Hard News: Electrickery
144 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
"Apart from being a pathological liar whose opportunistic xenophobia would be funny if it wasn't quite so sinister and destructive? Nothing at all - he's a top bloke."
I realise he's played around with party loyalties in the past (but surely he's free to do that) but which policy has he been particularly deceitful on.
I'm not a huge fan but IMHO over the years Winston seems to have carried a lot of weight with old school National voters even if that doesn't always convert to votes.You know he was a Nat once, a big one.(I know you know)I mean is he a Gerry Brownlee shape , Nick Smithish, Mallard like, Hide(sh)....or worse than all of them?
Winston strikes me as an old school politician who has made a great career by representing the unrepresented. Feel free to pass the education on about him though. I'd like to go into this years election with as much information as possible.
-
<quote>but you don't get to have it both ways Neil.<quote>
what are you talking about? I've given up trying to undertsand your arguments. They jump all over the place eventually landing on some remark like that which makes no sense.
-
I realise he's played around with party loyalties in the past (but surely he's free to do that)
I totally agree with you, Jeremy. And I can't pretend I was exactly lachrymose (crocodile or otherwise) when Peters was expelled from National.
I'm not a huge fan but IMHO over the years Winston seems to have carried a lot of weight with old school National voters even if that doesn't always convert to votes
If by "old school National voters" you mean 'bigoted cretins who'd like to pretend the last forty years didn't happen' I'd also have to agree with you. its just a shame that his anti-immigrant pandering has (IMO) made it impossible to have a desperately needed reality-based debate over immigration and economic policy.
what are you talking about? I've given up trying to undertsand your arguments. They jump all over the place eventually landing on some remark like that which makes no sense.
Yes, Neil, us loony misogynistic cultists are like that.
-
And in the interests of balance, now that McCain's given a rather interesting speech on foreign policy the reactions should be intriguing. If this man is some neo-con hawk, he really sucks at it.
So, would a McCain administration see a substantive change in direction, or is this the standard 'pander to your base during the primaries, then pivot to the center until the general' electoral strategy?
-
Simon, thank god you're here. The McCartney peeps are apparently thin on the ground.
And here was I thinking that his musical reputation had been largely rehabilitated. He usually gets the cool factor nod in all those serious Uk mags these days, and such things are pontificated at length there.
Myself, I'm a fan of lots of bits...McCartney, Ram and the odd single, and then a big big fan of his rather well received (both critically and commercially it seems) more recent albums. What is worth tracking down is the Costello / McCartney bootleg of dueting demos.
-
Yes, Neil, us loony misogynistic cultists are like that.
cut it out Craig, if I thought anything of the kind I wouldn't engage with you.
i was a bit snippy (i was sleep deprived - it's going round) but after talking more generally about how there is some nutty tribal loyalty going on, on both sides, and linking to evidence that suggests that the Dems are benefiting from a close and hotly contested race, all you can say is I'm being patronising.
would a McCain administration see a substantive change in direction
hard to say, but I doubt he'd appoint some one like Bolton to the UN.
I've tried to find any great difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign affairs. They squabble semantically over when to meet the leaders of hostile countries but that seems to be about it.
-
Simon, thank god you're here. The McCartney peeps are apparently thin on the ground.
I'm a McCartney fan - not of the Beatles Paul, at all, but the Wings period and later.
-
cut it out Craig, if I thought anything of the kind I wouldn't engage with you.
Well, thanks for clearing that up. I've had case to wonder -- but perhaps we could see some acknowledgement that not every criticism of Clinton is proffered in bad faith? I don't regard Barbara Ehrenreich as some infallible oracle - but I've read enough of her work not to see that she's some kind of knee-jerk Clinton basher or opportunistically playing the religion card.
And I think you raised one fair question: Do I think it's that unthinkable that Clinton or Obama would sit down with 'conservative' media outlets? Not at all. If my memory serves, they've had sessions with the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal -- but you'd have to acknowledge that it's a major and internationally well-respected newspaper. (Even if you think the new proprietor is the anti-Christ himself, he's nothing like Scafie.)
-
I've had case to wonder --
I can be a bit sharp and am sorry I've given the appearance of taking exception to you as a person rather than just to some of your arguments.
Scaife appeared to have changed his mind about the Clintons sometime last year - now considering he was way over the top with his vendetta against them. (Maybe his new found affection for them is just more evidence of his poor judgment, he he). So meeting with him now in the situation of a state primary has a bit of back story.
And on the subject of Hillary and her former enemies, she has over the years since her health reforms were torpedoed by various conservative politicians and insurance industry representatives got a lot of those former enemies on side. I don't expect her to be the next Pres but she has laid the ground work for much needed health reforms that Obama will find handy (once he adopts her slightly better reform plans). And presumably she'll either be Senate majority leader or in his cabinet.
-
for those that still care/are concerned about Obama's relationship with Wright. The Huffington Post have just reprinted this letter that Wright wrote to NYTimes a year ago.
the letter is so eloquent I won't even try quoting just one part of it, so here's the HuffPo intro:
In March 2007, New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor published a brief story about how Rev. Jeremiah Wright had been uninvited from delivering the invocation before Barack Obama's official presidential announcement.
Wright responded by writing the following
letter: -
for those that still care/are concerned about Obama's relationship with Wright. The Huffington Post have just reprinted this letter that Wright wrote to NYTimes a year ago.
Wow.
-
Obama has already challenged conventional democracy to a point that is historic .I hope he's set a level which is irreversible.
