Speaking of McCain, please address the lascivious ad on sex-ed and the damage this does to his credibility. They have not uttered one fact since the RNC ended.

Speaking of Sarah, she’s willing to go to war with Russia, does not know what the Bush Doctrine is, as Mayor required rape victims to pay for their own exams (a practice John McCain supports).

These ARE issues that affect us - a lot more than lipstick on pitbulls and pigs. Please force the candidates to focus on them.

These ARE issues that affect us - a lot more than lipstick on pitbulls and pigs, please force the candidates to focus on them.

I’d like to second this. Recent On Point shows have been getting bogged-down in superficialities about Cindy McCain’s dress and whatnot. There are some real issues of substance at stake in this election and the Republicans are attempting (as usual) to distract the public with slogans and iconography.

If the GOP wants us all to focus on Palin instead of McCain then we can do that - not just her colorful frontier life as a moose-hunter and mother, but as a politician with a record of extreme-right theocratic pronouncements and vindictive attacks on anyone who crosses her. Forget the lipstick.

This week there was an historic moment in American politics with just a quick mention on NPR. At least 3 third party candidates came together to agree on four of the core issues of today. These are very different candidates from opposite ends of the spectrum, each with enough ballot access to win the election and deserve more media attention.

Many say compromise is the key to politics, and ignoring this big one is a disservice to democracy. The corporate media only covers corporate candidates with little substantive difference between them and this is why stories deteriorate into lipstick and lapel pins.

You can read the agreement here
http://www.votenader.org/weagree/

Could guests with differing political views tell the listeners if there is a non-partisan, truly objective web-based source of political and economic information please?

The corporate media only covers corporate candidates with little substantive difference between them and this is why stories deteriorate into lipstick and lapel pins.

As I’ve said in other postings, I think the reason why discussion degenerates into superficialities is because most of the US public is uninterested in hard news and policy detail.

There are substantial differences between the Dem’s and the GOP on healthcare, tax policy, environmental policy and likely Supreme Court appointees. This is not to say that there are not plenty of other valid viewpoints that are not being discussed.

But I disagree that corporate influence is the reason why we only get two choices:

1. The US has NEVER been able to sustain more than two parties with significant presence in the Congress for long - this problem way predates the rise corporate power. There’s something about our political system or culture that causes this.

2. We’re not the only country in the world with a strong corporate influence, but most other countries have more than two major parties in their national legislature.

3. We live in the golden age of news access. Never before in history have people had so MANY available sources of news and political opinion. No one is required to get their news from CNN/Fox/NBC/etc. I don’t even watch TV news.

Obscure reference last night even on “Ugly Betty” — Justin Betty’s nephew made the same comment at the school dance… you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. And that show was from last year! (Rerun)
So Leave Barack alone. Maybe Barack wouldn’t be in this mess had he picked Hillary as V.P.

Regarding Palin’s experience/preparedness for the presidency: What about the past 8 years indicates that such capabilities are in any way required to fulfill the post? Is it useful to hold the candidates to a standard that does not actually prove important to the voters?

Perhaps we should focus on the criteria that the American voters will hold the candidates to. Intelligence, merit and experience do not appear to me to be on that list for what amounts to a slight majority of our populous.

When Sarah Palin spoke to her son’s unit yesterday before they left for Iraq, she said:
“You’ll be there to defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans”

Even Bush has stopped making that claim. How out of touch with the US’s foreign policies/affairs does she have to prove to be?

I think I speak for many women on the “left” when I say I have NO PROBLEM with Palin’s PERSONAL choices of having as many babies whenever she wants.

My problem is with her PUBLIC choices, not her family choices. I don’t want her in the White House because of her stances on the issues, her lack of experience, but also because as a mom I know how distracting infants are. No matter how much support you have or how much of a go-getter you are, you always have to be on the alert for the unexpected family emergency.

P.S. I would therefore say the same about a man with the same family situation (infant with Down’s Syndrome, teen daughter expecting) who was running for high office.

SNAP DECISIONS

McCain made a hasty decision and she [Sarah Palin] made a MAJOR life changing decision that involved her and her entire family in the blink of an eye. That is SCARY.

I’m a liberal woman. It’s not sexist to say that she should consult her family. Do you think Joe Biden did not discuss the post with his wife???? She didn’t even ask her partner!!!

Lipstick Traces

Last week, Barack Obama said: “John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out George Bush — except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics — we’re really going to shake things up in Washington,’” he said.

