Oh goody another Friday with that “impartial pro Obama” supporter talking “impartially” about McCain.

Can’t wait for this “non partisan” show.

I’ve never heard Tom Ashbrook or Jack Beatty attempt to frame this show in one way or another. Frankly, their partiality for common sense works quite well for me.

If they were reciting AP headlines with no subjectivity attached I doubt they’d have many people listening. As it is, this is an extremely popular show and one reason is Tom’s and to a lesser extent Jack’s personalities and subjective views in framing issues.

If you want “fair and balanced” go watch FOX news (that’s a joke).

About the debate last night…..
I have to say up to now I have paid no attention to Biden…but last night I fell in love with Joe. He was strong and presidential, charming like and vulnerable like Paul Newman. The moment that made me fall head over heels in love was when he told in a voice that I believe many fathers wish they could voice that…men in these towns in ohio and pennsylvannia know what it is like to worry and take care of their children..yes he Joe knows what it is like to be a parent and love his children. When he choked up about his loss. In that moment, I saw a real vulnerable, strong man…I saw the real Joe. After that Sarah’s chatter sounded so disingenuous. Fathers in TV shows and media have been immasculated. He gave men their “balls” back. He told me that he will take care of the country the way he has taken care of his children. In this time of uncertainty I am looking for someone strong and comforting..in Joe I found that I could trust him..
I felt that he really understands me and that feel the country would be safe and loved and smartly managed in his hands.
Although I am an Obama supporter, I was really hoping that Sarah would do ok. Did you notice how the carbon emissions spiked when the debate was over when there was the collective outbreath from the republicans..whew! The last thing we need is people to blame the loss of an election because of a woman. We need the election to be about who can lead the country in the right direction not about the ditsyness of a woman. I also felt that Sarah has really damaged women…she has confirmed a stereotype of a suburban/small town woman…so I was glad to see that atleast she did ok in the debate. Next to Joe, her lack of knowledge and inexperience were self evident, her constant plastic smiling made her seem nervous and made me feel that she is not taking seriously what is happening in our country. It reminded me of how when I interviewed for my first jobs after college…how I would smile and try to say all the right things that I had memorized, but I was in a world that was at that time beyond my understanding. She often did not answer the question and clearly was repeating her memorized lines. But atleast she appeared to know some things.
But Joe….I am in love!

Amen Ana. I agree on all counts including not wanting Palin to do badly. Whatever her lack of qualifications, she was chosen by the Republican Party and McCain. It’s their judgement that’s at fault, not her lack of experience.

“I may not answer the questions you ask…” (paraphrase).

Palin began the debate basically stating that she wouldn’t know much about what would be discussed in the debate, but would somehow attempt to fill in time by saying whatever she could recall from the talking points given to her by handlers.

No debate society on the planet would award such an approach to a debate with a win.

If people simply wanted to hear Palin’s rote talking points, they could tune to FOX news and listen to Carl Rove spew his spin. Palin answered less than half of the actual questions posed to her.

Poor McCain… he just makes one well advised choice after another, doesn’t he?

Biden wanted to run against George Bush rather than McCain/Palin. Is this another “gaff” or he is lost in time?

I’m not a US Citizen, hence I have no political preference among any of the candidates, however being raised outside the US, I have always seen the US as the Beacon on the Hill, which sadly is looks going down and is in a desparate need of a good and strong leadership.

I really wish like many of us from Outside the US that she Must come back with all her triumph and should reign like the leader.

That important leadership comes with the US Voters choosing the right peron at the right time and sadly in my view McCain has not been able to show any of such strong credentials as expected by we outsiders.

Secondly, yesterday night’s one and only debate of VPs, Ms Palin has really polished her communication skills a lot, however in my humble opinion DIDNT answer any single question with coherence to most important things:

1. Economy:
2. Foreign Policy

1. On Economy Mr. Biden has had been to the point, more knowledgeable and more affirmitive, on the other hand Ms Palin simply rehearsed the generics without touching many of the specifics.

2. On Foreign Policy, she completely ditched the idea of Pakistan, the single most important country on the map of Radical Islamic Terrorism!

Like me many other outsiders really want to have someone who wants to play Diplomacy as the prime role on the Foreign Policy and Restore the status of US as the ‘Mecca’ of World Finance.

I have to say, when the debate was all smiles and ‘agreement’ on topics like Isreal and Carbon Capping, I hit the remote. A few clicks away there was the CBC Debate, five candidates and a moderator sitting at the same table talking to EACH OTHER. It was firey and engaging and though less relevent to my life as a US citizen, I slept easy after watching, reminded that some people care about issues and diverse views rather than the politics of emotional marketing.

Oh goody another Friday with that “impartial pro Obama” supporter talking “impartially” about McCain.

Can’t wait for this “non partisan” show.
Posted by Moderate Y,

Don’t listen, it’s a free country change the station.

Biden wanted to run against George Bush rather than McCain/Palin. Is this another “gaff” or he is lost in time?

No he was saying that McCain/Palin are the same thing as Bush.

kevin have you been paying attention or have you just woken up? The Republicans have been in the White house for almost 8 years and they controlled congress from 1994 through 2006. Last time I checked McCain/Palin are running on the Republican ticket.

Also McCain voted with Bush 90 to 95% of the time.
Biden was connecting the dots.

Wheeeeee!!!

Why did no one say that the ride on the slippery slope would be so much fun?

I thought Bush’s debating set the standard for a “debate” but, last night, holy H, E, double hockey sticks!!!

Someone needs to hand the commercial press their hats.

Thank you ‘BUR for being a light in the dark.

Like millions of Americans, my husband and I watched the Biden/Palin debate last night. We remarked to each other after the 3rd or 4th time it happened in the first 20 minutes that Sarah Palin seemed to have memorized a brief set of talking points. We were fully aware after that that every time she turned the force of her stare into the camera she was simply regurgitating virtually the same speech, over and over. Frankly, this is not encouraging.

In comparison, Joe Biden demonstrated his familiarity of the issues through long experience in dealing with them. He has the gravitas of his lifelong involvement in important policy legislation, and international relationships.

Our opinion is that Palin did a good job in MEMORIZING, but this amounts to nothing more than playacting, and the job for which she is auditioning is not a game. Additionally, the impression that she is unaware of the importance of her goal was seen in her so called “folksy” demeanor.

This country faces problems across the board which are the most serious in her history if taken together — the economy, healthcare, education, infrastructure, homeland security, energy, wars and the feeling around the world that the greatest nation on earth is in her twilight years. We, and the rest of the world, deserve someone who is not a dilettante. Sarah Palin should do this country a favor and step down.

“I’ve never heard Tom Ashbrook or Jack Beatty attempt to frame this show in one way or another. Frankly, their partiality for common sense works quite well for me.”

Of course, you haven’t “seen” it. It’s radio after all.

However, if you haven’t taken notice of the pro Obama bias on NPR in general on this show in particular than your ability to judge fairly is in question.

The problem is that the bias isn’t intelligent bias, it’s just gutter like bias on Jack Beatty’s part.

I thought Palin did exceptionally well despite the criticism of not answering the questions and spouting slogans. I didn’t think Biden did any better on that front. But for one, TV media set the bar very low, which went to the benefit of Palin. But she also restored why Alaskans generally like her adminstration of their state.

I thought Senator Biden did equally well, but being from PA, I’m not sold on the constant Scranton inserts. I loved it when Palin said that they’re not going to cut taxes on oil. (I think that was her statement) His reaction was comedic and great. He’s a great politician, one of the few that are the likeable professionals.

One interesting thing that the media didn’t predict and which comes from my conservative bent (so take it for what it’s worth): is that it appeared insurmountable for Palin to overcome Obama’s powerful delivery on Friday. At times I felt that Palin was backtracking to Friday’s debate in an attempt to correct some of McCain’s lack luster answers. With no more make-up opportunities, it’s going to be tough to get the indy’s we (Republicans) need.

