Thursday, January 17, 2008

Speaking of Name Calling...

There were some comments here about the Ayatollah Huckabee reference (that name is courtesy of Juan Cole over at Informed Comment), but what about that whiney, no-talent Chris Matthews calling Hillary Clinton a "witchy" "strip-teaser" "she-devil" with a voice like "fingernails on a chalkboard"?

11 comments:

Al said...

Wouldn't no talent and whiney qualify as well csm?

Its MSNBC, nobody heard it! A more constructive approach would be this. She is imo the weakest of all the potential candidates. She relies too much on her husband to project the aura of a leader. She attempts to project experience she has never had by the use of her husband. Obama is the much more suitable candidate. Chris obviously thinks so.

Al said...

Speaking of Hillary, I saw a great bumper sticker

"I support Monica Lewinsky's former boyfriend's wife"

She is also a Christian which makes her delusional I'm told.

csm said...

No talent is an opinion about the man's talent, not name-calling. On the other hand, "whiney" is name calling... so what? I never pledged not to do it.

And yes, all theists are delusional. No atheists are running for president, so the delusional tags applies to all of them.

BAWDYSCOT said...

I realize this changes the subject some, but if you don't see my postings(kinda sounds like solid waste, eh? I am sure some think that is an apt description)for some time, don't worry. I am scheduled to be vacationing in sunny Costa Rica for two weeks, due back the 3rd of February, it isn't because I don't like you guys anymore. I'll return with that fire in my belly and will argue with renewed vigor, unless of course you all solve all of the world's problems during my absence. And don't think I wouldn't like to have that happen. Till then, adios amigos.

csm said...

Enjoy your time in Costa Rica, Bawdy. As I sit here in the cold, rain I am quite envious...

Ceroill said...

But isn't name calling part of the age old traditions of political campaigning?

coreydbarbarian said...

howdy, y'all!

i hope everyone has been well. i see g has re-joined us. welcome back, friend!

re: name calling

slinging mud is definitely part of the process, as bob has noted. the issue here, in my eyes, is exactly who is slinging mud.

does name calling qualify as yellow journalism? where is the line between legitimate op-ed pieces and character assassination?
tricky stuff.

after looking at juan cole's original comments referencing ayatollah huck, i do not believe he was attacking the man at all.
juan clearly was drawing parallels between mr huckabee's stance and ayatollah khomeini's.

now, on 2 chris matthews:
i personally don't find any value in this man's "reporting". way 2 much personality and opinion, very little journalistic integrity. imo, of course.

was he wrong in name calling? i think he's safe, because of the context of the comments. however, i also believe matthews does have a problem with women, especially hilary clinton.

on science and presidential candidates:

a candidate's opinion of evolution matters. a candidate's opinion of the big bang matters.

religious-minded voters insist on a like-minded candidate. why should it be different 4 a voter whose priority is electing a president guided by reason instead of their concept of divinity?

also, a science-friendly president matters a lot 2 people right now, in the wake of dubya's scorn.
reason-able folks seem inclined 2 support scientific endeavors, and perhaps inclined 2 support a president who is like-minded.

Ceroill said...

Hiya, Corey, welcome back. Good points, I think. Sometimes, at times like this, I begin to wonder about how fractionable our society is, and whether we might wind up with several smaller batches of states, each with their own highly principled point of view. But then I think back to what I'd read/heard about congresses of times past when actual melees and even drawn firearms came into use on occasion, and I realize that we actually have progressed a bit over time.

G said...

coreyd,

Thanks for the welcome. It's good to "see" all of you again. I can't be here as consistently as before. Internet access is an issue, but I'll try to check in when I can.

I agree with most of what you said. I don't think we can legitimately call it "yellow journalism." But at the same time, it bothers me when people who claim to be reporters of the news get involved in things like name calling. It might not be full-on personal attacks, but using hot-button words is a less than subtle way to try to manipulate public opinion.

Unfortunately, we live in an age where civil debate and criticism has been replaced with emotionalism, hyperbole, and humiliation. Substantive comment has been rejected in favor of high-volume, high-speed shout-downs.

And while I understand what you're saying about wanting a like-minded candidate, for the most part I really think that voters look at it with more of an issue-based mentality. I know that a certain percentage of the population is just lemmings. But the perception that Christians will vote for Huckabee because he is a Christian seems like an oversimplification.

The like-minded attitude for the Christian would be more along the lines of finding a candidate that matches the issues that are of greatest concern to them (abortion as an example). If you end up with a conservative, pro-life agnostic vs. a pro-choice, liberal Christian, you would probably find most evangelicals voting for the agnostic.

I honestly think a person's view on evolution as an issue in the political realm is a bit of a reach. Does anyone actually know the views of any candidates other than Huckabee?

csm said...

Well, we know the high-level view of the remaining Republicans except for Huckabee, because they did not raise their hands when asked if they did not "believe" in evolution... for whatever that is worth. It might be interesting to see what the Democratic candidates would answer, but it seems to be less of an issue because even though the Dems are talking about "faith" this and "Jesus" that, none are vocally advocating for mixing their religion into government the way some of the Reps have.

coreydbarbarian said...

g said: "And while I understand what you're saying about wanting a like-minded candidate, for the most part I really think that voters look at it with more of an issue-based mentality. I know that a certain percentage of the population is just lemmings. But the perception that Christians will vote for Huckabee because he is a Christian seems like an oversimplification."

-- a radical oversimplification. i agree. just as calling all christians evangelical would be incorrect, so it would be assuming all christians are huck supporters.

from what i can tell, evangelical christians make up roughly 1/3rd of all christians in america (global figures seem out of place). furthermore, the evangelical vote made up roughly 40% of all republican votes in 2006.

this election cycle, the evangelical crowd has a "champion", someone who is fighting 4 their issues. yet huck gets what, 20% of republican votes, give-or-take? so even if all evangelical republicans are voting, huck is only garnering half their support, at best.

but i digress.

re: issue based voting vs. likemindedness

g, we have so much common ground 2 work from. it's great!

i would argue that a candidates positions on minor issues, such as evolution, the big bang, stem cell research, etc., is indicative of their basic grasp of science, and more importantly, their personal hierarchy of thought (does logic dictate action, or is theology the basis of their decisions?).

incidentally, my entire family is republican AND some form of christian (both sides, all of 'em). the only 2 that support huckabee are young newlyweds, 20 or 21 yrs old.

the rest of 'em don't like their choices at all, and will vote "anybody but hilary" in the end. about 1/2 of them will always vote republican simply because of the abortion issue. the other 1/2 (my mother's side, admittedly) will only vote republican because of fiscal conservatism and the occasional flirtation with libertarianism.