My 2008 U.S. Presidential picks
I’m telling you all now so I can come back and say “I told you so!” 18 months from now… 
Rudy Giuliani is going to win the nomination because the conservatives in the media have already picked him as their golden boy, they know he’s the only neocon who has a shot to win the White House. I’m guessing John McCain gets second, Ron Paul third, Mitt Romney fourth (Mormon in the white house? not a chance). It really doesn’t matter because Giuliani will win the nomination in a landslide.
John Edwards will win the Democratic election, Hillary a close second, Obama a distant third. Hillary and Obama will split the minority vote and Edwards will clean up in the south. If Al Gore ever threw his hat in, he’d be a strong contender to win - but I doubt the Dems will ever allow it since they already have three strong contenders and the Republicans are very weak this term.
Dr. Ron Paul will lose the Republican nomination but the Libertarian Party will nominate him as their candidate and he’ll continue to run on their ticket. The media blackout on Paul will continue because they know he can really shake things up. He’ll get the highest number of votes in Libertarian Party history, maybe 2-3% of the popular vote.
The Greens represent the only anti-war left-wing candidate, yet they receive very little support since all the leftists vote Democratic like in 2004. The Constitution Party have a strong showing since Giuliani will appear “too liberal” for the nationalists, but still showing <1% of the vote.
The Democrats will win the White House, the Libertarians will be blamed for losing the election for the Republicans, just like Ralph Nader did in 2000, and Ross Perot in 1992. I fear however that if Hillary gets the nomination, Rudy could beat her.
“l get the highest number of votes in Libertarian Party history, maybe 2-3% of the popular vote.”
Dr. Ron Paul is a socialist. Not a true liberal.
Comment by Dr. Wh4x — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Al Gore might still be biding his time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1622009,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
Basically, waiting for possible Nobel Peace prize in October. Also waiting (not “hoping”, since he probably doesn’t really want the job) if some of the other democrat hopefuls really messes something up.
The mention about “moral obligation” is an interesting one.
The fact that Al has been outside of politics is one of the reasons I’d really like to see him as next US president.
Problem is that he’d still need congress that supports him..
Comment by Zarr — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
Also waiting (not “hopingâ€Â, since he probably doesn’t really want the job) if some of the other democrat hopefuls really messes something up.
Yeah, if one of the top 3 fuck up or step down (like Edwards due to his wife’s health), it would be a huge opportunity for Gore.
Waiting till October’s Peace Prize is wayyyy late, I think the first elections are in January(?). How much money does he have? He’ll lose a year of fund raising.
Comment by Phil — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
He’s a board member at Apple and Google and has loads of friends, including Steve Jobs. He can basically finance himself.
Comment by Zarr — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
I was watching NBC news and they showed te clip of Ron Paul at the debate for Fox news so he’s getiing coverage just not good coverage.
I have been saying Edwards will get the nomination for awhile now because he is what the Democratic party will feel safe about winning. Its still Hilary’s race but she is not a sure thing for the national vote. I really don’t see Guliani making it to the nomination for the Republicans he is was to liberal for the conservative base that wins elections for Republicans. I still think that is up in the air unless for both parties because they both have people that can enter late and steal the nomination. Rebulicans have Fred Thompson (they love their actors), Chuck Hagall (as of now my vote would go to him especially if he goes Independent and runs with Bloomburg like he has been hinting too.), and Newt Gingrich who has a good shot at invigorating the conservative base.
For the Democrates they have Al Gore, who can come in late if he wants and get the money to make a go at it. It will depend on if he thinks he can make more of a difference where he is or in the White House.
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Phil: I’m interested in your summation of the current status of the Democratic Party. Why do you think Obama will be a “distant third”? Apart from the right-leaning press claiming that he’s “not black enough” to get the African American vote, many Americans I’ve spoken to about this find him far less divisive a candidate than Hillary Clinton, who largely profiles herself as an East Coast intellectual and – even worse – a feminist!
If Obama were to run with Bill Richardson as his VP I think this could be something of a dream ticket. It could mobilise sections of the population that don’t normally bother to vote (e.g. disaffected young people, first-time voters, African Americans, Hispanics). It has the potential to be a landslide victory. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks.
Comment by DavidH — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
Hillary is it for the Dems. No one else can catch her.
Republicans is to early. One can only hope for a Ronald Reagan.
It will be fun. We have the “Cut and Run” Dems against a unknown.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
John Edwards is a former trial lawyer….
“The biggest case of his legal career was a 1997 product liability lawsuit against Sta-Rite, the manufacturer of a defective pool drain cover. The case involved a Raleigh, North Carolina girl, Valerie Lakey, who was disemboweled by the suction power of the pool drain pump when she sat on an open pool drain”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edwards
Interesting.
Comment by Kristian — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
“It will be fun. We have the “Cut and Run†Dems against a unknown.” -Winter
Haha, you sound like a recorder, saying just what the media/administration want you to say/believe. Funny how that actually works so well.
Comment by Don — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 6:11 pm
Yeah, winter swallowed it all— ‘hook, line & sinker.’
Comment by Kristian — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 6:17 pm
“The Democrats will win the White House”
uh no. The French election helps to tell the story. Surrender is no longer an option, I kinda think the Americans will also kick the slimy Dems out. If you want to surrender vote Dem.
Have they done anything? Except vote for more Pork?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Ron Paul is the idiot of the debate.
The Muslems don’t hate the USA for our freedom. Thats stupid. Its like being #1, or Hertz. they hate the fact that their social systems does nothing. Their GDP production is less than even the smallest nation in the west, and when the west builds 500 Nuke Power plants, their oil will be worthless.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
Phil: I’m interested in your summation of the current status of the Democratic Party. Why do you think Obama will be a “distant thirdâ€Â
His support right now comes from the “Starbucks Democrats” who are the only Dems interested in the race this early before the election. Once all the unions and southern Dems and blue collar workers begin to pay attention to the race, they won’t be interested in him.
Comment by Phil — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
FOXNews says…
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani won the strongest applause at Tuesday night’s first-in-the-South Republican primary debate when he lashed out at Texas Rep. Ron Paul for suggesting that the United States’ non-interventionist policy invited the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Uhhh…don’t they mean interventionist ??
Comment by Phil — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
The Muslems don’t hate the USA for our freedom. Thats stupid. Its like being #1, or Hertz. they hate the fact that their social systems does nothing. Their GDP production is less than even the smallest nation in the west, and when the west builds 500 Nuke Power plants, their oil will be worthless.
It defies human nature to think that a large group of people would devote their time and energy to blowing up the U.S., just cause the U.S.is #1 like Hertz and they’re #201.
Just like Ron Paul said, “How would we feel if China was over here bombing us?”
Comment by Phil — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
I’ve got just one question and I hope that someone with a good explanation could answer it for me: What is Mitt Romney doing in the Republican Party? I admit to not even having heard about him until a couple of months ago but the more I read about him the less I understand why he would be in a conservative party. He’s behaving more like he’s trying to adjust to the conservatives way of life instead of sticking to the values (that weren’t very conservative to me) that he has had in the past.
Comment by Mikael — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
I just read today that Al Gore has announced that he has “not ruled out a run for the White House in 2008″
Also: Mikael, I’m sure you missed the latest Republican debate sponsored by Fox News. Romney said that if he were President, he would “double the size” of Guntanamo Bay and he is not opposed to “coercive interrogation techniques”, the new politically correct term for torture. He belongs with the Republicans and they can have him.
Comment by nipsu — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
I am just curious if there have been any president candidates who claims themselves as atheiest. Could it be even more remarkable handicap than be a libertian?