I would just like to say that not all conservatives dislike Obama. From looking back to the last three elections and the blandness of our candidates, a la Gore, Kerry, Bush, Dole, we’re really quite lucky to have candidates like Obama and McCain. I think the bar is set just as low for presidential selection, but these two guys are not the lose/lose situations from previous elections.

This show is great. Ashbrook is the only one I know that is elaborate and speculative and immersive. It’s not fairness that we need, it’s deliberation and experted analysis. We need more like you. Thanks.

Change stations and avoid this web site. I like NPR just the way it is. If you don’t there’s a whole radio spectrum of shows to choose from.

And, just to point out: you quoted me correctly then used “seen” instead of “heard.”

That anyone of any level of intelligence or awareness would respond to Sarah Palin (whether last night, when she managed to stay mechanically on script, or when, as in freer interviews, she demonstrates her overwhelming incompetence and ignorance) with anything but horror at the prospect that this fully anti-intellectual, pandering, ill-qualified person could end up being VP or–egad–president is a huge indictment of the American education system. People do not know how to listen.

The thought of Sarah Palin on any grounds is kind of unappealing. The thought of Sarah Palin in a leadership position that could have effect on the fate of this country and the world is absolutely terrifying.

Sure Tom, that’s what the country needs in our moments of crisis… “someone who can reach out from the TV and touch people,” rather than being able to intelligently engage in important discussion of critical topics.

Way to play devil’s advocate for Palin… she so deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I was disappointed by Gwen Ifill in her role as moderator. There were so many moments during the debate where she could have and should have called out each candidate. It was the first, the last, the ONLY vice presidential debate…I was expecting more from Ifill.

On style: Ms. Palin’s folksy, flirty manner may work for some folks but it doesn’t work for me… she’s running for VP, not for prom queen. And am I the only one who noticed that she pronounces the word nuclear “new-kew-lar”, just like GWB does? I’m not sure whether this is deliberate or simply a verbal tic, but I find it distressing that someone running for national office can’t (or won’t) pronounce such a basic word correctly.

On content: Mr. Biden scored points with me by being direct, concise, and (mostly) responsive to the questions being asked, in contrast to the way Ms. Palin determinedly stuck to her talking points regardless of the question; her responses were, for the most part, repetitive and wandery. I thought the best moment in the debate was Mr. Biden’s impassioned comments about the pain of losing his wife and daughter (and, almost, two of his sons) and the difficulty of being a single parent. It was personal, direct, and from the heart.

In 2004 I was canvassing in NH for John Kerry. Imagine my relief this past summer. I was excited about this presidential race. I felt comfortable with Barak Obama or John McCain. However with the VP pick of Sarah Palin by John McCain I am horrified. Sarah Palin portrays herself as just one of the girls, PTA mom, hockey mom…, but that is not who I want for vice president. I want the brightest and best and I believe that John McCain did himself and Sarah Palin a disservice, I have to believe there are brighter and better women that he could have asked to join his ticket.

“Bush in a Skirt” is not far off. It’s not just Palin’s folksy, “aw shucks” responses – like Bush, she insists that “I’m a good person, I’ve got your best interests in mind,” and expects us to take her at her word.

Steve who just called in got it just right: The “bailout” and the way it’s been sold is Iraq in other clothing.

Whether or not the bailout is the right thing to do, the way it’s been sold and dealt with feels like Iraq all over again.

I am fatigued with the volley of slogans, “Bail out Wall Street” vs. “Save Mainstreet.” Will Tony Blankley please describe exactly how this package is “bailing out Wall Street” and NOT helping American citizens?

How nobody is talking about the decline of the USA’s credit rating in the world markets by 2012? This bailout is the final straw in the financial coffin of our country and we should be afraid.

“Y: See Jeff’s post above. Change stations and avoid this web site. I like NPR just the way it is. If you don’t there’s a whole radio spectrum of shows to choose from.” Richard

Typical of people of your ilk to tell people to love it or leave it or better yet to get interned in some gulag.

For your info NPR is a taxpayers supported radio station and I’ll bet I pay more taxes than you do.

The there is that little question of freedom of speech which to people like you means “my right (and people who agree with my leftist ideas) to speech but not yours.”

Amen Ana. I agree on all counts including not wanting Palin to do badly.

Not me. I was hoping Biden would mop the floor with her because that would put the election in the bag.

Mind you, I didn’t expect Biden to mop the floor with her. As I said in another thread, I think the whole airhead thing is an elaborate act and the liberals fall for that stuff all the time. By setting expectations so low Palin essentially won by not losing and the race goes on. It will be interesting to see how the Iowa Electronic Market’s Pres08_WTA tally goes in the next few days, but I predict a small narrowing. (you read it here first!)

btw, Richard I just a look see at your artsy fartsy pc web site.

Mixing cute pictures and politics is what left wing fascists do.

I’m grateful to Tom and the producers for adding another point of view to the show. Tony Blankley is a great guest. While I enjoy listening to the show, I dont think its unreasonable at all to suggest that Jack Beatty approaches issues from the left. In fact I think his leanings are quite clear. I’m happy to hear that perspective, but I dont think conservative sensabilities are given adequate voice. When I add up listener comments, Tom’s perspective, and Jack Beatty’s comments, I come away from this show feeling that I’m hearing things described from only the Left’s perspective. I need more, and I’m not prepared to “tune in elsewhere”. I support public radio and have a right to listen and advocate for a more well-rounded discussion. As an aside, I voted democratic in the last few elections.

On the subject of the debate; I more and more am becoming personally offended by Sarah Palin. Her display last night was repugnant and I saw no semblance of a world leader in her over-confident smirk, raised eyebrows and beauty queen winking.

I hate to bring up personal attacks because there is so much good political fodder against her to begin with, but this is becoming so insulting to me. Why is this acceptable, nay, encouraged behavior?

“I need more, and I’m not prepared to “tune in elsewhere”. I support public radio and have a right to listen and advocate for a more well-rounded discussion.”

Stay tuned, Noonan will no doubt satisfy.

I loved how Palin reminded an addled Biden about his own very clear statements about Obama’s readiness to be President.

Biden has done nothing but sit in Washington for the last 30+ years. He has no clue about what goes on outside the beltway.

Tony Blankley, “Yes, yes and…yes.” ?? I hope he didn’t hurt himself.

What does it say about our country when the number two’s measure of success is spontaneous immolation?

Bush in a dress? No, can’t hide the two-way in a dress.

What ever came of that “bulge,” between Bush’s shoulders during that town hall debate way back when?

..success is AVOIDING spontaneous…

Biden wanted to run against George Bush rather than McCain/Palin. Is this another “gaff” or he is lost in time?

I don’t think it’s a gaffe – it might be a reasonable strategy given how close McCain’s philosophy and voting record are to the Administration’s.

But personally I think the voters already “get” the “McCain=Bush” message from the Dem’s so Biden didn’t gain much ground there. I would have preferred that he directly attack Palin because if he had been able to demolish her last night it might have been a game-changer.

That anyone of any level of intelligence or awareness would respond to Sarah Palin
. . .
is a huge indictment of the American education system. People do not know how to listen.

Spoken like a true liberal!

Human beings are social animals – they resopond to social cues and even their most analytic cognitive functions are socially-modulated. (see research by Tooby, Cosmides et al, for example). You can’t get around this with education. (see David Laibson’s research in getting MBA and economics grad students to make personal investment decisions).

This is not the planet Vulcan. Humans do not vote or make other such decisions in a detached intellectual manner. Look at this very thread, above, where ana says, “But Joe….I am in love!

3 questions on the “rescue plan” via the reverse auction:
1. Does anyone really know what the value of any target asset really is? (The SEC has proposed relaxing the fair value rule, so now there’s the muddled issue of “mark-to-market” vs “mark-to-model”)
2. Whom do you trust to make that valuation?
3. Why not just buy only the real financial assets at risk – the actual loans – not the derivatives whose prices depend on the values of those loans?

