User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
Ticket Nest sells |
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Ewing didn't have much of a supporting cast either. The best player, other than him, on the 94 team was either Derek Harper or John Starks.
Now, those Knicks were an unbelievable defensive team (3 points per 100 possessions better than the next best team), but Ewing was the key factor in that great defense. It is funny, the Knicks and Rockets were very comparable that year. (Big shocker, they played a 7 game series in the finals). Houston won one more game, 58-57. The Knicks and Rockets were 1-2 in defense, and were 15-16 in the league in offense.
The second best Rocket was probably Otis Thorpe. I am not saying Houston had a batter supporting cast (I think they did, but marginally) but they were really pretty much the same. The teams were really almost mirror images of each other.
That's why the Finals were so boring that year.
Now you've made me go to basketballreference and my morning is totally shot.
And the answer is ....
50-10 after blowing away the Sixers on February 28.(**)
(**)The home loss to Denver on Sunday, Feb 12, was the first home loss of the year and the winning streak went back to the previous year. The game was on CBS and I'd pay anybody $50 in a heartbeat for a DVD of the broadcast.
Are you a Blazers fan?
Not necessarily. Look at the surrounding talent that Wilt had between the 1965-66 and 1968-69 seasons, compared to Russell. Especially on the Sixers. For the first three of those years Wilt's Sixers had the better regular season record and were peaking at the end of the year, yet the Celtics won two out of the three titles. In 1967-68 the Sixers finished eight games ahead of the Celtics, had them stuck 1-3 in the Eastern finals with the 5th and 7th games in Philadelphia, and still mangaged to lose. In 1969 Wilt's Lakers were seven games ahead of the Celtics, who finished fourth in the East and were considered by many NBA buffs to be glue factory material. But the Celtics won again, beating the Lakers in the final.
It wasn't just the Celtics' surrounding talent, which wasn't always superior to Wilt's. It was also that Russell brought it out in the way that Chamberlain never showed that he could.
That's why the Finals were so boring that year.
I dunno. They had some totally jammup car chases.
Don't even bother trying to tell me that Obama doesn't truly believe this bunk. He's even more out of touch with reality than I thought.
Are you a Blazers fan?
Not really, but as you can probably tell, I have an unhealthy love of 70s pro hoops and a healthy love of basketball played in the way it can be played. The Walton Blazers personify both.
I still root for them to do well, 99.9% because of memories of that era.
That is the strongest part of Russell's case. Like I said, I wasn't there. I would need to research it to argue. But I am skeptical that Russell was flat-out "better" than Chamberlain. I think "different" might be a better way to describe it.
The White Bronco on the small inset screen during the Finals remains one of the surreal moments of the digital age.
I think part of JC's problem is that he's a Knicks fan and it's been a rather disturbing and distorting experience to be a Knicks fan.
But here's something to cheer you up, JC:
Night at the Starbury
Don't worry; I won't. Are you going to respond to nycfan?
The '69 season was before my time, but I've seen Game 7 of the Finals a bunch of times. The Lakers losing that game at home was a choke job of the highest order. Sharman didn't even play Wilt down the stretch, which I'm sure Wilt would say wasn't his fault.
I personally think Wilt gets a tough rap, but it's not a stretch to extrapolate back from that game and easily see why people say Russell was better.
Hey, it may not have been the most exciting brand of basketball (an understatement) but at least the Finals went 7 games and was competitive. Every game was decided by less than 10 points. The Knicks had a chance to win the series on a last second 3 by Starks in Game 6. Over the course of the 7 games, the Knicks scored 608 points, the Rockets 603. Granted, no team went over 100 (I think it was the first finals ever where that was the case; in fact, 93 was the most points anyone scored) but it was one of the more competitive finals around, at least in that decade.
From 1989 to 2004 that was the only Finals that went 7 games.
Edit- I was 10 years old and a huge Knicks fan during that series (only one of those two statements is true now; I will leave it up to you to decide if it is more likely I still like the Knicks or was able to stop the effects of aging; they both seem equally likely) that is clouding my judgment, but I thought it was a decent finals.
Go to the year, then the team, then "Game Results." Has every game listed with record after.
The 50-10 was by memory, which I say not to brag but to note: If anyone could somehow reduce to pill form whatever it is that lets you be as locked-in as you can be as a 13-year-old sports fan and sell it to adults, they'd be a zillionaire.
I think you're a Knicks fan, right? EDIT: Yes, you are. I always liked Ewing. I was just messing with you, but the OJ Finals were not the most aesthetically pleasing, to say the least. Donnie Walsh will fix your team if Dolan lets him, but it will take awhile.