Comment by Timo — Thu, May 17th, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
I am just curious if there have been any president candidates who claims themselves as atheiest. Could it be even more remarkable handicap than be a libertian?
The Libertarians who run are usually proud atheists.
Comment by Phil — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 12:07 am
What is Mitt Romney doing in the Republican Party?
The vast vast majority of Mormons are diehard Republicans. And I think he’s anti-abortion.
Comment by Phil — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 12:10 am
What Ron Paul is saying about the motivations of terrorist’s is the same what the CIA has been saying all along. He is NOT saying that 9/11 was the fault of the american people (althought this is how Sean Hannity and FAUX NEWS is spinning it). He is saying that the foreign policy of a superpower always has consequences, and negative consequences in the intel-community are called “blowback”. Bush and the neo-cons put US policy of protecting american interest’s in steroids and started an era of full blown conflict promotion when they invaded Iraq on false pretenses. I dont think people fully realize just how far reaching and horrible the blowback of this insane neo-con policy is. What we need now is conflict prevention and that’s what Ron Paul offers
I’m really hoping that General Wesley Clark, Al Gore and Chuck Hagel get into the race. Anyone of them would make a great prez. I placed 10 euros on Clark in unibet.com. If he takes the nomination I’m 1000 euro’s richer, so U-WES-A U-WES-A U-WES-A!!!
Right now the republicans seem to be really screwed. They are in a desperate need of another Reagan, but what do they have? MitWit Wrongway and a tranny named Rudy. I would say that Hillary is their only shot. If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, republicans have a good chance no matter who’s their candidate.
Obama IMO is best of the “rock star candidates”. He didn’t vote for IWR - Hillary and Edwards did. What makes Edward’s vote even more repulsive than Hillary’s is that at the time he was in the intelligence committee. He knew better than anyone that the white house was telling a pack of lies. Still he voted yes to going to Iraq.
Comment by Lan Theroux — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 12:53 am
One thing that hasn’t been acknowledged is that the primaries are dominated by the extremes of the political parties. During the primary season, it’s usually the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats who are motivated to go out and vote.
I will acknowledge that Ford beat the more conservative Reagan in the Republican primaries in 1976, and Carter beat the more liberal Kennedy in the 1980 Democratic primaries, but both Ford and Carter were incumbents (and they STILL had to fight to win their nominations).
No New Yorker (except maybe a resurrected Douglas MacArthur) can win the Republican nomination. Romney could actually win this thing (Ron Paul may be too fringe, plus some would say he’s not a real Republican because of his capital L Libertarian history; McCain could be tarred with a liberal brush).
The same dynamics will exist in the Democratic primaries, but I’m not sure who will out liberal whom over there.
Then we’ll get to the general election, which the Democrats will win - not because of ideology, but because they’re not the incumbents in the White House.
Comment by Ontario Emperor — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 5:34 am
Re: 13 “Uhhh…don’t they mean interventionist ??”
Nah, that’s FOX for you.
An innocent mistake, of course! I mean, seriously, do you really believe that millions of people in America get their news solely from them? That millions wouldn’t be well-informed enough to catch the mistake? NÄH! Americans would never be fooled so easily!
/endsarcasm/
As an American I find it funny and maybe a little bit scary that the discourse about our elections is so much more sophisticated abroad than it is at home.
Comment by stercus — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:25 am
What’s wrong with Hillary?
Comment by Annonymous — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:50 am
What’s wrong with Hillary?
Well, since you brought that up, let me start with this, and then lead up to it.
Richard Milhous Nixon gained the dubious distinction of becoming the first POTUS to get the word “criminal” out of his name through letter combinations. William Jefferson Clinton was the second (Hmmm. That doesn’t leave much for the imagination). If Hillary Rodham Clinton gets in (taking her law-breaking past into consideration), she will become the third.
Be afraid, America. Be very, very afraid.
Comment by Jason — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 10:26 am
If Hillary wins the democratic nomination, republicans have a good chance no matter who’s their candidate.
Yah I agree. Hillary is too polarizing. A lot of people love her, but A LOT of people loathe her. I might consider voting for Edwards or Obama, but never Hillary. This whole thing seems like one big power trip for her.
Comment by Phil — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Are both final nominations (reb and dem)scheduled at same time or is there any chance to “adjust” right reb against particular dem or vice verce?
Comment by Timo — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
“Just like Ron Paul said, “How would we feel if China was over here bombing us?—
Huh. China is trying to catch #1.
The Muslims are trying to cut your head off.
Big difference. By the way they are not 201, but more like 1999999999
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 4:09 pm
“Hillary is too polarizing.”
And yet she is #1 to win.
Think about having her in for 4 years. Then I do she her going out like Carter. One hostage situation, with no action, will get her tossed out for sure.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Richard Milhous Nixon gained the dubious distinction of becoming the first POTUS to get the word “criminal†out of his name through letter combinations.
This is very relevant. How about the number of the beast?
If Hillary Rodham Clinton gets in (taking her law-breaking past into consideration), she will become the third.
Which crimes is she convicted of?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
In terms of electability in the general election, current polling indicate Giuliani is the strongest candidate on the Republican side and Edwards does the best for the Democrats. Clinton (because of high unfavourables) and Romney (because of relatively low name recognition) are the weakest major candidates.
Giuliani’s problem is that he needs to play up his War on Terra credentials during the primary season, because there’s very little else in him that appeals to to a US style conservative, but fashioning himself as the leader of the Perpetual War Party will hurt his general election numbers. It’ll be interesting to see how he plans to navigate through the primary season.
On the Democratic side, the odd thing is that based on policy positions Edwards is the most left-wing major candidate in the race, yet he’s still doing very well in head-to-head polls. I guess being a white male who speaks with a Southern accent really is an electoral panacea when running for US President.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 4:21 pm
Edwards would swing congress back to the Republicans. That would be a good combination, IMO—Edwards + Republican congress.
Comment by Kristian — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
Another problem for Giuliani is the fact that he has dressed in drag on three different occasions that we know of. To me this is just mildly amusing, but to the republican base this hobby of Rudy’s is a very serious drawback. The christian leader James Dobson has already said no way he’ll vote for him.
I agree with Phil that Hillary is the one that the republicans want to go against. But on the other hand, Giuliani might just be the one that Hillary wants face in the election. Everybody knows that the republican base hates her. They dont even know why, they just do. She has been demonized for so long. Maybe Hillary’s only chance is someone like Giuliani - a pro choice east coaster who likes to dress in womens clothing. Hillary will get the far right to the polls in masses, but maybe not so much with Rudy as the GOP candidate.
Still, I dont believe in Hillary’s chances. The dem base doesnt like her much either.
Comment by Lan Theroux — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 5:00 pm
“republican base hates her.”
Try Hillary Care. We do not want a Finnish solution to Medical Care, that has no chance of working.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Try Hillary Care. We do not want a Finnish solution to Medical Care, that has no chance of working.
I understood that the problem was that she hasn’t committed cool enough crimes (cocaine possession and DUI).
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
“she hasn’t committed cool enough crimes”
like her husband, doing gals in the Oval Office, or lying under Oath, or wagging a finger.
Smoking Cigars will never be the same, after Clinton used them, in a way they may not have been designed for.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
If you look at the Drudge Report web site (the www barometer for right wing craziness) all they are doing is spending time on bashing Obama and Ms. Clinton. They have no candidate they want to support even at this early hour, so they try to go negative 18 months before election day.
Too bad those suckfaces are gonna lose again, and (as Dickhead Cheney is known to say) BIG TIME.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
(And by “suckfaces,” I of course mean the Republicans).
