Game Change: Fair and balanced?

[Brown]

Well yeah, anyone can reasonably justify a position using logically valid argument based on reason and evidence. So what?

That's exactly right! Anybody can form an opinion based upon actually studying and evaluating the evidence. But you need to be really brave to take a position that makes you look like a knuckle-dragger. Wimps do their homework; tough-guys tell the teacher to go screw himself!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I haven't seen it yet. But I did watch the clip where Schmidt explains the historic significance of that concession speech. If true I have great respect for Schmidt.

Steve Schmidt was the guy who scuttled the McCain campaign by talking McCain into suspending the campaign when the stock market crashed so he could rush back to Washington and be seen doing almost nothing to help fix the economy.

I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that an experienced political operative would help create a TV movie that pinned the blame on someone else and elevate himself to the status of "lone voice of reason".

 

[RandFan]

That's exactly right! Anybody can form an opinion based upon actually studying and evaluating the evidence. But you need to be really brave to take a position that makes you look like a knuckle-dragger. Wimps do their homework; tough-guys tell the teacher to go screw himself!

 

[RandFan]

Steve Schmidt was the guy who scuttled the McCain campaign by talking McCain into suspending the campaign when the stock market crashed so he could rush back to Washington and be seen doing almost nothing to help fix the economy.

I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that an experienced political operative would help create a TV movie that pinned the blame on someone else and elevate himself to the status of "lone voice of reason".

He says he screwed up. Odd way of pinning the blame on someone else, dontcha think?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Steve Schmidt was the guy who scuttled the McCain campaign by talking McCain into suspending the campaign when the stock market crashed so he could rush back to Washington and be seen doing almost nothing to help fix the economy.

I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that an experienced political operative would help create a TV movie that pinned the blame on someone else and elevate himself to the status of "lone voice of reason".

Um, yeah, that wasn't what scuttled McCain's campaign. It was picking Palin as VP. Sure, there was a bit of a downward slide prior to that, but nothing like what happened afterward when a large chunk of the moderates said "woah, while I might support McCain's "moderate" status, I can't support this nutjob Palin" (of course, that was when McCain was still respected as somewhat moderate. Before people began catching on that he isn't so moderate.)

 

[Beerina]

Um, yeah, that wasn't what scuttled McCain's campaign. It was picking Palin as VP. Sure, there was a bit of a downward slide prior to that, but nothing like what happened afterward when a large chunk of the moderates said "woah, while I might support McCain's "moderate" status, I can't support this nutjob Palin" (of course, that was when McCain was still respected as somewhat moderate. Before people began catching on that he isn't so moderate.)

I'm sure McCain was thinkin', gee, with her we can pick off all the pissed-off Hillary voters who wanted the first female.

 

[Tricky]

I'm sure McCain was thinkin', gee, with her we can pick off all the pissed-off Hillary voters who wanted the first female.

Maybe not that exactly, but if the movie was accurate, there was great concern in the McCain camp about their low polling with women.

 

[varwoche]

Excellent movie!

What I find really interesting is Schmidt's character. While he is portrayed somewhat sympathetically

Not surprising -- he's the primary source.

I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that an experienced political operative would help create a TV movie that pinned the blame on someone else and elevate himself to the status of "lone voice of reason".

I take it you didn't see the movie.

Why? He hired an idiot as his vp. What's the mystery?

Huh? Earth to Beerina: There's quite a number of reality-based movies that are quite excellent, even though the facts are well known. Your film critic pencil needs sharpening. On top of which, it's advisable to see a movie before pannng it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

As victim, she clearly was completely unprepared for the national stage and had no business playing at that level. She had know way of knowing that but McCain's advisors did, but completely dropped the ball.

cwalner, this didn't need a movie to be said, and IIRC, quite a few criticisms of John McCain's campaign have honed in on this angle since about Oct/Nov of 2008. I find your pithy summation spot on.

 

[Brown]

I watched the movie. I liked it, mostly. It is both flattering and unflattering to every one of the major players. Some of the flattering stuff I have good reason to believe is true, becuase it has been reported or admitted. Similarly, some of the unflattering stuff I have good reason to believe is true. I did not see anything that I had very good reason to believe was overtly false, but some of the flattering and unflattering stuff I just don't know about ... and some of it is suspicious.

