NR on Bill Ayer

Deroy Murdock wrote "Obama's Weathermen Pals Should Worry You," a piece saying Obama and his supporters are wrongfully trivializing his connections to Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. The article chronicles Ayers' and Dohrn's past actions with the Weather Underground from the 60s through the 80s, and then it lists all the ways Obama knew and associated with Ayers.  

"No wonder Obama has been so evasive about his ties to Ayers and Dohrn. His relationship with these extreme leftists goes far beyond waving at some folks who live nearby. It defies belief that Obama never learned that they hated the USA and love TNT."

Some of the ways Obama and Ayers knew each other are:

-Obama chaired the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers inaugurated and thus they worked together on.

-Ayers invited Chicago liberals to their house to meet Obama when he ran for IL State Senate in '95.

-Obama praised Ayers' book.

-They were co-panelists for a colloquium together.

And there were many more.

It was interesting to have all the ways they knew each other spelled out. But I am still not convinced that it is that big of a deal that Obama knows him. Ayers did these things long before Obama knew him, and I don't think it means that much that he has met with him before and worked with him on projects. I have worked with MANY people I am nothing like, and that does not mean that just because I have worked with them, I am now going to copy whatever they do. The same goes with Obama. Just because he worked with Ayers and Ayers liked him does not mean that Obama is now best buddies with a terrorist. 

McCain's "that one"

CNN's coverage of McCain's "that one" during the debate focused briefly on how what he said was condescending and racist before defending him for not bringing up Bill Ayers and calling this an "encouraging sign" about the campaign. Why was the pundit quick to change the subject and defend the candidate? It is an important question to ask, because it can very easily be interpreted as racist and off limits to say. And why is it so important that he did not bring up Bill Ayers? The media is bringing it up enough anyway that McCain does not need to bother bringing it up himself to make voters think about it, the media is doing his work for him.

Furthermore, the pundit David Gergen continued to talk about how Republican rallies lately with Palin have been getting out of hand because people in the crowds have begun yelling "terrorist" and "kill him" about Obama. Anderson Cooper, who was asking the pundit questions about this, goes, "You can't control what people say, though, in a rally, can you, David?" as if to say instead, "Well, this isn't really that big of a deal, is it?" The pundit did say in response, though, that they can control it by stopping and saying this will not be condoned, which at least partly holds the McCain camp responsible. 

NR focuses on voting patterns

Today's NR articles were slightly disappointing. First, the article "McCain needs Hillary: Losing North Carolina" focused on how North Carolina normally is not a key state for Democrats because since 1976 it has gone to Republicans fairly easily. However, the large black population, its progressive streak, and northerners who flee high property taxes have changed this so now Obama is likely to take it. The article says that McCain has to learn from Clinton and target conservative Democrats uncomfortable with Obama's liberal record to win the voters over. 

A second article, "Hail-Mary vote: Understanding those mysterious Catholics," talks about the Catholic voters and how crucial they are to electoral victories. The article says that they are not understood that well despite being so important and are known to swing wildly to both sides. 

Both these articles focus on the horse race aspect of the election, like much of the mainstream media. It is disappointing because normally NR has such good articles that, although usually slanted conservatively, still offer important points to think about. These, however, just made me upset that NR is following the trend and focusing on voter demographics and which state will take who etc. 

CNN coverage raises important issue

CNN this evening raised a very important issue in part of its coverage of the election: how voters are not getting the details they crave about the candidates. More specifically, how female voters, who are supposedly more methodical and information gatherers, want more details to make their decision about how to vote for. 

A group of undecided voters from Ohio were interviewed after the debate Tuesday, and they all said they want more specifics and answers and to know how, exactly, the candidates will handle the financial bailout and other important issues. They said the debate was a disappointment because the candidates spent most of the time attacking each other instead of saying what they themselves would do. 

Furthermore, one of the women brought up how equal pay is a large issue for her and that neither of the candidates has addressed this. 

If the candidates do not start giving more details out about their positions, these women said they would stay home on election day. 

I thought this was an excellent segment that raised many important issues. First of all, it shows how people want to know more information about their positions, not more polling data and who is winning the horse race. Also, it shows how people want to make informed decisions not based on personality or likeability. The want answers to their problems. Third, it points out another huge issue in the election, equal pay, that should be asked of the candidates. 

What's ironic, though, is that after CNN airs this great piece about how voters want to know more about the candidates, they do not actually run anything showing exact positions of the candidates or asking them how they feel about equal pay for women. After being told what the viewers/voters want, they should give them this, not continue to show polling data, talk about the candidates' wives speaking out dirty campaigning, and how each candidate is being portrayed in ads. They should take their own advice and stick to the cold, hard issues!

another NR sidenote

There's another article today on NR that I think is also really good. The author of "Focus, People: A life-or-death election" says that she thinks too much emphasis is put on the economy, Iraq, and other issues, and instead there should be some focus on the possibility of nuclear holocaust.

"Alarmist? I sure hope so. Isn't it about time that we got to the point about the stakes in this election? How many more pundits do we have to watch talking about the minutae-a candidate's look, an accent, a stumble, a slogan? We have four weeks to talk about the thing that matters most: a nuclear-armed Iran, and which candidate will prevent it."

Anne Bayefsky points out here how much the mainstream media has focused on the political narratives of the candidates and stupid other trivial matters that have nothing to do with policies or positions on issues. And I think she argues well how Iran has not had as much publicity as it should. 

At the end of the article, she shows the positions Biden, Obama, Palin, and McCain had in the debates to questions about Iran, and she used these quotes to support her conservative view that McCain is more experienced in international politics and would be more likely to prevent a nuclear holocaust. The important thing here is that she clearly showed each candidate's views along with the questions asked, so people reading this can see right away which candidate shares the same position they do. 

National Review on Bill Ayers

The editors of National Review did a piece today called "The Unturned Page" where they pointed out that McCain's campaign should focus more on how he is better than Obama economically than attack him by his association with Bill Ayers. They said McCain should address middle-class concerns, show that his agenda will promote growth, make a credible pledge to prevent future financial crises like this one, and tie Obama to the liberals in Congress. 

I thought this was a really good/important article because it criticized focusing on things such as who Obama knew when he was younger that do not reflect how Obama would act as president. The fact that he knew this man does not mean that he has the same beliefs as him, and I think it is good that this conservative website acknowledges that and says that the campaign should talk about the issues that really matter, such as the economy, instead. 

CNN does the debate

I just finished watching the vice presidential debate on CNN, and the biggest complaint I have about the coverage is the stupid little monitor at the bottom of the screen measuring the approval of independent men and women from ohio. There are two major things I think are wrong with this monitor.

First of all, it is extremely distracting. I found myself looking at it throughout the debate because it was right below where they put the question they were answering, so when I looked at the question, I was immediately drawn to the monitor as well to see how these voters were reacting to the candidates' responses. This, in turn, caused me to stop paying attention to what the candidates were saying and instead see how people were responding to what they were saying. 

Second, it emphasizes the "horse race" aspect of the election even more. The debates are the few times when candidates have the chance to speak at length about issues and when voters can see how they stand and can react under pressure, and the monitor undermines the purpose of the debating by drawing attention to how everyone else is reacting and pulling your attention away from the issues.