"Gotcha journalism"?

Asking someone what newspapers they read, or another SC case besides Roe v. Wade, is HARDBALL now? Just how far do you intend to dumb-down the process of selecting a leader?

"What is 9 minus 4?"
"What is your last name?"
"When was the War of 1812?"

Referring to the UN-authorized police-action in response to NK's invasion as unilateral US aggression simply serves to illustrate the extent of your historical retardation. Scoffing at verbal abuse toward young girls shows anyone who sees it where your ethical standards lie. Kowtowing to abstract slop like the Laffer Curve is typical neo-conservative ideology-over-reality economics.

The questions are idiotic.
Try harder next time.

What?

You are comparing Iraq to Korea? The two have no relation at all. We invaded Iraq. We stopped an invasion of South Korea by North Korea. If you can't comprehend the difference in those two events, you need to stop writing a column and go back to school.

Actually, just stop writing the column.

I am addressing all of you who are still undecided whom to vote for.

George Soros (Google him) is spending a lot of money trying to make it look like the majority of population supports Obama. The fix is in. He was the one behind sidelining Hillary. Now he wants to make you think that it has been all decided, that you might as well stay at home, because your vote means nothing. THIS IS A LIE! PLEASE VOTE, SHOW THAT WE CAN STAND UP TO DECEITS! Both Hillary and Biden figured him out and declared him unfit to be the President.

Obama has discredited himself in the eyes of every thinking person. Notice, I said "thinking" as opposed to "educated". Education in most East and West coast colleges is brainwashing when it comes to social values. These days the "educated" people cannot be assumed to be smart, just the opposite, oftentimes.

In November 2006 Ayers participated in an education forum in Venezuela, along with President Hugo Chavez. Ayers stated that he supports “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” ... “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education - a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” ... “Viva Presidente Chavez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

Ayers, and his education school comrades such as Obama, were financing the "reforms" in Chicago Public Schools based on the premise that the US is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive.

Is this the person we want to be our next President?

Having eliminated religion from their core belief system, his most zealous supporters turned him into a god figure, whose every word illuminates their days. Based on his statements, he himself believes that he is the anointed one. He does not tolerate any disagreements, and has already demonstrated lack of tolerance for people that dare to criticize him. If he becomes the President, we will witness the next cult of personality, similar to Stalin's and Hitler's, but on a grander scale.

Is this the person we want to be our next President?

Have you ever heard Obama saying that he supported property owners rights?
Have you ever heard him supporting personal freedoms?
Have you ever heard him supporting US in the fight with radical Islam?
Why is he supported by the enemies of the United States, such as Hesbolah, Hamas, Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinashit?

Is this the person we want to be our next President?

Instead of Palin we should be worried about Obama's association with radicals who stand behind him and serve as his inspiration, such as Soros, Wright, Farrakhan, Saul "Red" Alinsky, etc.

We should we worried about Obama's associations with Tony Reszco.
Is this the man to lead us out of Washington's corruption?

We should be worried by Obama's ties to Acorn, whose members are being indicted in many states for voter fraud. This is the same organization he worked for in his COMMUNITY ORGANIZER days.

We should be worried that Obama is inspired by Saul "Red" Alinsky, a former Soviet spy, a communist who has inspired Hugo Chavez and is an idol of the US Communist Party.

What do you call Obama's attempts to influence Iraq's government, but treason? He suggested that Iraqis should wait with pressuring US to withdraw until after the elections, so that he could enjoy the fruits of other people's labor. Hm...

Is this the person we want to be our next President?

In the 2nd debate, yesterday, he called for spreading the suffering. If some part of the population is not doing well, he said, then why shouldn't all?
He actions will encourage the mediocrity and failures by redistributing the wealth. It's only the 5% of top earners who will get affected, after all. Never mind that these 5% create 95% of US wealth. We will all be poor and happier for it. His campaign slogan is "The change we need". He is the one who needs it. Do we, the country, want it?

Is this the person we want to be our next President?

Do we need a President that will turn the US into a dictatorship such as Venezuela, or Cuba, or N. Korea, or USSR?

We, the people, have higher aspirations.

I am voting for McCain/Palin!

I subjected myself to Prager's hypothetical interview and this is what I came up with:

Q: Critics of the war in Iraq argue that prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had never attacked a country that had no plans to attack it. How then do you explain the Korean War?