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it’s still going to stink after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

This week’s news: The McCain campaign accused Obama of slyly denigrating Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin. Former Massachusetts Gov. Jane Swift (R) says the comment is clearly about Palin. “There’s only one woman in the race.’”By that logic, Obama was calling Palin a pig.

Tomorrow’s news: The Cosmetics Industry Association (CIA) denounced Obama for his association of lipstick with animals. “It’s an insult to our tens of millions of customers to put the words ‘lipstick’ and ‘pig’ in the same sentence,” said Bella Schweinhundt, CIA spokesperson. She called lipstick “a perfectly legal product” and threatened to stop Senator Obama at airports until informed that power belonged to the other CIA.

Weekend news: People for Ethical Verbiage about Animals (PEVA) called on Obama to stop associating animals with lipstick. “In real life, cosmetics testing harms countless cute, adorable animals every year. By talking about putting lipstick on pigs, Obama is condoning this form of exploitation, which is tantamount to torture,” claimed PEVA spokesperson Lotta Katz. She then explained that “tantamount” is not a breed of horse, so no animals were harmed in the making of her statement, according to Katz.

Monday’s news: Jews And Muslims Together Over Dietary Allusions, Yuck! (JAM TODAY) asked the Obama campaign to retract any statements that referred in any way to pork, shellfish, cheeseburgers, or alcohol. The Obama campaign welcomed the JAM TODAY statement. “See, I told you Obama was not a Muslim,” campaign spokesperson Christian Nazarene said.

Nest week’s news: it is revealed that John McCain used the expression “lipstick on a pig” long before Barack Obama did. The candidate shrugged off the comparison. “I’ve changed my position on immigration, on the Religious Right, and even on torture, and nobody cared. Why should they start paying attention now?”

A caller said a mother over the age of 40 has “like a 30%” chance of having a Down Syndrome baby. The actual percentage is more like an average of 1% for women in their 40’s, although it increases as they get older. It might be higher for a woman aged 43, but nowhere near 30%. So, this caller who criticized Palin for not fact-checking has a little fact-checking to do.

The furor about the Lipstick comment is really nothing to do with an insult to Palin, but it was a glancing blow.

Remember her lipstick joke at the convention? What’s the difference between a Pit Bull and a Hockey Mom?

It seems to me the Republicans are upset because Obama trumped Palin by putting in play his own lipstick joke, trumping hers.

A caller had just referred to the “ignorant masses”. And Tom A said that people coming to Palin rallies are thinking “you can’t talk that way about us”. But they are only PROVING THE POINT the caller was making… by coming out with enthusiasm for shallow reasons, not about thoughtful policy or experience, but about one-liners and Republican fanfare without solid ideas about anything except “conservative values”.

Why all the fuss about pigs? I’m incensed that a mother would liken herself to a pit bull - with or without lipstick. Pitbulls are banned in many communities, are known to sometimes turn on their handlers, and generally unsafe for children.

The McCain camp almost seems like it is part of a larger Republican effort over time to dissuade voters from participating in the electoral process. Over and over, with the focus on silliness and stupidity, wrapped with lies and significant distortions, people turn off the electoral input, they withdraw from the process, disgusted and singed by the ‘torch-earth’ policy of such electioneering as we saw this week about pigs and fashion.

I am a former community organizer, and I myself find it hard to keep paying attention because it is so offensive to recognize how much the Republicans in the extreme, and the Democrats less so, think so little of the US electorate. They pull out so many masks and costumes, that are so blatantly ridiculous, meant to inspire the die-hards, and dissuade the thoughtful.

It is simply sickening.

This lipstick thing is so embarrassing, but no one seems to see its significance. The Republican campaign is showing its male chauvinism. As long as I can remember, boys have talked about girls as pigs. (You can’t call them men.) So when Obama uses what is a popular phrase in many parts of the United States, when he uses it to refer to the policies of Bush and McCain, the Republicans jump on it to say he’s talking about the woman on their ticket.

Why don’t we recognize this chauvinism and stop it?

I am a former community organizer, and I myself find it hard to keep paying attention because it is so offensive to recognize how much the Republicans in the extreme, and the Democrats less so, think so little of the US electorate.

But the US electorate obliges them!

The politicians take the low road because the low road works. This is what people respond to. Look at the polls - ever since Palin/McCain came out with their “guns, religion, and antipathy to people who aren’t like them” (does this quote ring a bell, anyone?) campaign they’ve been soaring in polls and donations.

And the last Presidential campaign set new records for voter turnout so you can’t say this style of politics is turning people off.