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
PS winturd, you should really brush up on your comma usage. And stop using that “huh,” it really grates.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
comments working?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
Drudge just points to stories. Now if you don’t like 2 sides of a story go to the BBC.
Have the BBC figured out yet there is a war in Gaza yet? Or is it still just an internal conflict?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
John Bolton myth-building moment of the day, as the former UN ambassador appears on BBC Radio with a raving leftist anti-American BBC interviewer. no wonder they hated Bolton at the UN.
link: BBC
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
Winter, the UN disliked John Bolton because of his view that the UN should only function as an arm of US policy. This is what Bolton has said:
“There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is only the international community, which can only be led by the only remaining superpower, which is the United States.”
- John Bolton
Basicly he is right. That is UN’s role unfortunately, BUT it’s not how it should be.
The BBC is kinda weird compared to faux news isn’t it Winter. You know the way BBC ask’s tough questions and all.
Comment by Lan Theroux — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
“BBC ask’s tough questions and all.”
yea, like the one where they repeat that Blare is a USA poodle? Bolton sure took that one to task.
To bad the answer to the tough question is a tough answer. Life is not so sweet as the BBC wants it to be.
By the way where is their tough questions on the war in Gaza? Not on any BBC site that I can find.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
Ron Paul is a bit drunk on miss information. last I checked it was the Muslims killing Muslims that do the damage.
As an Arab myself, I say Ron Paul just better be thankfull he has the silver spoon up his butt and wasent born in a Islam country like I was.. Strange how people that have everything can dictate what people whom dont have shit want. Ron Paul,,,go screw yourself, as an Arab, Im glad that U.S is kicking butt over there and helping Arabs like us to get freedom, HOWEVER, with Islam ? that will never be. Islam is a very harsh and oppressive way of life.
Comment by hill billy — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
With the sincerely brilliant posts of winter and hill billy here, no wonder I keep returning.
Wait, that’s the bourbon typing.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
“yea, like the one where they repeat that Blare is a USA poodle? Bolton sure took that one to task.”
But Winter Blair IS USA’s poodle. John Bolton is very controversial charecter and he should get tough questions.
“To bad the answer to the tough question is a tough answer. Life is not so sweet as the BBC wants it to be.”
Life is not as sweet…??? If Bolton had a fair chance to respond then what’s your problem?
“By the way where is their tough questions on the war in Gaza? Not on any BBC site that I can find.”
What are you talking about? I actually watch BBC World (do you?) and they have an extensive coverage of the current Gaza situation. The BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict very matter of factly, that’s one of the reasons why the BBC is the most respected news network in the world. Just because radical like your self doesnt like their coverage doesnt change that fact. The BBC is respected globally and you are a fringe radical.
Comment by Lan Theroux — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 9:02 pm
The only Republican that can win the general election is Ron Paul. Many minor parties will support him.
Comment by Timothy Knibbs — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
“It defies human nature to think that a large group of people would devote their time and energy to blowing up the U.S., just cause the U.S.is #1 like Hertz and they’re #201.”
Like the old saying “After exhausting all other options, Americans will do the right thing.”
Comment by tim73 — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
So, has the BBC called the war in Gaza a “War”? Not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict as a war.
I have yet to see them use the word “war”. As that would not be PC of them to do.
But supporting the Religion of Peace (And Crushing Israel) is PC all around the world now.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
winter: You are stupider than my dead dog (1st of May 2007). You would not last 12 seconds with one 12 year old Finnish girl with your “arguments”.
Comment by tim73 — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
#48
It would be enormously exciting to see Ron Paul going against someone like Hillary Clinton in the general election. Can you you imagine what the debates would be like? The republican candidate would offer sanity and the dem candidate would be channelin neo-con lite. I can imagine the heads of liberals exploding.
Comment by Lan Theroux — Fri, May 18th, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
This is a very good article on Ron Paul’s statements.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
Comment by Kourtney N. Williams — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:20 am
Ron Paul is a Idiot. Lets first say, he has no clue, then get to the point, where he thinks the USA is at fault, so really clueless.
He will not even be remembered, like the last guy, who was he, who lost to Bush?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 4:15 am
The specific examples Paul used are debatable, but his main point is entirely correct: al-Qaeda’s attacks against American targets are motivated by US foreign policy. In the case of attacks on US soldiers stationed in Iraq this should be blatantly obvious, but it also holds for 9/11. If terrorism is the problem you want to solve, then a non-interventionist foreign policy is one effective way to do it.
Also, I missed this bit in Phil’s post on the first read-through: The Greens represent the only anti-war left-wing candidate,
That’s debatable, I think. By US standards, Edwards is at least a centre-left anti-war candidate. He originally supported the invasion of Iraq, but he has for some time now been in favour of ending the occupation.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 10:22 am
“Hillary is too polarizing”
So what. So is Bush.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 11:16 am
So they need to find candidates, who cancel the polarizing charge of each other. I propose Clinton/Rumsfeld 2008.
Comment by Antti rn — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Ron Paul is a Idiot.
Winter, you’re such a idiot.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
“By the way where is their tough questions on the war in Gaza? Not on any BBC site that I can find.”
Winter: You clearly never listen to Newsnight, possible the best current affairs programme in the world. John Bolton was interviewed there by Gavin Essler a few weeks ago (is this the “raving leftist journalist” you refer to? I couldn’t open your link). Bolton is obviously used to speaking on Faux News and other such “news” networks where a) all the “journalists” agree with him and b) if someone asks him a tricky question he’ll wriggle his way out of it and bombard us with prescribed soundbites and spin. The BBC doesn’t let him get away with it, and he doesn’t like it one bit. It was the same with Ann Coulter (what a woman!) in her interview with Jeremy Paxman (available on YouTube). The bottom line, of course, is that these people actually don’t have the capacity to engage in a serious debate, especially if the questioning doesn’t go the way they agreed before going on air. Long live the BBC! Eläköön!
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 1:23 pm
Right, Winter. I finally managed to get your link open. It’s from the Today programme with John Humphries interviewing. This is a perfect example of what I said earlier. Humphries asks Bolton (who has been avoiding questions throughout the interview, if you want me to exemplify, I’d be more than happy to do so) whether simply by asking pertinent questions about the rationale of American foreign policy this puts you on the “extreme left” of the argument. He also points out that in Britain, current afffairs programmes such as Today don’t let politicians get away with not answering the question, and all Bolton has to say to this is to call him a “superior Brit”. Is this man for real? No wonder the Senate didn’t ratify him… The line of questioning, I thought, was excellent and very relevant. Again, these people don’t have any answers except the ones they’ve already rehearsed.
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
“al-Qaeda’s attacks against American targets are motivated by US foreign policy.”
so you are saying that Support for Israel, caused the attacks?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
“simply by asking pertinent questions about the rationale of American foreign policy this puts you on the “extreme left†of the argument. ”
yea and John Humphries got very defensive, when put on the spot, that he was way left on his issues. Even tried to say he was “Middle of the road” like Michael Moore.
Bolton put him on the spot, showed him to be very left wing, very biased, and he did not like his own reflection. To bad the truth hurt.
Look, if you are left wing, admit it. I can’t figure out why John Humphries could not?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
tim73 “winter: You are stupider than my dead dog (1st of May 2007). You would not last 12 seconds with one 12 year old Finnish girl with your “argumentsâ€Â.”
Good news, I have Cancer.
Bad news, I live in the USA where we actually have cures for Cancer, that one is allowed to have. Not hidden away because its to expensive per your medical system.
I just may live longer than your dead dog, to have more time here.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Dear winturd,
Does cancer (not capitalized) make you stupid?
Comment by DAVE THE MAVE — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
“John Humphries got very defensive, when put on the spot, that he was way left on his issues. Even tried to say he was “Middle of the road†like Michael Moore.”
