I thought Senator Biden did well last night. You'd have to tune in to know that because once again, the mainstream media is balking on content and context when it comes to reporting the facts on progressive politics -- better healthcare, nurturing both the market and marketplace so that 21st century private energy markets and diametrically across from these markets the public energy policies can exist in reality, sanely and cleanly exiting Iraq whilst redeploying troops to Afghanistan if our Special Forces troops get their asses kicked x number of times during a month or year's time. The debate also had elements of internal media silliness, for example this question from moderator Gwen Ifill:
----
IFILL: . . .Biden, we want to talk about taxes, let's talk about taxes. You proposed raising taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year. The question for you is, why is that not class warfare and the same question for you, Gov. Palin, is you have proposed a tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn't taking things out on the poor, starting with you, Sen. Biden.
BIDEN: Well Gwen, where I come from, it's called fairness, just simple fairness. The middle class is struggling. The middle class under John McCain's tax proposal, 100 million families, middle class families, households to be precise, they got not a single change, they got not a single break in taxes. No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama's plan will see one single penny of their tax raised whether it's their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax. And 95 percent of the people in the United States of America making less than $150,000 will get a tax break.
[ snip ]
IFILL: Governor?
PALIN: I do take issue with some of the principle there with that redistribution of wealth principle that seems to be espoused by you. But when you talk about Barack's plan to tax increase affecting only those making $250,000 a year or more, you're forgetting millions of small businesses that are going to fit into that category. . .
Use of the words class warfare are now rejected by most including populists as both undefined jargon and a "word virus". It is a catch phrase designed to stir up emotions and create smitten controversies more than explain anything. Biden is a formally educated man therefore in the beginning he fell for this word virus by replying with the word fair, something you do not do during an election season in a capitalist, competitive society that is collectively trying to move away from economic dictatorship or a corporate run society. The term class warfare was bandied about a lot during the 1980's by people hooked on wealth who espoused the benefits of Reaganomics and the virtues of rugged individualism which is soooo yesterday.
Worthy news links:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/03/politics/2008debates/main4497138.shtml?source=mostpop_story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7649760.stm
http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2300 :
By Yael T. Abouhalkah, Kansas City Star Editorial
The morning after, it's even easier to see exactly how Joe Biden won Thursday's debate -- and precisely how Sarah Palin faltered.
The highlights:
-- Biden wasn't smug, he wasn't condescending and yet he hammered home point after point, such as linking John McCain to President Bush's failed policies.
-- Biden stayed on point. He didn't wander around after moderator Gwen Ifill asked a question. Whether it was Iran, the bailout or other topics, Biden answered what he was asked.
-- Biden talked about foreign affairs like he knew the trouble spots of the world and how he and Barack Obama would handle them.
On the other hand:
-- While Palin didn't commit huge gaffes, she wandered all over the place in answering questions. It was noticeable, and made it clear Palin's knowledge of many topics was skin-deep. . .
...And finally here's something from the right-wing Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/10/was_gwen_ifill_fair_1.asp
http://www.commonblog.com/story/2008/8/22/123647/812
Where do the two major party candidates stand on the media reform issues we highlight in our new report, "Media and Democracy in America Today: A Reform Plan for a New Administration"?
It's a mixed bag.
McCain has a strong record of supporting Low Power FM Radio, increasing diversity of media ownership, funding public broadcasting and free air time for campaigns. However, he has opposed stopping media consolidation and is against net neutrality.
Obama on the other hand has been a vocal supporter of net neutrality and has actively opposed media consolidation. While generally good on most of the issues we highlight in the new report, he has less of a record to show for it.
And there are gaps in our knowledge. That's why we would like to hear from their campaigns and anyone else who can tell us where they stand on issues like reforming the processes at the Federal Communications Commission and if they support PEG Access TV.
We have a full chart of their stands on the issues we raise in our new report - as far as we know them. Check it out, and let us know if you have any more information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am happy to read above that Obama has been a "... vocal supporter of net neutrality and has actively opposed media consolidation." However, my prime media issue is PEG Access TV. From this web site, link to Common Causes' "full chart of their (Obama's and McCain's) stands on the issues." Follow that chart to "Public Access (PEG)". Under Obama, you'll see no finding concerning Obama's stated position or legislative record on Public Access (PEG).
How does a voter find out Barack Obama's views on Public Access (PEG)?!
Wallace Stuart