-
I heard him speak at the University of Pittsburgh today. I stood outside the Allegheny County Soldier's Memorial, with a sizable crowd, listening over the PA system whilst he spoke inside. The Americans were getting into it, clapping and whooping about the various issues, but frankly it didn't mean that much to me. For all the hype about his oratory, I felt as if he was still kissing babies (which he mentioned doing), and promising everyone mom and apple pie.
I guess because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool cynical New Zealander I wasn't able to be persuaded by the unity and hope messaged that framed his speech, and the rest of it was your usual sound byte stuff that he's supposed to have a reputation for not doing. I care about the children! Every American child is our child! I'm prepared to defend America from people that wish us harm without hesitating! I don't like corporate interests! He even said "fat cats". How are you supposed to take someone who uses "fat cats" to describe anything but obese, domesticated felines seriously?
-
I guess because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool cynical New Zealander I wasn't able to be persuaded by the unity and hope messaged that framed his speech...
It's a pity thay so much of the campaigning and the debate surrounding it has been to do with such meta issues as his unity and hope vs her experience etc.
Few people talk about such substantive issues as Obama vs Clinton's policies on performance based pay in the school system. (Obama is looking at performance based pay for teachers, Clinton at performance based pay for schools).
Kriugman has been complaining of this since the begining of the campaign. Here he is on the on the leading candidates' views on the current US economic crisis:
Mr. McCain, we’re told, is a straight-talking maverick. But on domestic policy, he offers neither straight talk nor originality; instead, he panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues.
Mrs. Clinton, we’re assured by sources right and left, tortures puppies and eats babies. But her policy proposals continue to be surprisingly bold and progressive.
Finally, Mr. Obama is widely portrayed, not least by himself, as a transformational figure who will usher in a new era. But his actual policy proposals, though liberal, tend to be cautious and relatively orthodox.
-
-
"I guess because I'm a dyed-in-the-wool cynical New Zealander I wasn't able to be persuaded by the unity and hope messaged that framed his speech..."
It's hard not to have empathy for cynics when it comes to politics.
So what would persuade you?and Craig, why don't you krugman the candidates for us. What's noticeable policy wise?
-
The latest from Clinton: she's staying in it all the way till August, no matter what the results, in the hope that the Dems' credentials committee will pull a rabbit out of the hat for her.
Obviously, she has the right to fight on. But don't the interests of her party, and the nation as a whole, come into it at some point?
-
But don't the interests of her party, and the nation as a whole, come into it at some point?
Well that's why she's still running. At present neither candidate can claim to have a monoply on the interests of the party and nation. Unless there's some sort of argument that supporting Clinton is some sort of betrayal of the party and nation. There's still quite a few voters yet to have their say in this.
But Obama now doesn't have a problem with her continuing on -
My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," he said. "She is a fierce and formidable opponent, and she obviously believes she would make the best nominee and the best president.
If he thinks he will still win and the evidence is that the close contest has made the Democrat party stronger then why not? The alternative is not to just demonise Clinton as a destroyer but also almost half the party membership which support her.
-
If he thinks he will still win and the evidence is that the close contest has made the Democrat party stronger then why not? The alternative is not to just demonise Clinton as a destroyer but also almost half the party membership which support her.
Neil:
I guess we can go backwards and forwards on this forever, but I'm getting sick of Obama supporters being 'demonised' as misogynistic "bullies":
The Clinton campaign showed resolve in the face of the developments, rallying supporters and donors and enlisting prominent surrogates to fight back. Mrs. Clinton told aides that she would not be “bullied out” of the race.
In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the “big boys” trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them.
Perhaps it comes from being citizen of a country where we've had two Prime Ministers in a row with vaginas -- and pretty formidable ones, at that -- but ENOUGH ALREADY.
-
If he thinks he will still win and the evidence is that the close contest has made the Democrat party stronger then why not?
The counter-argument will be, the democrats will rip themselves to shreds at the convention, and the weeks leading up to it, the republicans already started running for the general a few weeks ago, not in September.
-
Perhaps it comes from being citizen of a country where we've had two Prime Ministers in a row with vaginas -- and pretty formidable ones, at that -- but ENOUGH ALREADY.
Oh Craig, are you feeling oppressed? And would that be the vaginas that are formidable, or the women, or all of the above???
-
The counter-argument will be, the democrats will rip themselves to shreds at the convention, and the weeks leading up to it, the republicans already started running for the general a few weeks ago, not in September.
Sure. I'm sure John Howard can testify that winning an election becomes that much harder when the opposition aren't obligingly eviscerating themselves in public. :)
-
but I'm getting sick of Obama supporters being 'demonised' as misogynistic "bullies":
you might be but that's nothing i've said.
I was talking about how Obama is playing this. He's gone for "I'll win, I can be magnanimous" instead of the alternative "stop, you're destroying the party" which runs the risk of severly annoying the just less than 50% of Dems that prefer Clnton, not to mention the 12 million voters yet to have their say.
It's a better stategy and no doubt he hopes this will dawn on the netroots at some point.
There's a few more twists and turns to go - why else would Edwards and Gore have held back their endorsements?
-
I'm getting sick of Obama supporters being 'demonised' as misogynistic "bullies"
You can be as sick of it as you like, Craig, but I've read some absolutely hair-curlingly offensive remarks about Clinton from Obama supporters (and from the Republican side, too).
-
Looks like the way the credentials committee is constituted means she can't win that either. Sigh ...
Still, at least the delightful Mr Scaife is right on board.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.