At least in the UK, journalists are impartial while they are conducting an interview (unlike those on Faux News), though of course, like everyone else, they are entitled to their personal opinions. Faux News doesn’t really provide interviews as such, because everybody agrees with everybody else – except when they invite guest speakers like Jeremy Glick, the sole purpose of which is to humiliate.
Humphries even asks Bolton: “Have you ever heard of playing Devil’s advocate?” This is what good journalists do. You can’t assume that journalists hold opposing opinions to the people they interview just because they ask difficult questions. It is their JOB to ask difficult questions! I’ve watched the journalists on the BBC give Labour politicians (e.g. Blair, Hazel Blears etc) a thorough grilling, but this doesn’t mean that they espouse right-wing views. When John Humphries replies: “I am neither conservative nor left wing”, what he is ACTALLY saying is that his own political affiliations are irrelevant to this interview, and that Bolton STILL hadn’t addressed the question in hand. Therein lies the ethos of professionalism of networks like the BBC.
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
I will try to make this brief. Winter, about 99 percent of the time your posts here have little or nothing to do with the topic at hand and I can’t understand why you insist on doing that over and over and over again.
But you know this.
What I truly do not understand is your pathological embrace of everything that comes out of Drudge/Breitbart’s web pages. You will retort in your ridiculous typing style that those pages merely link to other news sources - true, but they choose which stories to tell and they camoflage the “important” stories with snippets about Britney and Paris, while slowly but surely chip away at any resemblance of news.
While you may disagree with BBC, NYTimes, Washinton Post and who knows what else, they at least attempt to show different sides of issues without shaved pussies getting out of limos distracting your weak brain.
Since you apparently have cancer, why not hurry up and grow up before your dim light fades permanently. Try to read actual news without the candy coating, without the abject propaganda and porno that is contained within Drudge and the like.
Now, in reference to your typing and sentence structure, are you on medicinal marijuana for your cancer or are you just naturally high?
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
[Sorry if this appears twice, it appeared not to have been posted the first time...DH]
“John Humphries got very defensive, when put on the spot, that he was way left on his issues. Even tried to say he was “Middle of the road†like Michael Moore.”
At least in the UK, journalists are impartial while they are conducting an interview (unlike those on Faux News), though of course, like everyone else, they are entitled to their personal opinions. Faux News doesn’t really provide interviews as such, because everybody agrees with everybody else – except when they invite guest speakers like Jeremy Glick, the sole purpose of which is to humiliate.
Humphries even asks Bolton: “Have you ever heard of playing Devil’s advocate?” This is what good journalists do. You can’t assume that journalists hold opposing opinions to the people they interview just because they ask difficult questions. It is their JOB to ask difficult questions! I’ve watched the journalists on the BBC give Labour politicians (e.g. Blair, Hazel Blears etc) a thorough grilling, but this doesn’t mean that they espouse right-wing views. When John Humphries replies: “I am neither conservative nor left wing”, what he is ACTALLY saying is that his own political affiliations are irrelevant to this interview, and that Bolton STILL hadn’t addressed the question in hand. Therein lies the ethos of professionalism of networks like the BBC.
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
This site should be called Finald for Dummies!
Hardly ever you see so many idiots in one discussion, except in the US congress.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
One question, did Humphries scream “SHUTUP!” at Bolton like our friend Bill O’Reilley at Fox News a single time?
Biased. Huh.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
At least some of us know how to spell Finland, 67.
Dummy.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
Dave: No, of course he doesn’t. (Winter posted the link in #42, have a listen for yourself, it’s very revealing). In fact, unsurprisingly, it’s Bolton who employs the belligerent O’Reilly interview style of, when things aren’t going your way, speaking louder, interrupting people and steering the conversation away from the sore point in hand by making snide, personal remarks about the interviewer. Thankfully most reasonable people see through these smokescreen tactics.
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
It was a rhetorical question.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
In Finland we have no rhetorical questions
Comment by Antti rn — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
#11 “The French election helps to tell the story. Surrender is no longer an option.”
How is the French election relevant to this discussion? Sure, France has a new president, but he is from the same party as the old one, and so far, I haven’t seen any indication that Sarkozy would be eager in any way to join the dwindling “coalition of the willing”.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 6:07 pm
Did you all hear Bolthead-Bolton’s prediction at the end of the interview that he didn’t think former World Bank chief Wolfowitz wouldn’t go down?
He resigned amidst a scandal yesterday, FYI, bolthead.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
He resigned amidst a scandal yesterday, FYI, bolthead.
Hell, the World Bank is a sissy liberal organisation anyway. Who’d want to rid the world of poverty - it ensures an endless pool of expendable workforce to exploit. Why hurt business when it is better than ever?
Good to still have that rabid bulldog barking and growling at the UN, though.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Weird. Whenever I see America, they’re always talking about “Liberals this”, “Conservatives this”, “But will Liberals be good for Business?”, “Republicans are better than Liberals”, and SO ON! It’s so tiring! Whatever happened to talk about POLICIES? America seems to be the most polarised country when speaking about politics. One or the other, one one or the other. Very rarely do I hear talk about policies. As for my opinions, I think the “Liberal” candidate should win. Whoever it. After watching 5 minutes of Fox News elsewhere, I have to say that I have a very disgusting image of Republicans. Thank God our conservatives are slightly more normal in Finland. The right-wingers in the USA are just.. awful beyond belief.
Comment by Annonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 8:32 pm
“After watching 5 minutes of Fox News elsewhere, I have to say that I have a very disgusting image of Republicans.” - Anonymous
You must have a very keen eye.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
“true, but they choose which stories to tell and they camoflage the “important†stories with snippets about Britney and Paris, while slowly but surely chip away at any resemblance of news.”
And the BBC does not do what you just stated above? Yes, and they even admit it.
So why do you all trust the BBC? Because it says things you all want to hear, not the other side?
Sorry to tell you all about a little war in Gaza.
Sorry to tell you all about your stupid deployment to help thugs and killers in Lebanon.
Sorry to tell you about food-for-oil.
Did you hear any of this from the BBC? No way they will call the Palestinian-Palestinian conflict as a war.
But they sure will if its Iraq, and the USA is involved.
No way the BBC will ever explain how you all help Thugs and killers in Lebanon. Bu thats exactly what you are doing. Now shut me up and show me a picture of one captured rocket, or tank, or something?
So don’t bother to say the BBC is ballanced. They say they are not.
Finally, no way the BBC will expose you for the OIL-For_Food, no way will the BBC say Sadam just bought your votes and views for some OIL. That came after the war and the USA found out.
So much for a independent BBC. So much for an independent Finland.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
“in the UK, journalists are impartial while they are conducting an interview ”
So when the journalist called Blare a Bush Poodle, to Bolton, thats called impartial?
This guy was is no way conducting an impartial interview.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
Last 2 were mine.
Comment by winter (Traveling today) — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
“Bolton STILL hadn’t addressed the question in hand.’
OK, what question did he fail to answer? Lets see some beef.
Comment by winter (Traveling today) — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
The BBC is not more impartial than Fauxnews. Most of the posters on this board say hear what they want to hear on the BBC so they conclude the BBC is impartial. I would never say Foxnews is impartial but at least they don’t go around acting like they are.
