Comments on: Comments, corrections, clarifications, and c*ckups http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/ now with extra source Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:52:47 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: JamesK http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5439 JamesK Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5439 Stephen Magee writes: What a hoot! Your contributors and readers fall over themselves to hail Obama as some kind of messiah, while damning Palin as an ill-educated hick. There is no substantive evidence for either position.<br /><br />i agree but it is not only Crikey's contributors but the editor in the form of the doubly bent left Jonathan Green who proudly exult in this prejudice:<br />http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20081107-Palin-off-the-record-is-not-in-the-public-interest.html#comments<br /> Stephen Magee writes: What a hoot! Your contributors and readers fall over themselves to hail Obama as some kind of messiah, while damning Palin as an ill-educated hick. There is no substantive evidence for either position.

i agree but it is not only Crikey’s contributors but the editor in the form of the doubly bent left Jonathan Green who proudly exult in this prejudice:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20081107-Palin-off-the-record-is-not-in-the-public-interest.html#comments

]]> By: Will http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5440 Will Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5440 Thanks for publishing the letters from Alex Rose and Justin Mansfield, who categorically demolish the Albrechtsen thesis with the simple truth that black support is already prefixed on the Democratic ticket, which has always been white. I've made the same point before, whilst also explaining the reasons behind this strong party-identification which extend beyond economic interests, here:<br />http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20081106-US08-race-religion-and-Albrechtsen.html<br /><br />The people claiming Obama's victory was purely racial are kidding themselves. From the moment Obama won Iowa in the primary, then proved it wasn't a fluke in Wisconsin, he showed he was a candidate of merit to whites and other minorities alike - not just black people. Indeed, he won in basically all demographics - including post of Bush's and flipped many red states where racial politics have no play. Those suggesting that his support was purely a racial appeal can offer nothing of explanatory value about why he emphatically won first-time voters, under 30s, educated whites, Hispanics, and Catholics - who're all pretty uniformly unlikely to vote based on black identity politics. <br /><br />So, this is sour grapes pure and simple. It's people who have no understanding of his policy platform, and took no trouble to find out about it, and now want to pretend he ran without substantive positions. Most likely these are Bush or Hillary dead-enders, who simply want to delimit and take away from the scale of his victory - which is all the more impressive after decades of Republican gerrymandering. As it is Obama beat the last record for a Democrat, which was Carter's popular majority. <br /><br />I'm frankly amazed it took two letter contributors to make such a bleedingly obvious point. Thanks for publishing the letters from Alex Rose and Justin Mansfield, who categorically demolish the Albrechtsen thesis with the simple truth that black support is already prefixed on the Democratic ticket, which has always been white. I’ve made the same point before, whilst also explaining the reasons behind this strong party-identification which extend beyond economic interests, here:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20081106-US08-race-religion-and-Albrechtsen.html

The people claiming Obama’s victory was purely racial are kidding themselves. From the moment Obama won Iowa in the primary, then proved it wasn’t a fluke in Wisconsin, he showed he was a candidate of merit to whites and other minorities alike - not just black people. Indeed, he won in basically all demographics - including post of Bush’s and flipped many red states where racial politics have no play. Those suggesting that his support was purely a racial appeal can offer nothing of explanatory value about why he emphatically won first-time voters, under 30s, educated whites, Hispanics, and Catholics - who’re all pretty uniformly unlikely to vote based on black identity politics.

So, this is sour grapes pure and simple. It’s people who have no understanding of his policy platform, and took no trouble to find out about it, and now want to pretend he ran without substantive positions. Most likely these are Bush or Hillary dead-enders, who simply want to delimit and take away from the scale of his victory - which is all the more impressive after decades of Republican gerrymandering. As it is Obama beat the last record for a Democrat, which was Carter’s popular majority.

I’m frankly amazed it took two letter contributors to make such a bleedingly obvious point.

]]> By: Will http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5441 Will Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5441 Eira, as tragic and vulnerable as the situation is in Afghanistan, that was at least a legal war with broad international support against the Taliban. The regime there was not only known to be tolerating al Qaeda, but they had allowed the finance and training of al Qaeda in the run up to 9/11. Thus, the action invoked the Art 51 collective self-defence provisions under the UN Charter, in response to the armed attack, and it was a just war all things considered. Unfortunately the Bush Administration's decision to open up an unrelated front in Iraq has meant that toppling the regime there has not been followed by the kind of progress we would all like to see on the ground. Outside of Kabul narco-sponsored terrorism and warlords are given more or less free reign. <br /><br />Hopefully Obama will be looking to redeploy US forces there and to fight the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces on the border with Pakistan and the Pashtun region. Mr Rudd and he are at least on the same page on this score. Now, that we have grown ups in power I am cautiously optimistic. Eira, as tragic and vulnerable as the situation is in Afghanistan, that was at least a legal war with broad international support against the Taliban. The regime there was not only known to be tolerating al Qaeda, but they had allowed the finance and training of al Qaeda in the run up to 9/11. Thus, the action invoked the Art 51 collective self-defence provisions under the UN Charter, in response to the armed attack, and it was a just war all things considered. Unfortunately the Bush Administration’s decision to open up an unrelated front in Iraq has meant that toppling the regime there has not been followed by the kind of progress we would all like to see on the ground. Outside of Kabul narco-sponsored terrorism and warlords are given more or less free reign.