Ah, the sublime 1969 season. I started playing basketball that year and was a forward on the most dominant team I ever played on. We won every game by at least 20 points and often scored 3 times as many points as our opponents. One game, we won 51-14. Another 63-18.
I also saw my first pro game live that year, though I had seen the Celtics play on TV many times. One impression that will never leave my mind and that I am endlessly indebted to: Sam Jones. Sam Jones had the softest and most buttery jump shot you ever saw. It was so smooth and effortless, it astounded you that he ever missed. Having seen him shoot before I ever was taught how to do it by somebody else, I never had to unlearn how not to do it.
Sugar, Wilt asked to be taken out. And the person he asked was butch Van Breda Koff, the head coach of the Lakers.
Russell trashed him a little after the game, saying one of his guys would have to have a leg amputated before they would ask to be taken out. Russell was angry at Wilt from shrinking from a competition, that it denied him (russell) the opportunity to compete at the highest level.
Depends on what you want. If you want individual stats, go with Wilt. If you want to be better positioned to win a game or a title, go with Russell.
If Russell and Wilt had switched teams, how many titles do you think the Celtics (and 76ers and Lakers) would have won?
People said stuff like that about Jordan, too--until Pippen and Grant got good. Color me skeptical.
If the Celtics had Wilt and the Sixers Russell, the Sixers would have won in both 67 and 68. If Russell was on the Lakers and Wilt the Celtics in 1969, the Lakers win that one. If Russell stays on the Lakers in 1970, the Lakers win that one too.
Agreed. I liked your post ending the prior page. And I don't find Kevin's views on Wilt or Russell particularly compelling given his utterly unreflective bias.
About Dirk: Why do people think he's in the discussion as the best player in the NBA? Can't defend, doesn't pass much, not a special rebounder. Very good player for sure, but in the discussion for best player? Not to my eyes.
... whiffed horrifically in the first round in 2007 ...
He's a 7 footer who is an unreal shooter.
He was first in the NBA in PER 2 years in a row, which is a start. He has a career TSP of 58.3%. His best attribute is that he is a devastating offensive player, using a ton of possessions at a very efficient rate and he rarely, if ever, turns the ball over.
John Hollinger is a smarter man than me, I will let him do the talking...
"Let's not let a bad playoff series start any revisionist history about the other 82 games. Nowitzki's regular season was wonderful and he deserved the MVP, flat out. Not only did he rank second in the league in PER and lead the Mavs to a 67-win season -- thanks in part to several clutch buckets of his own making -- but Nowitzki's defense, long a sore point, improved to the point that he was actually pretty good.
Nonetheless, offense remains Nowitzki's calling card, and particularly shooting. Nowitzki is the best midrange shooter in basketball, hands down. Last year he was one of only seven players in the league to shoot over 50 percent on long 2-pointers. But it wasn't just quality, it was quantity -- Nowitzki had more than twice as many attempts from that distance as any of the other six on the list.
Nowitzki was above average for his position in every offensive element save one, and way above average in most. He created a ton of shots, ranking second at his position in usage rate, but the real secret to his success is that he creates those shots so efficiently. Despite being the Mavs' go-to guy, Dirk shot over 50 percent from the field. He had a high rate of free throws and shot a scorching 90.4 percent from the line, and while he doesn't take as many 3-pointers these days he knocked down a career-best 41.6 percent.
And he did it while taking care of the ball. Nowitzki had the fifth-best turnover ratio at his position, and still found teammates enough that he ranked 20th in assist ratio. The only offensive metric he wasn't above par in was offensive rebound rate, and that's because he was 17 feet from the hoop all the time.
Which brings us to why Nowitzki's greatness is so underappreciated. His greatest strength is not his sweet shot, it's the absence of negative plays. Nowitzki is able to generate his points while hardly ever turning the ball over and misfiring less often than his peers; in other words, he's able to do it with a cost of relatively few empty trips. While that isn't always flashy -- several players averaged more than his 24.6 points per game -- it's an incredibly effective way to win basketball games."
Edited- I don't think he has been a top 5 player this year. But the prior 2 years? Easily.
I like Nowitzki, but I have always thought he is a little bit overrated. Watching Gasol all the time now, that impression has been reinforced. Nowitzki has a very crucial element to his game--shooting range--that Gasol does not, and is somewhat better on the boards. But Gasol IMO passes better than Nowitzki and while he is not good defensively, is better in the paint area than Dirk. Don't get me wrong--Nowitzki is better than Gasol, but I don't think they are all that far apart and no one sees Gasol as MVP material.
If Russell and Wilt had switched teams, how many titles do you think the Celtics (and 76ers and Lakers) would have won?
