I’ll be on Outside the Lines (ESPN) on the 3 pm EDT show, wearing a plastic pig’s snout and lipstick. I’ll also be on ESPN 890 here in Boston at about 5:25 pm.
→ September 10, 2008
→ By
→ By
The collected thoughts of sportswriter, bookworm, & food critic Keith Law
I’ll be on Outside the Lines (ESPN) on the 3 pm EDT show, wearing a plastic pig’s snout and lipstick. I’ll also be on ESPN 890 here in Boston at about 5:25 pm.
Copyright © 2011 Curtail Theme on the Genesis Framework
OMFG Keith! You owe ever woman (and cop and chauvinist male?) an apology!! Outrage!!!
I’m offended for offendedness’ sake. It’s the new white meat.
(ever = every)
When pigs fly (or the Cubs win the WS, whichever comes first)…
I missed it. Did Bob Ley pressure you to explain your associations with sketchy radicals such as Rob Neyer?
Speaking of pigs and lipstick, maybe this question isn’t kosher, but you’ve never been afraid to express your opinion before:
I’ve seen you espouse libertarian points of view a lot (that was a fun BTF thread the other day, huh?), so where do you stand in this election?
I’m a liberal, so it’s hard for me to tell, but it seems from here that the Republican party isn’t really a conservative party anymore, so much as a Christianist / wedge-issue party with no real platform other than campaign winning. Naturally, I’ve wondered if intelligent conservatives (of whom I’d certainly count you as one) would choose the perceived lesser evil of the Democrats if only because they actually seem to be taking this governing thing (moderately) seriously. Is this partisan crazy talk, seeing only what I want to see? Or do you agree?
I’d also reccomend All the Pretty Horses. Definitely better than The Road, and I loved The Road. Way less bleak too.
Sam: That’s partisan crazy talk, and you’re seeing what you want to see. I think if either party can be accused of basing its platform on campaign-winning, it would be the Dems. If you’re serious about the “governing thing,” don’t you nominate a candidate who has actually governed something before?
You could say similar things about the Democratic Party and class warfare (taxes), scare tactics (Social Security), and wedge issues (abortion).
I can’t speak for Keith, but I am a libertarian, and my primary concern about an Obama administration is his attitude toward the redistribution of wealth and out of control entitlements.
I don’t necessarily like the idea of a progressive income tax, but I can accept it as a pragmatic compromise. What I can’t accept is the idea that a family that makes more than $250k is excessively wealthy (consider the cost of living in places like New York, San Francisco, etc) and should be obligated to bankroll garbage like refundable tax credits (if a person gets a $1000 “credit and pays $200 in income taxes, they receive an $800 check).
What angers me even more is that, as a young person who is going to make a good amount of money over the course of my career and will (hopefully) be wealthy by the time I’m ready to retire, I am virtually guaranteed to see pennies on the dollar of the hundreds of thousands I’ll contribute to Social Security over the course of my career. Not only does Obama have no interest in reforming this program, he actually wants to increase the amount I toss into this pyramid scheme.
There are a lot of things I like about Obama, but in the two areas that are likeliest to matter, we completely disagree.
Chat?
I too am a registered member of the Libertarian party and have voted and will vote Libertarian in every national election because I don’t want to waste my vote on someone whose policies I don’t agree with (man I hate ending sentences with prepositions). I would say that Libertarian leaning conservatives are definitely unlikely to swing Obama’s way for the reasons outlined above by Keith and Pete. Further, I just find the whole Obama campaign style scary. It reminds me of 1930s Germany with the pageantry, the focus on speeches, the cult of personality, and the talk of rapid change to get the country out of its current low state. I don’t feel comfortable with a campaign run like that, especially considering his economic policies aren’t that far off from that government either. That said I wouldn’t expect true Libertarians to vote Republican either because of their current tendency to embrace interventionist foreign policy, their infringements on social freedoms, and particularly gross spending habits which are almost as bad as the Dems. I really think if liberals are hoping libertarians will vote for Obama, they’re barking up the wrong tree.
Oh sweet Jesus…this is ridiculous Keith:
“I think if either party can be accused of basing its platform on campaign-winning, it would be the Dems.”
I won’t get into an argument on who bases their platform more on winning because it’s the main goal of both parties. The difference is that the Republicans do it better. It doesn’t matter how blatant the lie or ridiculous the statement, the Republicans stay on message until it’s just accepted at the truth. I hate them, but admit that it’s a brilliant tactic, especially when most people are too apathetic and only get their news in soundbites and talking points.
