Grand political roundup

[Grefter]

Mostly at NEB.

Hey whoa whoa whoa.  The system being broken wasn't bandied out.  We have clear examples where a democracy is functioning more as a business than as a government.  It was stating fucking fact.

You have two presidents (edit - Errr candidates was the word I was after) who are putting forward nothing campaigns that say nothing about their actual product which is essentially cuttingly similar on some actual key issues (energy) while lying and saying the opposition is like TOTALLY DIFFERENT and then pointing out irrelevant crap where they differ and making a big thing over it.  Throw in the corporate cock sucking and money making bullshit that came up with regards to Palin and it is pretty clear that there is something flawed and broken there.  This is a fucking election, not American Idol.  The system is broken.

Says nothing about your other valid point though.  Just saying, there is a basis for the statement.

And never have I, old enough to even watch elections, seen a couple so marketed as the ideal couple, when Michelle could mean less shit to me.

You haven't been paying enough attention then.  Pretty much every married man running for president gets that shit going (and it is offensive every time).  The amount of crap surrounding "The First Lady" pretty much irregardless of what the reality of the situation is gets that crap.  Look no further than Hillary Clinton, a prime example of the couple fairly publically having some problems at one point, still went through that supportive self sacrificing wife bullshit in spite of being a strong political creature in her own right.

Happens in most countries as well.

[NotMiki]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, which would be the first step toward a countrywide bad on abortion, 15-17 states would have immediate bans in place based on existing state law.  You could expect abortion law questions to appear on the ballot for just about every state.

Uh, no. Those trigger laws would likely have zero effect--other than causing a few minor lawsuits. Roe v. Wade does not prevent a ban on abortions. Rather, it raises abortion to the level of a fundamental right, which can still be regulated and or banned given compelling enough interest by the state; i.e. it must pass the so-called strict scrutiny test: the law in question is the only means of achieving a compelling government interest.

Given the absolutely horrible reasoning behind Roe v. Wade--I can't emphasize this enough, nearly all Constitutional Law professors and scholars believe the legal reasoning given in Roe v. Wade was baseless and indefensible even if they agree with the outcome--it wouldn't be that far out of the question to see a court downgrading abortion from a fundamental right to an intermediate scrutiny test. An intermediate test would still require the burden of proof on the government to explain why an anti-abortion law is needed, thus the trigger laws would not be valid unless they meet the burden.

I see your point, but though it will take longer, the end result, most likely, is still abortion bans in a number of states (I have trouble believing the state gov'ts couldn't meet intermediate scrutiny).

[Idun]

And never have I, old enough to even watch elections, seen a couple so marketed as the ideal couple, when Michelle could mean less shit to me.

You haven't been paying enough attention then.  Pretty much every married man running for president gets that shit going (and it is offensive every time).  The amount of crap surrounding "The First Lady" pretty much irregardless of what the reality of the situation is gets that crap.  Look no further than Hillary Clinton, a prime example of the couple fairly publically having some problems at one point, still went through that supportive self sacrificing wife bullshit in spite of being a strong political creature in her own right.

Of course they get that crap. I'm not talking about them getting crap though. I'm talking about all of the Michelle being pushed in my face when I'm in the checkout lanes.

I don't remember Laura/Bush or Clinton/Hillary during campaigning being marketed as celebrities. I remember tons of paid advertising, but it seems like Obama's paid advertising is his celebrity. For example, I don't ever remember either's campaigning being on the Oprah show a bagillion times, on Essence magazine covers, People Magazines, GQ, Time, and a bagillion others simply on the basis of his ethnicity and history making, with his wife. . . I visit art sites a good amount of times, and there's plenty of artists on the West Coast for example, and... I believe Northeast who are doing a good amount of pop or kitch art simply of Obama or Obama and his wife. For example, I'm not the only one who notices this: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN2249933220080822 .

Of course we get possibile First Lady biographies and such to understand the family, so people know a lot about them, comment, and question . . . The focus is a lot different in comparison to Michelle to Hillary to Laura.  I don't ever remember Laura being focused on much with Bush, and I don't ever remember Hillary besides her healthcare support being focused on much from magazines to a bagillion covers during Clinton's campaigning.

But to be level, the media jumping on Cindy because of her "hotness" is exasperating too.

Edit- after re-reading this, maybe I want too much as an active voter.