Personally I’d love to have a campaign about issues. I’m a policy wonk. But that’s not the sort of democracy the people want. The public have made it clear that a sober, detailed discussion of the issues is not the appropriate way to determine the direction of our nation in these perilous times.

Last night Sarah Palin sat down with Charles Gibson and acted in my view like a college kid who had crammed for her exam. She did not know what the ‘Bush Doctrine’ was. She used Lincoln — a ploy when you’re up against odds that are not in your favor: mention iconic presidents from the past to back you up.

Her statements on Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel showed me that she’s one scary person in regards to how we should move forward in the international arena.

You would think that after 8 years of the unilateral foreign policies of the Bush/Cheney government she would have at least done her homework and given a better answer.

I don’t know if was me or what but at times she just seemed to go on about nothing, just speaking in circles to take up as much air time as she could.

For a good comparison look up Bill Clinton’s early interviews when he was running for president. Of course he was a Rhodes scholar.

Palin comes across as what she is, a hockey mom with average intelligence who is very politically ambitious. I do think that she is out of her league and this speaks more to her ego and ambition than to her ideas on service to the country. If she had any real humility and a historical sense she would have turned the job offer down.

I am sorry but this woman is not fit for this office.

Obama made a huge mistake in not picking Hilary Clinton for his running mate, huge mistake that I think will cost him the election.

Bidden will not be able to debate Palin, she knows so little about anything in relation to our nation’s political issues that he will come across as overbearing no matter what he does. Hilary on the other hand would have mopped the floor with Palin and the Republicans would have not been able to do a thing about it.

Does Palin’s lack of intellectual curiosity remind people of anyone?

Frederic C’s question is a genuine request for practical information that deserves an answer. I fear that it won’t receive one because it wasn’t an opinion cloaked in the interrogative. On Point may be more rational and fact-based than lower forms of talk-back media, and it’s good to make listeners do their own fact-checking and reasoning about the issues. However, it could supply its listeners with better tools to find hard data.

Re: lipstick. I thought that the analogy was an intelligent comment, well within the norm for sly political inference. It’s clear to me that the pig stands for the politics of Carl Rove and Steve Schmidt that McCain has embraced and the lipstick is Palin herself. Obama has been using the aphorism for 18 months and Palin unconsciously acknowledged her role in this campaign with her first reference to lipstick.

How low does Obama have to dumb down his rhetoric before it can’t be twisted by the right-wing noise machine?

Frederic C’s question is a genuine request for practical information that deserves an answer. I fear that it won’t receive one because it wasn’t an opinion cloaked in the interrogative.

I think he won’t receive one because what he’s asking for doesn’t exist.

There are lots of separate web-based sources of information. The OMB and US Treasury websites can provide budget and tax data, for instance. The Center for Responsive Politics tracks political donations. There are any number of science organizations that can talk about global warming or other environmental issues. Human Rights Watch and Transparency International can track human rights and corruption issues, etc. There are probably a hundred different websites to cover a hundred different topics.

But putting it all together and digesting it for him is a job for journalism. So what he seems to really be looking for is an online newspaper or news magazine.

And why does it have to be online? Unless you like scrolling it’s hard to put that much detail on a computer screen. I read The Economist, which is a wonkish, low-fluff news magazine that, in terms of depth and detail, totally runs rings around publications like Time and Newsweek. But one page of The Economist would take many screenfulls of even a large, hi-rez monitor to display on the web.

Peter Nelson,

I have to respond with a few points, including the fact that your seeing only two choices goes hand in hand with the view that the differences between those choices are substantial.

For example, Health Care: the difference is the extent to which Pharma-Insurance-Hospital complex remains in control.

Iraq/Afghanistan: how many troops and how long will it take to assure an oil company victory? Also how much nuclear, clean coal, and domestic drill will it take to appease both the public and the corporations?

As for your dismissal of third parties historically, in Lincoln’s day the ‘Party of Lincoln’ was a third party with the Wiggs not completely gone. Third Parties have championed abolition, and women’s right to vote while the major parties got their act together. The New Deal was a result of record turnout for leftist parties in 32 and the resulting popular pressure.

Other countries have taken the initiative to make their democracies more representative, an issue championed by today’s third party candidates and ignored by the two parties in power.

The golden age of information will do us no good unless we take our opportunity to fight the flocking of like-minds. CNN, FOX, MSNBC and PBS are more similar than different, just like the candidates they support.

Well said Nate.