What are you implying? That the only previous time the U.S. attacked a country that had no plans to attack us was while the President was a member of the Democratic Party? What about Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia in 1958, Cuba in 1960, Cambodia in 1969, El Salvador and Nicaragua throughout the 80s, Grenada and Lebanon in 1983, Libya in 1966, Iran in 1987, and finally Panama in 1989?

Q: Is there any point in a woman's pregnancy at which you would call an abortion immoral?

At conception. However, I do not believe in criminalizing abortion. It will not help in reducing them. I am a firm believer in a consistent ethic of life.

Q: Members of the news media believe, correctly, that individuals running for political office, because of their potentially great impact on American life, should subject themselves to interview after interview about their views, values, personal life and knowledge base by often hostile members of the news media. But, the most powerful members of the news media, people who have more impact on American life than almost any politician in America, do not allow themselves to be interviewed about their views, values, personal life and knowledge of the issues. Why not?

They are not running for elected office. Next question.

Q: Which of the Federalist Papers do you think is most important? Why?

That would be Federalist paper number 10. Paper No. 10 is a famous argument regarding factionalism authored by Madison. A faction, according to Madison, is a group of citizens who are united by some special interest or passion that is either adverse to the rights of other citizens or contrary to the common good. Madison suggests that one must either remove the causes of faction or avoid their effects. Unfortunately, the causes are all too common and impossible to remove without destroying liberty in the process. How, then, can the effects of factionalism be minimized? If the faction represents a minority, the matter is solved by simple majority rule. The problem lies in the existence of a faction that represents a majority. Madison claims that a republic is superior in its ability to minimize the effects of factions in two ways. First, because the people are represented by a small number of elected individuals, those individuals, he proposes, will have the common good better in view and will resist factionalism. Second, Madison suggests that the larger the sphere of the republic the greater will be the variety of interests, party affiliations, and other factors that will make factionalism more difficult.

Q: In a question to Palin, you said that "women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes." If that is so, why don't employers only hire women whenever possible? What employer wouldn't want to save 23 percent for the same work? Is it possible that many women choose more flexible hours, want jobs with less travel and may choose less demanding work given their desire to be home more?

It is possible that many women choose more flexible hours, want jobs with less travel and may choose less demanding work given their desire to be home more. But there are a few women who do not make these choices. Shouldn't they be offered the same opportunities as men?

Q: On one of your CBS newscasts this year, you said: "A new study on teens and sexual harassment should give every parent pause. ... In a study that appeared in the journal Child Development, 90 percent of teen girls say they've been harassed at least once." Did you read that report? If not, how do you justify reporting it on a national newscast in order to alarm "every parent"? The report defines sexism and sexual harassment as including "sexist comments about their academic abilities, sexist comments about their athletic abilities ... demeaning gender-related comments, teasing based on their appearance, and unwanted physical contact." In other words, if a boy says to a girl, "You throw a ball like a girl!" that is deemed an instance of sexual harassment. Isn't that somewhat hysterical?

What if someone said, "You throw a ball like a Negro," "you throw a ball like a Hispanic," or "you throw a ball like a Jew?" Do you find that hysterical?

Q: What did you think of any articles in the most recent issues of Commentary, The Weekly Standard, National Review or any other conservative journal? Or do you only read liberal writing?

I read all of the magazines you mentioned online. However, I would be hard pressed to mention a recent article in any of those magazines that I found genuinely persuasive. It seems to me the closer we get to the election the more extremist they become. They clearly are out of touch with how the vast majority of the country thinks.

Q: Many Americans believe that the most important way of understanding the effects of taxation on government revenues is the Laffer Curve. What is your opinion about this?

In my opinion any diagram drawn on a cocktail napkin more than a quarter century ago by an inebriated economist who now is completely discredited is with out doubt dubious. The problem with the Laffer Curve is that it is a anti-tax fantasy. Do you really think cutting marginal income tax rates increases tax revenue? For example, consider the last major increase in marginal income tax rates (1993) and the last major cut in marginal tax rates (2001-2003). In 1993, the top federal marginal personal income tax rate was increased from 31% to 39.6%. The first year this tax increase was implemented tax revenues increased by4% in real terms. In 1999 real federal personal income tax revenue had increased 64.2% above what it was in 1992 (seven years later) before the tax increase. Between 2000 and 2003 the top marginal federal income tax rate was reduced from 39.6% to 35%. In 2003 real tax revenue was 27.1% below what it was in 2000 before the tax cuts. In 2007 real federal personal income tax revenue was still 2.5% below what it was in 2000 (seven years later). Laffer Curve? What a laugh!