[Grefter]

Again, almost all propaganda for a married man while he is campaigning ends up involving his wife being towed around and being there in all the photos and whatnot.  Think about this, if they weren't there then the opposition would make thing about it and just step up their own "For the Famillies!" campaign that everyone and their dog has.  There may be more emphasis on it than normal due to the need for the Obama campaign to hammer down his normal healthy regularity underneath all of that pointless history making garbage.  Just because it is a more prominent piece of campaign propaganda this time doesn't mean it is terribly out of the ordinary.  The focus is different, but only by virtue of that part of the campaign being needed to be bandied around a bit more, there is something more to it than "Look I have sex with this specific woman, are we not normal." token photos and campaign.

With that kind of campaigning it doesn't matter what they are doing just that they are doing it together as much as possible like a "healthy" couple.

And dude, I dunno, I would say just by being the first black presidential candidate well is kind of a thing to be famous for and fame is all it takes to be a celebrity by very definition.  John freaking Kerry is technically a celebrity at this point and he has nothing going for him on an interesting topical standpoint.

You do not want enough as an active voter.  You just expect more than you are given.

Edit - This is to say, yes it is vapid stupid and pointless.  What did you expect?

[Idun]

The focus is different, but only by virtue of that part of the campaign being needed to be bandied around a bit more, there is something more to it than "Look I have sex with this specific woman, are we not normal." token photos and campaign.

I don't see any need in the Obama campaign to be bandied around his family a bit more than other campaigners; Ultimately, I don't think the personal lives on any politician should take the forefront in society. The final line for me is, if in excess, I don't like it.

And dude, I dunno, I would say just by being the first black presidential candidate well is kind of a thing to be famous for and fame is all it takes to be a celebrity by very definition.  John freaking Kerry is technically a celebrity at this point and he has nothing going for him on an interesting topical standpoint.

It's not just the fact that he's a celebrity that I dislike. I just don't like how his "celebrity" is overriding his "politician" in my community.

You do not want enough as an active voter.  You just expect more than you are given.

I never expect more from political campaigning than I'm given because of how I've taken politics in general since high school. I find that an odd assumption about me, from you, given I've never clearly stated much that I wanted as a voter besides what I've provided in this thread (media covering less paid advertising/more focus on actual policies than personal lives). Me wanting more as a voter is more than I just stated - I suppose the sentence was ironic and reflective to myself.

What did you expect?

Eh, I had expected from my POLS course in '06 that more people who had political knowledge dispersed throughout society from education, the more coverage would yield less horse race coverage (the amount of platfrom policy coverage vs. attacks/propaganda), and the more the people would want vice versa. There's a trend in the South compared to the North that more people in the South are voting than in the North, maybe a reason supporting this is the increase of blacks in colleges here getting said education I expected. Who knows.

[metroid composite]

Actually, as far as seeing someone's face everywhere, when I looked at a newstand last weekend, it looked like EVERY magazine had Sarah Palin on the front cover.

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, which would be the first step toward a countrywide bad on abortion, 15-17 states would have immediate bans in place based on existing state law.  You could expect abortion law questions to appear on the ballot for just about every state.

I don't think the 'black market' or 'doctors behind bars' things would happen to any great extent even with a countrywide ban, because there are so few abortion clinics in some states that it is already nearly impossible in practice to get one in certain parts of the country; whatever demand for a black market there is, it's probably already fulfilled to a great extent.

You may be right about a statewide ban--and really, the population being behind it is precisely what you need for an abortion ban to work (since this eliminates the black market and mass arests).

However, a "countrywide ban", the problem is that around 60% of Americans support Abortion:
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2005/polls.asp

Yes, a statewide ban could work in states where the support was more-like 10%, but with a countrywide ban you'd also have to deal with states like California and New York.  In other words: you would see a rather large  black market, if perhaps regionally based.

[NotMiki]

I only mentioned a countrywide ban because you asked hypothetically about the president being able to make that yes/no decision; I don't think it's imminent even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (a possibility I see as very likely given a McCain win).  Still, it's worth considering that a significant chunk of pro-lifers in the country would prefer such a ban.

