Slashdot Mirror
Politics, Assassination, and Debates
Here's a really interesting story on
The New Science of Character Assassination which lists a bunch of things gore said that the media has used regularly to misrepresent him. Very worthwhile reading to help remember how the press skews things (no, I'm not an exception to the rule: but at least you guys can disagree with me below). Its not exactly about the election, but Does the US Electoral College Still Work?. Lastly for now,
the presidential debate commision is looking for feedback. I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!
The fact is that that this level of reporting of democrats is new, and despite the fact that the media STILL has the gloves on it smarts
Uh, yeah -- 'cause no one has printed anything mean about Clinton in the past decade. Good thing we've kept the kid gloves on...
I'm an investigator. I followed a trail there.
Q.Tell me what the trail was.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
1992 Clinton with 43% popular and 69% electoral
1912 Wilson with 41.8% popular and 82% electoral!!!!
1860 Lincoln with 39.9% popular and 59% electoral
1824 Adams with 29.8% popular and 32% electoral
The Man,
Actually IRV will appear on the ballot in as an intiative in Alaska in 2002 and Vermont and New Mexico are seriously considering IRV. In those cases very strong Green parties are helping elect Republicans in what would otherwise be heavily Democratic states. If Greens really want change they need to let Bush win Oregon and Washington with a strong turnout for Nader and cost Gore the election. Or even imagine California going to Bush because Nader gets 15% of the vote. I guarentee you residents of those states would strongly consider IRV for the 2004 election. Ditto in states where Libertarians can swing the election. John Q Public needs to be shocked by electing who he likes least. Once that happens the road to election reforms begins.
BTW - Modern Technology makes IRV and other more 'complicated' counting methods as easy as changing your counting algorithm. It's a shame we don't use modern technology to assist our elections, after all we don't do math on a slide-rule anymore (even though I do own one for nostalgia)! (just wanted to inject some techno stuff since this is /. ) :P
---
I posted that entire essay, completely redone in HTML by me, AND with WORKING links, yesterday. Took me hours to turn that crappy text into pretty HTML. Suddenly, today, here it is on the front page of /. but all ugly and broken. But I don't care... really I don't... I'm used to being ignored by the proprietors of this site. Notice how Taco doesn't even mention anything like "UserX submitted this essay about..."? It's almost like he just came up with the entire idea himself. I don't even bother submitting interesting stories anymore because they invariably get rejected (even though they suddenly show up weeks later with credit given to someone else who submitted it weeks after I did). Guess I haven't kissed enough ass to be One Of The Cronies yet.
"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of a democracy should be the weapon of openness."
Republicans are still completely for personal freedom and a minimum of government...whenever it suits them. Bring up gun regulation or welfare and Republicans scream about "Big Government". But as soon as someone wants to control their own reproductive rights, smoke a joint, or play Quake, then all of the sudden the government should be involved.
-B
On Gore:
0 08/18/000818dem_kgore.html
t ml
w /45811.htm
r .html
http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0
He attended private schools and graduated cum laude from Harvard University.
http://www.uwire.com/content/topnews032100001.h
According to the Post, Gore earned "one D, one C-minus, two C's, two C-pluses, and one B-minus," during his sophomore year at Harvard. His classmates remember him that year as spending a lot of time "shooting pool, watching television, eating hamburgers, and occasionally smoking marijuana."
However, his junior year, he earned a B, B-plus and A-minus in three government courses.
His strong senior thesis on the impact of television on the presidency allowed him to graduate cum laude.
On Bush
http://www.sltrib.com/1999/nov/11101999/nation_
http://www.american-politics.com/111399MacArthu
Like many Freshmen, BushBaby ended his first semester at Yale with a whopping 75 average. But he learned his lesson, and during the Spring of 1965 he put in grueling hours at the library bringing his GPA up by almost a full point -- for a an impressive 75.8!
The american politics site actually has an image of Bush's graduation transcript.
Nader's parents were Lebanese immigrants, not Congressmen or Senators. He got into and graduated from Princeton. From there he got into and graduated from Harvard Law. You can do the math on how smart that makes him - someone without connections ascending through the finest programs in the US. Or course, even then, Nader was a rabble rouser, trying to get Princeton to ban DDT because dead birds were on campus, and rallying against hot dog packaging plans. You can note both of these efforts later proved spot on accurate, although they were not necessarily supported at the time. Heck, DDT nearly wiped out bald eagles in the lower 48.
