411 Politics Fact or Fiction: Week 88

Posted by Brandon Crow on 05.20.2008

Is the liberal media biasing polls against George Bush? Would Republican Chuck Hagel be a good VP choice for Barack Obama? Does California's Supreme Court's decision to strike down gay marriage ban the gateway to moral decay? Is Doug Feith credible when he says the Bush Administration didn't purposely deceive the public about Iraq?

Another week, another edition of 411 Politics: Fact or Fiction. Welcome to Week 88, dear readers. This week, we new writer Andrew Tobowlosky returning for his second time; also making his second appearance, reader Vinay Sundaram. Let's see how these "two-timers"...okay, okay, second-timers do!

Ding, Ding!

1. Recently, an ABC Poll determined that, "President Bush's approval rating dipped to 31%...67% disapprove of the way he's handling his job as president, including a record-tying 52% who 'strongly' disapprove…more than eight in ten, that's 82%, believe the country has gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track." Although this may indicate that Bush has been a bad president, it's really another, clear example of the anti-Bush bias in the liberal media.

Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. I will start by saying that I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone and voted for Bob Dole in the first election I was eligible to vote in. There is no liberal media bias against Bush. Everything that is said about him, he has brougt upon himself. This man's foreign policy has violated conservative priniciples regarding spending, not just in engaging in a war based on completely false pretenses, but also by using our tax money to help out his buddies like Erik Prince of Blackwater, rather than umm... not spending it.

The scandals of this administration are so numerous, I can't even count them anymore. In addition to his war on terror, he also has a war on science which includes banning the funding of stem cell research but promoting the idea of teaching intelligent design alongside evolution. I could keep going forever. But the bottom line is, there is no more a bias against Bush than there was a right-wing conspiracy against Clinton.

Andrew Tobolowsky: FICTION. I respect Vinay as a man and a warrior. We may have our differences—I, for example, would have been more likely to vote for Norm MacDonald, the actor who played Bob Dole on SNL than…well you get it---but this one's real hard to argue. I'm not a conservative so I don't disapprove based on Bush's lack of principles in that direction, but because, well…if you leave the economy a shambles, saddled with an unpopular war which your party's choice for a successor says will last another 5 years, and with the American public seemingly more divided than ever, it's pretty hard to blame the media. Especially given all the other things Vinay outlines.

The media bias would have to extend to pretty much every news show besides Fox News, wouldn't it? And one assumes that the market share of all the other major networks combined outweighs Fox's anyhow, without even noting that not all of Fox's constituency would be Bush fans. You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you, and it's not a bias if you've been a colossal disappointment.

1 for 1. The jury is in—there is no media bias against Bush.

2. A lot of speculation has gone around lately that Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel could be Obama's pick for VP. This makes sense, and in fact, would be a good move for Obama.

Vinay Sundaram: FACT. I did a little research on this, having previously not known much about Chuck Hagel. As long as he and Obama can come to a compromise and explain where they differ on social and fiscal policy, this would be a great ticket. Hagel not only opposes the war, he also opposes the scandal and lies which have defined the Bush administration over the last 8 years. Therefore, not only does he oppose this ridiculous neo-con foreign policy, but he also enforces one of the primary themes of Obama's campaign which is to bring honesty back to the white house. This quote from him sums it up nicely: "I took an oath of office to the Constitution, I didn't take an oath of office to my party or my president."

In addition to the above, if Obama and Hagel ran together, this would continue to enforce Obama as the change candidate who wants to unite parties. It also puts a real dent in the Republicans trying to define him as too liberal. Finally, the media would eat this up. The MSM loves drama and entertainment, and nothing would be more entertaining for political junkies than to watch the pundits mentally masturbate over the implications of the first joint party ticket.

Andrew Tobolowsky: FICTION. I've just never been a proponent, in politics, of choosing people only political hacks are familiar with to bolster your cause. Yes, Vinay might be absolutely right that Hagel being a Republican will more than compensate for that, MSM would be all over it. But I think people have gotten used to the idea of the VP as a mindless yes-man used to pick up a necessary demographic. There's a long tradition of this, ol' Teddy Bear Roosevelt got put up for VP because he was popular but the party wanted to kill his collected career. Then, of course, someone shot Mount McKinley. All it would take would be one publicized disagreement between the two, or better yet, the specter of Hagel agreeing, quite a lot, with his opponent at the VP debates to stir up a lot of GOP slogan-mongering concerning the inner division of Obama's ticket.