On a different note, Obama is sharpening his attacks on McCain based on the latter's recent ad campaign (the "sex for kindergarteners" piece, the "lipstick on a pig" accusations of sexism, and Palin's repeated assertion that she was against the 'bridge to nowhere,' to name a few).  Obama's new line of attack directly questions McCain's integrity and honor:

"Today on "The View," John McCain defended his campaign's latest ad campaign, which has been debunked repeatedly as both false and sleazy. In running the sleaziest campaign since South Carolina in 2000 and standing by completely debunked lies on national television, it's clear that John McCain would rather lose his integrity than lose an election."

Heres' the article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/12/obama-camp-steps-up-attac_n_126014.html

and in case you want a reminder of what those ads were:
http://www.factcheck.org/

Fair?  Over the line?

[metroid composite]

A news point my parents mentioned to me--Palin said America might have to go to war with Russia:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3638555,00.html

Brilliant idea there; I reccomend a land invasion, preferably starting in September.  What could possibly go wrong?

[Laggy]

Clearly you are forgetting that she has experience in these foreign matters because Alaska is so close to Russia. Like, so close that you can see Russia on some days. (This, in response during her interview about her foreign policy background. It's paraphrased but not far off from her actual lines at all.)

I wish I was kidding. I mean, not that Obama is much better, but 1) he knows it and has made efforts - politically obvious as they may be - and 2) he's not the one pushing possible invasion. I mean, really. (And Biden, of course, is entirely another story.)

[Dark Holy Elf]

Well, I do somewhat approve of her sentiment - frankly I was a bit embarrassed by how weak Western Europe and allies' reaction has been to Russia's actions in Georgia, and I am definitely in favour of seeing a strong stance denouncing those actions.

Actually calling for war with Russia itself is pretty idiotic, though. Never mind MC's jokes about other nations failing it up against them, there is this little thing called the Cold War which you should know about. It both makes open warfare impossible and getting close to it a distinctly Bad Idea.

But Palin foreign policy experience. The quote is probably slightly out of context but it's psyduck anyway.

[Laggy]

Ah, yeah. Got it. Actually it was McCain who said it originally to defend her, but her response... uh, well, judge for yourself.

GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?

PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.

GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.

[Grefter]

I don't see any need in the Obama campaign to be bandied around his family a bit more than other campaigners; Ultimately, I don't think the personal lives on any politician should take the forefront in society. The final line for me is, if in excess, I don't like it.

Then you aren't considering the fact that no matter how progressive the majority of the country is, there was still a while there leading up to the campaign that Obama had to disarm some pretty fucked up weird unrealistic criticism about him (See Republican focussed media article referring to him as going to be the first "Hip Hop" president here and other things like that.), which dictates a need to nip that crap in the bud before it effects any uninformed swing voters.  Easy to do that by showering the nation in the generic healthy familly image crap.

It's not just the fact that he's a celebrity that I dislike. I just don't like how his "celebrity" is overriding his "politician" in my community.

Yeah, fair enough I guess.

I never expect more from political campaigning than I'm given because of how I've taken politics in general since high school. I find that an odd assumption about me, from you, given I've never clearly stated much that I wanted as a voter besides what I've provided in this thread (media covering less paid advertising/more focus on actual policies than personal lives). Me wanting more as a voter is more than I just stated - I suppose the sentence was ironic and reflective to myself.

It was just a generic "You should demand perferction from your representatives and know that they are worse than Nixon" style droll comment I tend to make in political discussions. 

Eh, I had expected from my POLS course in '06 that more people who had political knowledge dispersed throughout society from education, the more coverage would yield less horse race coverage (the amount of platfrom policy coverage vs. attacks/propaganda), and the more the people would want vice versa. There's a trend in the South compared to the North that more people in the South are voting than in the North, maybe a reason supporting this is the increase of blacks in colleges here getting said education I expected. Who knows.

The flaw in your assumption is that people have political knowledge (or exercise it if they do have it).  People are still stupid and will still be massively retarded and herded around by those in power through emotional blackmail.

[Idun]

Then you aren't considering the fact that no matter how progressive the majority of the country is

A progressive majority? Wat.

The flaw in your assumption is that people have political knowledge (or exercise it if they do have it).  People are still stupid and will still be massively retarded and herded around by those in power through emotional blackmail.

And the flaw in your assumption is that people who gain political knowledge do not exercise it because the general populus is stupid. I believe there is a balance of both, or both sides to the story of our assumptions, because I've seen voting/poltical involvement increases where people who were disinfranchised/lacked education or submitted to suffrage who later gained political knowledge exercised it because of their situations.