Real link : Does the electoral college still work?
Education is the silver bullet.
The link, from page source, is http://www.discover.com/nov_00/gthere.html?article =featbestman.html
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Did you know that the presidental debates are brought to you by:
? I sure didn't.
That's disgusting.
-Waldo
If I remember correctly from government class, it was orginally created because those in charge of the government did not trust the common people with little or no education to be able to vote responsibly, so they implented this as a system of being able to override that. This way, the wealthy few were in charge of the rest of the nation. (see previous article with letter by Brin)
The electoral college is broken. You can win an election without getting a majority because of it. There are many proposed solutions, but this problem has been known of for years. The people in charge don't want it changed, because then they may no longer be in charge.
Personally, I think the best solution is to get rid of it. If you get the most votes in the election, you win. Period.
If that doesn't work, divide the electoral votes by congressional district, rather than state. Doesn't give California and New York so much swing anymore since it would be broken down. Or, divide the electoral votes up percentage wise among candidates in each state. (For example, Nader gets 45% of the votes in California, Gore gets 50% and, Bush gets 5%, if CA had 100 electoral votes, Nader would get 45, Gore would get 50, and Bush would get 5) This would mean that those voting for Nader or Bush in CA votes would still have meaning, and not be tossed out the window.
So get rid of it, or divide them evenly, pretty much the same result.
What?
Anyone interested in the Electoral College and alternate voting and/or election methods should check out The Center for Voting and Democracy The have a lot of great information on alternative voting methods including those listed in the Discover article, but in much more detail.
It's suddenly dawning on you that the media does this? Welcome to political reality. Once the media gets its teeth on a vision of a politician, that's his/her image forever. Any reinforcement is noted, while contrary evidence is ignored. Gerald Ford was probably one of the most athletic Presidents, yet a couple of missteps and he bacame known as a stumblebum. Dan Quayle did a bad intro of himself to the press and forever after he was tarred with the brush of being a complete moron. Bush is now seen as a word-slurring dimwit frat-boy, contradictory evidence notwithstanding. Gore is just geting his turn in the barrel. I think what bugs you is that it's now happening to a candidate you favor.
Ahem.
/. are complaining, rather loudly, that Taco, Hemos, and the gang are running stories that are pro-Gore.
It seems that the conservatives on
Interestingly, the "pro-Gore" article run today is more "anti-anti-Gore," but that's beside the point.
The point is that Taco tells us I just personally wanted to note that the submissions are extremely lopsided; virtually nil for any 3rd party candidates (except a few Nader) and only a little more for Bush. We're trying to give the major candidates linkage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it!, and the reaction has been to complain about how sneaky Taco is for not posting Bush articles.
It's a frigging BBS, fellas. He can't post articles that you don't submit. Furthermore -- just as a disclaimer before you start submitting -- he can't post articles that aren't interesting and don't have some smidgen of integrity.
Taco makes mistakes a lot. Like when he tells us that an article questions the functionality of the Electoral College, when it's really question the functionality of a plurality-wins popular vote system in the primary and November elections. But by God, man, his heart's in the right place, and he's trying to pull for you.
Well, there goes my karma. I'll see you on the other side, where my user name will be T. Nivek.
--Kevin
Now, I am truly saddened. Every so often I read the kind of misguided propoganda as touted in "The New Science of Character Assassination" and realize that supposedly intelligent people believe it.
/. linking to this sort of so-called information, proclaiming it as gospel, and then taking the time to say "We're tying to give the major candidates linkgage, so if you find good sources on the net (or want to write one!) submit it".
/. to provide me with up-to-date information on a variety of subjects. Sometimes, I take the time to post. Other times I don't because I have nothing meaningful to contribute.
What's worse is seing
What consititutes a "good" source? From the ramblings of CmdrTaco, it would seem that only links to put Gore in a good light and Bush (or Republicans in general) in a bad light are "good".
So much for objective coverage.
I look to
But, when such an important decision is pending such as the election of a new president, I find myself disgusted by the liberal and leftist views expressed by the primary moderators of this forum.
