"Mr. Gibson's claim that the government can raise revenues by cutting capital gains tax is grossly at odds with what taxation experts believe."

Can you provide some links on this topic?

(I'm not asking for studies showing that across the board tax cuts reduce revenue. Capital gains taxes behave differently than most other taxes because taxpayers have a choice about when to sell assets that have appreciated in value.)

Prediction: Sometime in the next few months, major press figures like Gibson will announce, deeply chastened, that "America has spoken: we will no longer engage in the 'gotcha' game that has so offended our viewers, and will focus on substance." This will occur right around the time the press starts focusing on McCain. Further prediction: questioning McCain on his flip-flops, his inability to tell Shia from Sunni, his unintelligble views on taxes and the economy, etc., will now be considered "gotcha" questioning and will be off limits.

Did I miss the petition you signed about the General Electric debates?

Oh. That's right. You wouldn't have signed such a petition. The General Electric debates were shameful tabloid entertainments that were biased for the wrong candidate.

Can't sign petitions about that.

bobbo, you've hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head. This is exactly what's going to happen.

Good job, Ezra.

Bobbo, I think you'll be proven correct.

i have watched all of the debates, but i knew what this one would be like, and i deliberately watched none of it.
.....i am thankful that i chose not to. some of the discourse makes me ill physically.
thank you for signing the petition.
this kind of karma is bad for all of us, and makes our country ill also.
....keep doing the work.

It'd be fun to go over that list of names and see some of the approving things they wrote about the shameful General Electric debates.

Good job, and thanks.

There's a journalistic "blue line," which is not much acknowledged. Although some outlets can be run out of the club for gross hackishness (Fox), mostly when an organ of the MSM does something like ABC, other journalists are loth to criticize.

This may be a watershed moment, when a member in good standing is taken to task by other members. I applaud you.

Petey, I'm sure we all anxiously await your actually getting off your ass and providing evidence to back up your insinuation. It'll be fun, after all!

A) Shut up, Petey

B) Isn't Bérubé a professor at Penn State, not Penn?

"It'll be fun, after all!"

It'd also be fun to see what percentage of those names support Clinton.

After all, over half of the Democratic electorate has voted for Clinton.

Do you think we safely assume the percentage of Clinton supporters on that list is an astonishingly low figure without resorting to having fun? I do.

I don't blame 'em. Obama had a disastrous debate performance. Of course they're going to sign a petition saying that this one was the bad debate. This is about tribe for them, and their tribe ain't the Democrats.

One can hear the thoughts (and any unlikely responses) to the letter from Disney and ABC News Execs:

"They're just a bunch of lefty, commie, traitorist, dirty fucking hippies". "Screw them"(quoting Hillary)! "And not a one of them wears a US flag lapel pin either."

Another matter: what the fuck's wrong with Petey? Has the primary made him come unhinged?

Is Berube really at Penn now or still Penn State?

Via Ben Smith, it turns out the Ayers question got asked because Obama and his campaign refused to answer any press questions about Ayers in any manner.

Petey, can you link to any analysis or takedown of the NBC/"GE" debates? I didn't watch any of them and am curious what they were like in light of your comments.

Since Petey's assumption is that the entire blogosphere is biased against Hillary Clinton, I would ask why he thinks that is so.

And, whether he thinks that Hillary's Silent Majority might not have been better served by their candidate and her media supporters' arguing against this trivialization of politics, rather than looking for more slime to fling Obama's way.

When we look at Obama, we see who we want to be.

When we look at Hillary, we see who we are. For me, that means a complete and total douchebag.

Since Petey's assumption is that the entire blogosphere is biased against Hillary Clinton, I would ask why he thinks that is so.

If you're not with him, you're against him.

Petey's Conscience is exactly right. That's the exact same reason the lady who asked about the flag lapel hates him too. And guess what, I'll actually supply EVIDENCE.

"When we look at Obama, we see who we want to be."

Instead of who he really is. Got it.

Thanks Ezra,

And let me clear up two things for you commentors.

I am an Obama supporter and I thought he did fine in the debate.

My problem was all the stupid questions.

And Obama does something in the debates that I guess you all can't understand. He actually thinks about a response instead of just saying idiot talking points.

And that is why he is winning. We are sick of the same stock talking points.

Obama will handle all the crap Hillary and the media throw and has been since Iowa.

WOW! A letter. I'm sure it will be appropriately filed.

Petey's Conscience is exactly right. That's the exact same reason the lady who asked about the flag lapel hates him too. And guess what, I'll actually supply EVIDENCE.



WOW, just..WOW. After reading McCabe's story, I think EVERYONE in the media owes Barrack Obama a HUGE apology over bittergate. Olberman needs to do a story about this woman, pronto!! Just, Wow..

Prediction: Sometime in the next few months, major press figures like Gibson will announce, deeply chastened, that "America has spoken: we will no longer engage in the 'gotcha' game that has so offended our viewers, and will focus on substance." This will occur right around the time the press starts focusing on McCain. Further prediction: questioning McCain on his flip-flops, his inability to tell Shia from Sunni, his unintelligble views on taxes and the economy, etc., will now be considered "gotcha" questioning and will be off limits.


