that the certainty with which New Zealanders seem to hold these views is inversely proportionate to their actual knowledge of the subject matter, a most unfortunate combination.
I'm reminded of the story of Guy de Maupassant who ate dinner at a restaurant at the base of the Eiffel Tower every day because it was the only place in Paris where he didn't have to look at it.
-
... I have had the experience of New Zealanders who have never set foot in the US, let alone New Orleans, lecturing me on who did or didn’t do what before and after Katrina. How they think they could possibly know more than people who live there is just bizarre.
Not that I am suggesting that I know everything about the US, I don’t. But I am likely to have a better idea about what is going on and why in the US than people who don’t live here.
Look, I'm sorry, but I don't think you can have this both ways. If I may get meta for a moment: your attitude above, which you express regularly, is such a disingenuous approach to this community. We're primarily New Zealanders, living in New Zealand (with a few exceptions, obviously). You'll argue a point, have it pretty comprehensively debunked, then attack your correspondents with this time-honoured 'I know more because I live here!' thing, and no one is able to say 'no, actually you don't' without coming across like an asshole because you lived through such a horrible experience in New Orleans. It's incredibly frustrating.
In sum: you're in a New Zealand-based forum filled with New Zealanders, so you are going to have to argue based not on where we all live, but how well our arguments stand up to scrutiny. Dammit.
By the way, I don't think you can do the 'I live here' thing when arguing DC politics. New Orleans and DC are very different, and thousands of kilometres away from each other. We're all in the same boat when it comes to US national political analysis. We're all relying on practically the same media outlets.
(Parenthetically, my sister lost her house and everything she owned in Katrina. My father was without power for four months. But I would never assume that I know more about what happened there simply because I have a personal connection. It's not a defensible argument.)
-
merc,
Kia ora westside, represent!
-
Heh. I wish I had a photo of the westside hand symbol to flash your way, Merc, but just take it as a given. :)
-
merc,
-
Whenever I go back to NZ I am struck by two things, how poorly informed many New Zealanders are about the US and what it is actually like there and what is actually going on, it seems that just about everyone can cite inane and superficial platitudes they have picked up from the media, but not much else
I wager that goes for the majority anywhere, about their own and other countries' politics. That's why I read public address - greater proportion of wheat to chaff, by an order of magnitude. And why I try to avoid talking about politics with my workmates, family and people I meet at parties.
Frankly, I've found the whole discussion to be extremely informative, purely because I can read views from both inside and out. I hope that will continue.
-
Anyone who's interested in the US attorney scandal, which seems like this decade's Saturday Night Massacre only worse, should be reading Talking Points Memo, which is doing an amazing job of digging the dirt and joining the dots.
It can be read both inside and outside the USA :)
-
I'm confident that James' argument - that the reason we don't agree with his politics is because we don't live in the US and are speaking outside our experience - would instantly collapse if he found himself in, say, New York, San Francisco or almost any area of New England where the majority of the population would also find his various opinions and viewpoints risible.
-
I do like it when Danielle posts!
James,
You have not addressed the issue of the CIA confirming Plame's identiy to a journalist. It rather gets to the heart of the whole Plame circus; either she wasn't covert, or the CIA blew her cover.
If that journalist was Novak, I think it's been adequately dealt with, if not Novak, link please.....I've given you the judge, and the head of the CIA in sworn testimony, and you offer a journalist who might have made a phone call...you need to offer a little more to make an reasonable argument of it.
I think Novak's piece in the Wapo goes somewhat beyond that...it goes to two things...firstly there is the obvious need for the Republican party, coming into 2008, to absolutely distance themselves from an administration that is an absolute political liability and perceived as such by the enfranchised mass (Bush's approval average approval rating over his terms is now almost exactly half Clinton's average over his terms); and secondly a belief in the Senate, as expressed via Novak, that Bush is, to put it simply, utterly, and irredeemably incompetent.
I think he lives in America.
Adding to Darryl's point. I work and socialise with Americans everyday (and not just from the big cities....Arizona, rural New Mexico as well as CA and NY) and I suspect they too, based on our conversations, would profoundly disagree with most of your opinions and positions. I would suggest that whilst your opinions are held by a sizable minority, that is all it is, and most Americans I encounter seem eager for their nation to pass out of the darkness of the past years
Stephen,
Glenn Greenwald on Salon is very good on the scandal as well. He takes few prisoners.... -
Simon,
The journalist I was referring to who was Novack. I thought that was clear from my previous posts but I should have made it explicit. He wrote the article that started the whole Plame thing, during an interview Armitage told him about Plame and he then called the CIA who confirmed Plame's identity and that she worked for the CIA. During the call, the CIA person made no mention of any reason Plame's identity could not be used in an article. I have seen Novak on TV several times go through the time line above and read and seen others discuss this series of events as well. My understanding is that facts these are pretty much undisputed. However, a lot of people and media outlets appear to ignore them, I don’t understand why, but perhaps because it is not helpful to their view of the issue.
