tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083233540469459957.post-11885246750422339812008-04-24T19:37:00.000-04:002008-04-24T19:37:00.000-04:00So they spent half the debate talking about things like this, and the other half talking about (yawn) policy. I know because I watched the debate. Did you?<BR/><BR/>If it's the policy you disagree with, fine. (And you do.) But it's the policy you were allegedly asking to be outlined a month ago on this blog, but now you're concerned about character. And you somehow make the jump from character questions to policy here:<BR/><BR/>"As a result, the answer that many of us take to the question of what the f*ck this guy stands for is that all that he stands for is being a rock star politician who wants to be President, and if he is ever elected President he will govern straight from the stale consensus liberal/New Deal playbook that he's used as a Senator, which, if used by a President, would likely bring us right back to 1979."<BR/><BR/>... with no justification whatsoever. You're obviously connecting two separate thoughts that you have. I *could* counter by making an equally baseless comparison between McCain and Bush, as you do between Obama and Carter, but alas, the politics of hope won't let me. If you think you're tearing down Obama to help create a better candidate, or more informed Obama supporters, then I feel bad for you. I'll listen to what the guy says.<BR/><BR/>Also re: "the press." If ABC is the press, and the WSJ is the press, then it would seem different arms of the press are treating this differently, as they were supporters of and those who began this line of questioning.<BR/><BR/>Which gets me thinking about the whole "liberal media bias," which doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Because even if it does exist, newspapers necessarily represent their constituencies — as a market believer, you'd back me up, I'm sure. That is, if people don't like what they're reading, they won't buy the paper/view the website. Therefore, any "bias" would just be the "bias" of the readers, and you're just as "biased" as a regular WSJ reader as I am as a NYT reader. That is, we're both consumers. If there's a "liberal media bias," it means there are more liberal consumers of the media. Now, as we've learned, people choose candidates for any number of reasons often having very little to do with current events. My grandma, for instance, just looks at the letter and puts a check next to the "R." (Given that this is Chicago, she probably does it three times) Any political bias in the media is just the bias of the consumers, so even if it tilts liberal, that's because there are more liberal consumers. What would the alternative be?<BR/><BR/>On a related note, I love Bill Kristol's column in the Times. I hate the guy with a passion, but at least he lets me know how the other side thinks. I can't stand websites (unless I'm really riled up) like Daily Kos or Crooks and Liars when they get all Orthodox Or Die on me. I know Republicans (hi!) and I like them and try to engage them on the issues. But when you bring up issues I feel like you're just doing it to hammer away at me, because you're arguing against someone else, not me. So you see how that's a little unwinnable.<BR/><BR/>Come on Fausto, let's get busy on these Royals.Bryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02195900491166051592noreply@blogger.com