No way of knowing that for sure, of course, but I certainly think that the three teams I mentioned in #1005 (the 66 and 68 Sixers and the 69 Lakers) would have won the playoffs if Russell had taken Wilt's place. Of course that presupposes that he would have had time to have those teams re-orient their games around a center with a much more team-oriented approach than Wilt's. But the talent level on those Sixers' teams (beyond Wilt) was frightenly good: Luke Jackson, Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Wali Jones and sixth man Billy Cunningham. That more than matched anything the Celtics had in the way of individual talent.
Before 1966, though, there's no question that although Wilt's surrounding talent in Philly and San Francisco is severely underappreciated, Russell had more to work with. It might have taken Auerbach a year or so to lobotomize Wilt into a more team-oriented role, but I'm sure he could have done it, and the Celtics would have continued to win. The question never was one of talent, only of (for the want of a better phrase) "basketball intelligence." In that respect, Russell was Einstein and Wilt was George W. Bush.
I think there's a mythology that's grown around the 1969 Celtics, and there's little wonder why, but they were underrated going into the playoffs. They were 4th in the East and old, but they did have the second best point differential in the league, and the East was a considerably tougher conference than the West in those days. Their record made them seem weaker than they were — they were arguably the best team in the league going into the playoffs, and they showed it against both the Sixers and Knicks, both of whom were at least as good as the Lakers were and certainly deeper. The Lakers choked that last game away, but it's not as if they were playing an inferior team.
At the end of January 1969, the Celtics were 34-18, 3.5 games back of first place Baltimore, just 1.5 games behind the Knicks. I dunno what happened — injuries or age or some combination? — but the C's went just 10-16 before winning their last four in a row. So there were really two Celtic teams that year: one that won 34 of their first 52, and one that lost 16 of 26. Obviously, that first team was the real Celtics. Not having been there, I wonder what it was that hurt them at the time, because whatever it was got solved in a hurry once the playoffs started.
Wilt hurt his leg with six minutes left. He did ask to come back into the game, but the Lakers had rallied and Van Breda Koff decided to stay small. Years later, when asked about the 1969 series, both Baylor and West would sneer at the implication that Wilt was trying to duck the game.
There's no way to prove who was better, Wilt or Russell. Russell won a lot more, so give it to him if you like. But considering that he had great teammates and the best coach/GM in basketball, his winning has to be seen in that context. Wilt put up much better numbers. And I am personally influenced by hearing Rick Barry, who played against both of those guys and who has a very smart basketball mind, say that "Wilt was much better than Russell."
Nevertheless, Kevin, if you think my opinion is whacked, I take that as a compliment of the highest order.
I never worked for the Kings, but it is true that I am a Kings fan.
It's also true that I am a lifelong Lakers' hater. (In the 80s, when the finals were often Boston vs. L.A., I always rooted for Boston.)
However, I'm not prejudiced against individual players just because of the teams they play for. I always liked Magic, for example. I never liked Shaq, but that didn't blind me to his talent. Hakeen Olajuwon is my favorite player not named Hedo Turkoglu or Bobby Jackson ever, but I was never a Rockets fan.
How about 13 championships in 15 years? Do you find that compelling?
Or are you victimizing yourself with unreflexive bias?
For every Barry, I can raise you 5 other guys who plaed against the both of them while both were still in their primes.
Besides, Barry had his own problems blending, so I wouldn't exactly use him for first stop shopping on sage observation.
Red Auerbach really does deserve a lot of the credit for the Celtics' success. It's impossible to quantify, but he seemed to be light-years ahead of his contemporaries.
Yeah, he really is something else. And as he has developed, he has relied less on the three and has improved his post game. I haven't seen a ton of him this year, but I specifically remember the playoff series vs the Spurs in 06 and he was unreal. He would just come to get the ball at like the foul line, and he was pretty much unstoppable. In that series, he only took 8 3's, and made one of them. But he shot 53% from the field, and was 73-80 from the line. He scored 24.6 points per 40, with 12 boards and a shade under 3 TOs. Considering he was going against a great defense, it was an amazing performance.
In Game 7, the OT game, he played 49 minutes, was 11-20 from the field, 15-16 from the line, grabbed 13 boards, and didn't turn the ball over once.
That sums it up pretty well for me, though I'd have to fit "disgraceful" and "smarmy" in there somewhere.
Gigantic diggler*....
Seriously, though, Dirk is a great player. He doesn't always take advantage of his interior game, but at his best, he's virtually unstoppable from anywhere on the court.
* I always heard rumors that Rick Mahorn had the NBA most magic Johnson.