By far the most brilliant talking point they have everyone believing is the the “Liberal Media” myth. First off, it’s impossible to find a liberal talker on the local radio. AM or FM, if they’re talking politics, it’s from a conservative point of view.
After that, how many talking heads do you find on TV that are liberal talkers? Not reporters…I’m talking about the fools who turn red and shake their fingers at America. The ones who get the face time to force their opinions down our throats. Of course there are examples like Keith Olbermann, but if you lined them up side-by-side, the conservative would vastly outnumber the liberals.
It’s all about selling the message and not blinking. The Republicans do it very well, and the Democrats are terrible.
And getting back to the quoted statement, it is probably true, but not in the way you meant. The Republicans have done a much better job at planning long-term and taking control of local government positions before attacking the White House. The Democrats tend to have tunnel vision and only aim for the top. It’s been their most fatal flaw in the past 30-40 years.
“If you’re serious about the “governing thing,” don’t you nominate a candidate who has actually governed something before?”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but what has McCain ever governed? Is it Palin’s 22 months that suddenly lend the ticket “governing” credibility? Should the Dems have picked Minner (7th year governor!) from Delaware instead of Biden?
Steve, the “Liberal Myth” isn’t the problem. Bias isn’t the problem. It’s the fact that most newspapers and news anchors are liberal and claim it doesn’t affect their reporting. This is complete crap.
The guys on talk radio admit their bias. To his credit (there’s little else to credit him with, including brains), Keith Olbermann admits his bias. But he’s a commentator, not a reporter. Ditto O’Reilly and others. Commentator bias is expected.
Bias in reporting is obvious and should be admitted. If you’re not seeing it, I don’t really know what to say to you.
Sure Seth, but it’s gotten to the point where if facts are reported, Republicans cry out liberal media bias. It can be a completely legitimate story, but they’ve marketed the liberal media bias to the point where they shield themselves from any criticism.
And anyway, how many people really separate commentators from anchors and reporters? They watch O’Reilly, Hannity & and The Straw Man, and Olbermann for their “news.”
If there were truly a massive liberal bias, wouldn’t the fact that Palin is blatantly lying about her position on the Bridge to Nowhere be a bigger story than Obama using a cliche?
I don’t know, Dave – as big a story as Obama/Biden voting for the Bridge to Nowhere?
There is a fundamental problem in all areas of news reporting, which is the blurring of the line between reporting and commentary. It infects all parts of the media – news, sports, even business – in all formats. That’s why the subject of bias even comes up. I think most of us are fine with “bias” on the op ed page, but when we see it in straight news articles, it grates.
Points well taken, Steve.
FWIW, I’m not hoping for libertarians to swing the vote or anything, I’m interested if my profound disgust for this Republican campaign is shared by people who don’t necessarily agree with me on the issues.
Full disclosure: I love Sen. Obama. I don’t support him begrudgingly because I hate the other choice. I believe in his policy choices, and I think he is an extremely skilled politician, maybe the most skilled since Pres. Johnson (and hopefully a little less of a hawk) that could make those things happen. Also, I’m a college student.
That being said, and knowing we won’t find agreement on that, isn’t there something profoundly disturbing about electing a president who will tell bold-faced lie after bold-faced lie to help him win an election? And then accuse his opponent of being the one that puts politics before country? Or a man that makes a Vice-Presidential selection without even bothering to thoroughly vet the person for obviously political reasons? I won’t say Palin is a terrible VP choice from a governing perspective(though I think she is–I’m generally not a fan of people that believe in the literal truth of the Bible), but it says something very scary about Sen. McCain’s judgment, I think.
Also, Keith, what does whether Obama and Biden voted for the Bridge have to do with anything? Have they said they voted against it repeatedly? Are they campaigning primarily on their record of earmark reform? It’s really not relevant. This isn’t an argument about whether earmarks are bad (probably they are, but it’s not as cut and dried as it’s made out to be), it’s whether Sarah Palin and John McCain have LIED.
Andrew Sullivan says all this much better than I can: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html#more
Also, (and I promise I’m really asking), when you say the Dems are more motivated by winning above governing than the Reublicans, can you explain that more?
I don’t think nominating Sen. Obama is a good example at all. You can argue we were swept up by empty promises and rhetoric, but I really don’t see how nominating an intelligent black man with a Muslim-sounding name, and with roots in Muslim culture is somehow a decision about victory above quality. We were naive perhaps, but certainly well-intentioned.