[Grefter]

A progressive majority? Wat.

Voting for a black man isn't ultra progressive, but it is more so than lynching them for looking at a white girl.  This gives the general majority some points on a scale of being progressive.  The rest of  my statement is a kick to how poorly progressed they are that said well educated black man has to keep up some bullshit propaganda to show that he is in fact well educated and Just the Same as You tm.

And the flaw in your assumption is that people who gain political knowledge do not exercise it because the general populus is stupid. I believe there is a balance of both, or both sides to the story of our assumptions, because I've seen voting/poltical involvement increases where people who were disinfranchised/lacked education or submitted to suffrage who later gained political knowledge exercised it because of their situations.

Like the fucking weirdoes that would be roped into voting McCain because he has Palin as a VP and they think that is the Feminist thing to do?

The number of people that are educated about politics and take a stand against it without getting wrapped up in any party specific bullshit (so you know, keeping an objective open mind about how to vote based on policy rather than toeing the party line) is such a small percentage of the population to be insignificant, even if there was to be an increase in it.

Edit - For clarification, this is why the campaigns are largely based around trying to effect swing voters.  If the portion of the population did indeed grow to a significant point then the marketting campaigns would change.  However like I said, they are an insignificant portion.  They do not get marketted to.

[Idun]

I'm not trying to argue your points, and I see what you're saying, but all <i>I'm</i> doing is making speculations based on evidence I have to support my statements of assumptions. I'm not trying to create an ultimate truth for the general populus, because there isn't one.

[Grefter]

Yeah don't mind me, I just like to argue.  I stand by my arguments based on evidence of what is really happening however.  You don't spend as much money as you do on marketting for a presidential campaign and get the entire target market incorrect.

[NotMiki]

well, let me throw some information your way.  This is a link to the Pew's recent survey on how Americans consume media.  It has some fascinating takeaways on who trusts what, which audiences are educated, gender differences, and perceptions of media bias, but the page I'm linking to has some more basic information on how politically eduated Americans are.  They ask 3 questions to determine this:

Which party is in control of the House of Representatives?
Who is the Secretary of State?
Who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain?

here's the link

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1356

and here's the graph



18% got all 3 questions correct, 33% got none.  100% get to vote come November. (barring dirty Republican voting tricks.  don't get me started on those.)

[metroid composite]

In fairness, I wasn't aware that Tony Blair had been voted out.  Just like I'd probably name Jacques Chirac as France's President if asked (apparently he's gone now).  I generally hear about foreign politicians when something interesting is happening (in that I'll hear press releases like "Prime Minister ____ said ____") but I don't hear about, say, elections in Europe.

[Dark Holy Elf]

Blair wasn't voted out; he stepped aside. Gordon Brown is his successor.

[metroid composite]

I stand corrected.

Point is, I didn't know, and I work with Brits on a regular basis (one of the coworkers I collaborated with regularly this project lives and works in England).  For that matter, the token historian in my family (my mother) says Brown hasn't really done anything that would attract attention so far.  I can't personally faut the majority of Americans for not knowing the name Brown.

[Excal]

Grefter, I thought the need to announce loudly that he's just like everyone else is more because he's educated.

[NotMiki]

Obama, eh?  This article asserts that his problem connecting isn't his race or education exactly, but that he doesn't fit an established stereotype; in other words, voters think, "he's black, but he's not like the black people I know."  It would be interesting to see what a presidential race with an African American candidate of a more recognizable sort (your Jesse Jackson or MLK scions) would look like.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/12/obama_doubts/index.html

[Grefter]

Every politician should be educated.  All the actual good ones are.  I don't really think that should come as a shock to any voter specifically.

Either way you slice it, there is a majour campaign of normality surrounding him to combat some strange concept that he is something alien and completely out of the norm.

[Excal]

Except that both of the last two presidents have gone to great lengths to appear far less educated than they actually are, and anyone who runs on the merit of being well educated is asking for the electorate to vote against them.  A good education is not an asset if you're aiming for office.

[Grefter]

Eh?  Last I saw Clinton didn't hide his education.  He played up his less than upper class background, sure, but he never hid his education.

For Bush, I said good politicians.