When a caller criticized Sarah Palin’s family planning choices, she was jumped on from all sides - the objection being that liberals shouldn’t be telling people how to run their lives. Yet the right does this all the time - criticizing anyone who doesn’t subscribe to *some* religion. (It would currently be impossible for an atheist to be elected president, regardless of qualifications.)

If its acceptable for the right to push their morality, then it should be OK for the left to do so as well. Some of us think having a lot of kids is more immoral than is abortion.

While not religious, I try to follow the golden rule. So I usually bite my tongue when I see the religious right doing something that offends my beliefs. If the right would do likewise, then maybe we could coexist without being constantly at war.

I am sincerely disappointed in Tom Ashbrook’s mediation of this discussion. The segment about the “pig” comment dominated the actual news worthy topic of today; the fact that Sarah Palin not only doesn’t blink, but also doesn’t think about issues of international importance.

Why did Tom not discuss the fact that Sarah Palin said she supported Georgia and Ukraine entering NATO, an action that the Russian government views as aggressive?

Why did Tom not discuss the fact that Sarah Palin failed to directly answer Charles Gibson’s question regarding American ground troops infringing upon Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty to attack Taliban strongholds? She said, “I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists.” But by avoiding this part of the interview Tom failed to point out the contradiction that Sarah Palin supports America “perhaps” going to war with Russia to defend Georgia’s territorial sovereignty, but chooses to disregard Pakistan’s in fighting terror.

And why did Tom insist upon talking about this “pig” story and fail to point out the inherent contradiction of the McCain campaign: if John McCain is a man with such incredible moral integrity, why would he use utter falsehoods to villanize his opponent? If it is not John McCain the man, but McCain’s campaign launching misleading attacks without his knowledge, then what does this inability to lead a campaign say about his inability to lead a nation?

I’ve been listening to On Point since the conventions almost everyday and have found Tom Ashbrook’s commentary to be seriously distracting and misguided on numerous occasions.

Come on Tom! Did you forget to put your reporter hat on today?

The roundtable guests left much to be desired. Their agenda centered on rating the Palin/Gibson interview. I find their thoughts biased.

I am beginning to wonder if one can find a true non-liberal voice at NPR. Despite the fact that the Washington-Boston mentality rules the airways in this part of the country, I would hope that NPR would do better. Do not expect financial support for such programming except from the like-minded folks.

Tom Ashbrook, please stop one-upping the folks that call in. I find Palin refreshing because she is soooo normal. She doesn’t fit the elitist folks. I am worried that you pass over Obama’s experience. He has no experience. Yikes! No executive experience at all. He has plenty of experience campaigning while being in the Senate though.

I am a foreign student and I’ve been following the presidential race as if it were a case study in American democracy. I am simply astonished by the low level of common sense and intelligent discourse. It seems to me that every time a die-hard Republican talks about abortion they imply that ALL pro-choice people automatically kill any unplanned babies and that the US has a God-given right to attack any country that does not agree with its policies. The Democrats choose to accuse Palin of things she never did/said and so lose the confidence of the undecided voters when something actually true comes out.

It is a common belief that people have the government they deserve, but I am disheartened by the thought that the American people may have sunk so low as to deserve this type of government.

Why can’t more people just try and think things through instead of looking at the election as if the Parties were soccer teams and its fans had to be loyal regardless of fact or ideas? Is this the brand of democracy that the US is fighting so hard to implement around the world?

Sir, I wish I could afford to subscribe to The Economist.

What I, a person who does not have the time, resources, training, or knowledge, am looking for is:

An information providing entity with the AUTHORITY, mission, resources, &c, to inform me/allow me to have access a news item aurally, and/or visually(print and otherwise), that integrates differing economic and historical interpretations and, importantly, examines the nature of those differences.

QUESTION, if a news outlet did exist that gave unimpeachably truthful and non-partisan news, information and analysis, would it be a “fifth estate,” so to speak?

An astute observer called in and stated that it was clear from the reaction of the crowd that Obama intended to reference Palin, and in the course of disagreeing, Amy told the host (who actually was the most evenhanded person on the panel) that he’d cut off the sound-bite too early, and that Obama had gone on to say something (don’t quote her here) about “stinky” fish wrapped in newspaper. What Obama actually said, of course, was “old fish,” a much less mistakable reference to McCain. But the entire panel swallowed that, hook, line and stinker.