On the subject of the debate; I more and more am becoming personally offended by Sarah Palin. Her display last night was repugnant and I saw no semblance of a world leader in her over-confident smirk, raised eyebrows and beauty queen winking.

I hate to bring up personal attacks because there is so much good political fodder against her to begin with, but this is becoming so insulting to me. Why is this acceptable, nay, encouraged behavior?

Because they think it will work?

I don’t understand why so many people don’t “get” this because it’s pretty basic:

Winning an election and being a “world leader” are two different things that require different skills and attributes. Maybe on planet Vulcan, or in some kind of educated liberal nirvana there would be some equivalency – people would dispassionately assess candidates based on some checklist of aptitudes, IQ and specific experience, knowledge or voting record, and cast their votes accordingly.

But that is demonstrably, empirically not how it is. Before you attempt a really big task like trying to change human nature, start with something small and easy and see if you can get a health insurance law passed.

Something I have not seen raised in discussions of the debates or the economy: how glad are we that Dubya and the Republicans did not get their way and privatize Social Security a few years back? I bet all those folks in Florida and Arizona whose retirement incomes have just vanished into the economic tsunami are glad the boring old nanny-government Democrats succeeded in holding that initiative off! I have a few years to recover from this setback, but all those folks depending on the “guaranteed” returns from those clever Wall Street investment firms are out of luck.

Re: the veep debate. True, Sarah Palin didn’t look as much like Tina Fey as usual. I guess those days of prep seclusion in AZ helped her to form (mostly) coherent talking points. But by the end of the debate she was in a loop: repeating her talking points, whatever the question, and trying to run them all past us again and again. Repetition does not equal truth in MY book, and she repeats the same lies over and over. McCain’s staff is hardly outsiders or mavericks; they’re lobbyists and insiders. She neglected to mention that she hired (unqualified) buddies of hers for plum state jobs, as mayor charged rape victims for rape kits until the governor outlawed the practice statewide, took all the money for the Bridge to Nowhere even though the project itself had been dropped by the Congress, and lobbied for earmarks using (insider) Ted Stevens’ friends. Maverick? Only in her support for shooting wolves from helicopters! And in being willing to bite the hands that helped her up the ladder.

The biggest benefit of privatization would have been preventing Washington from spending my forced contributions. My self-directed 401(k) has significantly outperformed Treasury bonds which aren’t even outpacing inflation at this point. I’m still for privatization; let those who want the meager returns of Treasuries have that option and let those who want to maintain their purchasing power and get something out of this thinly veiled income redistribution program do something else.

You say repeat, others would say she stayed on message, driving home important points of differentiation. I think she succeeded.

Steve who just called in got it just right: The “bailout” and the way it’s been sold is Iraq in other clothing.

The Boston Globe published a letter of mine a few days ago where I said exactly the same thing.

The interesting thing to me is that Bush still has all his skills. After almost 8 years of the worst Presidency in history you might think Congress would have wised up or become skeptical. But Nooo-ooo. Bush tells them that a dire emergency requires they hand over a TON of money to a political appointee to do some still vague, poorly-detailed task with it (I think it involves buying magic beans) and, after some symbolic token resistance, they all fall in line behind Bush.

I don’t think most people appreciate just how GOOD Bush and his team are at this stuff! It’s like watching your home team get destroyed by an opposing pitcher who pitches a perfect game. We should not allow our disgust at his policies to prevent us from recognizing what a remarkable political tour de force we are witnessing.

My self-directed 401(k) has significantly outperformed Treasury bonds which aren’t even outpacing inflation at this point.

But what’s your point? You may be an unusually skilled investor, or just lucky, but as you know, the average mutual fund UNDERperforms the S&P500. So it’s not reasonable to expect the average person to do any better than they might do in an S&P500 index fund, which has done rather poorly lately.

Anyway, if you were worried about inflation you could have invested in TIPS in a bond ladder and just held them to maturity.

TIPS are issued in 5, 10 and 20 year maturities; that’s not a great ladder. If you buy in the secondary market, you’re subject to supply and demand impacts on price. I believe TIPS are overbought currently; so creating a ladder in the secondary market is unwise IMHO.

My point is that I would like a choice; the type of choice privatization would offer.

TIPS are issued in 5, 10 and 20 year maturities; that’s not a great ladder.

But of course you can buy some every year so you end up with a mix of yields and maturity dates. We’ve been participating in a couple of TIPS auctions a year through Treasury Direct for almost as long as TIPS have been out. They’re only a small portion of our portfolio but they provide an anchor in periods of high inflation, which I anticipate once they start to monetize this federal debt.

My point is that I would like a choice; the type of choice privatization would offer.

I’d be willing to allow an “opt-out” option for Social Security for people who want to try it without a net, like you.

But I object to forced privatization because most people don’t have the skill or interest to manage a retirement portfolio and, as we’ve seen recently, Wall Street “professionmals” can’t be trusted to make rational, responsible decisions with other people’s money.

Mr. Nelson,
I am entirely in agreement with you. As emotional beings we ultimately vote on our “gut feelings.” I at no point in time stated that I thought that these things were going to change, I am merely upset.

There is very little I don’t “get” about this subject. In fact, if I ever forget why people in America, Palin supporters especially, have grown resentful of the intellectual set I can merely recall the time I was so aptly put in my place through the citations of empiracal studies and several Star Trek references. I appreciate the sentiment, but on the subject of tact and charm you obviously don’t “get” it.
I guess now I go back to toil in the fields, as I am unfit intellectually to engage in any semblance of political discussion.

As someone who actually likes Sarah Palin (I know that is a mark against me in many of your minds), I was impressed by Tom’s fairness to her in the hour she was the topic of discussion on Wed. or Thurs. Because I think I do see political bias on the show (in my mind, that is all right as long as it is respectful), I especially appreciated his fairness. I had really intended to leave a post that day to say, “Good Job”!

And, oh yes, I was pleased with Governor Palin’s performance last night – both she and Senator Biden got a few facts wrong, according to the fact checker I heard on another “biased” TV channel. I wish that had not been true, because I believe it does make a difference to get the facts RIGHT! PJS

I’ve been on the fence this election but my vote may have been locked up last night. I embarrassed for Palin. Opinions that she was polished is a joke. She dodged questions and her attempt to “connect” with voters on camera may have been effective had she appealed to anyone besides the “hockey moms” whose votes she’s already aquired. Her inexperience is disturbing at this point and no cries of sexism or bullying can save her from her lackluster performance last night. No one pulled her pig tails on the playground, they simply questioned her qualifications to be second in command of the most powerful country in the world. We are electing the Vice President of the United States, right? I feel for her, but we can’t treat ANYONE in this election with kid gloves. If anything, we need to come down harder than ever before. McCain botched this one and while I still don’t know who is right for president, nightmares of Palin speaking to foreign leaders and helping to solve the credit crisis are giving me an ulcer.

Typical of people of your ilk to tell people to love it or leave it or better yet to get interned in some gulag.

The there is that little question of freedom of speech which to people like you means “my right (and people who agree with my leftist ideas) to speech but not yours.”

Moderate Y, well well, I was not suggesting you should go to a gulag. You don’t like On-Point’s drift change the station. I don’t listen to Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly because life is short and these people do nothing for me. It seems that your bent on repeating yourself and complaining about it. So change the station.

I have no problems with you making comments, it’s your right. However your diatribe about how much money you pay and taxes is off.

I pay taxes as well and I don’t have a choice on deciding which things the government spends it on, such as the military. Which by the way is a bit larger than the percentage NPR gets.

Why is that the right is aways trying to play the victim?

In fact, if I ever forget why people in America, Palin supporters especially, have grown resentful of the intellectual set I can merely recall the time I was so aptly put in my place through the citations of empiracal studies and several Star Trek references

I guess now I go back to toil in the fields, as I am unfit intellectually to engage in any semblance of political discussion.

