Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

[BigBagel]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

We will end up with two candidates who share the accepted common narrative. This election has the potential to rival Soviet elections. Social issues play an important role because they're used to contrast the two clones running with the elites having no skin in the game.

Gay rights: Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. What does he and his kind care if the yahoos disown their gay children.

Abortion: If one of George W. Bush's daughter's wants an abortion she'll have a safe clean abortion no matter what the laws says. If abortion is made illegal the back alleys are for your daughter not his.

War: Not a social issue but the days of Kennedy and Bush Family members going off to fight with your kids are over. Romney has five nice strong looking sons. They will never be cannon fodder. That's what your son's for.

The problem: As Taibbi points out there are elements on the right and the left that hate the elites and those elements are growing in numbers by the day. It's very dangerous for an elite class to be thought of as parasites or a a joke. That's when the chess board gets flipped.

[BigBagel]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

"Bolton, an aggressive nationalist par excellence"

Bolton is an internationalist par excellence. To call him a nationalist is laughable.

[don]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

We will end up with two candidates who share the accepted common narrative. This election has the potential to rival Soviet elections. Social issues play an important role because they're used to contrast the two clones running with the elites having no skin in the game.

Gay rights: Dick Cheney accepts his gay daughter. What does he and his kind care if the yahoos disown their gay children.

Abortion: If one of George W. Bush's daughter's wants an abortion she'll have a safe clean abortion no matter what the laws says. If abortion is made illegal the back alleys are for your daughter not his.

War: Not a social issue but the days of Kennedy and Bush Family members going off to fight with your kids are over. Romney has five nice strong looking sons. They will never be cannon fodder. That's what your son's for.

The problem: As Taibbi points out there are elements on the right and the left that hate the elites and those elements are growing in numbers by the day. It's very dangerous for an elite class to be thought of as parasites or a a joke. That's when the chess board gets flipped.

+1

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

If you think that other people's views substitute for my own thoughts than you are more lost pertaining to what I have been saying and commenting here than I thought.

[c1ue]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Or it could be that he needed to spend more to get his message out (to the traditional media demographic) given how he was being treated by the media. I think that your conjecture would be more valid following NH and SC, given how much coverage he is getting as of late.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.

Ron Paul actually has a very high profile - can you really say his profile is lower nationally than Santorum? Huntsman? even Perry prior to his Presidential run? Romney of course has a very high profile from his past runs.

Admittedly RP's national profile is that of a nut, but as they say in show business: there is no such thing as bad publicity.

Also, the amounts that each of the following demographic classifications contribute (vs to other candidates) does point to unique appeals imo (albeit military and young voters overlap quite a bit): (a) the military, (b) independents, and (c) young voters. Can he capitalize on these? Well, that's the billion dollar question.

Another good point. However, you're saying that money is an effect of profile, while I'm saying that money itself buys profile.

Certainly there is some feedback factor, but the sheer volumes of money contributed in 2008 at all levels would indicate that it is money for profile which affects the ultimate results. Or at least, I personally do not think the gigantic FIRE, pharma/big Health/defense/(insert industry here) contributions were any result of profile effecting donations except in the pay for play sense.

[Verrocchio]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

If you think that other people's views substitute for my own thoughts than you are more lost pertaining to what I have been saying and commenting here than I thought.

PofZ, please do not allow your frustration with C1ue cause you anger or to attack him. I certainly do not agree with everything he has written, and I also have found him a bit smug at times. However, if you will review his postings, you will see that they follow a certain pattern. He identifies weak or unsupported assertions and offers a reasonable alternative. He is invariably well-informed on the issues upon which he comments. He provides a rationale and support for his comments. This may be unpleasant to some posters, but C1ue's postings go a long way toward improving the quality of discussion across the forum and benefits both the poster and the other members who read. C1ue is one of the most valuable members of the iTulip community.

[WildspitzE]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree.

Ron Paul actually has a very high profile - can you really say his profile is lower nationally than Santorum? Huntsman? even Perry prior to his Presidential run? Romney of course has a very high profile from his past runs.

Admittedly RP's national profile is that of a nut, but as they say in show business: there is no such thing as bad publicity.

One of your last points makes all the difference IMO.

I think that the quality or the character of such profile does make a difference, and that his previously cast mainstream profile of being a nut hurts him and was used against him. While the more "electable" or "moderate" persona previously cast for Romney was used in his favor (all in combination with the media coverage of course). I also think that it generally takes more effort (however affected) to change somebody's mind about something than when they're forming such initial position.

So, I agree with you that Paul had a higher profile than the new candidates before the race started, particularly due to his last run in which his mainstream profile was cast. However, once the race started I think that the others were put in the limelight - way ahead of him - and the nut profile was used to dismiss him. He had an incentive and need to spend more to try to change a profile that was created in the past coupled to an uncooperative media busy touting the new contenders.