Hopefully Obama will be looking to redeploy US forces there and to fight the resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda forces on the border with Pakistan and the Pashtun region. Mr Rudd and he are at least on the same page on this score. Now, that we have grown ups in power I am cautiously optimistic.

]]> By: JamesK http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5442 JamesK Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5442 Will, where did I claim what you claim I claimed? Will, where did I claim what you claim I claimed?

]]> By: Eira http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5443 Eira Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5443 The Indonesians caught and finally executed the Bali bombers as criminals under their law. Barbaric but just and a lesson to other jihadists that if you break the law than you pay the consequences which is why the Indonesians are having some success in controlling their hotheads. If 9/11 had taken place in the UK it would have been regarded as a criminal matter and MI6, Interpol and other such agencies would have hunted down Bin Laden and his cohorts who would in all probability be rotting in jail by now. In America, well, they chose to go to war against one of the poorest nations on earth, Afghanistan, and Iraq, a country with no known links to "terrorists" at that time. What has been achieved aside from a million or more Iraqi civilians dead, thousands of innocent Afghanis dead and several million people displaced, for what...SQUAT. The Indonesians caught and finally executed the Bali bombers as criminals under their law. Barbaric but just and a lesson to other jihadists that if you break the law than you pay the consequences which is why the Indonesians are having some success in controlling their hotheads. If 9/11 had taken place in the UK it would have been regarded as a criminal matter and MI6, Interpol and other such agencies would have hunted down Bin Laden and his cohorts who would in all probability be rotting in jail by now. In America, well, they chose to go to war against one of the poorest nations on earth, Afghanistan, and Iraq, a country with no known links to “terrorists” at that time. What has been achieved aside from a million or more Iraqi civilians dead, thousands of innocent Afghanis dead and several million people displaced, for what…SQUAT.

]]> By: Will http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/11/10/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups/#comment-5444 Will Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5444 JamesK, whatever you want to think, Palin had serious deficiencies as a candidate. This problem was explicitly credited by a number of high profile Republican defectors, or those with reservations about McCain. This list includes such notorious leftists as WaPo's George Will, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, Rep Sec of State Lawrence Eagleburger, Colin Powell, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, etc etc. I could go on and on - you think that's just media bias? <br /><br />Your claim that she somehow has sufficient national experienced and is ready to be VP is simply not shared by the American people. The VP slot is a relatively untaxing one by American political tradition, yet polls show people didn't think she was even ready for that. <br /><br />This notion that she was is based on little more than this faux beltway wisdom about the importance of governor executive experience and equating that with an entitlement to office. Yet clearly she had no prior national profile, no real grasp of the issues, and has continually demonstrated profound gaps in her knowledge of the VP role, foreign policy and economic issues. <br /><br />I will certainly admit I found some of the sexist overtones in the commentary off-putting, but she ultimately sabotaged herself by flunking such trivial questions like "what print media do you read?" and simple topical questions about the financial crisis. These are basic tests of candidacy she failed and putting it down to media bias is stupid. <br /><br />I find it a little disheartening that a conservative from a Parliamentary Commonwealth tradition, like Australia's, where our leaders are actually expected to routinely acquit themselves in Parliament and the media, can have such low standards for such an important office. JamesK, whatever you want to think, Palin had serious deficiencies as a candidate. This problem was explicitly credited by a number of high profile Republican defectors, or those with reservations about McCain. This list includes such notorious leftists as WaPo’s George Will, Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, Rep Sec of State Lawrence Eagleburger, Colin Powell, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, etc etc. I could go on and on - you think that’s just media bias?

Your claim that she somehow has sufficient national experienced and is ready to be VP is simply not shared by the American people. The VP slot is a relatively untaxing one by American political tradition, yet polls show people didn’t think she was even ready for that.

This notion that she was is based on little more than this faux beltway wisdom about the importance of governor executive experience and equating that with an entitlement to office. Yet clearly she had no prior national profile, no real grasp of the issues, and has continually demonstrated profound gaps in her knowledge of the VP role, foreign policy and economic issues.

I will certainly admit I found some of the sexist overtones in the commentary off-putting, but she ultimately sabotaged herself by flunking such trivial questions like “what print media do you read?” and simple topical questions about the financial crisis. These are basic tests of candidacy she failed and putting it down to media bias is stupid.

I find it a little disheartening that a conservative from a Parliamentary Commonwealth tradition, like Australia’s, where our leaders are actually expected to routinely acquit themselves in Parliament and the media, can have such low standards for such an important office.

]]>