Look, I don’t know you personally – I only know what you post, and there was nothing in your post to suggest that you understood how people make political decisions. So don’t take it personally – I’m responding to your post, not to you.

I cited the references I did, and would be happy to cite more, because there have been many people here who have expressed surprise that Palin’s apparent lack of factual knowledge doesn’t seem to worry her supporters. But there truly is nothing surprising about that.

Moments ago the Bailout Bill passed the House. This means that, once again, Bush has managed to impose his will on the Congress and most of the punditry, just as he did with the Iraq War. I am personally of the opinion that the reason why the liberals can’t seem to stand up to this stuff is because they fundamentally don’t understand how politics works. They think it’s like some sort of academic exercise where the smartest person with the best command of the facts wins.

Opinions that she was polished is a joke.

See? This is exactly the sort of attidude I was referring to in my prior post.

People’s opinions about candidates are not jokes if they lead to real votes. being “polished” is not some measurable, objective fact; it’s totally subjective, so if her supporters regard her as polished then she was polished.

If people think she was polished (regardless of what that means to them) then that’s an opinion we need to take seriously and not dismiss it as a joke. Because if she ends up in the White House we sure won’t be laughing.

What Palin really needs now is to go on the road, go and meet with the world leaders such as Putin, and Merkle et al, as she will have to as a vice president, and may be we will find out what she is about

What Palin really needs now is to go on the road, go and meet with the world leaders such as Putin, and Merkle et al, as she will have to as a vice president, and may be we will find out what she is about

The traditional overseas role for US Vice Presidents is to attend state funerals. (BTW I recently read a biography of Winston Churchill which claimed that this practice first became cemented in the tradition when there was a great public outcry that Humphry wasn’t sent to Churchill’s fumeral). So we should probably send Gov Palin out there with a measuring tape.

BTW the Dow closed down today 157 points, after Bush signed the Bailout plan. Yesterday it closed down dramatically as well, after the Senate passed the bill.

Now, just so we’re clear on this, I’M not suggesting there’s much relation between the stock market and the bailout plan – I think the stock market is responding to recessionary fears. The reason why I mention the Dow is because the Administration used the 777 point drop in the Dow on Monday to justify this bailout plan. But you don’t see them talking about the stock market now when it doesn’t support their bogus thesis!

Also, (dollar-denominated-) libor was up again today, after rising yesterday, according to Bloomberg. This is a much better indicator of credit tightness than the stock market, but if the credit markets had any confidence in the Bush plan we might have expected libor to drop.

When PJ O’Rourke came out with his book Parliament of Whores I thought it was funny but I didn’t like the title – “too harsh”, I thought. But after seeing how easily our elected officials can be bribed with “sweeteners” I no longer think so.

I don’t think you can expect current Libor to be impacted by the future effect of the bailout. Banks aren’t going to want to lend to each other until they are more confident of who is going to survive and who will perish.

Naomi Klein was on Colbert Report last night and said something to the effect that Bush spent the last 7 years transferring public wealth into private pockets and now the last act of the drama: he transfers private debt onto the public shoulders. What an elegant endspiel by President! Mission is truly accomplished!

Now let’s all be afraid of liberal socialists. God forbid they will come to power and spend public money.

But after seeing how easily our elected officials can be bribed with “sweeteners” I no longer think so.

Aw sucks Peter, our elected officials are not *obligated* to be honest and ethical – there’s nothing in the constitution about that. Why would you expect them to not agree to sweeteners – those sweeteners are probably helping their constituents?

Maybe in a few years, you’ll say “enough is enough” and warm up to the idea of voting for a third-party candidate, and call for NPR to invite them on their programs, even though NPR is not obligated to do so.

BTW, have you seen ‘An Unreasonable Man’?

For those who think that what is needed in a Vice President is cutesieness-the winking-and “Joe Sixpack” mentality certainly, certainly Palin won. For those who think that knowledge of national and international issues and some depth of intellect is important, Biden won without question.I was shocked to learn that Palin thinks the Vice President should be given more power over Congress. I am waiting to learn how one keeps other people from being greedy-on Wall Street or anywhere else and how victory in Iraq is specifically defined exactly.

I think we know how surrender in Iraq is defined; it’s leaving in 16 months no matter what the conditions on the ground.

According to Obama, you can keep wall street-types from being greedy by taxing them up the wahzoo.

I don’t think you can expect current Libor to be impacted by the future effect of the bailout. Banks aren’t going to want to lend to each other until they are more confident of who is going to survive and who will perish.

That’s one model. Other economists expected that the passing of this legislation would be a confidence-builder so banks wouldn’t demand such high intereste rates because they would have more confidence that they might get paid back. Keep in mind that markets (including credit markets) tend to be forward-looking.

The scary possibility is that the second group is right and no one actually expects this to work. We’ll see.

Maybe in a few years, you’ll say “enough is enough” and warm up to the idea of voting for a third-party candidate, and call for NPR to invite them on their programs, even though NPR is not obligated to do so

My wife’s company has a subsidiary in Canada that’s hiring, so a more likley scenario is that I’d move there.

According to Obama, you can keep wall street-types from being greedy by taxing them up the wahzoo.

I never heard him suggest that higher taxes are to prevent greed – can you cite a source for that?

Anyway, greed isn’t the problem. I’m greedy. Even though the 95% of my portfolio that I invest conservatively hasn’t done anything great this year, the 5% that I day-trade has done spectacularly, thanks to all the volatility in the markets this year, and I’ve been loving it! Overall the markets were down this week, but I had my best week ever!

But here’s the thing – I’m trading my own money, risking my own neck as it were.

So if we re-frame the “greed” problem as “irresponsibility with other people’s money” then clearly tighter regulation is needed. More transparency, more accurate reporting of the value of assets and portfolios, WAY stricter limits on leveraging, higher-loan-loss reserves, etc. Basically we need to bring back the days when banking was a stolid, boring, extremely conservative profession carried on by boring, stolid conservative people, and the phrase “fiduciary responsibility” really meant something.

My wife’s company has a subsidiary in Canada that’s hiring, so a more likley scenario is that I’d move there.

That gives a whole new meaning to “when the going gets tough, the tough get going” (to Canada).

Sarah Palin is nothing more than a third rate actress who was able to successfully impersonate a politician on television. She had presence and looked into the camera without fear….but so what?
That ability does not qualify her to be president of the United States!
Her knowledge of issues is, clearly, nothing more than a superficial veneer which was quickly painted on by the McCain campaign. She was taught avoidance techniques to be used when she was completely at a loss for answers and used them, as when she changed the subject to energy because she could not tackle the issue being discussed…accompanied by lots of winking and “cutesy” stuff as if she were doing an imitation of Tina Fey!
Although the whole performance on her part was terrifying, one of the worst parts came when she was asked about the expansion of the powers of the office of the vice president as redefined by Cheney and she answered that she fully agreed with expansion of those powers and that, in fact, she would ask for more!! Although I presume that she really did not understand the question…I find either possibility, her lack of understanding of the question or her real desire to increase her power as vice president, to exceed even Cheney’s over reaching ambition….either possibility, is the stuff of nightmares!

She had presence and looked into the camera without fear….but so what?
That ability does not qualify her to be president of the United States!

But it may qualify her to get elected.

People complain that I never shut up here, but why is it necessary to explain the same thing over and over?

This is an ELECTION. The qualities and traits needed to win elections are DIFFERENT from the ones required to hold office. There is nothing in the Constitution that says they have to be the same.

This is not just theoretical or academic. It is empirically demonstrable that huge swaths of the US electorate choose candidates based on all sorts of emotional or personal or ideological or identity-politics reasons that have nothing to do specific technical skills relating to holding office.

I think if you listened to that debate last night you could hear loud and clear Palin’s message.