So it's no surprise that Stephanopolous got a lot of questions from Sean Hannity?
David Brooks of the venerable NY Times had a different take: Brooks finished his entry with grades for performance:
I did hear that rumour, Dan. How true is it?
There was at least one.
That's manifestly not the journalist's job.
From what I have seen, Gasol contests better in the post. The playoffs will be a good indicator, I think. Some people have suggested that Nowitzki has eased up a bit this year during the season, and is saving himself for when it counts after the Golden State debacle. If he steps it up in post-season and Gasol bites it, that will indicate my position is overstated.
WRT the playoffs, I like the Lakers' draw. I think they have a great shot at making the conference finals.
."
Red Auerbach really does deserve a lot of the credit for the Celtics' success. It's impossible to quantify, but he seemed to be light-years ahead of his contemporaries.
I am not sure what the joke is here, but it's funny anyway.
If this is your initial assumption, then the grades make sense. I wonder if Brooks is a Republican? If I had to bet...or maybe he is for HRC.
"There are some out there, President Truman, who say that you revel in molesting horses. What do you say to them?"
"Mr. Murrow, now you've gone and made me uncomfortable."
"Why, thank you, Mr. President. As you know, in my profession, that's the highest of honors. Might you light my cigarette?"
****
Before the Iraq War, Brooks argued forcefully on moral grounds for American military intervention, echoing the belief of neoconservative commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. However, some of his opinion pieces in the spring of 2004 suggested that he had tempered somewhat his earlier optimism about the war.
David Brooks was a visiting professor of public policy at Duke University's Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, and he taught an undergraduate seminar there in the fall of 2006. [1]
Brooks in the political spectrum
Brooks describes himself as being originally a liberal. In 1983, for example, he wrote a parody of conservative pundit William F. Buckley, Jr. :
In the afternoons he is in the habit of going into crowded rooms and making everybody else feel inferior. The evenings are reserved for extended bouts of name-dropping. (University of Chicago Maroon, April 5, 1983.)
Buckley admired the parody and offered Brooks a job with National Review. A turning point in Brooks's thinking came later that year in a televised debate with Milton Friedman, which, as Brooks describes it, "was essentially me making a point, and he making a two-sentence rebuttal which totally devastated my point."[2]
On August 10, 2006, Brooks wrote a column for the New York Times titled "Party No. 3". The column proposed the idea of the McCain-Lieberman Party, or the fictional representation of the moderate majority in America.
***
I like how his idea of the representatives of the moderate majority is two of the biggest proponents of an indefinite commitment to a war the majority of Americans want to end right away.
Brooks is a loathsome hack who never met a powerful ass he wouldn't roll over to kiss.
I often agree with you, Bear, but I couldn't agree less with you on this one. Afflict the comfortable, I sez.
As for complaints that the questions should have focused more on the issues, let's keep in mind that this debate is between Obama and Clinton for the Democratic primary, not for the election. A debate on the issues between two people who agree on almost every issue wouldn't be very interesting or enlightening. ("I think we should have universal health care." "So do I." "I think we should raise taxes on the rich but not the middle class." "So do I." "I think we should get out of Iraq." "So do I.")
(*) These aren't "debates," of course. I can't remember the last actual debate -- as opposed to a joint press conference -- between politicians. So when I say "debate moderator," I mean the moderator of what passes for debates in modern politics.
Considering that there's almost no difference whatsoever between the two on policy, what the heck else is there left for them to debate other than their various verbal gaffes, and the dubious list of characters Obama seems to spend an inordinate amount of his free time associating with?
He's the house conservative on the NYT op-ed page. Or at least he was until the grey lady hired the execrable Bill Kristol to join him.
Picture Pavarotti playing the Times Square subway station. Bill Kristol on the New York Times op-ed page is the precise polar opposite.
This is a good point. I think they should call them something else, although they are not exactly "press conferences." Did they actually debate in the 60s and 70s?
If this is your initial assumption, then the grades make sense. I wonder if Brooks is a Republican? If I had to bet...or maybe he is for HRC.
As I see you've just discovered, Brooks is a mild-mannered (Republican) columnist for a great (liberal) metropolitan newspaper. He's a slightly chastened neocon in foreign policy, a hawk without the typical flaming hawkish rhetoric. On domestic issues he's about where Bush pretended to be during the 2000 campaign: a self-described "compassionate conservative." His overwhelming on-the-air presence distinctly Clark Kentish, and naturally he appears regularly as the Republican talking head on the PBS News Hour, across the table from the equally affable Mark Shields.
Regarding the three candidates, he's been a longtime McCain fan, and between the Democrats he's been more favorable towards Obama in general than towards Clinton, though his inner Republican tendencies are beginning to show as he keeps harping on the anti-Obama talking points.
