[conservatism_IS_compassion]

NEW YORK -- The four Democrats competing in next week's mayoral primary found themselves trying to explain in a debate seen live on NBC4 and WNBC.com . . .

. . . The hour-long debate did not allow for lengthy answers. The candidates were asked about education, affordable housing, terrorism, crime, race relations, gay marriage, unemployment and disaster preparedness and in most cases had just 30 seconds to respond . . .

You see, that is just the trouble. They have, understandably enough, four candidates to winnow down to one nominee - and they have no principled way to choose among them, since the one who polls the worst could in principle be the one who is the second choice of the all the voters in the primary. So what do they do? They run a "first past the pole" race with a runoff against "second past the pole" if the winner doesn't get 40% of the vote.

And how do they inform the public on the candidates and the issues? They broadcast a brief live, competitive joint TV debate press conference among the whole lot of them.

Let's just suppose that what they actually wanted to do was inform the public enough to get a good candidate for mayor. What would they do? IMHO they should:

• conduct actual debates, without the presence of any "moderator" other than a chess timer to allocate equal time to the microphone of each participant in each debate.

• Conduct the debates on radio, so that
  • the facts and logic of the debaters are more important than their hairline or waistline, and
  • cost considerations do not limit the number and duration of the debates unduly

• allow candidates to use notes and/or laptop computers in the debates.

• strictly limit the number of participants in each debate - preferably to two.

• conduct enough debates to vet each candidate against each other candidate

• make each debate long enough that the no candidate can hide their actual agenda

IMHO that process would seperate the wheat from the chaff - candidates who aren't ready for prime time would probably realize it by the time they got their clock cleaned by three different people in three seperate three-hour radio debates.

I thintk that method of debating in the general election would enable Republicans to blow Democrats away - Democrats depend so heavily on being protected by journalists (see Hillary Clinton, poster child).

Democrats Debate, Asked 'Why Is Bloomberg Popular?' (NY) WNBC Television ^ | 9/8/2005 | Puppage

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There's nothing wrong with the strong connection between the DNC and media people who support them (Both parties use the media to their advantage when they can. They'd be unprofessional if they didn't).

I have no problem believing the documents were forgeries. I just can't say I've come to that conclusion on my own. - liberallarry

As a teenager I had the experience of having demostrated something to Dad and having him criticze me for taking the chance. I replied, "It worked, didn't it?" Dad rejoined, "Once in a million!" My reaction was to repeat the (actually low stakes) stunt, which predictably (in my own recondite experience) worked again. Dad replied, "Twice in two million!"

The moral of the story is that:

• You can always avoid a contrary conclusion if you can set the standard of proof arbitrarily high. And,
• It is easy to set the standard of proof arbitrarily high - if you are Dad talking to a young son. You need power to control the standard of proof.

You claim that you "have no problem believing the documents were forgeries" and yet you set the standard of proof to infinity with your rope-a-dope "I haven't looked at it" evasion. You have not looked at it, and you will not - because it's too clear that you could not sustatin your worldview if you did look at it.

From the fact that the "memos" are patent forgeries it follows not only that Mary Mapes was tendentious but that CBS as an organization was and is tendentious with its "independent commission" which was about as independent of CBS as your left eye is from your right.

As an impartial arbiter of truth, therefore, CBS News is rotten to the core. And what follows from that? All other news organizations know it - and do not say so. They do not say so, because Big Journalism is permanently in full go-along-and-get-along mode. Competition exists among the various organs of Big Journalism - but not ideological diversity. Big Journalism defines itself as "objective" journalism. But it is not objective; no human institution is. Big Journalism defines "objectivity" as not breaking the mutual admiration society pact.

I assert that there is no ideological competion among Big Media organs, even though I do not claim that they are all controlled by the Democratic Party nor even, as some would have it, Hillary Clinton. Big Journalism is a voluntary, ad hoc "organization." Big Journalism self organizes on the principle that "you never pick an argument with someone who buys ink by the carload." That is a principle which is at once arrogant and cowardly. Externally arrogant toward the general public, and internally cowardly among each other.

Each individual journalist is not able to control the course of journalism, any more than George Bush could with a breath have controled the course of Katrina. The individual journalist is not Big Journalism; the individual journalist is a mere celebrity among many celebrities. Movie stars are celebrities, not inherently qualified to speak authoritatively on farm policy for having portrayed farmers on TV or on law enforcement for having portrayed cops in the movies. And yet the Democratic politician - whether Hillary Clinton or any other - does not control Big Journalism either. All are entrained in the dervish of whirling motion, unorganized and yet systematic. All liberal celebrities, bound up in the one idea - that nothing really matters except PR.

Those who insist on any other principle, the PR Borg vociferously punishes with negative PR. They are "extreme right wing." Most of all they are "not a journalist, not objective." Thus a Bernard Goldberg can be a journalist - until he insists on a principle which is independent of, and therefore contradictiory to, the PR principle. Bernard Goldberg writes Bias, and he is an unmade man - "not a journalist, not objective."

What is the issue between those who call themselves liberals (or who, having run that word into the ground, insist on being called "progressive," or some other virtue) and those whom those "liberals" call conservatives? Conservatives, idealists that they are, have taken for granted that the issue was truth. But reality is different. The issue is not truth; the issue is whether the issue is truth. Whether, that is, the issue is truth or power.