Palin has what it takes to get the job done. She knows Washington needs reform, and she is not intimidated by the media elite.

She has the conviction in that readiness to begin to get this country back on track, and she has fought corruption and greed.

I’m not exactly sure what else you people want from her. Sounds to me like she said it all.

I was so happy today when Tom mentioned the fact that Biden spoke in sentences while Gov. Palin (at times) seemed to just go on and on. I thought I was the only one who noticed it. Sometmes I found it hard to keep up with her. It drove me crazy. Especially when she answered the question about her achilles heel. Her answer made me wonder if she really understood the question. At least Joe Biden acknowledged that he can be too passionate before listing his positive attributes and qualifications. Her answer was just bizarre. And why does she end her sentences with the word “also” so often? Who talks like that?
And I just have to say that I don’t want someone representing our country to the world who says “you betcha” “gotcha” “heck yeah”, smiles while saying just about everything, and winks at the camera. I do not find it comforting or “folksy” in anyway. To me it is calculated and fake and condescending.
Joe Biden was awesome!! He expressed himself so well. It was reasoned and thoughtful. I think that overall he spoke about things in a way that the average person could understand. I liked him during the primary season, but after last night he has my respect and admiration.

re the comment above by Adrienne–well said.

I agree that PALIN is a tv personality impersonating a politician. She is a politician for entertainment news. Also, for anyone who has seen Offenbach’s opera, The Tales of Hoffmann–act 1 is about an adorable doll made up to look like a real woman, who is set up to seduce Hoffmann, starting his progression through 3 different loves ending in disappointment. This doll situation reminds me of PALIN! Hoffman is given magic spectacles so the doll looks human! She is so adorable, and sings a sweet, sentimental coloratura aria. He falls in love.

I recommend to anyone, get the video of the famous 1950’s film of The Tales of Hoffman-it’s in library– it is one of the most gorgeous opera and ballet films ever–with moira shearer from The Red Shoes– and is in English also. The first act with the doll, called Olympia, is very witty,with luscious music.

Think of PALIN when Hoffmann is made to wear magic spectacles to transform her into a real woman. Is the american public being given magic spectacles to see our candidates through?

The magic glasses prevent Hoffmann from seeing reality. He doesn’t notice how Olympia is furtively wound up and propped up when she wavers and droops on her highest notes. The illusion is buttressed by a chorus of guest at the party who sing of Olympia’s many attributes—a lovely pair of eyes, and her wonderful figure, a real catch! This is designed to prepare Hoffmann to be fascinated with her.

Olympia’s ultra flexible, high notes, and programmed movements suggest an automaton. It is often played for laughs, but is really part of a sinister fantasy, designed to undermine Hoffmann — the opera’s theme.

PALIN is trotted out to look and sound like a real political leader. She learned in TV journalism school to put herself over and then she morphed those qualities into a politician role. As TV news becomes more entertainment-ized, the stretch between TV stars and politicians gets narrower. BUSH as politician is also an illusion. Our magic glasses are doing their work, and the illusion is getting stronger.

Maybe they could produce this opera set at a political rally! To convince a group of voters to “fall for” the illusion of a candidate. These voters are thus undermined, as was Hoffmann, and his manipulators benefit with power.

“I’m not exactly sure what else you people want from her. Sounds to me like she said it all.”

Not all. She forgot to say: “I am going back to Alaska where I belong.” Or better yet, overshoot on the way back and go straight to Siberia. Someone above mentioned gulag. I am starting to think this is not such a bad idea for the dangerous carriers of the Republican ideology before they finally bankrupt the country.

Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad and Putin would not want better adversary than another Republican president. Saves them the aggravation and expense. I don’t know, maybe she could wink Kim Jong-Il into submission or something.

Our magic glasses are doing their work, and the illusion is getting stronger.

Just to point out: to the extent that people have magic glasses, they are of their own device.

Politics is obviously playacting and theatrics, and so is TV news. No one needs a degree in journalism or political science to get this. Turn on any TV news program – they use music, dramatic graphics, sometimes they use sound-effects on transitions, etc. The most emotional stories get the most prominent coverage – “if it bleeds it leads”. Et cetera. Likewise, there is no necessary connection between political skill and the skill necessary to carry out the duties of office. Bush is a a highly skilled politician but a disaster as President, for example. Likewise there is no reason Palin can’t bat her eyelashes all the way to the White House if she acts the part successfully.

re tv news theatrics and putting on our own magic glasses, there’s some truth in that for sure, However,I would say that you can point up the drama of something without necessarily totally misleading. By being too entertaining, tv news may better set up veiwers to be more easily influenced by misleading manipulation by politicians. TV news during the days of walter cronkite especially, was not so entertinment oriented at all. It was not supposed to make money for the network, which was left to the entertainment programs. Tv news has gotten more manipulative with cable shows, and then the networks and even pbs slowly adapt and change their style somewhat.

On the subject of this debate, I’d like to hear people in the media and John McCain publicly admit to being complete jackasses for question Gwen Ifill’s credentials or abilities to moderate.

We all knew she’d do a great job.

However, I am still infuriated that for two days people attacked her and even demanded her resignation. True, this was mostly from idiots on Fox News (Hannity, Susteren, Malkin) but even the New York Times carried this controversy as though it were legitimate, and McCain echoed these concerns.

Where’s the accountability?

For a year (and a decade) that has seen so many low points in our national discourse, I thought this particularly episode of “blame the media first” was especially stupid — and that’s not even going near the ugly racism that lurked in the so-called controversy.

However,I would say that you can point up the drama of something without necessarily totally misleading.

I don’t even think that’s necessary. The news is inherently dramatic! The loss of fortunes, the death of great companies – icons of the financial world, the anxieties of parents seeing their children sent off to war, the destruction of cities and provinces by natural dasasters, and photographs sent to earth by space probes resting on the shores of methane oceans on distant moons are all so intrinsically filled with amazement, drama, and existential and human dimensions that there is no need for breathless announcers, sound effects, or music. The drama in daily events is self-evident; you don’t need someone to point it out. To paraphrase William Randolph Hearst, journalism should provide the facts and I’ll provide the drama.

I don’t watch TV, myself – except maybe the occasional football game or nature documentary, but at my company they have a big TV going with CNN in a public area and it’s nauseating! I call CNN the “Celebrity News Network”.

Barack Obama accomplished nothing in Illinois’ state senate and nothing in the US Senate. So why does this guy deserve to even run for president?

Why is it that Obama/Biden are now at 50% in the polls and McCain/Palin falling down to the low 40’s.

Obama has 264 of the electoral votes, you need 270 to win.

Republicans if Obama is so awful why is he gaining?

A lot of the issues we face are not being dealt with honesty by both parties. Whoever gets in will have to raise taxes to deal with the deficit. They will have no choice.

Jack and Archie B it’s noble and so sentimental, trying to hold up your dieing ideology.

Personally I think both parties are broken, but the Republican party has made a bigger mess of it.

You guys are like horses with blinders with tunnel vision.

If Palin was a Democrat I bet we would hear no end of it.

Palin was OK in the debates because she crammed her phony populist rhetoric down the peoples throats.
She’s kind of like a rotten candy apple, all sweet and shinny on the outside, but rotten and vile as you get to the core.

“Barack Obama accomplished nothing in Illinois’ state senate and nothing in the US Senate. So why does this guy deserve to even run for president?”

Simple. To replace the clowns who bombed so badly after eight years.

Very good show, Tony Blankley did an incredible job it was refreshing to hear a conservative voice who could match Jack Beatty’s very strong personality. If he would be willing to fill such a position, Mr. Blankley should be strongly considered for a regular commentators position atleast on the Friday show.