All,
I am very well aware that there are many people over here, in fact a majority, who hold views different from my own. I wrote that I wasn’t suggesting that I knew everything about the US. I was responding to a poster who suggested that you get a clearer view of the US from the outside, which is just not true, isn't true for any country, and needed to be rebutted.When I go back to NZ, read NZ media and some of the MSM over here, or read forums like this one, there is usually just one side of the issues related to the States presented and discussed, and it is frequently the negative view of any particular issue. I live over here and have specific knowledge of some issues, and have some different views on others. I find when I discuss issues related to the US with friends and family in NZ, while they may not agree, their responses are usually something like: "well, I didn't know that", "that is a different take on things" or "now I understand a bit better why X, Y or Z happened, or is being done in the US etc."
Why do I post in a forum where most disagree with me? I can't think of anything more boring than an echo chamber. It is good to see other perspectives and have your views challenged. If that pisses some people off, then that is a shame; however I believe that it says more about them than about me. I saw at least one comment from someone who appreciated the back and forth from different sides of the issues; I am sure that there are others as well.
Danielle,
I am sorry to hear that your sister lost her house and that your father was without power for four months after Katrina. However that doesn’t change the fact that there were many factors prior to the storm and many factors after the storm that contributed to the disaster, and that the current Federal Administration’s mistakes played only a part in the whole fiasco. This is contrary to the usual painful line that you hear and read that “Katrina was Bush’s fault, blah, blah, blah” Sorry, just isn’t true, as I believe I proved quite clearly in the exchange on the subject we had last year.If Governor Blanco performed well after the storm, why did she just announce that she is not running for a second term? Maybe becasue she screwed up royally and everyone knows it.
While people around the world can read and watch some of the same media outlets, those on the ground in any particular country are interacting on a daily basis with many people in that country and thus develop a deeper understanding of many of the issues, views and “buzz” of the day. For example, for most of the last couple of years, the media and the expert’s standard line on the 2008 election were mostly that Hillary had an easy path to the Dem nomination, more or less a coronation, and that Giuliani, while he may be able win a general election, would never win the Repub primary. Both points are now pretty clearly inoperative, points I had picked up on a long time ago from being here and talking with people around the country.
-
Why do I post in a forum where most disagree with me? I can't think of anything more boring than an echo chamber. It is good to see other perspectives and have your views challenged. If that pisses some people off, then that is a shame; however I believe that it says more about them than about me. I saw at least one comment from someone who appreciated the back and forth from different sides of the issues; I am sure that there are others as well.
James, you miss my point entirely. It's not that you disagree; it's that your arguments always revert to this... what's the phrase I want? Ne plus ultra? Probably not... anyway, it's impossible to get you to concede a major point, because your bedrock assertion is always 'you don't live in the USA, so you couldn't possibly know what's going on'. I put it to you that that *is* an echo chamber, because how can we respond? 'Yes, I do live in the USA'? Well, no, we can't, because most of us don't. *It's a New Zealand forum*. So, what's the solution? There isn't one, unless you accept that arguments from outside the USA also have merit. And you barely ever do. So why are you here?
I stress that I do not want you to stop posting or leave - that's not what I'm saying at all. But if we're only 'right' if we discuss things related to our own direct experience, what's the point of any discussion at all? That way lies madness.
(BTW, I'm not touching the Katrina thing with you again. You've denied actual events - you know, *verifiable, researchable facts* - to me before based on this 'I live here and I know a guy' thing, so I'm afraid I can't be having it. Too frustrating! :) )
PS Thanks Simon! Your dedication to battling away there on your own is most admirable...
-
James, I am aware that it was Novak...that was my point. Heresay from Novak (and yes I know his role in the Plame affair) against sworn testimony from the head of the agency concerned, plus the determination of the judge...its a non starter.
-
When I go back to NZ, read NZ media and some of the MSM over here, or read forums like this one, there is usually just one side of the issues related to the States presented and discussed, and it is frequently the negative view of any particular issue.
Please do us the courtesy of assuming that some outside the US are capable of reading more than one source or POV on any given topic. And assessing that information intelligently before absorbing it. I find your statement condescending in the extreme.
Being in the US makes you no less likely than others to live in a closeted world. Lets refer to your appalling post on Abu Graib...as offensively incorrect as any post I've read in recent times. And yet you posted it, I assume, in the belief that it was correct. Being in the United States (and able to thus put our half formed preconceptions right) gave you no intrinsicly better understanding or knowledge of that sorry incident. Fox, America's most watched news network,I would offer has no better understanding (and I'm understating but you may well disagree) of global issues than either The BBC or Al Jazeera. The shell you may or may not be in, and I'm sorry but your posts lead as often as not to assume you are in one: you read what you want and dismiss or ignore anything that doesn't fit your world view, did not help. Being in the USA as such offered you no advantage.
We are not living in 1990 anymore, we all have access to all sorts of information now.
Your post, IMO, makes no real sense.
And I'm not in New Zealand.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.