Nothing at all was said, at least in the part that I listened to, about Gibson’s scrubbed lie (taken from the AP) regarding Palin’s “God is on our side” rhetoric. Even designated “conservative” Steve Chapman pointed to the fact that the AP (the AP!), had called McCain’s bluff on the education ad, and when the AP calls you on it and you’re a Republican . . . well!

I was amused and bemused at Tom Ashbrook taking umbrage at Sarah Palin’s supporters being characterized as “ignorant”. Clearly the lady herself isn’t and clearly she thinks her supporters are, judging from this: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/09/iraq-linked-to.html

As for the brouhaha over the “lipstick” comment, how about this:
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/the_campaign_trailers/2008/09/the-lipstick-on.html

As for your dismissal of third parties historically, in Lincoln’s day the ‘Party of Lincoln’ was a third party with the Wiggs not completely gone.

And they finished going as soon as the Republicans established themselves. Which just proves my point - the US is unique among the world’s major democracies in that it cannot sustain more than 2 parties.

Third Parties have championed abolition, and women’s right to vote while the major parties got their act together. The New Deal was a result of record turnout for leftist parties in 32 and the resulting popular pressure.

Third parties always take more credit for “moving the debate” than can be proved objectively. The Libertarian Party points to planks in the GOP platform and the US Greens point to planks in the Democratic platform that they say wouldn’t have been there without them, but none of it can be proved.

What I, a person who does not have the time, resources, training, or knowledge, am looking for is:

I think you’re overestimating how hard it is. You obviously have a computer. Do you have a public library in your town? And it doesn’t take any special training. I have a neurophysiology degree and I work as an engineer - I have no special training.

An information providing entity with the AUTHORITY, mission, resources, &c, to inform me/allow me to have access a news item aurally, and/or visually(print and otherwise), that integrates differing economic and historical interpretations and, importantly, examines the nature of those differences.

That still sounds like an online newspaper or news magazine to me. It would take writers, editors, etc - all the journalistic stuff of any other publication. Someone has to pay their salaries, etc, so hopefully you’re not looking for something for free. And who gets to decide what’s authoritative? Do you consider the New York Times auuthoritative, or the Wall Street Journal, or USA Today? They all have online presences.

But seriously - if you want one-stop-shopping for free, go down to your local public library for one hour a week and read The Economist. I guarantee you’ll be better informed than 95% of your fellow citizens.

Peter, you are so hard to please.

If such a thing as I described above existed, and had the authority of acceptance, would it improve public discourse? Or, at a minimum would it be a plus or a minus?

QUESTION, if a news outlet did exist that gave unimpeachably truthful and non-partisan news, information and analysis, would it be a “fourth estate,” so to speak?
. . .
Sorry, I meant to say, FIFTH ESTATE!! That’s FIFTH ESTATE!!

I’m confused. The Fourth Estate is the press (attributed to Edmund Burke). I have no idea what the “Fifth Estate” is. I know what a “Fifth Columnist” is. Sometimes I think George Bush is one.

Are you asking whether it’s journalism? Emphatically yes, because there’s more to having an editorial POV than just having all the facts. There is a virtually infinite number of facts, and the decision about which are the IMPORTANT ones, is an editorial decision.

Michael, I’m glad you want to elect a zealot to be VP and a man who has anger management issues to be president.
How can anyone after watching the Palin interview last night think she is fit to be the VP, let alone President?
I am not a Democrat, I’m and independent who used to like McCain about a year ago. He’s lost all my confidence however and every day it gets worse with the negative ads that are lower and more base than Bush! To paraphrase McCain, shame on him!

Palin not only does not know the issues, she seems to me to evoke a lot of the ideas of Bush’s government through the lens of her handlers. How is that change?

Is it change because she is a hockey mom governor from one of the most corrupt states in this country. Is it change because she advocates women should pay for their own rape kits? Is it change that she says she is fighting the ol’ boy network and then charges the citizens of Alaska for staying in her house? Is it change because she does not believe that the bulk of global warming is not caused by us? Is it change when she still holds onto the false notion that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Is it change that Palin used no thought whatsoever when asked if she wanted join the McCain ticket for VP — as if she was accepting the job as manger at her local Walmart?

This is normal to you?

This is the change that you want?

I meant “fifth estate,” because the “fourth estate,” is commercial.

If there were, however unrealistic, a truly impartial, constitutionally defended, non-commercial, news/info &c. source, wouldn’t it alter the relationship between the separated powers?

Peter, you are so hard to please.

If such a thing as I described above existed, and had the authority of acceptance, would it improve public discourse? Or, at a minimum would it be a plus or a minus?