Foxnews is the only news organization that calls out organizations like the U.N., World Bank, and other NGOs. Why do they get a free pass from the other news organizations? Because the others ignore, hide, or do not feel corruption in these organizations is newsworthy. The other networks only report on the corruption within these organizations when forced to do so by Fox. Fox has been reporting on corruption in the World Bank for a long time but it has been mostly ignored by other media. But as soon as a scandal errupts in the World Bank in favor of the other media, they are all over it like dogs in heat. Wolf helps a girlfriend aquire a high paying job making a couple hundred grand a year, HEADLINE NEWS. World Bank not following up on billions of dollars of loans and making sure borrowers live up to the terms of their loans, World Bank lifetime appointed employees engaging in questionable activities, UN blowing millions of dollars on questionable projects, the list goes on, ONLY on Foxnews.
I think O’Reilly is a conservative hack and have watched about 10 minutes of his show in my life (I do like him though). The hacks on the BBC shows of similar nature are just as bad, if not worse because they try to hide their hackiness in being “impartial.”
Comparing straight up news stories between Foxnews and the BBC shows that they are not the same but they both serve a purpose. Reading news on their web pages does not invoke the emotions that these “reporters” on TV give the viewer. I never watch Foxnews because watching invokes an emotional response, but I check their web site everyday.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 10:13 pm
Oh, Winter… Do I really need to spell it out? The questions he does not answer are: 1) how many more deaths (of service men, Iraqi civilians etc) will it take before the administration has seconds thoughts about its interventionist foreign policies; 2) can the leading superpower in the world march into a country, destroy its infrastructure, then suggest that it is “up to the Iraqi people” to sort “themselves” out; and finally, 3) whether simply asking valid questions about Am. foreign policy automatically puts you on the extreme left of the debate. Bolton realised that he had been cornered, and had to resort to patronising the interviewer. I just listened to the whole thing again. These are the facts. Are you going to argue with them? And at no point in this interview does John Humphries refer to Blair (spell it right, at least) as a poodle. Whether or not he is, is another matter.
Maksalaatikko: “The BBC is not more impartial than Fauxnews.” If you truly believe this, you are deluded beyond my comprehension. Who exactly do you consider to be a BBC “hack” and exemplify this.
Comment by DavidH — Sat, May 19th, 2007 @ 11:37 pm
1) how many more deaths (of service men, Iraqi civilians etc) will it take before the administration has seconds thoughts about its interventionist foreign policies;
He answered: The UN sanctioned the trip into Iraq. Case closed on so called interventionist foreign policies.
2) can the leading superpower in the world march into a country, destroy its infrastructure, then suggest that it is “up to the Iraqi people†to sort “themselves†out;
Which he answered: We went in Like we did to Germany and took out the Bath party. Or did you miss that point? I do understand the BBC does not know the USA is still there, and not cutting and running like they want.
3) whether simply asking valid questions about Am. foreign policy automatically puts you on the extreme left of the debate.
Which he answered quite well. Or did you miss his point that the unbiased interview showed he was on the extreme left.
Gad, that was easy.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 5:19 am
After a run of sneering negativity over Iraq, Bolton had had enough. Humphrys calling in George Soros.
“Are you kidding me!”, responded Bolton. “This is a man of the extreme left. I am sure you will find a great deal in common with him, as would many others on the continent.”
A sniffy Humphrys On the attack, demanded: “Do you make the assumption then that because one asks questions – perfectly valid questions about the conduct of American policy - one is on the extreme left?”
Bolton was unfazed: “I can see it from the content of your questions and the perspective from which you’re coming and from the direction that your questions are taking. If you tell me you’re a conservative, I would be happy to accept it.”
Good answer
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 5:52 am
I guess Bolton has been accustomed to the kid glove treatment offered by the ass-kissers of Faux Noise and had a hard time dealing with having his views challenged by a real journalist.
It is my experience that BBC journalists put tough questions to all of their interviewees of all political stripes. If Bolton had been wiser, he would have used the challenging questions as an opportunity to get his points accross. Instead, he started accusing the interviewer of political bias.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 9:11 am
Oh dear… “Which he answered quite well. Or did you miss his point that the unbiased interview showed he was on the extreme left.”
That isn’t an answer, that’s getting yourself out of addressing the question in hand. Then he continues with this: “I can see it from the content of your questions and the perspective from which you’re coming and from the direction that your questions are taking. If you tell me you’re a conservative, I would be happy to accept it.†He doesn’t bother exemplifying what he means (because I expect he doesn’t really know, it’s only a soundbite). In any case, this is not an answer either. It’s an attempt to divert attention from the lack of substance in his previous answers. He is also not intelligent enough to understand the subtlety of the question: HUmphries poses it broadly, in the third person, but Bolton immediately assumes it refers to him specifically, the notion of theoretical debate being clearly alien to him.
Oh, and at what point did he – falsely – claim that the UN sanctioned action in Iraq? Both you and he seem misinformed on this point.
Comment by DavidH — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 11:46 am
“Gad, that was easy.”
Yes, Winter. It’s always easy when you deliberately ignore the essence of questions and answer the questions you wanted to be asked. Simply stating that they removed the Ba’ath party is not a satisfactory answer to the question of whether it’s acceptable to destroy a country’s infrastructure, which is a much broader issue. Gavin Essler on Newsnight asked him the same question about how many deaths it will take, and he didn’t answer it then either. Instead he called the question “offensive”. Yes, something of an inconvenient truth…
Comment by DavidH — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Last 2 were mine.
It is blatantly obvious. You don’t nead to sine your posts, winter.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
“falsely – claim that the UN sanctioned action in Iraq? ”
which UN sanction do you want me to quote? The one on the first war? You know where he was shooting at US planes in violation of?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
He answered the question. And you admit it, yet you don’t see the answer. By the way the BBC guy missed it to.
Look if you all don’t want to hear that changing the world, the answer he gave on the removal of the Bath party, then I can’t force you to listen. But in essence that was the correct answer to the question. In fact it is the only answer, that was ever made, on why the USA went in to Iraq.
No we did not do it for oil, that was what you did in the food-for-oil scam, and then tried to hide it, by saying the USA was there for oil. How clever, until you got caught.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
And you know as well as I do that kin this interview the “sanction” in question is about going to the UN for a mandate to invade Iraq, depose their leader, etc. Don’t try and twist this…
As for answering the quesion, I certainly didn’t admit that he answered it, because he didn’t. The question was (paraphrased): “Can the only superpower in the world march into a country, take out their infrastructure, then wash their hands of the mess?” Bolton answered (again, paraphrased): “We removed the Ba’ath party, which was the right thing to do.” Whether or not it was the right thing to do is another matter entirely, but it doesn’t answer the fundamental question. A simple yes / no answer is all that was needed, and he couldn’t give it, because even he can see that washing your hands of it is morally reprehensible.
How much clearer do I need to make this? Of course, it’s ultimately futile arguing with people like you / Bolton etc, because you refuse to listen. And by the way, I never mentioned anything about oil, but don’t even get me started on THAT subject…
Comment by DavidH — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Winter, you are so delusional it is frightening. Truly frightening.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
“going to the UN for a mandate to invade Iraq, depose their leader, etc. Don’t try and twist this…”
wow, how many UN sanctions does it take? Are we raising the bar one more time? He tried to kill a US president, he shot at US aircraft on a daily basis, which sanction do you want?
Its like the WMD question, with over 600 found, and I just want to know at what number will you all think they are there? 1 000 or 2 000? Or higher? come on guys set a number.
Clinton has zero UN sanctions for the little Yugo war. Did you complain about that? No? Do UN sanctions even matter any more? No.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
So you admit Bush went against international consensus and started this war illegally.
