Tom Brokaw's Questions

Matt Yglesias makes a good point, this is Tom Brokaw's town hall, not anybody else's:

In essence, Tom Brokaw and his staff will be asking the questions. They’re sifting through a big group of people, and their pre-set questions, and picking the questions they like. Meanwhile, though, Brokaw and co. get to evade responsibility for the questions if people don’t like them — it was real people asking!

So whoever gets mad about the questions - and someone will, Dem or GOP, the guy to blame is Tom Brokaw. Keith Olbermann will not tell you that.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Just A Reminder: Bush and The GOP Have Been In Charge For 8 Years | Five Days After Bailout, Economy and McCain Are Tanking >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why isn't Brokaw? (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:07:16 PM EST
    Getting as much scrutiny from us as Ifill did from the right? I mean that was obviously just working the ref (since they knew the book was coming out months ago) and was based in part on the "they're both black" assumption, shouldn't Brokaw's "old warrior" fetish open him up to similar criticism?

    Brokaw: Someone else besides McCain who... (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:12:21 PM EST
    ...should be concerned with his legacy.  He went out on top after his greatest generation book, and his return has him looking like a right wing hack.

    If McCain pulls a "Palin" and (none / 0) (#10)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
    "pivots" from the question asked to the talking points he wants to deliver, Brokaw isn't supposed to be able to ask him to answer the actual question, according to the debate rules. However, Brokaw has said he never agreed to the debate rules so in theory he could attempt to get McCain to answer the actual question.

    Do we think he will? He might if he thinks that McCain needs to be saved from his own "grumpiness."

    Even McCain's advisors think McCain's "grumpiness" is hurting him -- not to mention his attacks on Obama's character.


    what I wanna know is if McCain... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:11:42 PM EST
    ...is prepared to make a winning argument.  

    he's got a few that could inflict a defeat on Obama but he's not using them. i'm not going to give him any tips but:

    1.  Interrogate Obama about what he really wants to do in Iraq, "are you seriously going to give up territory conquered by US arms? I mean really Barack, pull the other one..."

    2. interrogate him about his belief in free markets and his acceptance of lassez faire otrthodoxy. "New Deal style reform bwhahahah...that's what you are promising your leftie cohorts under the media radar? How gullible they must be."

    He'd  bleed off so many left wingers from Obama in the space of a few mintues that Obama would feel the blood loss and collapse.

    Of course...

    all he'll say is the predictable:

    "You are raising the white flag of surrender in Iraq by pulling out...and you are a socialist who wants to nationalize medicine."

    All of which is a lie i'd like to believe about Obama.


    He'd bleed off left-wingers? (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:23:24 PM EST
    Where would they go?  Certainly not to McCain.  

    He won't make the argument... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    ...so i'm just venting really. It isn't about Mccain at this point, he's heading for political oblivion--i'm just wondering aloud about Obama's plans.

    I thought one of the most ... (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    telling moments in the Biden/Palin debate was when Palin got Biden to agree that their position on gay marriage is identical.

    And it's true.  Rhetoric aside, they have identical, retrograde positions on this issue.

    Similarly, on Iraq, although they use different rhetoric, I think the policy would be very similar, if not identical.


    well, Palin didnt' agree (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:58:48 PM EST
    that gay relationships should have the same legal benefits as their hetero-counterparts (other than hospital visitation...man, what a big compromise)

    she skirted that part of Biden's testament in her usual condescending way...


    Say what you like ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    but there's only one right position on this issue.

    And neither Presidential candidate holds it.


    I thought that was very skillful of her (none / 0) (#74)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:26:39 PM EST
    BUT McCain is for Prop 8.  Obama is against Prop 8.  McCain is for DADT.  Obama is against it.  Does anyone really think the way forward for the gay community is through Sarah Palin?  

    skillfull (none / 0) (#75)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:28:51 PM EST
    but who didn't see it coming...

    'oh, of course we agree, except on the fundamentals of the issue, but ya, of course we agree...you know I have a gay friend, right'


    It wasn't like that (none / 0) (#77)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:48:41 PM EST
    that was what was skillful about it.

    IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Sen. Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?

    BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

    The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.

    It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

    IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?

    PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead.

    But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue.

    But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties.

    But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means.

    But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage.

    IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?

    BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

    The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.

    IFILL: Is that what your said?

    PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.