All that said, what Brooks wrote today is pure half truth and non sequitur. Of course it's the journalist's job to "make politicians uncomfortable," but the unstated corollary of that is that they make all politicians uncomfortable, not just the ones who are in the current line of fire. All they were doing last night was echoing the herd.
Clinton's former press secretary grills Obama about a former Weatherman whom Obama's on a board with, as if that's of any great significance. But granting that it is, he then doesn't think to ask Hillary why her husband pardoned two of that same Weathermen group just before he left office, and if she agrees with her husband about that. Pardon my cynicism about that friendly little juxtaposition.
On the generic point, asking tough questions is essential and right. And asking Obama about the "bitter" remark is legitimate, since it's been in the news. But obsessing on it to the point that these two hacks did last night isn't the sort of journalism you're supposed to get once you rise above the tabloid level. Shales was absolutely on the money in his column, even granting his own personal views on the candiates. The truth is the truth.
And if you're going to obsess over "gotcha" issues, fairness demands that you make both candidates squirm equally. It's not as if Hillary might not have plenty to squirm about herself. And I hope they're saving at least a few of their rocks for McCain.
Sure. Just not as your sole aim.
Frankly, the first half of the debate aired issues that needed airing. And I suspect that those complaining about how "dirty" it was are merely doing so because they are seeing, for the first time, their preferred candidate (whom many of them emotionally identify with) being forced to confront head-on issues like Wright, Ayers, etc. in a debate format where it's much harder to dodge the matter with crafty pre-written responses. Obama flat-out failed last night in that respect, looking like a slow-footed chump compared to Clinton's relentlessness. I've always been of the opinion that Obama is a weak extemporaneous speaker - all of his unforced errors and unfortunate analogies are done off-the-cuff - and last night's performance was another data point in that direction.
The left-leaning folks here most likely think my opinion on this matter is as welcome as a jar of warm sputum, and I understand that - I was pleased to note that the real winner last night was John McCain - but let us at the very least stow the mock outrage about how these questions were so "unfair."
Not so much "unfair" as "utterly vapid" and "useless."
Someone on Deadspin, of all places, nailed it nicely. Anyone who cares *that* much about Ayers and Wright and all the other crap that was discussed during the first hour was busy watching "American Idol" and figured that he'd get a good enough summary of last night's debate from the guy at the office who sends him two Republican chain letters a day.
That strikes me as ... what's the word I'm looking for; I forget.
I wouldn't go that far, but I mentioned to Andy in an email that he does say "uh" a lot more in "debate" format than she does. He is good at conversations, and he is good at speeches. But, she comes off as quicker and more confident in the "debate" format than he does, which counts, but then, lack of mental quickness/articulateness has never been the criticism of her.
Not necessarily "unwelcome" but totally predictable--basically Joey B with nicer rhetoric and a few qualifiers, although you pull some of the standard smug, superior crap that happens in most political discussions on both sides "cries from the Left" etc. and the disdainful labeling about "emotionally identify with" etc. Considering the way you talk about McCain ("I got a feeling he's gonna outperform his Pythagorean") (just like the DBacks), you are in no position to be talking down to others about "emotional" attachments to candidates. I myself am quite interested in your opinions about, for example, why McCain's war and economic policies will benefit the United States more than the ones proposed by his opponents (although that is not the topic here, admittedly). Your opinions about Clinton and Obama themselves as candidates, while no more biased than mine are, are not all that helpful.
As to the questions, I don't think they were "unfair" although Andy's point about Stephanopolous was legit; the question, though, of how much of an "issue" Wright, Ayers and "bitter" really are is debatable, and I am one hell of a lot more interested in what the PA people think about that than what Republicans who would never vote Democratic anyway do. We will find out more on Tuesday.
And, on a certain level, I agree: I didn't see the point of another "debate." I would have rather seen a joint Town Hall with some video hookups--let one of those small-town gun owners talk to Obama face-to-face and see how Obama responds.
So, I think the issue is not that they were "unfair" but more that they were "unproductive"--like the whole exercise. As to McCain being the "winner," he is certainly deriving some competitive advantages from this, one of which may be that he can run a lighter schedule to prepare for the grind of the campaign, which, at 72, is helpful. OTOH, I think a lot of Demos will be determined to stay unified and go after McCain in the fall after all the stuff about the Demos being "torn apart." And, once the Democrats decide, as I have said, the media are going to hit "McBush" hard. We will see how he repsonds.
You really over-estimate the media.
Their affection for McCain has already been openly declared. He will get no hard questioning from them. Never has.
