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!
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
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.
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.
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
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
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