    Read carefully because that is a lot of sleight-of-hand.  Same-sex benefits fly in Alaska now; but from what I understand, that may be overturned there.  And Palin clearly just wants to couch gay rights in what she thinks is tolerant, not the Constitution.  Heaven knows what that really is.  She did NOT agree with Biden.

    What she happily leaves out are the issues I discussed above - what about Prop 8, DADT, same-sex benefits?  What about NOT having a constitutional amendment against gay marriage?  It is important to continually push away from such anti-gay things, even though it is disappointing that Obama/Biden cannot or will not come out for gay marriage.


    Salo (none / 0) (#78)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 08:00:44 PM EST
    Bravo. I really liked this line:

    All of which is a lie i'd like to believe about Obama

    Count me in.


    Brokaw hasn't agreed to the debate rules? (none / 0) (#34)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:21:54 PM EST
    WTH?  This debate sounds like it could get kind of weird.  

    That's what happens when one campaign (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    gets to designate its liaison with NBC as the moderator, a man known to be a personal frind of McC. The question tonight is not whether Tom is going to do a Stephanopoulos, but how he will do it and how disgusting it will be.

    He gave Clinton a fair shake. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    it may have been Alberich the Dwarf style meddling but on his part but he was actually even handed and gentlemanly.

    Wow (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    I just wiki'd Alberich the Dwarf.  I'm not sure I get your point, but at least I know something about a Wagner opera.

    general mischief set out to . (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    disorganize an oponent and such.

    When the Germans retreated in ww1 and ww2 they often called the sabotage operations "Alberich".


    It's a slander on Alberich (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:32:25 PM EST
    ... who was above all a sound businessman and manager.

    Master of the universe, briefly. (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:08:29 PM EST
    BTD is so right (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:16:33 PM EST
    They would never have the courage to let people just ask questions.  It's all preselected and pre-screened.

    'Course, an Ordinary Folk could always depart from his script and ask whatever he wanted.  It is live.

    But I imagine Brokaw and company already have that covered--dead mike, Please Stand By, or whatever!

    Yes, according to the debate rules (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:21:08 PM EST
    the questioner's mike will be cut as soon as s/he asks the question. The questioner will have no ability to follow-up. The camera cannot be trained on the questioner to show his/her reaction to the answer. The questioner cannot ask a question different than the one previously submitted.

    Brokaw is not supposed to ask questions, comment on the answers, or attempt to follow up, but apparently he's said that he didn't agree to the debate rules so he is not bound by them.


    Stupid rules (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    Negotiated by representatives (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    from both campaigns. And yes, they are stupid. And reflect an assumption that voters are stupid, and won't notice that the debate is really just a competing series of talking points.

    In my experience. . . (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    an assumption that voters are stupid

    that's a reasonable assumption.  Do you have a problem with it?


    I certainly don't. It's obviously true. (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    So you're not ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    a voter?

    I'm not sure I understand (none / 0) (#59)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:31:59 PM EST
    I am a voter, a young voter (just under 30) so I haven't voted more than the past few years...

    I know that if I had voted for Bush, though, and then watched as the country fell apart for a short term I probably wouldn't use the same reason I used to vote for Bush (because I could have a beer with him, and he's as closed-minded as I) to vote for Palin...

    I would own up to my mistake, I guess, but a lot of people in America are not willing to do that...to them voting for Bush wasn't a mistake even given all the facts they have that now support that those of us who did not vote for Bush were in fact 'more right' if that's possible...
    We saw Bush for who he was, whereas others just bought in to the 'good-ole-boy' hype, just like they are with Palin...


    Actually ... (none / 0) (#60)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:44:40 PM EST
    I was making a snarky reply to Andgarden who accepted that voters are stupid.

    ahh, that makes more sense (none / 0) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:59:30 PM EST
    my apologies...

    evidence 1: George Bush (none / 0) (#39)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    evidence 2:  the same attitude that 'won' GWB the election is the same attitude that makes Palin a viable political commodity...

    the public does not hold true to one of the main rules of life, one of the main truths that keeps us going:  learn from your mistakes...


    Media members may have wanted to have a beer (none / 0) (#69)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:47:51 PM EST
    with Bush -- and many probably had at some time had a beer with Bush, since his family had been hanging around the beltway for a very long time.

    But I don't believe that's why voters voted for him.