Nope.
What's so ridiculous about the exercise (a virtually unanimous opinion across the spectrum) is that Obama -- agree or disagree with the content -- gave a 45 minute speech about the Wright matter, in a civilized forum in a civilized way. What could possibly possess a journalist to think it his duty to make Obama "confront" the issue under such insipid questioning in such an insipid atmosphere?
For purposes of the Democratic primary perhaps. Those issues and how the democratic candidate handles them may be meaningful in the general election though, if only in the sense they are an avenue for attack from the republicans. Hillary/Obama supporters should think of it as spring training.
This may be true, but I think if they don't, they will get some crap for being biased lapdogs--as they did early in the Obama campaign. Also, as Obama is finding out, running for President of the United States in the digital age is a different media experience than any other. The media may like Senator McCain and POW McCain and Nominee McCain--but in a few weeks he will be Candidate McCain.
As I said almost a year ago, I was hoping for Obama vs. McCain for many reasons--one being that I thought it would be relatively clean. I am less confident of that now, but there is still, uh, hope.
At least I, unlike one of the really-out-of-it moderators of last night's debate, know better than to label a household bringing $200K/year "middle class." That figure puts a household in the top 3.4% nationwide.
And maybe there are places where that money doesn't go quite as far, which also tend to be places where the chattering classes live and work and play...but per Wikipedia, there's not a single community of over 10K people in the entire country where that's not at least above the median household income.
Polygamy Sect Story
What is this bizarre cult of Obama that thinks it unfair to ask him questions? He gave a speech! Nobody's ever allowed to ask him about it again!
Yes, obviously Obama wants to move past it. But why is anyone else, including the media, under an obligation to let him do so, just because he wants to?
A good politician knows how to answer uncomfortable questions with (paraphrased), "I've already answered these questions and have nothing else to say, but what's really important is ____," and then answer the question the politician wishes was asked rather than the question that was actually asked. Obama evidently has trouble with that. Now, whether one considers that important depends on (a) whether one think this reflects a broader lack of ability to think on one's feet and (b) whether/how much one considers "handling" the media to be a qualification for president.
I don't think SBB said it was "unfair." You and Esoteric used that word. Who has said the questions were "unfair?" I assume someone did--Esoteric put it in quotation marks.
No one has used the word "obligation" except you, I am pretty sure. This is a should issue, not a can issue. Plus, anything else that comes out about Obama/Wright will almost certainly come from media reports and from his opponents' bloodhounds. Obama condemned the remarks and explained the relationship. People can buy that or not, as they wish, and factor it into their votes or not, as they wish. Asking him about it again was pretty pointless--except to people who just want to see him look bad and want to keep it front-burnered. Bias cuts both ways.
Which obviously you are not
Andy sez...
Media fairness is just another partisan issue anyway. Even if it's demonstrable that the media favors one side over the other, nobody will ever acknowledge their candidate is favored.
They're under no such obligation. They simply handled their wide discretion in a ridiculous way -- which is why ABC News and the two twits they put out as moderators have come under virtually-universal scorn and ridicule.
It's a navel-gazing, insider issue to begin with, it's been addressed, is old news, and is a trite, tabloid raft of nonsense.
Yes, how awful it is to have a person actually try to converse with the person asking questions instead of more nobly ignoring him and prattling off unrelated talking points.
After that, the moderators use her terminology, but he's not the one who originally described them that way. And then:And then Obama talks about raising the FICA cap (which is now at $97K) and somehow he gets pandered into arguing that he should impose it for salaries over $200K but not between those amounts, which makes no sense at all.
Like most people who know anything about the FLDS, I abhor their cult*. I read an excellent book some years ago -- Under the Banner of Heaven by Jon Krakauer -- which exposed what these despicable men are up to. It's amazing how similar they are to Islamic radicals, in a religious sense.
It's not surprising therefore that I think it's legitimate to investigate any serious child abuse allegations among the cultists. However, what I am not getting from the media reports on this story is an inkling that there is a lawful reason to have removed hundreds of kids from their homes. It seems like a fishing expedition at this point, looking for a crime. In cases like this in the past, law enforcement has successfully invented crimes where none took place. Almost every state experienced overzealous prosecutors ginning up child abuse scandals in child-care centers, where no abuse took place. If cunning enough adults who believe the children were abused have the kids long enough and feed them enough cues, the kids (or at least some kids) will make stories up to satisfy the authorities. I fear that that may take place here.