And who *exactly* are these people liberal or otherwise who claim the US never attacked a nation that didn't attack it first? Do you have names? Is one of them S.T. Rawman? Few believe that Spain attacked the U.S. in 1898. President Polk's claim that American blood was shed on American soil was greeted with scepticism in the 1840s when the US went to war with Mexico. Did Panama attack the US? Did Iraq in 1991? Did Grenada? What about the habitual US interventions in Latin America through the 20th century?

Your question isn't all that hard to deal with and provides pretty fertile ground for an anti-Iraq war position. But do you really think any of your questions are on par with asking what a person reads to stay informed? If that's a gotcha question Sarah Palin is quite the hothouse flower. If she doesn't know what the Laffer Curve is (your question for the reporters) I doubt anyone cares. What glacier do you have to be living under to be unable to name the McCain-Feingold Act? Couric was lobbing puffballs at Palin and the Governor *still* came off looking out of her depth. The conservative line has to be this pap about media Gotcha questions because the alternative is to confront the chilling fact that the Republican VP candidate is woefully out of her league.

Make sure the interview is taped so we can edit this to give the image we want. None of the "pros" would survive this.

Gee, Dennis, you lost me at, "Katie Couric set out to humiliate the Republican vice-presidential candidate with a series of "gotcha" questions." Uh, if she wanted a gotcha, she coulda done a lot better than asking her what she read -- which was a fair question because she'd referred to the nastiness of the MSM many times, so it's fair to ask what she reads that she finds detestable. And, gee, asking her about Supreme Court decisions she didn't agree with -- Palin had discussed one that affected Alaska not long before. And Palin didn't need to list them by name (though the Dred Scott ('slaves remained property even in non-slave states') decision would have been an obvious choice). All she had to do was to recite the conservative mantra of "I can't list them by name, but there were a number of decisions during the Warren Court that held that criminals had to be let free if the police made a slight misstep in interrogating them." But Palin instead just tried to BS her way through with a non-answer, which is telling in itself. We'll forgive candidates who don't have all the information at their fingertips, but pretending you know something that you don't -- "hey, we'll move our embassy to Jerusalem!" -- is downright dangerous. Sorry, Dennis, your paranoia is showing.

I would agree with some of the points you make, except that some of them are dealing with issues so immediate that to not understand them is demeaning.

For example, my 12 year old daughter could tell you nothing about the Korean War, but she could tell you about the Bush doctrine as it has been discussed in her social studies class multiple times. I could tell you about it because I have read dozens of op-ed pieces for and against it over the last 8 years. The fact that Palin knows nothing about it violates one of our core expectations in a representative government, that elected politicians have the knowledge to act on world events.

Regarding the Laffer curve, that would have stumped just about anyone without some knowledge of economics. While I happen to know what it is, I don't believe that many people do. Americans do not expect politicans to have a strong grounding in economic theory either, otherwise Wes Clark, a Rhodes Scholar who taught economics at West Point, would have been elected in 2004.

Regarding abortion, liberal candidates are regularly asked these questions, so I am not sure what your point is there. I have attented televised debates and town hall meetings where Kerry, Dean, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton, Edwards and others have been asked exactly this question.

The other questions you pose are ones which maybe someone should have an answer, maybe not. But I would expect someone to be able to articulate a response in clear English, use well formed sentences, and admit they don't know the answer rather than try to change the subject. This is the difference between Palin and any politician who has spent time on the national stage - they possessed some natural talents that justified them being there.

Just to put all this in perspective, telling someone what periodicals you read regularly requires no specialized knowledge, no understanding of current affairs, and no moral insight. Not being able to answer that question basically says you can't read. There's nothing 'gotcha' about it - you read or you don't read, and you can remember what you read or you cannot. I can't see why she couldn't answer that.

M

Here is a prime example of an Obama supporter. This ad is on Craigslist in Los Angeles, today, 10/7/08. A topless girl wearing Obama pasties is looking for girl/girl fun in casual encounters. Making her parents proud!

[losangeles.craigslist.org]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh how long ago was this interview ?

WE DON'T CARE!

TALK ABOUT REAL ISSUES!

THE DOW DROPPED 500 MORE POINTS TODAY!

1700 POINTS IN A WEEK!

NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR CRAP ARTICLE!