    Evangelicals saw someone who spoke their language, who they thought was one of them, and who promised to represent their values and interests. People connected to financial services, banking, etc, saw one of their own -- someone with generations of family ties to their industry who could be trusted to understand and protect their interests. Business people saw an MBA who had "written paychecks." Defense, energy, etc., people tied to these industries, directly and indirectly -- as owners, employers or employees, suppliers, etc. -- all saw advantages to voting for Bush over either Gore or Kerry. They didn't vote stupidly, they voted self-interestedly (and, like most of us, presumed that their self-interest, naturally enough, was also the best interest of the country). Many suburban women bought his claim to be a "compassionate conservative" and his promises in terms of improving education. In 2004, others decided to trust him on foreign policy because they believed his policies had kept them safe.

    Other people's reasons for voting often look "stupid" if you don't take the time to try to understand them and all the ways their circumstances, their experience, their perspective and their interests may differ from your own.

    Yet, you can't believe people are too stupid for self government and still believe in democracy. You can't believe in democracy and somehow expect it to unfold without intense conflict and competition for power among very diverse interests and groups.

    The writer Michael Ventura wrote an essay early in the first Bush administration in which he pointed out (an admonishment aimed at conservatives elated by their own power) that "Freedom doesn't mean you get everything you want. It means that no one gets everything they want."

    In other words, in a Democracy you have to contend with and compromise with people whose interests conflict with your own and who you don't really like or approve of. People who are as likely to think you're stupid as you think they are.


    good post (none / 0) (#70)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST

    I, though, can take consolation in knowing that I was smart enough (or at least had a strong enough intuition and curiousness) to see through Bush, and have been proven right...

    that is enough for my own pride, if that matters, so any question of stupidity cannot be put on me in this case...

    in other cases it's up for debate...

    also, as a person voting from a business standpoint, is it prudent to vote for someone who did nothing but run businesses into bankruptcy and involve himself in insider trading?

    I guess from a 'greed' standpoint, the greed that has been misconstrued from what it should be (referencing Ayn Rand for a second time today--even I can't stand me), then seeing a businessman who's willing to take advantage of a situation is a valuable trait...

    the republicans are the party of the ends overruling the means...I just wish their was a party that took into consideration the means almost as much as the ends...for the sake of humanity...
    won't happen, though, I know...


    the bottom line of your post, though, (none / 0) (#71)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    is that people just make decisions based upon selfishness...

    even so-called christians base their vote on pride and selfishness...but christianity at the top level really isn't about values anymore (not interpersonal values anyway, just the values of taking your system and trying to impart it on all--this isn't an indictment of those following christianity on a personal level, just the religion's path as a whole as it stands)

    selfishness would be great if people took the time to really think things out and know all sides of a decision, as they would learn that being truly selfish in a virtuous way is doing whats right for all persons involved...again, though, selfishness has been taken to a different part in our culture, that part where our car needs to be bigger than the car of someone who lives in a 'lesser' neighborhood...otherwise, how do we know that we are better than those people, right?

    and we have to feel that we are superior to others...a circle of life...


    I think humans are very good at wrapping their (none / 0) (#81)
    by esmense on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    selfishness in virtue. Or, making a virtue out of what serves their self-interest.

    That's not really as cynical as it may sound. Just because we are all limited in our perspectives doesn't mean we or our perspectives are without virtue.

    Believing that politics should be conducted, and that your side's politics are conducted, on the basis of superior virtue leads to the some very ugly results. It makes your opponents demons, makes compromise impossible, makes the diminishment of civil liberties inevitable. Exactly the state our politics reside in now.

    My father's generation of liberals had a more pragmatic attitude -- they did see politics as a matter of competing interests. Along with the assumption that people would (and should) act in their own self-interest went the assumption that as a citizen you had a responsibility to both accurately understand your personal self-interest and to attempt to understand the conflicting self-interest of others. But that was only the first step. The next step was to consider your self-interest and the interest of others within the context of the best interest of the country as a whole.

    This is a representative democracy, organized with the expectation of conflict among competing interests. No one should ever be ashamed to consider their interests in making political decisions -- after all, it is the job of office holders in our democracy to represent us. That means represent our best interest. A real problem in our current political life is that too few people really understand their OWN best interest (in making political decisions they resort to lazy notions of a candidate's virtue and likeability as promoted by the modern political image making industry).