* Cult -- I use this term to disparage. Perhaps it's technically incorrect. Almost like you know pornography when you see it, I feel like I can distinguish between a "religion" and a "cult." One key distinction in my mind is that cults tend to be cut off from the rest of society. The leaders tend to be control freaks who isolate their members from outsiders. There probably are cults which don't do this, and religions which do. But my sense is that cults are about taking away all choices from their followers and not allowing the followers to choose their own paths.
Not according to the undecided voters the Philadelphia ABC affiliate selected to respond in real time to the debate. From a column in today's Philadelphia Daily News:
Stu Bykovksy column
ABC affiliate's explanation of the graphing
Which, again, is fair enough from their point of view, but no reason the media is obliged to help out their campaigns.
Yes. When you're asked a question in a debate, you should answer it, even if it's ridiculous and insipid.(**)
And from the data Chip was so kind to have shared with us, it looks like the voters agree.
(**) They shouldn't have asked Hillary about the Bosnia Tales, either.
My take on it pretty much exactly matches yours. These polygamist dudes may be scumbags, but this reeks to me of a trumped-up excuse to break up the cult and take the kids away.
***
Andy has his biases, of course, but I think your take is a bit slanted. And, he didn't say the questions were "unfair."
* Those claims were the source of a couple of skits on SNL, one of which the real Hillary Clinton appeared in at the end.
** David noted that what we now have are not debates. I don't think he's wrong, if he compares them to a Lincoln-Douglas structure, as used in high schools and colleges. However, what we now call debates are debates, in that they are what the word has come to mean. In other words, when folks watch a debate on TV -- sitting at home in their La-Z-Boys, eating cool ranch tortilla chips dipped in guacamole, drinking margaritas and complaining about Mexicans -- they expect pretty much what they have been getting for the last 25 years: a combination of gotcha questions, canned one-liners, joint press conference, etc. etc. The folks at home are not expecting Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Douglas. If they got that, they'd be as bored as fans of the WWE would be if Mr. McMahon gave them real wrestling.
Andy sez...
And if you're going to obsess over "gotcha" issues, fairness demands that you make both candidates squirm equally. It's not as if Hillary might not have plenty to squirm about herself. And I hope they're saving at least a few of their rocks for McCain.
But I'm not saying that the questions per se were unfair. What I am saying is that professional journalistic standards in a forum such as last night's require that if you ask a certain type of question that would potentially embarrass either candidate, you don't merely press that question on one of them.
The Ayers question was a perfect example of that. President Clinton's former press secretary is not a stupid or uninformed man. He knows exactly what the implication of the question he directed at Obama was: that somehow Obama was being "influenced" by an unrepentent Weatherman madman.
If the question fascinated him that much, then I guess it was his duty to ask it. It's about as surreal an "issue" as any rational person could imagine, but grant for the sake of argument that Pennsylvania Democrats are afraid of Weathermen on the loose, and that they want to know where the candidates stand on that oh-so-pressing topic.
Fine. But Stephanopoulos also knows that as Obama pointed out, Hillary's husband pardoned two Weathermen right before he left office, a la Marc Rich. He also knows that Hillary was almost certainly privy to those pardon decisions. She was seldom out of the loop on such matters.
And yet with the same ideological logic behind it, that obvious "other" question never got asked. Obama raised it in response to the Ayers question, but strangely enough, the former Clinton press secretary's curiosity about associations with Weathermen quickly expired. He never pressed Clinton on the matter.
You can call this "unfair" or not as you wish. But whatever it was, it wasn't professional journalism. It had the effect of a partisan hack job.
EDIT: Robin, I see you already answered GoodFace. I'd composed my response earlier but then got waylaid by e-mails and jogging. But I'll let it stand anyway.
And here's a newsflash: many of the jobs paying these salaries aren't 9-5; many of these people work nights and weekends. It's not all rosy; there are tradeoffs, and just because these people make good incomes, it doesn't mean they're sunning themselves in the Bahamas twice a month.
Geez, Rich, for a Republican aren't you hitting a bit too close to home with that negative sterotype about your own Party's voting base? Lucky for you that you weren't running for the GOP nomination---those folks aren't too keen on droll little cracks like that, however tongue in cheek they may be.
There's a fine line between self-parody and jumping the shark, and Ray's walking it with the aplomb of an artiste.
Fair enough. Who do you like in the Western Conference playoffs?
Well, last thread I said Ray sees this like Howard Baker and Sam Ervin saw Nixon's role in Watergate: What did Obama hear and when did he hear it?
I'm not a Republican for my love of all Republicans. As I've said, I am not conservative on many issues*. I am a Republican in large part because of what the Democratic party is all about: blood-sucking public employee unions; trade protectionism; race-based quotas; phony cries of racism; excessive governmental interference in the economy; teachers unions which don't know or don't care how to improve education; bilingual education**; trial lawyers (a la John Edwards) making millions on bogus lawsuits; etc. I have a long list of problems with the Republican Party, too. But they tend to be on more peripheral issues for me.