Re audio clips, I sent this email to On Point after yesterday’s show. I thought I’d throw it out to the listeners comments to see if anyone agrees, or what they think. Tom Ashbrook is a terrific, knowledgable radio host in many ways,and I want to keep the show as good as it has been in the past.

to TOM ASHBROOK–

I object to your interjecting all these media sound bite audio clips from mass media into the commentary on your friday roundtable. I just heard a clip from i guess it was saturday night live. This is so very irritating, as are all the audio clips. I don’t tune in to hear this TV stuff. It doesn’t fit with your show. I want more commentary/analysis –and not rushed, either. I’ve already gotten the main news elsewhere. Your guest’s analysis is being pushed to smaller amounts of time, as the clips multiply. You have the clips ready and cue them up to caller’s points.

I don’t want to hear clips from NBC Today Show Ann Curry interview with politicians. I avoid that by going to pbs. Your commentators need time to not just throw out assertions, but tell us their reasoning for their opinions. Then we listener’s LEARN something.

A lot of these politician’s media clips are self serving and superficial –the mainstay of commercial TV which I’m absolutely sick of.

Your guest commentators could easily summarize various political opinions on an issue, and give their pros and cons. This is how pbs radio used to be until recently, and suddenly, you feel you must imitate commercial media.

MY QUESTION: is this change an order from on high? Can’t you challenge this, so we will keep listening? Are your corporate sponsors, whose commercials you break for more often than in the past, telling you to be more like commercial media not pbs? Thus they get more listeners, thus customers, thus profits.

Is this how corporate sponsors are being allowed by you to change pbs away from its main purpose? First it was more interruptions for commercials, and lately it’s more and more audio clips breaking into the show. Do you think the clips add give more drama to the show? We don’t need that as we’re not teens–is this what your sponsors want–more teens!

Tony Blankley was just talking about the ironic mix of right wing and left wing attitudes re the bailout. Here’s this caller –Dan, i think–saying it’s brutal extortion what wall st is doing to us, He doesn’t see the interconnection of business/government. Dan says we don’t need profits to save people from hurricanes. You objected saying profit pays salaries and brings resources to projects. Dan answered 1000 people died because Greyhound couldn’t make a profit evacuating people from Katrina,and also public housing is being torn down for private businesses, while people still can’t return home to New Orleans.

You responded only with a cued up media clip of the that superb public servant, GOP Congressman Roy Blunt saying the plan is ok. Big Deal! How enlightening!

Let Blankley and Beatty, who are sitting there with nothing to do while you answer the caller and play clips, each analyze Dan’s statement with all it’s important issues of public/private help for distress. This public/private issue is the basic controversy of our time. But all your listener’s heard was your hackneyed cliché about business pays salaries, and then the politician with a meaningless soundbite that added nothing.

With the next caller asking about valuation of the bad debts, you ignored tony blankley, so he said” can i jump in here” when margaret talev couldn’t explain it too well –and blankley gave the best, clearest basic summarythat I’ve heard of how this bailout will work. And i am no fan of blankley.

if you absolutely must use a clip, what about one from npr? Or are they too long and boring, thus you can’t imitate commercial media, thus attracting younger listeners? Is that the whole purpose?

I’d like to have an answer to this question. Did this new policy of sound clips come from a particular sponsor’s explicit request to have them? Or did someone at pbs think up this as a gimmick that might please them? Or what? Thanks for letting me ventilate my irritation.
Thank you.

I’d like to second Orion’s comments (”… the prospect that this fully anti-intellectual, pandering, ill-qualified person could end up being VP or–egad–president is a huge indictment of the American education system”). I’d add that it also underscores the extent to which we, as a society, are fools for physical beauty. (Pat Buchannan: “She’s by far the most attactive candiate running!”)

We forgive a multitude of sins, or in this case, glaring inadequacies, in those that are endowed as such. If Palin were 20 years older and less telegenic is there any chance that she’d be on the ticket? C’mon. It reminds me of the way in which JFK and his wife held the nation in thrall for similar reasons. At least, in this case, there was substance behind the exterior.

Great show –

I agree with people above who like hearing from Tony Blankley. I always enjoy hearing him on Diane Rehm’s show, and I think he’d be great to have on more often here. I’m a little surprised to find him so supportive of Palin. I certainly understand his support of McCain, but he seems to think it’s acceptable to have a candidate so close to the presidency who is so clearly intellectually unprepared for the position.

This is NPR, and we like to keep things civil. I’m doing my best. I think Tom handled the issue of Palin’s intellectual abilities well by insisting some attention be paid that even in the debate Palin was speaking in meaningless circles.

For the good of the country we need to keep her seeming inability to ask interesting questions or form meaningful sentences a part of the conversation.

It does matter. It does indicate her capacity to handle such a huge and complicated responsibility. It does even speak to things (in my opinion) like her apparent deficit of empathy. She doesn’t seem eager to learn about the world and about how other people think about the world: why should she care if other people suffer?

I think her inarticulate performance in these interviews and in the debate also demonstrates a kind of contempt for many people in her audience that she would govern. It’s the same sort of contempt for professionalism that has made Bush such an embarrassment (think Monica Goodling; think Brownie).

“Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet.”

quote Sarah Palin.

This is the person some of you want to be in the White House.

This woman can not put together a real sentence or a rhetorical statement.
I defy anyone to make sense of this statement.

What the hell happened to the idea of being a statesman or woman?

““Nuclear weaponry, of course, would be the be-all, end-all of just too many people in too many parts of our planet.”

This is the person some of you want to be in the White House.

She also today accused Obama of supporting terrorism (for when he worked together in a school improvement project with the founder of the Weather Underground).

One might count these things as desperation moves by a McCain camp that sees its chances of winning the election evaporating like a snowman in a spring thaw. But on the other hand you could say the same thing about the Swift Boat campaign, and that WORKED for the GOP.

As I’ve said before, it’s about winning the election, not about qualifications to hold office. If making outrageous or incomprehensible statements helps the GOP win the election then that’s what counts. Remember, we live in a country where only 40% of the population believe in evolution (”Public Acceptance of Evolution”
Miller, Scott, et al, Science 11 August 2006, Vol 313). When Palin says things which sound crazy to us, she’s not talking to us.

Palin is absurd. McCain, however, is something of a disappointment. In 2000 we hoped he’d defeat Bush and enjoyed his refreshing relationship with the media as well as his disdain for the evangelical right.

We weren’t going to vote for him, but we liked him.

Who is this guy running now? He’s nasty, sarcastic, and looks completely out of control. He’s also compromised his honor. The racist insinuations about Gwen Ifill, the implication that Obama has sympathy for terrorism.

It’s time to just call these people what they are: bad, desperate, dishonest losers.

Palin’s not qualified for high office because of her obvious intellectual deficit. Can we for once just be honest? She’s really stupid.

McCain is rash, reckless, and weirdly locked in the world of the eighties — or maybe nineties.

Sweet God, let us be rid, of these people.

Then I’ll listen to Ms Noonan talk about the need for politiness and calm all she wants.

Palin’s not qualified for high office because of her obvious intellectual deficit. Can we for once just be honest? She’s really stupid.

When are the liberals going to get over their hang-up about how “stupid” a candidate is?

Intellectual deficits have nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the election. For the last two terms the left and the Democrats and the coastal opinion makers have amused themselves about how “stupid” George Bush is – about his verbal gaffes, his reading ability, his grasp of basic geography, the way he says “nuke-you-ler” etc.

But he won the White House – TWICE – the second time by the biggest vote-count in history, and last week he showed he could still get Congress to do his bidding even as a lame duck. The Democrats would kill to have someone that “stupid”.

As I’ve already pointed out here, winning elections and performing well in office are completely unrelated – they do not require the same skills and attributes. Just get over it – you can’t change human nature.

Could you please comment about this artical if it’s true or false. – thanks

Obama’s Challenge
The campaign speaks to “Radicalism.”