    If you don't even understand your own self interest, certainly you aren't going to be able to understand the interests of others and how and why they might conflict with your own, or, most important, understand the better interest of the country as a whole.


    Well, they're completely unenforceable (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:26:58 PM EST
    What, are the candidates going to walk out of the debate? I don't think so.

    McCain might (none / 0) (#14)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    He'll say he's urgently needed back in Warshington to deal with the latest fiscal crisis.

    The dog ate my debate performance (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:31:54 PM EST
    Uh- oh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:57:07 PM EST
    Brokaw is not supposed to ask questions, comment on the answers, or attempt to follow up, but apparently he's said that he didn't agree to the debate rules so he is not bound by them.

    Now just a minute!

    Two points:  First, if Brokaw agreed to the debate rules, all he would have left to do is time people and keep track of whose turn it is to answer.  I think. Probably thinks such a minimal role is beneath him.

    Second, Brokaw sounds like Palin.  To paraphrase Palin, "I may not answer the way you want", or "I'd rather talk about something else."  Palin was rightly slammed for that.

    But Brokaw gets to say he didn't agree to the rules and isn't bound?  How nice for him.



    Well (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:23:38 PM EST
    at least no one will ask a "diamonds or pearls" question.  I think.

    Not when we're looking at DOW 8000!!!!! (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
    Holy Mary Mother of God! (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:27:43 PM EST
    The Dow dropped 500 points to 9447.

    Oh, my aching head. Why didn't Mr. litigatormom listen to me when I told him I wanted to take my daughters' college funds and put them in Tbills?


    Look at it this way: (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:32:53 PM EST
    from now into the ever-receding future, in any instance where Mr. Litigatormom has an issue which might result in Litigatormom losing the discussion, Litigatormom can always remind Mr. Litigatormom of his investment skills and the college fund.

    He'll recognize this immediately (like today) and become much more tractable in the future.

    There's winning and there's losing, and then there's winning by losing.  And losing by winning, too.


    I was trying to inject a little levity (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:41:49 PM EST
    into what is, obviously, a not-so-light situation.  
    I can suggest a couple things besides trying to laugh.

    1.  Welch, over at FDL, suggests that the bear market bottom on this decline is likely to wind up somewhere around Dow 6000.  That sounds ... not unreasonable ... to me.  My dart-tossing picked 5000 as the place the slide would rumble to a halt.  So, be prepared for that kind of decline - either by hedging with options or futures, or by shifting from stocks to other investments not tied to DOW.  

    2.  When I went to college, particularly my senior year (80-81), my dad the steelworker with a GED was able to put three kids through private colleges on the back of (a) some scholarships we'd earned and, more importantly (b) the then-abundant grants in aid which made up the majority of college financial aid in the 70s and pre-Reagan 80s.  

    We need to remember that the Republicans have converted college financing for needy but capable students from something resembling a right, into a profit center for their cronies.  With a Democratic administration and the power to push Democrats in Congress, we can change that back.

    If we can p*ss away $700 billion on stuff like AIG's people getting manicured and retreated the week after getting bailed out (the bill is here), we can find 10 or so billion to provide college educations for youth. But, it's our pressure that is needed to make that happen.

    Otherwise, your kids will be like the kid at NYU I read about over the weekend - getting hit for 18 percent interest on a student loan.

    It's bad enough that a year at a private college now costs $40k or more.  It's worse that the aid structures which made possible attending that school have been systematically gutted.  We need to force that to be changed.


    A lot is going to change (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    This can't be a great time to be attempting to plan your child's education though.

    Didn't say it was (none / 0) (#48)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    but then again, it rarely is.

    I was the first in my family - either side - to attend college (at least as far as I know - it's a big extended family).  Just figuring out how to fill out an application form (the guidance counselors encouraged students to attend their alma maters and discouraged millworkers' kids from setting their sights too high) was an adventure in and of itself.

    And then discovering that, indeed, there was such a thing as financial aid.  Guidance counselors were no help there, kinda taking the "figure it out yourself" position.


    Oops - hit "post" too early (none / 0) (#51)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    My college fund constituted a passbook account into which all my Christmas, birthday and most of the paper route money had gone.  Get an afterschool job in high school - I had to dump most of it (at $1.92/hour) into the account.

    As it was, I had enough saved for one semester, until we got straightened out with financial aid.