* I am pro-choice on abortion, though against Roe v Wade; I favor allowing gays to marry; I am for legalized, though regulated, vices (including casino gambling, whoring, recreational drugs); and I think we spend way too much on the military and prisons. I also believe we ought to move away from petroleum and coal and toward solar, wind, nuclear and other clean sources of energy.
** I am not against native English speakers in the U.S. learning a foreign tongue. I speak fluent Spanish and have lived and worked in Mexico. My opposition is to programs, called bilingual education, which handicap immigrants by teaching them mostly in their native tongues and only gradually introducing English. The idea behind this program is so immigrant kids don't integrate into mainstream society and so they don't disassociate from the culture of their parents. Not only do I think that is societally unhealthy, but I am certain that only language immersion will allow these kids to become productive Americans with a good chance at a good life.
If Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan stay healthy, I like the Spurs. If not, I think the Lakers will win it. I am unconvinced by the Suns. I liked their team more last year, and think, but for the "fight," they could have won a championship. Utah is very tough at home. However, I saw them play terrible against San Antonio on TV (was that Tuesday?), and sense that they are meant to be a bridesmaid. Dallas, too, does not look good enough to me to win a championship. I saw Kidd play when he was in high school (at ARCO Arena), so I have some fondness for him.* But I don't think the Mavs are any better since that trade with NJ. I don't like their chances. I have never liked Alan Iverson, so I won't root for Denver. I don't think they play enough defense to win, anyhow... As a fan, I will be rooting for Houston (Bobby Jackson) and New Orleans (Peja Stojakovic) in the West and Orlando (Hedo Turkoglu) in the East.
Although I really do like KG as a fan, Kevin may have ruined Boston for me. But I would not be unhappy or surprised if Boston wins it all. In fact, I expect Boston will win it. I wrongly thought they lacked the depth to do this well before the season began. However, Rondo has surprised me how well he has played. And I think in the playoffs, with all the rest between games, I don't think a long bench means as much now as it did back in Bird's day.
How about you, Robin?
* I obviously don't know Kidd the person, as opposed to Kidd the player. But from the glimpses I have seen, I don't have that high of an opinion of him as a person at this point.
Look, we're not to ask any difficult or uncomfortable questions about this man, hear any of his off the cuff statements that are intended for closed audiences, or analyze his character, background, experience, or qualifications, got it??
We're simply to accept the fact that he's the postracial, transcendent, Messiah-like figure who is going to bring hope and change that we can believe in to America, and heal the broken souls of all of us typical white people who are stubbornly clinging to our guns and our religion, instead of unionizing and demanding more freebies from the government.
I hope this clears things up.
Classy--thanks. It's unsurprising, I suppose: although this place is more intelligent and civilized on politics than most, that contempt is always just under the surface, even here.
You might want to check out what Obama and Clinton actually said about Affirmative Action last night. I have read a couple of your pieces on education that you linked (I have a credential and a Master's in Ed, and used to teach at a public high school and in a GED completion program) and you have some pretty good ideas, but there is no point in us going there. Most Republicans have in my exp used the teachers' union (which has a lot of faults, like most institutions) as a bogeyman to avoid dealing with the human and demographic complexities of the educational system. Don't know if you are in that camp.
* GATE (Gifted and Talented Education) is a state of California program for smart kids. When I was a child it was called (MGM) Mentally Gifted Minors or (JAE) Jewish and Asian Education.
** Of course, we are not firing the worst 30 teachers. We are getting rid of the 30 with the least tenure. That is roughly like the Milwaukee Brewers firing Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun in order to retain Jason Kendall and Salomon Torres, because the former two have not been on the job as long.
If I had to bet, I take the Spurs. But I do not count out Shaq/Nash/Amare--Shaq is a unique figure, even at 36, and has always matched up well with TD. I see the SA/PHO winner in the Finals. I cannot objectively pick the Lakers to win the conference without Bynum and Ariza.
SA 4-3 over PHO
DAL over NO
LA over DEN
UT over HOU
SA over LA for conference
I agree the Celtics have the inside track to the trophy. They have a traditional #1 seed path and KG will be on a mission.
**My repsonse above was a bit touchy. I need to monitor that. I am not a big fan of many aspects of the NEA, but Republicans, even really informed ones, criticizing public school teachers is a tough subject for me. One reason I got out and moved to college was not liking busting my ass and then hearing on the news/talk shows how ###### up everything was.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main