I don’t think I’m hard to please - I’m just unclear what you’re asking for. I’m not sure what the “authority of acceptance” is. Among journalists the publications I mentioned - the NY Times, The Economist, and the Wall Street Journal (their news dept, not their op-ed) are all very highly regarded.

It would immensely improve public discourse if the average American read ANY of those regularly. And they all have an online presence. So I don’t think the problem is the availability of good news sources - it’s that most people don’t care.

I meant “fifth estate,” because the “fourth estate,” is commercial.

How is NPR commercial? Or the BBC? Can you point to examples of either of them altering their stories or coverage based on commercial considerations?

Actually, I’d challenge tou to even find an example of where commercial considerations altered a story in The Economist. I’ve seen them run ads for BP and then publish articles taking BP to the cleaners, for instance.

Frederic C,
NPR is advertising procon.org

Nate, thanks! I just went to the website. I always tune it out when I am listening, and I listen all the time.

Peter, that’s not a winning proposition, thanks. I agree, The Economist is great.

Over the long-long term should a utopian take heart with the direction civilisations are heading or does change for the better come from radical new ideas?

Or, in other words, can we sit back in comfort knowing that despite our problems, the world is getting better, or is something more radical required?

Dennis Fischman,

Hilarious, very clever! Thank you for making my day.

Over the long-long term should a utopian take heart with the direction civilisations are heading or does change for the better come from radical new ideas?

I think it requires new ideas - sometimes radical, sometimes incremental.

Of course the world has lots of new ideas every day - that’s why 2008 is different from 2007, which was different from 1997, etc. Social networking websites and Youtube and iPhones and sheep that make human blood, and machines by Codon that make custom DNA are all recent new ideas that have the potential to change things, possibly for the better.

Journalism is in a lot of trouble these days because the best, most in-depth journalism for a century has been newspaper journalism, but newspapers are in fast decline. Electronic media like TV and the internet is better suited for quickie, shallow news and appeals to people who are in a hurry and just want headlines and a few paragraphs. Our whole society seems afflicted with ADD.

So if you have a new idea for news and information you could be a hero.

How is NPR commercial? Or the BBC? Can you point to examples of either of them altering their stories or coverage based on commercial considerations?(Peter Nelson)

I don’t take notes when I listen to NPR or the BBC, but I am certain that I have heard editorial omissions on stories that were revisited ten or fifteen years later. Granted most of the omissions are for time but they are made nonetheless.

This morning, Morning Edition had a story on Judge Isaac Borenstein, who stood up to “mob mentality” by ordering a new trial in the Fells Acre abuse case. Maybe I was distracted by the traffic, but I think one of the defendants was not mentioned.

The BBC may not be commercial but they have and interest in the commercial success of Great Britain. And the BBC frequently makes editorial decisions to be in line with Whitehall.

How do we get more people to care?

Republicans have a fetus fetish but as soon as the baby is born—buh bye.
Killing humans in Iraq, or anywhere else- suits them real well.

Poor mothers should get a job at McDonald’s and leave the kids alone at home. No wellfare unless you are a big brokerage firm or an airline!!!!

Young poor teens should not have birth control but practice abstinence like Bristol Palin–not!

Oh but Bristol Palin has a Republican mothers so this teen is now the Republican Virgin Mary and gets to stand proudly in front of all Americans, unmarried, with teh supposed father.

Sorry, I can’t stand Palin. When she spoke in the GOP convention, it was just alright, she didn’t do too bad on a speech written by others. But if she speaks from her own head, oh, that’s real bad, it’s like a talking head has no content. The more I watched her, the more scary it gets to think she can wind up in the white house.

Either John McCain’s campaign underestimates women or most of the women in this country buy this crappy package? I hope it’s the first.

1. John McCain did run a mostly true ad this week stating the problems with the country are due to the Republican Party.
2. The Senator also admits to making snap decisions which tend to miss their mark but he is willing to live with the consequences. As a voter, I am not willing to do so.
3. The only reason we have a two party system is we are taught this even before beginning school. The preferred way to change this is vote your conscience with a third party candidate.

This was not a serious program. I understand that when I listen to right-wing talk radio on a commercial program that I am going to get bias aimed at entertainment more than civil discourse. This was the left wing version of the same thing. This program is why conservatives complain about NPR as being part of the liberal media. Tom Ashbrook has a better record than this. He is capable of producing a forum for serious discourse. This fell far short of that. I want to live in a country where people can engage in civil discourse; that involves having the patience to allow intelligent people with conservative views to articulate the reasons for their views. Could you please aim a little higher in the future?