A conservative by choice, I and many other "conservatives" don't necessarily think the ideals of the democrats are necessarily bad or evil. We are not all right-wingers or bible thumpers, believe it or not.
I'm conservative by choice yet support a woman's right to choose. But, as a working member of society who has bills to pay and children to feed, I don't believe in the high cost of government that would result if Gore's "vision" is implemented. I want the ability to use it to provide a better future for my family.
I believe that we need to clean up the environment.
I believe we need new, renewable, energy sources.
I'm a Gulf War veteran and a former naval officer. I left service BECAUSE of the downsizing of the military under Clinton's watch and the subsequent demoralizatoin. Yes, congress ( a republican one) has had much to do with this.
The cold-war was over, efforts needed to be done to bolster or economy. They did at the expense of the miltary. The military OP-tempo is 400% that of what it was both before and immediately after the Gulf War. Navy ships that were four months at sea and one year in port were now 6 in/ 6 out. That is not smarter utilization of our fleet, its stupidity.
But, truth be told, the President has very little to do with the economy other than perception. Rather, it is congress and the senate that make the laws (actually bills). The president only signs them into the law. The more the president signs the more he takes credit for. If the economy goes well and grows, he looks like a savior. If it goes bad, we remove him from office.
The president is a figure head. He/she is supposed to represent the ideals of America and be presidential. Character plays a big part here. So, do you want a habitual "Bender of the truth" or a straight shooter (pun intended).
Do you want Hollywood dictating the policy of the country or the people? Do you want judges dictating social policy rather than enforcing law?
Do we want to vote for somebody simply because of their particular stand on abortion (BTW, check the facts, Gore IS NOT "pro-choice". In the past, he has said otherwise. He just changes his views depending upon whatever the populists say he should represent).
Yes, these are big statements. This is a big election. You may not agree with my views nor I yours. But, get the facts before voting. The answers may suprise you. If you are a journalist, report fairly. To say the media is pro-democrate, look at CNN.com. The have extensive coverage of Gore in the "Democracy in America" section. Little, if any information regarding Bush. The polls are two days old as they were following the previous debate. Why? Because the public said Bush won... a view contrary to theirs.
What would I like to see? How about a one bill/one law law that prevents "riders". Each bill should be voted on its merit and not on what is attached. Too much good legislation has been defeated because of the current system.
RD
Is there any chance that the voting methods in this country can be changed? The Borda count seems like a pretty good idea (though you do need to know your candidates). At least that way, most people at least get a candidate that they don't absolutely despise (hopefully, it's somebody that most people are at least neutral about, and maybe somewhat positive about).
Anyway, I'm curious -- does anyone know exactly where it has been defined that we need to vote the way we do? For the Presidential race in particular, are the voting methods defined in the states, at the federal level, or is it a combination? Can a state just go say, ``we're going to use Approval or Borda voting''?
--
Ski-U-Mah!
So he misphrased it. Here's what he did do:
Introducing legislation is often known (in Congress-ese) as 'taking the initiative.'
Heck, Bush is probably still anxiously waiting to meet the leader of Fredonia. I live in the state he supposedly "leads." If the rest of the nation knew just how little real power is in the hands of a Texas governor, they'd understand why he was good enough for that job, and not nearly qualified enough for a real job.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
- Eric Cartman
Hello, we techies aren't a bunch of pot-smoking save the earth hippies!
God, you'd think we were all RMSs. I know techies to be more equally divided politically, perhaps more libertarians, like myself.
Here we see some balance to Bush's mistakes of grammar, (Mid-western oriented) pronunciation, and nonsensical quotes.
As you can see, there are a bunch of illogical, absurd, and funny statements which make it clear why he may have failed vanderbilt and considers coddled journalistic... anyway...
http://www.copie.com/politics/goreisms. htm
-Ben
Note: I have switched my vote to Gore. After all, he did take the initiative in creating the internet.
I would like to see a Presidential debate where each candidate could bring a laptop computer and consult it during the debate. "Well, I downloaded Senator Bedfellow's platform last night, and it clearly says here ... on the other hand, if you look at the 2002 Federal budget, on this line...."