    But, back then, in the days before student loans as a crony profit center and before college loan officers getting kickbacks for steering kids into loans made by their buddies, one could actually work through the financial aid issues and not wind up getting screwed over.  

    I'm not saying putting together money for college or education is easy - it never is.  But it shouldn't be made more difficult by your own government.


    I've always been one of those Just Do It (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:20:54 PM EST
    people too.  I can roll with the changes fairly easily and take advantage of new developments.  Our daughter isn't interested in an education, she was always a difficult student and school usually ended up being forced on her :)  We both so much wanted something different for her.  I can't help imagining that she was a different sort of student today and perhaps we could have lost a lot of her college funds as well.

    My parents lost my college fund in 1987 (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    Black Monday.

    Therefore, I've been too busy paying off MY student loans to invest in my kids' college education...so I have nothing to lose.

    Yay me.



    I'm so sorry (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:21:20 PM EST
    all I can say.  I think a lot of CEO's took off with a lot of kids college funds and sadly it seems they'll get away with it.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM EST
    Incidentally, that's a big reason why banks are failing. But who wants to be the last one caught with money beyond the FDIC limit in a money market account?

    you mean they're not failing (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:35:56 PM EST
    because they haven't practiced sound business tact, like having enough assets and cash-on-hand to run your business?

    I didn't hear too many banks complaining 3-4 years ago when the going was good...


    Apparently I'm not alone (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:43:19 PM EST
    in wondering why I must feel sorry for banks that are ailing due to poor business practices.

    Over the last seven years, the Repubs (none / 0) (#53)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:13:13 PM EST
    have changed those rules, such as the one that used to require three percent capital, but now requires up to three percent, but may be zero.  We weren't seeing it reported, but those rules you and I thought applied, don't.

    Absolutely true (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:24:42 PM EST
    My question is though, since when do we all just belly up to the trough because Republicans say it is okay with them if we dump sound business practices?  During this whole fiasco I never once abandoned my own standards of what constitutes sound business practices.  Our family is sitting probably about as well as you can hope to be right now in the middle class as the world melts around us.

    I hope your college funding is (none / 0) (#66)
    by MoveThatBus on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    not caught in this mess, andgarden. How many more years before you graduate?

    Remember. . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:30:01 PM EST
    you can't spell down without D-O-W.

    you can't spell Bull market (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    without B-U-L-L.

    Read my new book DOW 36! (none / 0) (#79)
    by FreakyBeaky on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 01:18:11 AM EST
    That's right, no zeroes.

    or the "boxers or briefs"? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Finis Terrae on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    BTD - it's not like KO can be anything (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:34:52 PM EST
    but a team player when Brokaw's involved.  He lost that argument when McSame got Brokaw to come out of retirement and have KO's and Tweety's roles in coverage reduced to back in the chorus instead of lead solos.

    I tried to watch KO last night (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:32:34 PM EST
    as Anderson Cooper just doesn't do it for me and I didn't feel like watching any of me taped shows. He really is unwatchable.  Why can't we have a left commentator who does not try to be O'Reilly?  Why can't we have a left commentator who is objective?  I tried Maddow as well and was hoping she would be "ok" and she is unwatchable as well.  

    I would love to see David Gergen with his own show.  He does it for me and I like his take on things.  I didn't agree with his Palin assessment of the debate but I am definitely in the minority with that.  He seems rather objective and is very thoughtful and doesn't scream at the camera.  

    I am interested to see if Brokaw will be tougher on O in the debate with follow ups (are they allowing him to follow up?)


    Because. . . (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    Why can't we have a left commentator who is objective?

    then they wouldn't be a left commentator.

    But be of good cheer -- you'll always have LarryInNYC.


    I think you can be objective (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    and be a left commentator.  You can be on the left and realize that tax cuts right now are not a good idea.  you can be on the left and advocate that withdrawal from Iraq is not a good idea (there are plenty of senators on the left who want "victory" as well).  I can stomach those arguments. There are dozens more issues that you can take either side on and still lean left.