Regarding the financial meltdown:

Something like a new Truman Commission should be formed. Legislation should be passed exposing every asset owned by present and former executives, board managers, and major participatory note and equity holders (all the actual managers of the enterprises), to confiscation to repay the minor financial players, misled consumers (small profiteers should be prosecuted as much as the large ones)and taxpayers.

This mess and the savings and load debacle demonstrate that there are plenty of financial experts ready to scalp the markets and taxpayers.

The Bush administration has been all about transferring wealth from the current middle and lower upper class and future taxpayers of those classes to the mega-investor class. See the use of contractors in Iraq, the nonsensical Missile Defense “system,” enormous defense expenditures, the financial crises,support for HMOs, foot dragging on energy reinvention, and suppression of unions for some of the ways the team at the top gilds the most gilded.

Michael,

You write that you find Palin “refreshing” because she is “soo normal.”

I’ve had it with this sort of thinking. It sounds like an affable, salt-of-the-earth pragmatism. It is, however, incredibly arrogant and silly.

We’re not electing the head of the PTA. We’re talking about a person who may make decisions about war and peace for this country.

The fact that Palin was not humiliated during her interview with Gibson is being touted as a kind of triumpth.

But there was no evidence that she is a flexible thinker, no suggestion that she is intellectually curious or likely to seek opinions from people with different world views than her own.

She sounds to me a great deal “like” the last person we sent to high office because he reminded us of people we drink beer with: George W. Bush.

This time, I say we go with the guy that sounds (and dresses) like your sociology teacher who gave you a B- no matter how hard you worked.

Maybe we can try the “With whom would you rather go bowling?” test next time.

That would be a change.

Sarah Palin is just like George W. Bush.
She hires people who are her friends and uses the power of her office to try and silence foes. She fires people who disagree with her.

The Democrats should forget about her and focus on McCain. It’s about him, not her and the Palin bubble is going to burst in the next few weeks.

I said this before, she’s a modern day Huey Long.

From today’s NY Times:

‘Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes’

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/us/politics/14palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

I love On Point, but during this program it was disappointing to hear Tom Ashbrook repeatedly say that people are flocking to hear Sarah Palin speak, as though that means the Republicans have a good chance of winning now. The Republican base cares mostly about one or two social issues and less about the big picture, including their own economic self-interest. I can’t imagine that most Independents are going to vote for this ticket with Palin being so conservative.

Also, Tom was very tough on the caller who mentioned “the ignorant masses”. When so many people in this country believed that Iraq was involved with 911 and now mistakenly believe that Barak Obama is a muslim, what is wrong with a little honesty? The fact is that most people I know don’t pay enough attention to politics to really know what is going on, and could well be described as ignorant. I happen to believe this is the major reason we keep electing so many mediocre people into office.

The bottom line is despite the buzz about Governor Palin, she does not change the issues. So she’s anti-abortion, the platform already had an anti-abortion plank. She does not add anything new to the race. If anything, she serves to distract voters from the issues and the Republicans are using that to advantage. In the end, distraction is all they have since they seem unable to talk about issues. Even the convention did nothing in the way of discussing issues or difference with Democrats. This race is still one for the Democrats to lose.

Jack,

I wanted a repeat of the James Joyce quote on life, politics and low comedy…

I will throw in a couple of interesting Joyce’s relevant quotes including:

“The poor man starves while they are grassing their royal mountain stags or shooting peasants and partridges in their purblind pomp of pelf and power

“A man’s errors are his portals of discovery.”

“Men are governed by lines of intellect - women: by curves of emotion”

Working on a new book entitled, “Lipstick, PinkSlips and long legs!”

Maureen,

I think that Tom was being sure the caller wasn’t simply characterizing vast numbers of voters as “ignorant” on his show. I think that’s appropriate.

I appreciate the civil tone that gets maintained on this show, and the people who call in with more conservative or pro-war points of view make an important contribution to the program. I agree that it can be very frustrating when people seem under-informed, particularly on issues like Obama’s Christian religion.

I am a liberal. Actually, I’m a tax and spend liberal. And a defeatist.

But I appreciate the mediation of this show and the way Tom welcomes people.

Also, Tom was very tough on the caller who mentioned “the ignorant masses”. When so many people in this country believed that Iraq was involved with 911 and now mistakenly believe that Barak Obama is a muslim, what is wrong with a little honesty? The fact is that most people I know don’t pay enough attention to politics to really know what is going on, and could well be described as ignorant. I happen to believe this is the major reason we keep electing so many mediocre people into office.