I love it when people write out "Barack Hussein Obama," like having a middle name immediately makes you a terrorist or a conspirator with one. If that were true, then everyone named:

Timothy (McVeigh)
Adolph (Hitler)
Joseph (Stalin)

Would be a terrorist.

Coincedentally, every white guy with a shaved head (KKK) could also be considered a terrorist.

Oh, and if my last name is Jordan, am I automatically a lock for the NBA?

Well desperation must be settling in if we are charging that Barack Obama is a "terrorist." It's time to get over your own racist and fascist overtones about him and start thinking about how we are going to govern this country on January 20th, 2009--what our foreign policy should look like, our economy, how to better help serve ALL Americans...we set that agenda, and we can set it through President Obama. A lot of you on here seem to feel "so sick" at the notion that Obama will become President--I charge that that's how a lot of Democrats have felt for the past 8 years. But we've participated in government. We've worked with Republicans, even as the minority group in Congress, to move forward as a country.

Read this what Yglesias has to say (in the Atlantic) about Ayers. Please stop calling Obama a terrorist. You know that you're lying. Why would you want to help more politicians lie by propogating a known lie? ...
------
It’s wrongheaded because merely pointing out an association is lazy: it doesn’t do the harder work of establishing a connection between the relationship and Obama’s ability to govern. The McCain campaign has failed to do that.

And it’s dangerous because guilt by association can apply to just about anyone, and heading down that slippery slope would have perverse consequences. I have no idea what the vast majority of my friends think about the Weather Underground. I hope they have sound views, but if I found out otherwise I'd hate to have to stop hanging out with them. And, indeed, it seems to me that it would be a bit perverse to do so—so perverse that I trust nobody has any intention of actually trying to apply a guilt-by-association doctrine in any rigorous way.

Ayers is an extreme figure. But then again so is G. Gordon Liddy, the former White House "plumber" and Watergate burglar. On behalf of the Nixon administration he masterminded a break-in at the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist and managed a 20-year prison sentence only because his most far-fetched schemes (including kidnapping anti-war protestors and bombing the Brookings Institution) never came to fruition. Liddy's sentence was commuted by Jimmy Carter, and since that time he's built a career as a radio host. McCain has appeared on Liddy's show and congratulated him for his "continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great." Are we supposed to hold McCain accountable for this association?

The truth is that the Vietnam era was a time of political extremism in the United States. And part of the way that era was brought to a close was by turning away from efforts to banish the extremists from public life. Segregationist politicians went on chairing their congressional committees. Black Panthers ran for congress and won. Liddy got a radio show and Ayers became a professor.

In retrospect, it might have been better to undertake something like a truth and reconciliation commission to establish standards for rehabilitation and public expressions of contrition. But we didn't go down that path, and it's far too late now. And now we have these annoyingly nostalgic attacks. Some day, enough of the people who find rehashes of the sixties and seventies compelling will be dead that these tactics will cease to be effective. Until then, those of us who find the whole business annoying can only gripe.




Clarkloon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Governor Palin will release her reading list when
> Ms Couric releases an in-depth article on William
> Ayers.

Why in the world would I care what Katie Couric thinks about these issues? Or Sean Hannity? or Drudge, for that matter? Journalists are not candidates for elected office. I want to hear the candidates positions on these issue. Yes, Biden's, Palin's, McCain's, and Obama's.

What a joke. She could not name a paper or magazine she reads. She doesn't do interviews and dares to be a heartbeat away. She is pathetic and Prager is a world class right wing apologist. It is not experience or anything else. The Couric interview was full of softballs and she couldn't handle it. If she can't memorize it, she has nothing to say.

Well, I have a question for Palin.

Why do you allow your rallies to turn into Nuremberg hate fests with people yelling "kill him!" at Obama?

CD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who claimed that Palin is a foreign policy expert
> because Alaska is in close proximity to Russia? It
> wasn't Palin. She has never claimed to be a
> foreign policy expert. Her statement had nothing
> to do with being a foreign policy expert. In
> making this statement I wonder what specific
> experience you feel Obama has that qualifies him
> to be President? As the supporters stammer about
> Palin being the most inexperienced vice
> presidential candidate in history, do they even
> bother to understand the are supporting the most
> unqualified Presidential candidate?
>
> I think we should just ask Al Gore to explain it
> all to us. Remember he invented the internet when
> he was the vice president and anyone that invented
> the internet can surely sort all of this out for
> us.