I don’t know why so many people treat politics like sports. These are not teams for which to root. One should not make apologies for candidates and attack their rivals just because they aren’t on one’s side. Let your party and your candidates have their flaws. If you can live with those flaws then vote for them, if you can’t then don’t. It should not be like this.
Sam: Obama is a “skilled politician?” Is he a clutch hitter with veteran presence too?
Your comments are those of someone very young, and I imagine that one day, you’ll want them back.
You perceive the McCain campaign to be especially sleazy because you support Obama. McCain is the calculating politician, Obama is the noble savior… as if the Obama campaign’s attempt to paint questions about his inexperience and record as “the politics of the past” is honest.
Anyone who views either of these candidates as especially noble is naive. You can either have disdain for politics or be entertained by the gamesmanship, but those are the only choices.
“I don’t know, Dave – as big a story as Obama/Biden voting for the Bridge to Nowhere?”
Are Obama/Biden making one of their major selling points their rejection of earmarked money? How many speeches have they given where a major talking point is their opposition to the bridge? I don’t even care all that much about the bridge itself; most politicians try to funnel money into their home state. What I care about is the fact that she’s campaigning on a massive, proveable lie and most of the MSM isn’t calling her out. Its analogous to every executive or coach who fluffed their resume, got nailed in the media and got fired yet she’s skating*.
* Hockey pun!
It’s pretty clear that there’s some gray area on the Bridge to Nowhere stuff…it’s hardly a “massive, provable lie” unless you’re a Keith Olbermann drone.
What do you think of Obama’s line that McCain proposes tax breaks for oil companies, when in fact he’s proposing cutting corporate taxes across the board? A bit disingenuous, maybe even a little bit *GASP* political, don’t you think?
How about Obama’s characterization of McCain’s record on fuel standards and alternative energy?
Stop kidding yourself…they’re all politicians, they all play these games.
I’m not kidding myself and nor am I one of those supporters who believe that Obama is somehow above the political game. I’m simply pointing out that there is a difference between telling a selective truth and telling a lie. If McCain isn’t proposing tax breaks and Obama is claiming he is, that would be a parallel. Is what he’s saying about oil companies disingenuous and misleading? Sure, but not a lie.
If it ain’t the truth, it’s a lie.
The lengths to which people of all political stripes will go to excuse behavior by their preferred candidates has been a huge contributor to my antipathy towards the process.
Agreed. And in the example above, one is lying and one is telling the truth.
To draw a horrendous baseball analogy; if Wang goes to arbitration after this season, he’ll pick and choose the statistics that best suit his position. He’d gloss over the lack of Ks and the scary K/BB, would probably emphasize wins and ERA and durability in 2006 and 2007. That would be selective truth in the manner I’m using the term. If he claims he should get $10MM because he pitched 230 innings with a sub 3.00 ERA in 2008, that would be a lie.
Palin is flat out lying here; if Obama does the same, I’ll readily admit it.
If you want to see either party telling lies, then simply go to factcheck.org and you can find examples from both sides.
BTW, Palin is just telling the “selective truth” (your words, Dave) because she supported the bridge until it received bad press and then she was against it. This is backed up by factcheck.
Fair enough…I have more things to say, but I’m done. I’ll stick to books and sports for now–re-reading The Sound and the Fury, and Quentin’s chapter is maybe the best thing I’ve ever read (bar, perhaps Combray I/Overture from Swann’s Way).
Both candidates significantly misrepresent their opponent – the NYTimes has a nice summary at http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/05/us/politics/20080905-CAMPAIGN-SPEECH-ANALYSIS.html.
Personally, I support Obama for a few reasons: 1) I agree with Obama much more than McCain on social positions (e.g., Roe v. Wade, education); 2) I have no idea who I would be voting for with McCain – his positions have changed substantially since he ran in 2000 (when I liked him a lot as a candidate), and I can’t tell if he’s falling in lock-step with the Republican party or just pretending to in order to get elected; 3) the Republican party in recent years has not exactly demonstrated that they are actually interested in reducing government spending.
Regardless of who wins, though, I am hoping that our next president is willing to bring members of the other party into his cabinet and listen to their ideas; the greatest fault I find in the current administration is their close-mindedness to ideas from outside the administration.
Preston: at least at first blush, it would seem that McCain is more likely to choose a Democrat (Lieberman being tops on the list) for his cabinet than Obama choosing a Republican.
One of the reasons “conservatives” don’t like McCain is because he is linked to two bills with Democrats (Feingold and Kennedy) that they think are horrible.
Granted, he’s not had as much of an opportunity, but I can’t think of any high-profile Obama-Republican bills out there.