Good. At least we have that.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
“Its like the WMD question, with over 600 found,”
Oh, I see, and where exactly were they found? Not in Iraq at any rate. Oh dear… Looks like you’d better revise that statement about the UN mandate too. You’ve obviously also conveniently forgotten that the campaign in the Former Yugoslavia had a NATO mandate. Mmm…
The sad thing with all this banter is that *you’re the one* that’s ultimately screwed here, because you don’t understand that the right-wing propaganda machines are deliberately misleading you, fudging the facts (often making them up) and generally pulling the wool over your eyes. I feel sorry for you. You might want to read the works of David Corn; they’re very enlightening.
Comment by DavidH — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 6:26 pm
“Maksalaatikko: “The BBC is not more impartial than Fauxnews.†If you truly believe this, you are deluded beyond my comprehension. Who exactly do you consider to be a BBC “hack†and exemplify this.”
This Humphrys character for one.
If you truely believe the BBC is more impartial than Fauxnews then you are deluded, but not beyond my comprehention. Almost all traditional media outlets are biased to left. For those who have the same bias it’s difficult to see that your favorite news outlets are not impartial.
If you want to find the highest concentration of lefties and activists on any college campus, just take a peek in the halls of the journalism school. Leftists are drawn to journalism, like conservatives are to business.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
maksalaatikko:
I would never say Foxnews is impartial but at least they don’t go around acting like they are.
That’s right, they’ve pretty recently stopped being “fair and balanced”.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, May 20th, 2007 @ 11:44 pm
“Almost all traditional media outlets are biased to left.”
I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the Telegraph is part of the great leftist conspiracy…
Comment by DavidH — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 12:57 am
“campaign in the Former Yugoslavia had a NATO mandate.”
sorry, but no
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 1:55 am
“Its like the WMD question, with over 600 found,â€Â
Oh, I see, and where exactly were they found?
Thats judt the number from last summer in Iraq. We all know where the rest went.
By the way do I get a number? oR do you keep raising it up, as we find more?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 1:57 am
“Can the only superpower in the world march into a country, take out their infrastructure, then wash their hands of the mess?â€Â
and did we leave? Last I saw were are still there. Again the BBC has not figured that out. Have you?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 1:59 am
“I suppose next you’ll be telling me that the Telegraph is part of the great leftist conspiracy…”
Who mentioned conspiracy? I didn’t.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 8:29 am
The following link will show you BBC professionalism and impartialness at it’s finest. There is also other clips of BBC reporters making excuses for this fine reporters behavior. This guy makes O’Reilly look like a Sunday school marm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIg3Dtu14vs
This may have been posted here already.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 8:45 am
So, you’re a $cientologist?
It would have been very interesting if the clip hadn’t been edited Michael Moore-style, i.e. I would have loved to see what provoked the reaction. At least in the first part the $cieno was extremely aggressive and confrontational.
If I ever start a business in the US, I’ll definitely apply for tax-exempt status, citing numerous precedents involving $cienos.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Are you kidding me? These are people who believe in the existence of an intergalactic warlord named Xenu… Seriously… I challenge anyone to engage with them impartially / rationally.
Winter: the US government never found any WMDs in Iraq, so I’m sure they’d be very interested in any information you can shed on the matter.
As for post #102: you clearly misunderstood that Bolton advocates leaving Iraq and handing over power to the Iraqis, something he wished could have been done “much sooner”. This obviously missed your radar.
And as for #103: Maksalaatikko, you do take everything so literally…
Comment by DavidH — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
#104/105 I actually saw the program on BBC World yesterday. In it, the journalist himself apologised for “losing it”, as he put it, but it was the culmination of the Scoentologists’ systematic attempts at sabotaging the documentary project. It was an act of considerable openness for him to have kept the material in the documentary.
Furthermore, in investigative documentaries it is quite common for the journalist’s point of view to come out. In news broadcasts there is a greater need to seek a certain level of objectivity.
In interviews, such as the one with Bolton, a good journalist challenges the interviewee with tough questions. The BBC does that with guests of all political shades. People like Winter and Liver Casserole (sorry ML, I’ve never seen a box made of liver) tend to see a lack of right-wing bias as a sure sign of left-wing bias).
Comment by Kimmo W. — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
“a good journalist challenges the interviewee with tough questions.”
true. I respect that when it happens.
But when the question is framed with a sneer reference, (about USA in Iraq) then the so called journalist loses all credability.
Thats what happened in the BBC interview with Bolton.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
So what were they supposed to talk about? Cake recipies?
Comment by Kimmo W. — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
“But when the question is framed with a sneer reference, (about USA in Iraq) then the so called journalist loses all credability.” - winturd
Better to be a “sneer referencing” journalist than a sneering leader, sneering at its citizens and the world.
Lost credibility is right on target.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
“Are you kidding me? These are people who believe in the existence of an intergalactic warlord named Xenu… Seriously… I challenge anyone to engage with them impartially / rationally.”
It’s the journalist’s job to engage with them impartially/rationally.
“Furthermore, in investigative documentaries it is quite common for the journalist’s point of view to come out. In news broadcasts there is a greater need to seek a certain level of objectivity.”
So when the BBC shows bias, it’s called point of view. O’Reilly is not quite a news broadcaster by any stretch of the imagination, so why is it not okay for him to have a “point of view” like the BBC.
“And as for #103: Maksalaatikko, you do take everything so literally…”
You and me both.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
Sure, it’s OK for Bill O’rally to have a point of view, even though in my opinion, he is rather shrill and inept in bringing it across. Trouble is, that his entire network basically concentrates on promoting that particular political agenda.
Furthermore, he not only mischaracterises his program as “fair and balanced”, he actually has the stupidity and nerve to sue Al Franken for using the expression on the cover of his book, as if he had a copyright on the expression.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Kimmo
Have you ever watched Foxnews besides the Outfoxed mockumentary? Most Finns who sit and talk about Foxnews have never watched it past a few Micheal Moore like edited clips. I’m not saying that your one of them, but I’m just wondering.
Foxnew’s regular talking head newsbroadcasts are quite fair and balanced actually. Most people focus on O’Reilly and Hannity who are actually on the network FOR their opinions.
He’s a short article on Micheal Moore from Foxnews, seems pretty fair and balanced to me. And it’s MICHEAL MOORE.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273875,00.html
Comment by Maksalaatikko — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
#113 Thanks for the link. I liked the article, and I uderstand that a 24 hour news channel has much more stuff than any one person can digest alone. I have spent time in the United States had the opportunity to see the channel itself, and not just clips on YouTube.
It is still my contention that Fox News has more of an overt political agenda than the BBC does.
Oh, and one positive thing that I will say for O’Rielly is that it is nice to see someone of his stripe actually coming out against capital punishment. However, making a habit of shouting at guests to shut up, or to order the person’s microphone cut off is just beyond the pale.
And by the way, I think we’re straying a bit off topic!
Comment by Kimmo W. — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
“It is still my contention that Fox News has more of an overt political agenda than the BBC does.”
Point well taken.
“However, making a habit of shouting at guests to shut up, or to order the person’s microphone cut off is just beyond the pale.”
I think it’s more the exception than the rule on his show but it’s the same reason why I’ve only watched a total of ten minutes of his show. I like him, I agree with him, but his show feels to much like entertainment and plays on emotions. Happiness or anger. It’s probably why he’s so popular. I prefer to get my entertainment elsewhere. It’s the same reason why I read the news. It’s easier to stay detached and logical reading rather than to be emotionally drawn into the subject watching.
It would be interesting to find out where and for how long Finns who post on here have lived in the U.S. Maybe it’s been done before. I visit the site in streaks so I could have missed it. I would be nice to know more than peoples online names.
Comment by Maksalaatikko — Mon, May 21st, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
“I think it’s more the exception than the rule on his show but it’s the same reason why I’ve only watched a total of ten minutes of his show.”