By Stanley Kurtz
Today, in a piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled, “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools,” I offer a report on my research into the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), an education foundation once headed by Barack Obama. As I explained in “Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?” the Richard J. Daley Library of the University of Illinois at Chicago first agreed to grant, then abruptly denied me, access to the files of this foundation. Subsequently, the Daley Library again reversed their decision and made the CAC files available. As I note in today’s Journal piece, I’ve conveyed the gist of my Annenberg findings to the Obama campaign and offered them a chance to respond. In reply, the Obama campaign has sent me an extended “on the record” statement about Obama’s role at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and about the nature of his relationship with Bill Ayers. I present that statement in its entirety here:The Annenberg Challenge records only serve to establish clearly that while Barack Obama and Ayers had occasional contact during Obama’s 6 years of service on the bipartisan board, they did not work closely together to exchange and develop policy ideas. In fact, as these records show, Ayers attended a total 6 meetings of the Board during the 6 years of Obama’s Board service. And, as these same records also demonstrate, the advisory committee that Ayers co-chaired played no operational role whatsoever once the Challenge hired its Executive Director at the end of its first year.Ayers had nothing to do with Obama’s recruitment to the Board. Barack Obama was encouraged to run for Chair by Deborah Leff, with whom he served on another board, recommended by Pat Graham, and elected by the bipartisan founding board members: Susan Crown, Pat Graham, Stanley Ikenberry, Ray Romero, Arnold Weber, and Wanda White. Barack Obama months ago confirmed that he had contact with Ayers during the course of his foundation work, and he pointed out that “We served on a board together that had Republicans, bankers, lawyers, focused on education”. Senator Obama also said earlier this year that Ayers was “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis”, a fact that is not in any way contradicted by their contact through the Annenberg Challenge which ended 12 years ago, or by any of the Challenge records.The suggestion that Ayers somehow dominated the policy or direction of the bipartisan Challenge Board, imprinting it with radical views, is absurd. The Annenberg Challenge was funded by Nixon Ambassador and Reagan friend Walter Annenberg. Republican Governor Jim Edgar, who wrote to Walter Annenberg to encourage the creation of the Challenge, joined Mayor Daley to announce the formation of the Challenge and his administration continued to work closely on education reform with the Board. John McCain has praised an initiative funded by the Challenge. The Challenge’s work is still carried on today through to the bipartisan Chicago Public Education Fund, which coordinates closely Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan and Mayor Daley to improve teacher performance and has included such board members as Illinois Republican Party Chair Andrew McKenna. The Challenge was established to allocate grants targeted to improve student performance and promote teacher training and leadership development in the Chicago Public Schools. One objective of the Challenge was to improve education for the bottom quartile of students attending Chicago Public Schools — whose reading, math, and basic skills scores improved markedly during the years in which the Challenge invested in city schools. Due to the work of the Challenge and the Fund, the number of board certified teachers in Chicago Public Schools has increased by the hundreds.As is well known, by the time Barack Obama met him, Ayers was a faculty member at the University of Illinois, and he has held the title of ‘distinguished scholar’ the University of South Carolina for many years — Ayers held both positions at universities while Republican Governors served on their Boards of Trustees. The detestable acts that Ayers committed decades before occurred when Senator Obama was 8 years old and the Senator has condemned them in no uncertain terms.While I’ve addressed this statement in the “Radicalism” piece, I’ll extend my response here.Let’s first review CAC’s initial setup. In the first year, 1995, Obama headed the board, which made fiscal decisions, and Ayers co-chaired the Collaborative, which set education policy. During that first year, Obama’s formal responsibilities mandated close cooperation and coordination with the Collaborative. As board chair and president of the CAC corporation, Obama was authorized to “delegate to the Collaborative the development of collaborative projects and programs . . . to obtain assistance of the Collaborative in the development of requests for proposals . . . and to seek advice from the Collaborative regarding the programmatic aspects of grant proposals.” All this clearly involves significant consultation between the board, headed by Obama, and the Collaborative, co-chaired by Ayers.During this initial year of 1995, Ayers also sat as an ex officio member of the board. The Obama campaign is trying to minimize his cooperation with Ayers by counting the number of board meetings where both sat together. That will not do. For one thing, as long as we’re counting occasions on which Obama and Ayers were together, the Obama campaign omits Obama’s appearances before the Collaborative, when it was co-chaired by Ayers. In 1995, Obama and Ayers also sat together on the board’s Governance Committee, with at least one independently scheduled meeting, and who knows how many others. Ayers and Obama were also part of a group of four instructed to draft the bylaws that would govern CAC. Surely that endeavor would have involved significant interaction between them. Then there’s the question of unrecorded meetings of both the board and the Collaborative. For example, the archives contain an intriguing note indicating that, although a CAC board meeting took place on July 25, 1995, “No minutes were recorded.” Were Ayers and Obama both present at that meeting? More important, what took place there?The partnership between Ayers and Obama is about much more than the number of occasions on which the two were recorded together in the same room. As CAC board chair, Obama was essentially authorizing the funding of Ayers’s own educational projects, and the projects of Ayers’s radical allies. And especially in CAC’s first year, Ayers was largely in charge of the process. One of CAC’s own evaluations notes that during 1995, CAC was a “Founder-Led Foundation.” That is, Ayers was not merely an ex officio board member that year, but as the key founder and guiding spirit of CAC, he was effectively running the show.This is consistent with what I found in the documents, which, for example, show Ayers not only speaking for the Collaborative before the board, but speaking in place of absent board members when they couldn’t be present to make a report. In general, in 1995, Ayers seems to be deeply involved in the work of every important body and committee at CAC. Of the three CAC founders, Ayers, Anne Hallett, an urban school advocate, and Warren Chapman, a state school reformer, only two, Ayers and Hallett, were Collaborative co-chairs and ex officio members of the board. And in a letter, Hallett describes herself as “joined at the hip” with Ayers. Clearly Ayers was the senior partner of the pair, given his prominence as an author, and as a national spokesman for educators consciously committed to politicizing their classrooms. Ayers is not only an activist, but a sort of father-figure to radical educators, authoring not only books of his own, but editing collections of like-minded authors, and putting together coalitions of educators, as he did at CAC. Hallett and Ayers may have co-chaired the Collaborative and together been ex-officio on the board, but this was largely Ayers’s show.So when CAC’s own evaluators call 1995 the period of the “Founder-Led Foundation,” they are essentially saying that, in 1995, Ayers was the most powerful individual at CAC. The Obama campaign treats that suggestion as “absurd,” yet it is effectively made by CAC’s own evaluators. This needs to be kept in mind when considering the Obama campaign’s minimization of the Ayers-Obama connection that year. Ayers’s outsized role at CAC also needs to be kept in mind when considering the Obama camp’s claim that Deborah Leff and Patricia Graham first suggested Obama’s name as board chair. Given the degree of Ayers’s power at this early stage, it’s hard to believe that the ultimate decision on Obama’s elevation to the board was not made by Ayers himself. After all, Ayers and his immediate ally, Michael Klonsky, would end up seeking major financial support from CAC for their own “Small Schools” network. Ayers could not have been indifferent to the choice of board chair, since his own funding, and that of his many allies, would depend on it.This brings us to the ethical concerns that led to a restructuring of the relationship between the CAC board and the Collaborative after 1995. The Obama camp points to this shift as if it quiets questions about the Obama-Ayers relationship. In fact, the post-1995 restructuring of CAC more urgently raises such questions. Precisely because Collaborative members like Ayers were themselves up for CAC grants, stronger barriers had to be created between the board and the Collaborative. So after 1995, Ayers appears to have lost his ex officio status on the board, and the Collaborative lost its theretofore prominent role in advising the board on grant applications.I found little explicit discussion, in either board or Collaborative minutes, about the need for this major structural change. Could the unrecorded July 25, 1995, board meeting have addressed the issue? That meeting would have taken place just as the responses to the initial “Request for Proposals” were coming in. At that point, it would have been evident that many Collaborative members were seeking money from CAC itself. This was at the high point of Collaborative’s power, before CAC had an executive director in place. Perhaps discussion of the “self-dealing” issue, and the need to make structural changes, began at that meeting. The specific question of what happened at the unrecorded July 25, 1995 meeting is only speculation, of course. But we do know, from internal and external evaluations of CAC, that ethical concerns did in fact lead to a formal demotion of the Collaborative’s power after 1995.While the appearance of self-dealing receded after CAC’s first year, the reality may still have been in place. Evaluators, both internal and external, have criticized CAC for over-committing its funds in 1995, and also for doing far too little to demand accountability from grant recipients, very much including the initial batch. Many of the initial grantees continued to receive funds for years. Evaluators consistently note the lack of flexibility in grants, and complain that the huge 1995 commitments, with relatively few changes in follow-on years, significantly undercut CAC’s impact and effectiveness.So although Ayers may have lost his formal position on the board after 1995, and while the Collaborative he co-chaired may have surrendered its formal influence over the grant-making process, grant decisions Ayers put in place when he was effectively running CAC were respected for years by the board. And according to internal and external evaluations, this appears to have been greatly to the detriment of CAC. Why, then, did the board, chaired by Obama, adhere so assiduously to the funding decisions and strategies put in place by Ayers in 1995, even after CAC’s formal structure changed?I’ll have more to say about that issue down the road, but you can read the key evaluations for yourself. (See Dorothy Shipps et al.,”The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years,” here; Alexander Russo, “From Frontline Leader to Rearguard Action: The Chicago Annenberg Challenge,” here; and Mark A. Smylie et al., “The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for the Future, Part ,1 here and especially Part 2, here.) The Obama camp denies CAC’s radicalism by pointing to the fact that this foundation was funded by Nixon Ambassador and Reagan friend, Walter Annenberg. Moderates and Republicans often support Annenberg activities, it’s true. Yet the story of modern philanthropy is largely the story of moderate and conservative donors finding their funds “captured” by far more liberal, often radical, beneficiaries. CAC’s story is a classic of the genre. Ayers and Obama guided CAC money to community organizers, like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and the Developing Communities Project (Part of the Gamaliel Foundation network), groups self-consciously working in the radical tradition of Saul Alinsky. Walter Annenberg’s personal politics don’t change that one iota.The fact that Ayers and other tenured radicals hold power at our universities is in no way negated by the presence of Republican appointees on university boards of trustees. Ayers’s radicalism is undeniable. He remains unapologetic for his bombings of the 1960s. Even now, he refuses to rule out violence as a resort. His education writings are deeply politicized and filled with exhortations to “resist” America’s racist and oppressive social system. In 2006 — along with his wife and fellow former-terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn, and Jeff Jones — Ayers released, Sing A Battle Song, a collection of intensely radical writings from the Weather Underground. Ayers makes it clear in that book that, while he is embarrassed by some of the Weather Underground’s rhetoric, he still adheres to the same ideas. Beyond its strictly historical interest, Ayers and his co-editors make a point of hoping that their old writings would be “of use to new generations of militant activists and organizers.” By directing CAC funds to groups like ACORN and the Developing Communities Project of the Gamaliel Foundation, Ayers was supporting just such militant activists and organizers.The Obama campaign notes that during the CAC years, achievement test scores improved markedly in the Chicago public schools. That’s true, but deeply misleading. The real source of improvement was the leadership of accountability-oriented Chicago Public School (CPS) CEO, Paul Vallas, who began to reform CPS in 1995, the year of CAC’s founding. Vallas established clear standards, began high-stakes testing, ended social promotion, forced thousands of students to attend summer school to advance a grade, and put failing schools on probation. That’s what pushed up Chicago test scores. CAC’s own final evaluation carefully compared students at schools with Annenberg projects and schools without. According to CAC’s own report: “There were no statistically significant differences in student achievement between Annenberg schools and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools. This indicates that there was no Annenberg effect on achievement.” It also indicates that Annenberg failed, not because it’s altogether impossible to improve urban schools, but because CAC’s heavily politicized community-organizer partners weren’t any good at doing so.The Chicago Annenberg Challenge stands as Barack Obama’s most important executive experience to date. By its own account, CAC was a largely a failure. And a series of critical evaluations point to reasons for that failure, including a poor strategy, to which the foundation over-committed in 1995, and over-reliance on community organizers with insufficient education expertise. The failure of CAC thus raises entirely legitimate questions, both about Obama’s competence, his alliances with radical community organizers, and about Ayers’s continuing influence over CAC and its board, headed by Obama. Above all, by continuing to fund Ayers’s personal projects, and those of his political-educational allies, Obama was lending moral and material support to Ayers’s profoundly radical efforts. Ayers’s terrorist history aside, that makes the Ayers-Obama relationship a perfectly legitimate issue in this campaign.— Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