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
According to the Daily Howler the "Gore invented the internet" story was popularized by Wired writer Declan McCullagh in this story. Declan finally gives Gore some credit, 19 months later, here. But by then, practically every journalist in the US had piled on, many of them exaggerating the story. And Declan is still ducking responsibility for the stories he & wired spread; you can read Phil Agre's dissection.
To his credit, Newt Gingerich tried to set the record straight on 9/1/2000 when he took part in a colloquium for the American Political Science Association. The panel was broadcast live on C-SPAN. Speaking about the 1996 Telecommunications Bill, Gingrich at one point said this: Remember: this is Newt Gingerich speaking. You can't dismiss his remarks as another case of liberal bias. But I'll bet ya never saw that story in the news!
And while I'm debunking, here's a line from a story that appeard in the Boston Globe 4/11/2000: The truth is, Gore worked five years for the Nashville Tennessean, and prior to that he spent two years as a reporter in the U.S. army. Two plus five equals seven. But the Globe never saw fit to retract their lie.
So Phil Agre is absolutely right: the RNC has gotten away with an amazing campaign of character assassination. Now it's time to tell the truth.
Uh, if you're going to post this, why not post something balanced, or at least post something comparable about the dirty tricks of the other side? Both major parties constantly participate in this kind of crap. The Republicans are harping on Gore's misstatements, the Dems are harping on Bush's misstatements. It's been going on for a long time, and both sides are guilty. How long did we have to hear about Qualye's "potatoe"?
Because the media's stance against Gore and for Bush has been extremely prevalent and incredibly consistent. This seems to me to be a perfect example of an "Emperor Wears No Clothes" kind of event: the media is by and large conservative, not liberal, and this campaign season only serves to prove this. Yes, there have been attacks from both sides. But by and large Bush has gotten off the hook on several major issues (such as the death penalty and other problems with the Texas judicial system, irregularities in his financial history [where did that jet come from again, Dubya?], and the powerlessness of the Texas governorship.) The conventional wisdom is that Gore is a liar, facts be damned, and this portrait keeps getting reinforced by the media. Meanwhile, GWB's own misstatements and/or lies get almost wholly ignored.
The "I invented the Internet" meme is a perfect example. Gore never said this, and taken contextually what he did say was wholly correct. But it has been repeated ad nauseum by pundits, reporters, and partisans until the general population believes that he did say this. Meanwhile, Bush's statement "...insurance - that's a Washington term" gets little if any discussion. This is amazing because that statement to me is absolutely incredible in its banality. Time and time again Bush says something that is just out and out moronic: "The woman who knew that I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." Nevertheless, the media treats him like a god worthy of admiration, not someone's who intelligence should be seriously and thoroughly questioned.
This wouldn't bother me so much except that the gaffe count seems to be so lopsided. Gore makes misstatements that are, upon further investigation, honest mistakes. Ex: Travelling to Texas with the FEMA director; he mistook the exact date. But Gore's mistakes are much fewer than Bush's, and they are at least in grammatically correct English. But Bush... His list of moronic statements has its own lengthy page dedicated to them. Are these generally questioned? No. Instead we hear about what his policy advisors have cooked up with regarding prescription drugs whatever politically moderate group they happen to be courting this week.
Questioning Bush's intelligence is something that has gotten way, way too little attention, IMHO.
The following quote from E2 sums this up perfectly:
"And throughout it all, the United States: Rich, prosperous, myopic, magnificient in aggregate and petty in specifics, unwilling -- always, always -- to accord respect to the mind. To good fortune, to luck, to rugged individualism, to faith in God, to patriotism, to beauty, to spunk or pluck or grit or git, but never to complex intellegence and complex thought."
- Rev.-- from Beggars in Spain by Nancy Kress
Also, did you know he was denied access to the debates, not only as a debater, but as a viewer? Twice, he had valid tickets to enter the premises, and twice, he was denied access by the debate commission, with police threatening arrest. Tell me there was any reason other than his political affiliation... I imagine that will go to court as well.
Oh, and get your Nader Funky Beats here.
---
Ok, I'm Australian, and I find the American political system perhaps slightly more boring than even our own dodgy political system. But I have been interested in what appears to be, even to the casual international observer, character assassination of everyone but Bush.
For example, Ralph Nader is known even over here in Australia (at least if you've had more than a rudimentary education). He's clearly a smart guy, yet it seems he's getting the sharp end of the stick at every turn. Why?