    In the meantime, I will stick with my larryinnyc


    then they need to (none / 0) (#57)
    by of1000Kings on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    define victory...

    which as of yet hasn't happened...

    how are we supposed to have victory if victory has not been outlined...

    if we declare victory when Iraq becomes a functioning republic/democracy then many in my generation (20's and 30's) may not see victory...as setting up a government isn't something that happens in a few years, just look at how long it took for America to get where it is today (and we still have a ton of work to do)


    depsite working for clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by sancho on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:17:05 PM EST
    gergen is a republican mouthpiece. he started in the nixon white house. the gergen-clinton alliance was shrewd rebranding by both parties. gergen probably got more out of it than did clinton.

    I know that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Oct 08, 2008 at 08:47:59 AM EST
    But as far as I am concerned he has been the most objective and thoughtful of any commentator on any of the channels.  

    That's pretty apparent (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:53:33 PM EST
    isn't it?

    If Tom Brokaw's responsible for that (none / 0) (#68)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:30:32 PM EST
    he has my gratitude. KO has been a whining, sniping, sneering tool for nearly a year.

    How he can still be over the top when there's no one but Obama on the Dem side I don't know, but he has smeared Clinton again very recently and is so irrational about Obama that he has not been honest about BO in all ways.

    He is an embarrassment to the Dems and the left.

    As for Tweety, he is a total disaster.


    Here's why they screen them -- (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:53:00 PM EST
    It's too frightening for the news anchors otherwise. The only unscreened town meeting I ever saw was held by CNN during the Bosnian conflict. It took place on the campus on a large University, before a huge crowd (I think in Ohio -- no longer remember which university). Sec. of State Albright and Sec. of Defense Cohen and one other member of the Clinton administration were taking questions about the military action we were about to embark on. It got heated!! With angry questions coming from all sides of the debate, hecklers, etc. To their credit Albright and Cohen really held their own -- but Woodruff and Shaw were absolutely terrified! Democracy in action was obviously something they didn't routinely encounter in the studio.

    I haven't seen CNN or anyone else attempt anything like it since.

    I should have explained that Bernie Shaw and (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    Judy Woodruff were anchoring the debate.

    Is Brokaw really the guy (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    to host a talk show?

    Moreover, does anyone really think that the "town hall" format is good for debates?  

    It might be (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:17:15 PM EST
    if it was really a town hall. ;)

    Hell yeah.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 03:41:39 PM EST
    This ain't a town hall...this is a scripted debate with citizens playing themselves like actors.

    I'd love a real town hall...unscripted questions from unscreened citizens, with each allowed one follow-up so the candidates can't do the usual dodge and dance...we might actually learn something.


    Browkaw will make it entertaining. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 04:04:05 PM EST
    And the mood appears to be universally pro Obama over at NBC.

    In '92 I thought the most interesting thing (none / 0) (#61)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    about, and the most informative part of, the town hall debates (there were several that year) was what one learned from the questioners. It was exciting, and informative, to hear people from different walks of life and different regions asking essentially the same core questions. It gave you a very direct sense of what was on America's mind -- across the political spectrum. (I remember being surprisingly moved by the sincerity of a young man who, in a debate here in Seatlle, asked Clinton about his reported affairs. It wasn't a reporter's "gotcha" question -- it was a genuinely searching expression of concern from someone who took the moral issues involved very seriously. Clinton, by the way, gave a very respectful and sensitive response.)

    At their best, town hall debates can broaden your perspective and tell you something about the country and the concerns of your fellow Americans -- not just the candidates.

    Although the media was definitely in charge in those debates, I think they were not yet so determined to make sure the questioners conformed to limited stereotypes that advanced their own pre-established storyline about the campaign. Over time, the format has become something of a joke.


    Don Hewitt on ... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST
    Tavis Smiley recently said he'd once proposed debates before joint sessions of congress, with congress people asking the questions.

    Tavis Smiley questioned that idea, saying something like,  "Wouldn't that make debates even more partisan?"

    "Debates are supposed to be partisan," Don Hewitt said.

    Obama and McCain! (none / 0) (#58)
    by kmblue on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 05:29:56 PM EST
    Don't look at your watches.  
    Don't even look at your wrist, should you go without a watch. ;)

    Brokaw's Questions . . . (none / 0) (#64)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 06:05:58 PM EST
    . . . should have been proposed by the 100 and then voted on the same 100 with the questions being asked in top vote order!

    BTD, as usual, i must (none / 0) (#76)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 07, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    bear the heavy burden, and break the news to you:


    now, mark that in your "favorites" list, so you can refer to it in the future, in case you should forget.

    geez, do i have to do everything around here? :)