Seems likely to me Obama would have to spend a lot of his campaign defending the choice, defending inter-party compatibility, and it might very well detract attention from all the other issues he'd like to present.
It's also hard for me to countenance going with a flyer pick (who am I, Mel Kiper Jr.?) when there's such an obvious one on the board.

The Hispanic demographic could go either way in this election, and they're a much larger group than independents who lean red but could be seduced. Everyone knows who Bill Richardson is, these days. He's the obvious choice, addresses an obvious need, and it's hard to imagine a proper rationale for Obama going elsewhere on this. In other words, this team already has its quarterback, it now needs to address needs at…demographic. (You thought I was going to say Hispanic, didn't you? I might have, but it sounded too racist. Don't mind me, I'm a Jew from Texas living in Ireland).

1 for 2. These two can't agree on Hagel.

Switch!

3. California's Supreme Court's decision to overturn the ban on gay marriage this past week signals the beginning of the end of true and proper morality.

Andrew Tobolowsky: FICTION. A phrase that gets thrown around an awful lot is the "sanctity of marriage". That's apparently what's immoral about gay marriage, it doesn't conform to the "sanctity" idea. Now, I know God's a mean one when it comes to acts He considers unnatural but even He is a bit more permissive than some of you out there. A couple of wives, fine. Selling your daughters, fine. Sleeping with your daughter-in-law? No big deal. And if your (married) brother dies, and you're single, sorry cat, you just inherited a wife.

No, I think what we're really dealing with here are acts that people against gay marriage consider unnatural. And your personal opinion on what someone else does that doesn't harm a single other person, does not give you even the smallest right to speak out about it, and especially not to dress up under the guise of a moral code which devotes far more space to the issues above than gay sex, or gay marriage.

For my part, I think getting married because the girl's pregnant, and not because you love her, or getting married and cheating, or domestic abuse, or being an irresponsible parent, any of the hundred other sins that are actually DETRIMENTAL to life destroy the sanctity of marriage. Two people who love each other sharing a tax shelter? That actually sounds alright. No, I make my moral decisions based on what is and what is not harmful, not on how I feel about what somebody is doing to some other consenting adult. Fifty percent of American marriages end in divorce. I'm thinking that's not more sacred than two guys or two gals living happily ever after. 


Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. Was this question donated from Bill O'Reilly? Who cares if gay people want to marry each other? I think it's far more immoral that in this country, Britney Spears can marry someone on a dare and divorce the next day, but a same sex couple who's loved each other for years can't get legally married.

2 for 3. Gay marriage is officially hot!

4. On "The Daily Show" this past week, Doug Feith, one of the primary architects of Bush's Iraq War, said that the administration did not purposely deceive the public, but instead made errors in qualifying the rosy projections for the war. You believe and accept his explanation.

Andrew Tobolowsky: FICTION. Couldn't agree less. I was in high school when the war broke out. It's not particularly surprising that I didn't know that Iraq was populated by two religious sects of Islam that absolutely detested each other, and that the 10% minority ascendancy was holding the other 90% in poverty. To my knowledge, the often VICIOUS divide between the Sunni and Shi'a dates from the seventh century. And 10% of the population was apparently living quite well. Add to these the Kurds, whom neither side can stand, and there is absolutely no way to put this puzzle together that would suggest a potential willingness to put aside over one thousand years of mistrust and violence for the sake of American freedom and democracy.

You know who should have known that? Condoleeza Rice. Or Colin Powell. Or George Bush. Or Doug Feith. In fact, America has made use of these divisions in its foreign policy of the past, and the impossibility of what George Bush, Jr. tried to do is the exact reason George Bush senior didn't.

It doesn't count as "errors in qualifying the rosy projections for the war" if supreme, criminal negligence was involved.

Vinay Sundaram: FICTION. See my answers to questions 1 and 2.

3 for 4. No mincing words, eh, Vinay?

That's it for Week 88. Thanks to Vinay and Andrew for stepping up. See you all next week with Week 89 and two more, willing participants.