Sarah Palin didn't know that the Prime Minister, not the Queen, was the head of government in the UK? It's one thing not to be familiar with the distinction between "Head of State" and "Head of Government," but the movie portrayed the very existence of a Prime Minister as a complete shock to Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin had never HEARD of the Fed, or monetary policy? It's one thing not to have a grasp of the basics of monetary policy and control of the money supply and what causes the Fed to move and shake, but the movie portrayed Palin as never having heard of the Fed at all.

Did her advisers really hold a "Basics of Government" course for her as was done in the movie "Dave"? It may have happened. But it's suspicious.

 

[cwalner]

I watched the movie. I liked it, mostly. It is both flattering and unflattering to every one of the major players. Some of the flattering stuff I have good reason to believe is true, becuase it has been reported or admitted. Similarly, some of the unflattering stuff I have good reason to believe is true. I did not see anything that I had very good reason to believe was overtly false, but some of the flattering and unflattering stuff I just don't know about ... and some of it is suspicious.

Sarah Palin didn't know that the Prime Minister, not the Queen, was the head of government in the UK? It's one thing not to be familiar with the distinction between "Head of State" and "Head of Government," but the movie portrayed the very existence of a Prime Minister as a complete shock to Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin had never HEARD of the Fed, or monetary policy? It's one thing not to have a grasp of the basics of monetary policy and control of the money supply and what causes the Fed to move and shake, but the movie portrayed Palin as never having heard of the Fed at all.

Did her advisers really hold a "Basics of Government" course for her as was done in the movie "Dave"? It may have happened. But it's suspicious.

I think this has more to do with the sources and the known fallibility of memory. I think that a lot of these items that seem exaggerated, were, but not consciously. This strikes me as those that worked with her, exaggerating their memory of the situation, but accurately reporting that memory (once exaggerated) to the author.

In other words, did that incident with Palin not understanding the role of the Queen and the existence of the PM happen. Probably not. Is that how Schmidt now remembers it. Probably.

 

[Tricky]

I am shocked... SHOCKED I tell you, that an experienced political operative would help create a TV movie that pinned the blame on someone else and elevate himself to the status of "lone voice of reason".

I take it you didn't see the movie.

Obviously SofT did not watch the movie. (And I'm shocked!) The film shows Steve Schmidt as being racked with guilt for the many ways he screwed up. He is identified as the person who most strongly recommended Palin and who didn't listen to the other advisors when they warned him about how ignorant she was.

 

[Brown]

I think this has more to do with the sources and the known fallibility of memory. I think that a lot of these items that seem exaggerated, were, but not consciously. This strikes me as those that worked with her, exaggerating their memory of the situation, but accurately reporting that memory (once exaggerated) to the author.

In other words, did that incident with Palin not understanding the role of the Queen and the existence of the PM happen. Probably not. Is that how Schmidt now remembers it. Probably.

That is my take as well. Heaven knows, I have maintained that Sarah Palin was completely unqualified and not very smart nor well-informed ... but my goodness she wasn't THAT stupid, was she?

I can understand a person--especially an official in a local or state government--not having a good grasp on some of the operations of the federal government. But was it REALLY necessary to explain to Sarah Palin the basic function of the Fed? Was it REALLY necessary to teach her who won WWII? To the seasoned Washington hob-nobbers and campaign strategists, a lot of the finer points may seem second nature to them and they might wonder how a US citizen could possibly NOT know such things... but there is a difference between the finer points and the basics. It would not surprise me that Sarah Palin did not know some of the finer points. Nor would it surprise me that she was inarticulate. It would surprise me if she didn't know as much as a fifth-grader.

One thing about the film that did seem to be an accurate reflection of those days was that some of the attacks upon Palin were unfair. The clothes she wore, for example, were expensive, and she took flak for that. But why? As a practical matter, she HAD to dress nicely and fashionable. Fair or not, women get judged on appearance in a way that men do not. (Shortly before his death, John F. Kennedy said in a speech something about how everybody is interested in how Jackie is dressed. "Nobody cares what Lyndon and I wear," the President joked.)

 

[cwalner]

One thing about the film that did seem to be an accurate reflection of those days was that some of the attacks upon Palin were unfair. The clothes she wore, for example, were expensive, and she took flak for that. But why? As a practical matter, she HAD to dress nicely and fashionable. Fair or not, women get judged on appearance in a way that men do not. (Shortly before his death, John F. Kennedy said in a speech something about how everybody is interested in how Jackie is dressed. "Nobody cares what Lyndon and I wear," the President joked.)