If you think that Obama is inexperienced and unqualified then hopefully you didn't vote for George W Bush...but somehow I imagine you did. W had governor of Texas as the only executive experience on his resume. That is, unless you want to count his failed businesses as well.

Good one about Al Gore inventing the Internet. I hadn't heard that one before. Maybe you could use the fancy internets to read up about how Al Gore has been misrepresented ad nauseam about "inventing the internet".

Here's what he actually said on March 9th, 1999 on Wolf Blitzer's Late Edition:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Unless you are a tragic simpleton, there is no way that you can read this and say that he means he invented the internet. See how that works?

But don't take my word for it:

Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn have also noted that, "as far back as the 1970s, Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship [...] the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises."

The difference in asking Govenor Palin those questions and asking Katie Couric those questions? I can use my remote to watch or not watch Ms Couric. I don't have the option of switching off the administration if we elect another idiot like the idiot we've had in office over the last 8 years. Equating the impact on Americans of a network anchor to the impact from the Vice President is silly even for silly right wingers.

I recall the much ballyhooed interview of Senator Obama by Bill O'Reilly and how the senator would finally be exposed by undergoing tough questioning, funny how you don't hear much about that interview nor do you hear supporters of Senator Obama claiming bias on the part of O'Reilly. Interesting contrast to the Palin apologists who refuse to admit that the empress although wearing lipstick seem to have no clothes.

Dennis Prager? So apparently he thinks that every single publication besides the three he listed are "liberal media". If he seriously thinks that, then he's as stupid as any opinion-@#$%& I have ever seen put pen to paper (or figner to keyboard). Gotcha questions? Wow, talk about delusional. Actually, not delusional. More like, purposefully lying. And as a liar, McCain-Palin is the perfect ticket for Prager.

Palin's pick was irresponsible and shows horrible judgment. While some conservatives would like to, you can't judge the fairness of a question by Palin's ability (or inability) to handle it. I have never seen conservatives so embrace mediocrity. The current conduct of McCain/Palin reaks of desperation. The "Country First" sign with McCain or Palin speaking behind it just entertains me to no end. McCain was doing anything but putting country first in selecting Palin as his running mate.

You know the old...it took a Carter to give us a Reagan...Well....it took a Bush to give us not only an Obama...but maybe just as important a democratic filibuster proof majority in the Senate...Which, i am not a fan of for either party to have. That may well be Bush's lasting legacy. Oh..and don't forget the Judicial appointments.

That's right, Katie Couric (of all "liberal media" types, right?) is the problem. Personal accountability is all right until Sarah Palin is getting beat up for not understanding many basic issues. Shrill right-wing drivel.

- There's a consensus among economists that the Laffer Curve tipping point is about a 60% general rate of taxation. The reason many actors probably don't know about it, then, is that it's a theoretical abstraction. It matters more to Sweden than the U.S., because we get nowhere near that point.

Interestingly, I see very very few conservatives who handle that model correctly (they wouldn't bring it up as conservatives if they could). But the bias that swings against them on that point is that everyone shakes their heads and leaves the room when that discredited Reagan-era garbage is brought up these days.

(That doesn't mean that the economy does best when taxed at 59%. It just means that government revenue, using current economic models, maxes out its revenue at roughly 60% taxation.)

- Are you disputing that women make 77 cents for every dollar that men do? I've seen that cited a number of times; where's your evidence that women make as much as men? That women are routinely passed up for promotion while given comparable workloads. That certainly factors into the numbers. Many women may find it easier to leave the workforce when they make roughly three-quarters what a man does. Women are also more inclined to raise children. If employers were chomping at the bit to hire women, given the number of women removed from the workforce is higher than the number of men, they would just have to pay them more. Basic supply and demand. Your question is circular.

- Weren't you guys claiming a few years ago that the Wall Street Journal was the most liberal paper in America? If that's the case, I'm sure you think bearded guys in Mao jackets hand out mainstream, establishment papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the Chicago Tribune. Get over the yourself. I'll read WSJ for its incisive reporting without whining if you guys pick up the New York Times and shut the hell up every once in a while.

James M. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It's called 20 months of scrutiny,



What.....put down the kool aid, there has not been 20 months of scrutiny, unless you can call Sean Hannity hammering BHO everynight for 20 months about his lack of exeperience and relationship with racists and terrorists.