And Al Gore. We've all seen the 100s of posts in his defence disproving his "gaffes", pointing out that they're not gaffes but blatant lies and misrepresentations by the media. So why do the lies and misrepresentations continue?
I say it's for entertainment. It's clearly a bad news-day/week/month and the media is playing your election up for all it's worth. If they were honest and portrayed the candidates in a fair and unbiased light then you'd have no contest. It'd be like a boxing match between Tyson and Pee-Wee Herman (and that fully exhausts my knowledge of American celebrities). Your Tyson is of course Al Gore. Not only is Al Gore obviously smarter than his #1 competitor, he also has more experience, he did better at school, he looks better on TV, he has more hair, his teeth are much shinier and whiter, and he's taller than everyone else too. What more do you Americans want from a President?
Nobody would watch the debates if the media had portrayed the candidates fairly. So in an attempt to boost TV ratings and newspaper sales, your media is doing a snow-job on Bush and a smear-campaign on Gore and ignoring all the other candidates (because you can't have a fair and unbiassed election if there are more than two choices! everybody knows this).
Your presidents are picked by TV. I think you lot should know this by now. The TV conglomerates not only pick the winner they force it to happen through media attention and persuasion. Who cares who becomes president when there's a buck to be made! I think you should all vote Rupert Murdoch for president and acknowledge who the real leader of your country is, once and for all!
Shyt, Pyss, Fyck, Cynt, Cycksycker, Motherfycker, and Tyts?
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
It already did. 1876 -- The Republican ticket of Hayes and Wheeler got 4,034,311 popular votes and 185 EC votes; the Democratic ticket of Tilden and Hendricks got 4,288,546 popular votes -- barely more -- but only 184 EC votes.
Ditto in 1888, Harrison and Morton vs Cleveland and Thurman (again, Republicans with fewer popular votes but more ECs -- 47.82%/233 vs 48.62%/168).
One also gets wildly disproportionate counts -- like Landon and Knox in '36 losing with 36.54% popular, but only 8 EC votes out of 531... and Mondale got 40.56% popular but only 13 out of 538. Ouch.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
While Nader and Buchanan were bitching about not getting to schmooze right next to Shrub and Deadwood, Libertarian Party candidate Harry Browne actually DID something about it:h arry_browne_tscript.asp
h arry_browne_tscript.asp
s ernum=67
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
In other news, the Libertarian Party also announced the winner of the second presidential debate to be moderator Jim Lehrer, who had a hard time finding the differences between Bush and Gore:
http://clubs.lycos.com/live/Events/Transcripts/
You want somebody willing to address the issues? Browne takes a stance on an issue that Bush and Gore seem to dance around and ignore-- gay marriage:
http://www.planetout.com/pno/news/feature.html?
If nothing else, read the debate transcript. It's positively superb.
From the "character" link:
the people support Al Gore's policies, but the polls are shifting toward George W. Bush because the media is filled with false attacks on Al Gore's character.
Not that this sounds ANYTHING like sore-loser whining, but it's also blatently false, according to nearly every Reuters/Zogby poll.
(http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/zo/)
While some of Bush's policies are opposed by almost half the population (vouchers and gore's upping minumium wage are favored), these polls clearly show Bush's policies favored. Some examples of headlines:
Bush's Star Wars Anti-Ballistic Shield Favored
Majority Opposed to Selling High-Tech Weapons to China
More Autonomy for States to Set School Standards
Accountability Narrowly Beat Out Smaller Class Size
State Rights Favored Over Federal Regulations on Health Care
Teaching Certification Based on Teacher's Ability Favored
Half Favor Bush's Social Security Investment Plan
Bush-Cheney's Military Build-Up Narrowly Approved
More Than Fifty Percent Favor Bush-Cheney's Homeless Plan
Yes, I know these are just polls (although pretty well-respect polls) and are subject to inconsistancies and could be way off, but I have yet to see a major poll say that Gore's policies are favored.
Taco, I respect your right to have you opinion, and to publish it on your own website (which I enjoy), however by not doing your own research and posting your opinion supported by false articles and sloppy reporting, you are only destryoing your own credibility. Stop buying everything spoon fed to you about how bad Bush is and how great Gore is, and do your own research.
Finkployd