HCR educated me on “Gish-galloping”—a description of what Trump does, whether or not he knows the term. It can be countered and I’m sure the Veep’s team is preparing her.
I've been reading random Substack posts and saw this. Did you have a chance to look up Gish Gallop? If not, try searching on Facebook and see what comes up.
On the debate - I agree. But not showing up for a pre-approved date would be a bad look.
(Question: How does she get viewers to recognize his lies? What if she said "What he just said about this, this & this are lies. I invite every American to watch any TV network for 30 minutes following this debate while they fact check those 3 statements," -- 1st, could any network resist the temptation to follow up? 2nd, they would gave to be lies even Fox would confirm, which isn't hard to find)
On Mayor Pete - I agree. It requires a certain skill and temperament to do it and he's got it.
As soon as hit "send" I realized my idea was not a good one. The Fox reply would simply be "she wants us to fact check Trump.. well, let's take a look at the wild things she says...."
And...re: the post comparing Pete B on Fox to Trump at the Black Jounalists conference, how can you compare Pete's demeanor to Donald's other than night and day.
Dave, I almost always agree with your point of view. In this case, I agree that Harris shouldn’t debate the liar. But I disagree with one thing you wrote: that Fox News is a “news network.” It is NOT. Characterizing it that way plays into the charade that it’s a journalistic enterprise. It is not. They even admitted it in a lawsuit where their lawyers argued, in effect, that it’s an entertainment network that traffics in pseudo news and no one should take it seriously.
"Sadly, far too many Americans take it seriously".
Soooo true Dave. I have several friends that I consider very smart and successful; all they listen to is Fox News. Nothing "Fair and Balanced" with that approach!
First, of course, Kamala Harris should hold a major news conference and do it immediately after the DNC next week.
Second, of course, Harris and Donald Trump should debate as I wrote here earlier. It’s an American tradition and reporters have a responsibility to ask the tough questions—in addition to news conferences and news interview-- whether they get honest answers or not.
Third, I don’t watch any of the cable news networks—they have their respective biases. What Pete Buttigieg did is essentially what Donald Trump did at the Black Journalists Association recently—purposely face a hostile audience to give your perspective. No, I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m just saying the two appearances are comparable.
Fourth, retention of Supreme Court justices. Judges will rule as they wish and Iowans are free to vote as they wish. Simple as that. On a related issue, I always vote against retention of the judges Iowa Governors (of either party) appoint because the media do a poor job of reporting the records of the judges. With no knowledge of their record, I always say no.
BTW I was blocked when I first tried to post this.
Thanks, Steve. I don't know why your first attempt was blocked but I'm glad you persisted.
Interesting, that you ALWAYS vote against retaining judges. I've know some outstanding Iowa judges. Have only voted not to retain once or twice in nearly 50 years.
Dave, I always enjoy your essays. My reason for voting NOT to retain judges is the lack of information about their judicial record. Yes, I could do the research. But isn't that why we have news organizations to do the foot work for us?
In my opinion the way to debate a constant liar is not to waste time countering every lie. Instead you just shake your head sardonically, look into the camera at your intended audience and tell them who you are and what you intend to do to make their lives better. Just ignore the liar. Except maybe state simply “I’m not here to correct every lie my opponent tosses at you and me. I’m here to tell you how together you and I can make America a place where we can all succeed.”
HCR educated me on “Gish-galloping”—a description of what Trump does, whether or not he knows the term. It can be countered and I’m sure the Veep’s team is preparing her.
I'll have to look that term up!
I've been reading random Substack posts and saw this. Did you have a chance to look up Gish Gallop? If not, try searching on Facebook and see what comes up.
On the debate - I agree. But not showing up for a pre-approved date would be a bad look.
(Question: How does she get viewers to recognize his lies? What if she said "What he just said about this, this & this are lies. I invite every American to watch any TV network for 30 minutes following this debate while they fact check those 3 statements," -- 1st, could any network resist the temptation to follow up? 2nd, they would gave to be lies even Fox would confirm, which isn't hard to find)
On Mayor Pete - I agree. It requires a certain skill and temperament to do it and he's got it.
Bob, I just spent six hours in the car listening to CNN, MSNBC and Fox "News". I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Fox to point out any Trump lies.
As soon as hit "send" I realized my idea was not a good one. The Fox reply would simply be "she wants us to fact check Trump.. well, let's take a look at the wild things she says...."
And...re: the post comparing Pete B on Fox to Trump at the Black Jounalists conference, how can you compare Pete's demeanor to Donald's other than night and day.
And, a shout out to Cliff
Dave, I almost always agree with your point of view. In this case, I agree that Harris shouldn’t debate the liar. But I disagree with one thing you wrote: that Fox News is a “news network.” It is NOT. Characterizing it that way plays into the charade that it’s a journalistic enterprise. It is not. They even admitted it in a lawsuit where their lawyers argued, in effect, that it’s an entertainment network that traffics in pseudo news and no one should take it seriously.
Cliff - I usually put "news" in quotation marks, as in Fox "News". Sadly, far too many Americans take it seriously. Nice to hear from you!
"Sadly, far too many Americans take it seriously".
Soooo true Dave. I have several friends that I consider very smart and successful; all they listen to is Fox News. Nothing "Fair and Balanced" with that approach!
Several points, Dave:
First, of course, Kamala Harris should hold a major news conference and do it immediately after the DNC next week.
Second, of course, Harris and Donald Trump should debate as I wrote here earlier. It’s an American tradition and reporters have a responsibility to ask the tough questions—in addition to news conferences and news interview-- whether they get honest answers or not.
Third, I don’t watch any of the cable news networks—they have their respective biases. What Pete Buttigieg did is essentially what Donald Trump did at the Black Journalists Association recently—purposely face a hostile audience to give your perspective. No, I’m not a Trump supporter, I’m just saying the two appearances are comparable.
Fourth, retention of Supreme Court justices. Judges will rule as they wish and Iowans are free to vote as they wish. Simple as that. On a related issue, I always vote against retention of the judges Iowa Governors (of either party) appoint because the media do a poor job of reporting the records of the judges. With no knowledge of their record, I always say no.
BTW I was blocked when I first tried to post this.
Thanks, Steve. I don't know why your first attempt was blocked but I'm glad you persisted.
Interesting, that you ALWAYS vote against retaining judges. I've know some outstanding Iowa judges. Have only voted not to retain once or twice in nearly 50 years.
Dave, I always enjoy your essays. My reason for voting NOT to retain judges is the lack of information about their judicial record. Yes, I could do the research. But isn't that why we have news organizations to do the foot work for us?
Pete Buttegieg is the best political communicator I've seen. Right up there with Reagan, Kennedy and FDR.
He's 42 now, but I hope Pete celebrates his 50th birthday with a Presidential run.
In my opinion the way to debate a constant liar is not to waste time countering every lie. Instead you just shake your head sardonically, look into the camera at your intended audience and tell them who you are and what you intend to do to make their lives better. Just ignore the liar. Except maybe state simply “I’m not here to correct every lie my opponent tosses at you and me. I’m here to tell you how together you and I can make America a place where we can all succeed.”