I want to second this. I think we need to come to grips with this basic problem and stop being in denial about it. Ignorance, and willful ignorance at that, by ordinary citizens is the central problem of our democracy.

And both the left and the right keep making excuses for it. “It’s the corporate media” “It’s the leftist media”, etc. ANYTHING, as long as people don’t have to take responsibility for their own decisions about how and where they gather news and information.

The apologists on the left and the right both think that the masses are duped by propaganda from the other side but they never explain why they have somehow avoided this fate. Metal plates in their heads? Who knows?

We’re all capable of making decisions about how much effort to invest in being well-informed. The choice to rely on Fox or CNN is just that: a CHOICE. I don’t watch TV. This is a deliberate decision because I think it dumbs-down everything. But the average American spends in excess of 4 hours a day watching TV. If he just spent an hour reading a newspaper or a magazine or a book, he’d be better-informed than 90% of his compatriots. Again, we need to recognize that people are responsible for their choices, and many Americans choose to be ignorant.

When you have 40 to 50 million people who do not believe in evolution (or science for that matter) and then build a museum that tries to prove their point with dioramas depicting Adam and Eve with Velociraptors all living in peaceful harmony no amount of reading is going to help.

People who take the bible as a literal document when it clearly is full of metaphors and meanings that reflect the superstitions of the time period they were written you can’t expect them to think for themselves.

After all it’s all in God’s plan, (I have heard Palin say this) whatever that is.

I don’t know about the rest of you but I didn’t get that memo.

George Carlin has an excellent routine on this.

“Religion has a convinced people that there is an invisible man living in the sky who needs money.”

Classic…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Dear On Point Listeners,

As the anonymous spokesman appointed to represent the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, I just wanted to thank you all for your input in the above posts. Fortunately, the slection of Sarah Palin as the GOP VP nominee is so devious that even you pointy-headed NPR listeners will not be able to alert enough of your stupid fellow citizens to sway the election. McCain/Palin are rolling Obama/Biden and there’s no end in sight!

Don’t let this news discourage you, though. Fight the good fight and keep posting your comments after each show! It’s so much more effective than actually taking some action to change the outcome of the campaign.

Take Care. Oh, and I’ll see you guys and whatever loser you nominate in 2012! (We’ll crush him/her, too.)

It’s so much more effective than actually taking some action to change the outcome of the campaign.

They’re not mutually exclusive.

Anyway, The Iowa Electronic Markets, which is far and away the more consistently reliable “poll” on the planet because it’s the only one where people have to put their money where their mouth is, still shows Obama leading as he has all year.

And today’s economic news and the meltdown on Wall Street will only help the Dem’s.

Anonymous is right. You people should stop listening to the news, reading the newspaper, calling in to Tom’s show, and doing anything whatsoever to inform yourself about the issues. The elite media organizations, like NPR, are defeatists, anyway. If you want to know something about a candidate, you should just watch there advertisements on TV, or just listen to Rush Limbaugh. What else do you need to know?

Or look at it this way, appeasers. Palin is going to give an interview on Sean Hannity’s radio program. Why don’t you bring your Jack Beatty-listening liberal behinds over to A.M. and find out what a real interview sounds like.

Furthermore, I recommend you just relax and stop being such doom and gloomers. See, God has a plan. And it doesn’t include talking to terrorists, which what you’d do if you could. Sorry, librals. There just is no getting around it. God, guns, and lipstick. Wham, bam, thank you Ma’am!

Spokesman for VRWC how wrong you are.

I guess the fact that more Democrats have been registered than Republicans does not count. This was all done by people hitting the streets in registration drives.

Right now it’s 2 to 1, Democrats to Republicans registered to vote. So unless the Republicans figure out a way to steal the election, or all the independents vote for them, it does not seem like McCain will win.
Even if he does, he will have to make some huge compromises as the Dems will have both houses.
Forget about a right to life Judges in the supreme court. So all you zealots out there will have pray harder for the second coming or some other fantasy.

Of course they all have to vote.

However I realize that your trying to be funny. Which is interesting since the Republicans have been in power for the last 8 years and we have the biggest financial mess since the Great Depression. I do agree that it is amazing how the Republicans have been able to run against themselves and somehow people believe them that ‘change’ is going to come to Washington.

One more interesting note, Greenspan the darling of the right is on record saying that Obama’s plan for the economy is the only one that will work, as McCain’s is a joke.