As an aside, I doubt this issue is as gender imbalanced as it was back in the 60's. I would be very surprised to learn that any of the candidates in this race show up to a debate or a campaign event wearing less than $1000 worth of clothing (except possibly when going out of their way to present themselves as 'blue collar' or folksy)

 

[ponderingturtle]

As an aside, I doubt this issue is as gender imbalanced as it was back in the 60's. I would be very surprised to learn that any of the candidates in this race show up to a debate or a campaign event wearing less than $1000 worth of clothing (except possibly when going out of their way to present themselves as 'blue collar' or folksy)

Are we counting hair cuts? Also I could see a lot of tailoring to get just the right look in jeans and a flannel shirt.

 

[cwalner]

Are we counting hair cuts? Also I could see a lot of tailoring to get just the right look in jeans and a flannel shirt.

No, I was not counting hair cuts, just wardrobe and jewelry. As to the cost of jeans and flannel shirt, I did say that was only a possible exception.

I actually remember during the 2008 campaign when that was leveled against Palin. I thought it was unfair at the time. Anybody who doubts how important looks and image are in a campaign just needs to ask anybody who worked on Nixon's 1960 campaign.

 

[Brown]

As an aside, I doubt this issue is as gender imbalanced as it was back in the 60's. I would be very surprised to learn that any of the candidates in this race show up to a debate or a campaign event wearing less than $1000 worth of clothing (except possibly when going out of their way to present themselves as 'blue collar' or folksy)

I would certainly hope that there would be more gender balancing, with the balance being tipped for both sexes away from superficial analysis. Less emphasis on looks; more emphasis on substance.

Who cared whether Ronald Reagan dyed his hair? I didn't, but some people apparently did, and Reagan tried to put the controversy to rest by having his barber speak to the issue. Who cared whether Jimmy Carter parted his hair on the left or the right? He changed his part mid-term and it caused something of a stir. Who cared whether Bill Clinton had a paunch or not? For a guy his age, he wasn't too bad off, and the nickname "fat boy" seemed petty and mean. Who cared whether Bob Dole and John McCain had less than full use of their arms? Who cared whether George H. W. Bush was going bald? Who cared whether Gerald Ford wore "flood pants" on a trip to Asia? This is all little stuff, not worth sweating. And usually--with the men, anyway--it didn't last for very long. It would be nice if women got the same consideration. They are politicians or public servants, for crying out loud, not fashion models.

There is another area where--fairly or not--women get judged more harshly than men. And that is with the morals of their family. When Sarah's daughter got preggers out of wedlock, there were tongues that clucked about Sarah's mothering skills. Yet there have been male politicians whose offspring have done far worse things, yet the men don't seem to get blamed for being bad dads.

As George Carlin said (and I'm paraphrasing), a double-standard is too much; a single standard is all you need.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is another area where--fairly or not--women get judged more harshly than men. And that is with the morals of their family. When Sarah's daughter got preggers out of wedlock, there were tongues that clucked about Sarah's mothering skills. Yet there have been male politicians whose offspring have done far worse things, yet the men don't seem to get blamed for being bad dads.

Family shouldn't matter but it does. So if someones kids do well it shouldn't be used as evidence for them, and when they do poorly it shouldn't be used against them. But what about refuting poor claims? Her qualities as a mother were a campaign issue and she and her team made them one.

I would say that Edwards does not deserve the flack he gets either. How is that for someone no one defends from irrelevant charges.

 

[cwalner]

There is another area where--fairly or not--women get judged more harshly than men. And that is with the morals of their family. When Sarah's daughter got preggers out of wedlock, there were tongues that clucked about Sarah's mothering skills. Yet there have been male politicians whose offspring have done far worse things, yet the men don't seem to get blamed for being bad dads.

While I generally agree with this. The family should be out of bounds. The exception is when the candidate themselves bring the family into the mix. For me the issue with Bristol's pregnancy with respect to her mother's campaign was that Sarah specifically endorsed abstinence only education, which is widely criticized because studies show that it is ineffective. I think pointing out such an example in Sarah's personal life is fair criticism. I also think it would have been equally fair if Todd was the politician, not Sarah.

 

[ponderingturtle]

While I generally agree with this. The family should be out of bounds. The exception is when the candidate themselves bring the family into the mix. For me the issue with Bristol's pregnancy with respect to her mother's campaign was that Sarah specifically endorsed abstinence only education, which is widely criticized because studies show that it is ineffective. I think pointing out such an example in Sarah's personal life is fair criticism. I also think it would have been equally fair if Todd was the politician, not Sarah.

There is also a point here. Rather like asking Chaney his views on same sex marriage in light of his homosexual daughter.