Right, but some events are more memorable than others. Some might say that it’s terribly unfair that when people talk about Lee Harvey Oswald, they focus only on the assassination of President Kennedy, when there were so many moments in his life that he was doing nothing of the sort.
OK, I’ll admit that I’m stretching a point, but it’s kind of late.
And please, let’s not start a debate about conspiracy theories, grassy knolls, triangulation, and Oliver Stone!
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 12:38 am
You can watch many tv-channels online including FoxNews (almost) realtime. One of many programs is tvuplayer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TVUnetworks
Great way to enjoy American tv-commercials!(sarc)
Comment by cupid stunt — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 12:55 am
“May 12, 2007: Palestinian leaders are much embarrassed by the attention one of their childrens TV shows is getting. A Mickey Mouse character is used to preach hatred of Israel to children. It wasn’t the message that made the news in the West, but rather the use of the iconic Walt Disney creation to deliver it. What annoyed the Palestinians was that this incident made it pretty obvious that they were sending out two very different messages. To the West, the Palestinians preached peace and willingness to negotiate a peace deal with Israel. But to themselves, their children and the Arab world, they broadcast a call for the destruction of Israel, and no compromise on that point. This has long been the case, and the Western media (BBC) has thoughtfully ignored it. ”
Did the BBC get it? My bet, they did not.
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 3:26 am
Americans “took over” because you Europeans failed to display even the tiniest modicum of competence in running the world.
Your continued stupid deployment to save thugs and killers in Lebanon proves it yet again.
The USA is much better off as mercantile competitors, without national security worries of any consequence. Happier, too. Too bad you Euros arn’t up to the job in either catagory (mercantile or war).
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 5:19 am
#118 “Did the BBC get it? My bet, they did not.”
Hope you didn’t have much money riding on that bet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6637389.stm
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 7:41 am
“The USA is much better off as mercantile competitors, without national security worries of any consequence. Happier, too. Too bad you Euros arn’t up to the job in either catagory (mercantile or war).”
1 Euro = 1.3491 U.S. dollars
Lowest USD to Euro to date. Great mercantile competitors, indeed.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
1 Euro = 1.3491 U.S. dollars
For those whose memory is hazy on the matter, it should be pointed out that in 2000 it was roughly the other way around.
Of course, inflation isn’t all bad when you’re raking up debt like there’s no tomorrow. American homeowners in particular should be happy. Good thing I took those greenbacks to Forex and changed them back to a currency that’s safe to keep in a bank account right away.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
“inflation isn’t all that bad”?
neither is your 10% unemployment rate
Comment by winter — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Hey winter! You still haven’t told us how much you lost on that BBC bet.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
“neither is your 10% unemployment rate” - winturd
Neither is USA’s 100 percent no universal health care rate, 85 percent literacy rate, 10 percent troop survival rate in Iraq, 72 percent FOXNEWS viewer rate.
Comment by Dave the Slave — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
10 percent troup survival rate? have any links?
last I saw it was like .01% or lower than a german Tourist walking in downtown Washington DC.
Comment by winter — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
From the BBC “A TV station run by Palestinian militant group Hamas is using a cartoon rodent in the image of Disney’s Mickey Mouse to carry its political message. ”
to bad they missed the part, they are the BBC, on the message they send their own folks, vrs the message the give the BBC.
Guess I won that bet.
Comment by winter — Tue, May 22nd, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
Sorry dude, you lost me there!
Comment by Kimmo W. — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 12:30 am
In simple english
Has the BBC figured out they were fed a line about nice Palestinians, who just love one another and Israel?
Comment by winter “Against stupidity, the gods themselves are helpless.†— Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 1:14 am
#129 So by “getting it”, you seem to mean something more abstract than covering the story - which they did.
While I’m not privy to the workings of the collective mind of the good people at the esteemed broadcaster, I think that I can safely say that there is an awareness of the complexities of the situation in the Middle East - something that cannot always be said for disseminators of information sponsored by the US government.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/us_government_g.html
A quote:
“Al Hurra television, the U.S. government’s $63 million-a-year effort at public diplomacy broadcasting in the Middle East, is run by executives and officials who cannot speak Arabic, according to a senior official who oversees the program.”
“That might explain why critics say the service has recently been caught broadcasting terrorist messages, including an hour-long tirade on the importance of anti-Jewish violence, among other questionable pieces.”
Comment by Kimmo W. — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Kimmo
Now what’s that got to do with anything?
Comment by maksalaatikko — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
Just to point out that while some public service broadcasters have a high degree of professionalism, others couldn’t find their ass if they used both hands.
But I admit that it doesn’t have much to do with the initial topic of this thread, but I’m not the one who first sidetracked it.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
“Just to point out that while some public service broadcasters have a high degree of professionalism, others couldn’t find their ass if they used both hands.”
I’m sure if the BBC had to start from scratch, build a broadcast network that is only broadcast in Arabic, and broadcast all over the Middle East; the same thing would happen. Kakka happens!!!
Compare the BBC, to NPR, CPR, or any other well established public broadcaster. Not Al Hurra.
By the way, all the other public broadcasters are just as biased and partial as the BBC.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
Beginners’ stumbling is one thing, but takes serious stupidity to organise a TV station and start broadcasting without a built-in system to verify the content of what is going out; you don’t need to be “well established” - all it takes is basic common sense.
That kind of scrutiny would cost a small fraction of the reported $63 million a year budget of Al Hurra.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
High degree of Professionalism does not happen at a GOVERMENT run station like the BBC.
A market based station, like FOX, will go under, if they misreport the news, unlike a Govenment run station, which will see the money flow anyway.
Thanks for making my point Kimmo
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
135 was me
Comment by winter — Wed, May 23rd, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
“Campaign Finance Reform” - which is really censoring what people other than news outlets can say within 60 days of an election - will prevent John McCain from having a shot at the monination. He will come in third place at best in the primaries.
Comment by Alan K. Henderson — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 12:00 am
“Beginners’ stumbling is one thing, but takes serious stupidity to organise a TV station and start broadcasting without a built-in system to verify the content of what is going out; you don’t need to be “well established†- all it takes is basic common sense.”
If that’s ALL it takes then why the heck aren’t you running a major public broadcasting network? Think about, cush job, high pay, lot’s of respect, and all you have to do is dispense “common sense”. Please don’t tell me you aren’t “lucky” enough. I’m tired of that Finnish excuse for personal failure.
Here’s the first hit of 1,370,000 on a google search for “BBC mistakes”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article717210.ece
Now that’s idiotic. Where’s the “built-in system to verify the content of what is going out”? Where’s the “public service broadcasters … high degree of professionalism”? After all we know that “all it takes is basic common sense.”
How hard is it to say “Can I see some I.D. please?”
I spend several hours a day driving and I listen to public radio quite a bit. Know thy enemy!!
I support using tax revenue to finance public broadcasting but I wouldn’t be caught dead saying it is impartial and unbiased. I like it because it presents another point of view . I think the more sources on information available to a consumer the better. I occaisionly even find my self agreeing with their position or having an “Aha” moment.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 1:35 am
“sorry ML, I’ve never seen a box made of liver”
It’s a Finnish delicacy along with veri lattu and veri makkara or whatever that black disgusting sausage is that people in Tampere eat. I prefer the literal translation of maksalaatikko. It has a nice sound to it.
I almost forgot rinnanmaitoalattu or “human breast milk pancakes”. Great stuff!
I apologize ahead of time for any mistakes I made in my Finnish. And English.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 1:54 am
#135 “High degree of Professionalism does not happen at a GOVERMENT run station like the BBC.”
Any other justification for that assertion than your ideological opposition to the possibility that public funding might be compatible with high quality?