So what. It was long time ago and Obama was dealing with the people he needed to get his job done.

Palin’s husband Todd was a as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party from 1995 to 2002 he was registered to vote in that state.

This party wants to secede from the Union. How’s that for radical.

This is such a load of BS and I notice how the public cares about Ayers.

Ayers was a radical and did some dangerous such as blow up a statue. He has publicly apologized for and is extremely remorseful. He is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the honor of Distinguished Professor.

That he is left wing progressive is no surprise to me.
Calling him a terrorist and a person who hates America is absurd.

If Palin wants to play this game then by her definition is her husband not also anti-American and a ‘hater’ as she likes to call people who don’t agree with her.

*****When are the liberals going to get over their hang-up about how “stupid” a candidate is?******

Shall we say, actually the whole Bush administration are SMART FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!

What have they gotten to lose by so “POORLY MANAGING” this country. NOTHING! Bush is going to retire from his presidency without any loss, he has nothing to lose since he doesn’t give a SH** about the majority of the people in this country. Is he poorer than 8 years ago? NO, only he has BANKRUPT this country. So by no means he is stupid.

Let’s be honest, Republican are very very calculated party. They have great THINK TANK to come up with framing and strategy. That’s why when they are asked other questions and being put on the spot, they stay the course, that’s why they are almost robotic and very formulated. They almost don’t have compassion, that’s why they WIN. At least it’s the strategy of NEO-CON.

But I have problems with Robot running our country!

About your October 3 Week in Review broadcast, I was dismayed. Usually I find admirable the balance you give to the discussion of an issue. That was missing, Friday. You could have told Jack Beatty to take the day off, given that he went almost totally unused during the discussion of Sarah Palin. You had two conservatives who stood up for her in a professionally proper manner. But you never turned to Beatty for an opposing analysis/comment to balance their views with the other side. One example was the lady who called in with the “Bush in a Dress” comment. You ran with that biting comment but avoided the true jist of her criticism of Palin, namely, Palin’s refusal and/or inability (I happen to believe the latter) to specify when answering a question regarding her position on a significant issue. I admire your program greatly and listen to it all the time, downloading it when I miss it on our local NPR station. I’ll take the thin quality and I hope unintentionally biased discussion of Palin’s performance as a supposedly qualified candidate for Vice President as a rare abuse. — Norm

Question that has been going through my mind since the “bailout bill” passed both Senate and House… Much talk before Bailout #1 and Bailout #2 about “limiting golden parachutes”. Nothing said after bill passed.. Was there any provision in the bill about limiting compensation of these million dollar matteresses the CEOs of these companies enjoy (especailly when the lowest level employee hasn’t seen a raise in 10 years??)

I have heard so much about how important a candidate’s charm and charisma for some people when it comes to decide whom they are voting for.

I have some sense when it comes to reading a person’s dignity and honesty when I see that person. In 2000 election, during the debate of Bush and Gore, I favor Gore even if lots of people told me he’s boring, and not charismatic. Why is charms so outweighed than dignity, honesty and compassion in this country?

Same thing in 2004, lots of people don’t like Kerry because of his stiffness and no charisma.

Ok, for those people vote for charms, watch out, charms will suck you right in like a black hole, and you’ll never get to see the end of it.