IMO, the same tactic was used by the media on Romney but to his advantage, which was made possible because his mainstream profile was the opposite of Paul's. Romney would have probably burned or flunked out by now if he would've been given the same coverage as the new candidates did in the beginning (it's the same talking points really). Remember, the media was parading all of the new candidates up (and then down) in line: Bachman is the one to beat, Perry Rises, then Cain is King and Newt makes a comeback (seriously, Newt?). And now Santorum. It's almost as if it was a scripted narrative, one which incorrectly dismissed Paul's appeal with certain demographics.

I guess this means that I don't agree completely regarding the old show business adage in relation to a presidential election because it glazes over things, things like timing. Also, there are things that are hard, and sometimes impossible, to recover from in this country, like being characterized as a racist. Mel Gibson is lucky that he has enough money to float him till his next popularity contest (being hired for a film) or to elect himself by casting himself in movies that his company produces (which in turn affect such persona).

Another good point. However, you're saying that money is an effect of profile, while I'm saying that money itself buys profile.

Certainly there is some feedback factor, but the sheer volumes of money contributed in 2008 at all levels would indicate that it is money for profile which affects the ultimate results. Or at least, I personally do not think the gigantic FIRE, pharma/big Health/defense/(insert industry here) contributions were any result of profile effecting donations except in the pay for play sense.

Of course.

But what I was trying to say was that the message also counts in terms of unique appeal (which may allow him to raise more money, which in turn can be used to reach more people) per the examples provided. Money is a huge huge factor, no doubt about it. I was just saying that just because he spent 2nd or 3rd most and he got 2nd most votes doesn't mean that he doesn't have unique appeal. For example: His foreign policy is clearly unique, and his support from the military and veterans, who are the tools (and I don't mean it as a pejorative) used to enforce such policy, clearly support his message. This points to a unique appeal even if he fails to convert other demographics by throwing his wallet at them -- for any reason, including foreign policy (maybe he can't convert all of the "chickenhawks" hehe).

In any case, it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

C1ue, sure I can see that Verrochio. Actually it was c1ue who attacked me in another thread calling me a fool. But either way, I see that his points follow a certain pattern the pattern of leaving the most important parts of others posts out and conveniently trying to frame the debate.

The one who frames the debate usually wins. He neglects everything that Paul says and makes strawman arguments agaisnt him. I can tell he doesnt really listen to what he believes or that he just dismisses it. Perhaps C1ue should take a page out of Paul's book and view the argument or situation from the opponents eyes as Paul does pertaining to Iran or the Middle East/Our Foreign Policy.

I think the ultimate problem is C1ue is so pragmatic that he can't or won't see past his own view of the world. Plus he refuses to tell me what his political leanings are and what his sympathies are toward marxism, communism, libertarianism etc. Everyone has to have a framework from which they work.

"The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists." Hemingway.

Paul represents the one person who is not a political or economic opportunist in my mind.

[don]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

I have no idea who this guy is. an interesting rant, for FOX, nevertheless . . .

[davidstvz]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Fantastic... I guess they are just responding to their viewers demands. Note that this is Fox News Business a channel which probably isn't part of basic cable in many areas (it's in the digital variety tier... an extra 4 bucks a month beyond basic digital in my area).

[davidstvz]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Oh that is Judge Napolitano. I thought it looked like him in the still, but when it went in motion he didn't look the way I remembered. Sometimes you can catch him as a guest commentator on mainstream Fox shows. I guess this is a segment from his show called Freedom Watch... I just looked that up and it airs on Fox Business at the same time as O'Reilly. That makes sense. If you thoroughly reject the accepted right-wing propaganda but aren't a liberal, they might as well make some money off you on their secondary channel! Taking a quick look at his wikipedia page, Napalitano looks legit. Kind of like Dylan Ratigan whose show airs on MSNBC from 3 to 4 central when nobody is watching.

[DSpencer]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

I have no idea who this guy is. an interesting rant, for FOX, nevertheless . . .

Judge Napolitano is great. He hits the nail on the head in that speech as usual. If I could just appoint a POTUS he would probably be the first I'd consider. I've wondered why he doesn't run, but I assume it's because he's in his 60's and not married...

[LazyBoy]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Napolitano is on The Daily Show tonight.

[davidstvz]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Can we compile a list of TV pundits that don't spew malinformation? I'd like to post such a list on Facebook now and then to encourage my friends and family to stop watching propaganda.

[lektrode]

Re: Taibbi: and so the show begins . . .

Napolitano is on The Daily Show tonight.

any chance this will magically appear on youtube ?
those of us in the later timezones would appreciate it....

adding: RP was 'in the money' in NH (1st-3rd=payout position at the track and well...hey, 22% = 22% = better n last time? ;)

With 85% of the precincts reporting, the former governor of neighboring Massachusetts had 39.2% of the vote, ahead of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who had 22.9%, and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., with 16.8%.