“A market based station, like FOX, will go under, if they misreport the news,”
Not if it has a core market of loyal viewers who like to have their ideological world views reinforced by the kind of rhetoric that they want to hear.
# 138 “If that’s ALL it takes then why the heck aren’t you running a major public broadcasting network?”
How can you be sure that I’m not?!
But seriously, I didn’t say that running any kind of a network was easy, but not taking measures to make sure that you have a basic idea about the material that’s going out really is stupid.
Let’s look at it this way: if a relative of mine were to die during brain surgery performed by a doctor who was drunk at the time, I think that I have the right to criticise him for screwing up, and I would not be impressed by the assertion that I couldn’t have performed the operation any better.
“Here’s the first hit of 1,370,000 on a google search for “BBC mistakesâ€Â.”
I remember that one. Quite amusing - the BBC repeated it several times. Isolated screw-ups are one thing. Hiring people to broadcast propaganda in a language you don’t understand, and not instituting a follow-up system of verifying that the content is not the exact opposite of what is supposed to be going out is a much more profound lapse of management judgement.
Even the US Government knows better in its better-established broadcasting operations. The Voice of America has a system of back-translation, in which foreign-language programs originally translated from an English script are translated back into English by translators who were not connected with the production of the original to make sure that the message is uniform. The fact that nothing no such oversight occurred at Al-Hurra suggests major incompetence and, I would guess, political hiring.
#139 Finnish lesson: “laatikko” is one of those Finnish words with more than one meaning. One of those meanings is “box”, and the other is that of a semi-solid food baked in an oven - casserole. Look it up in a dictionary. And the Finnish word for pancakes is “lettu”.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 9:10 am
“Core market of loyal viewers.”, which they got, how????????
You mean like ABC, CBS, and NBC all have? As left wing attack dogs, they all see lower and lower ratings each year, and are all laying off staff.
Seems to me the Market is working, just ask the NY Times about their layoff’s. Unlike the BBC which just gets more tax dollars, with no market forces involved.
Comment by winter — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
“#139 Finnish lesson: “laatikko†is one of those Finnish words with more than one meaning. One of those meanings is “boxâ€Â, and the other is that of a semi-solid food baked in an oven - casserole.”
I know this but my moniker is translated to be liverbox in reference to the delectable Finnish casserole. Why is it translated that way you ask?
Because I said so.
Thanks for the correction on “lettu”. I should of known better. I’m going to Finland for three weeks this summer. It’ll be interesting to see how much of the language I’ve lost since moving back. Heck, my four year old speaks it way better than me now. I’m already becoming the butt of his jokes when it comes to using Finnish.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
For the records, there definetely is a liver box. It was a light blue, plastic box full of liver and with red text “Lihakunta”. You could order such a box, if you were about to prepare maksalaatikko for bigger crowds.
Similar boxes were also used for the stuff that didn’t quite make it to the sausage. One of my first summer jobs was to drive these to be minced into mink fodder.
Comment by Antti rn — Thu, May 24th, 2007 @ 11:13 pm
#141 “You mean like ABC, CBS, and NBC all have? As left wing attack dogs…”
When a right-wing president like Bush has screwed up so royally, reality (as Colbert has said) does take on an increasingly left-wing bias.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Fri, May 25th, 2007 @ 8:24 am
“right-wing president like Bush has screwed up so royally,”
Huh, doing your bidding no less? Now look at the French and figure the world out. They did.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, May 26th, 2007 @ 3:49 am
There’s Winter with his ever-cryptic stream of consciousness again!
So Bush is doing our bidding? How do you figure that? And what’s happened in France that has anything to do with anything being discussed here? The election of a new president from the same party as the old one?
Anyway, congragulations about the remission.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sat, May 26th, 2007 @ 8:41 am
“Bush is doing our bidding?” well, lets see. By your non participation in any world events, you pretty much gave all the world to Bush to run.
So if you want it back, do something. The USA would be happy if someone stepped up. Otherwise its going to the chinese or Russians next.
I can just hear your critics now of Russia and china. Well maby not.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sat, May 26th, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
“By your non participation in any world events, you pretty much gave all the world to Bush to run.”
I’ll try to paraphrase what I think you’re trying to say, although I must admit that following your train of thought is quite a challenge.
You seem to suggest by not jumping through your hoops into the Iraq quagmire, we (I’m not sure if the “you” that you are talking about refers to Finland, the European, the European continent, or perhaps teh whole world - except for the United States) supposedly gave Bush permission to run the world.
If that is the case, then Bush and those who share his mind set might consider that none of us have the moral authority to bestow such a mandate on the US President, and if he has half a brain (big if there, I admit), he would have realised by now that by trying to do so, he has bitten off more than he can chew.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, May 27th, 2007 @ 12:49 am
“not jumping through your hoops into the Iraq quagmire”
first, what quagmire? The USA will turn over the country (Well except some remote bases and training units) by the next election. I have yet to see any quagmire there. We are leaving, or did the BBC miss that one to?
Second. By your non participation in any world event, not counting the current support for thugs and killers, you all just gave the world to the USA to run.
Now get off your soap box and do something. We will gladly give it back, or if you continue to stick your head in the sand, we will give it to the Russians and Chinese.
Start with Darfur, a country a small unit, less than 1 000 troups could handle.
But just do something.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, May 27th, 2007 @ 2:32 am
#150 So Bush WANTED to strengthen Iran and al-Qaeda? Because no matter how you cut it, that is what has happened!
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=c82bb5af-fb2c-4490-9f4e-241256bf6060&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, May 27th, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
“Bush WANTED to strengthen Iran ”
yea by have troups all around them. Smart.
Comment by winter “Yea, Proton Power, now in remission†— Sun, May 27th, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
#152 Yes, you can tell from Iran’s behavior how intimidated they are by the wise policies of GBW!
The “troups” that are all around Iran are pretty much bogged down where they are. Meanwhile the US military is getting increasingly overstretched, while military inlistment is becoming increasingly unpopular for young Americans.
Comment by Kimmo W. — Sun, May 27th, 2007 @ 10:35 pm
It’s very early to make any picks.
Today my guess is that Hillary will win but she could lose both in the primaries and in the general election. Anyway, she’s my bet for 2008. Obama is a very serious challenger for her and has his chance to pull an upset. If Edwards is still in the race in 2008, he’ll probably finish third in the primaries.
Giuliani is a great bet for the GOP. If his campaign doesn’t take off in 2008, Fred Thompson is waiting in the wings. But if Rudy gets the cash needed to secure the nomination, he could be the Republican candidate. McCain will probably finish second in the primaries. I think he would have a better chance than Giuliani in the general election but the conservatives will probably go for anyone but him.
I bet Ron Paul won’t run on a LP ticket and the Libertarian candidate will be another no-name who’ll get less than one per cent.
This time my guess is that none of the third party candidates will make any impact. Of course, if the election will be very close, even one percentage point could make a difference one way or the other.
I have a hard time seeing any surprise candidate will pick the Dem nomination given the Clinton machine in the race. But the GOP candidacy can still go to someone who isn’t there yet, Fred Thompson being the favorite of those who are dying to vote for an actor. Schwarzenegger would otherwise be the ideal last-minute entry but the Constitution prohibits foreign born candidates from running for the highest office.
Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 28th, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
High degree of Professionalism does not happen at a GOVERMENT run station like the BBC.
A market based station, like FOX, will go under, if they misreport the news, unlike a Govenment run station, which will see the money flow anyway.
Sounds like NPR/PBS (both paid for by taxpayer dollars) here in the States. I wonder if they have the same kind of issues with YLE. If so, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, May 30th, 2007 @ 3:18 am