So are you suggesting that the 24/7 news channels will go off the air, or just stop covering the election?

It is obvious from seeing the petition and reading the comments that robust debate is welcomed by all readers.

Aren't the candidates losing an opportunity to put these supposedly irrelevant questions to pasture if these topics are not addressed?

Ezra Klein readers are not the only voters. And they will not constitute a majority of voters. They cannot define what the relevant issues are for all other voters. The candidates need to face these questions if they are to have a fighting chance with the general population of voters and if the nominators are to have all the relevant info - which is not limited to policy issues. Grow up!

slickdpdx, your faux world-weariness is hardly illuminating.

George S. did not get his questions from "the voters." He got them from Sean Hannity. Hannity did not get his questions from "the voters," either. He got them from a group of right wingers who spend their days drafting talking points. George S.'s job was to tell Sean Hannity, "wow, that's a stupid question."

The job of journalists is to make the public better informed, not to respond to kerfluffles invented by partisan purveyors of oppo research and serve as a mouthpiece of their talking points.

Your attempt to cast yourself as a world-weary cynic who "accepts reality" of "what the voters want" is just either a put-on or simply a gullible consumption of the talking points offered by these bad journalists themselves. You might as well demand that George S. ask Obama if he's a secret muslim sleeper agent, because, hey, people are saying stuff like that!

Also, Bobbo, when Barack "New Politics" Obama tries to merely argue with McCain-- well, it's a double whammy.

And to think, even the left wing Nation says arguing with candidates is a no, no.

I agree that ABC was just awful, but I think Dems need to just take it to the wall. There's no question they're going to have to figure out how to get around the media.

To answer Kenneth Almquist's question:

"One of the most cherished beliefs of supply-side zealots is that cuts in capital gains tax rates always increase revenue. To be sure, there are often dramatic upward revenue swings right after the cap gains rate is cut. But that is in part because people can choose when to enter into the transactions that result in capital gains--and they'd be idiots not to hold off a few months if they know the tax rate is about to drop... So no, the reduction in the capital gains tax rate from 20% to 15% in 2003 did not result in an increase in revenue over the course of the business cycle."

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html

Right. And when Timmeh and Brian Wilson took on Hillary months ago, you were where?

Aren't the candidates losing an opportunity to put these supposedly irrelevant questions to pasture if these topics are not addressed?

I assume you aren't aware that several of the irrelevant questions had been asked before, and therefore asking them doesn't put them "to pasture." Now that you have been informed, I'm sure you'll agree that asking the questions a second, third and fourth time, like in the recent debate, served no purpose, right?

Another matter: what the fuck's wrong with Petey? Has the primary made him come unhinged?

At the risk of sounding like I'm piling on or kicking him when he's down or something, it seems to me like he's always been like this.

Now you finally notice?

Where have you been the last year?

You should be ashamed of yourself Ezra.

Hypocrite!

Finally!! Maybe the press will listen this time. I remember how outraged the progressives were when they press raised Bushs DUI at the last second before the election, and the CBS fake National Guard documents, ohh and the lefts outrage at the McCain story that he may have possible had a low level aid that thought he might have had a possible relationship with, but no one knew for sure.

Ezra was especially pissed that one got published.

Who could possibly care that Obama has a friendship with an admitted and unrepentent terrorist who blows up places like the Pentagon? I mean who nowadays would want to blow up the Pentagon??
Ohh wait, Obamas friend still wants to....hmmmm

Shame on you signatories... where were you when other moderators showed complete and utter bias against Senator Clinton and other candidates? Get used to this type of vetting... it will continue whether you like it or not. It is past time to assess the character of this "unifying" candidate that says he is above typical Washington politics. He performed poorly, get over it.

Do you think if Obamas friend Ayers was blowing up abortion clinics, Obama would be his friend??

How did our candidates do in the debate?
Is it irrelevant now?
And since all the debates have something in common, they were unfair to one of more of the candidates...are all those debates irrelevant?

Wouldn't that mean we'd need to finally host a debate where just issues were discussed?
Anybody think Obama would come out on top of that one?

Shame on you signatories... where were you when other moderators showed complete and utter bias against Senator Clinton and other candidates?

Once, just once, Obama got hit with some tough questions.
That's it.
He's not debating anymore.
So don't worry about it, Nell.

Tyro: Comparing the questions, which were arguably illuminating and had undeniable factual predicates, with a scurrilous rumor is par for the course. I'm not "world weary" but I'm getting there fast...

After all, over half of the Democratic electorate has voted for Clinton....This is about tribe for them, and their tribe ain't the Democrats.

Hillary supporters just seem deranged at this point.

Kmblue thinks it's appropriate for Charlie Gibson to take a direct stance on an issue while moderating a debate.

Anonymous is sliding further and further into insanity.

Nell ignores the fact that we've had over 20 debates, plenty of which actually did stick to the issues, and Obama is still winning.

Seriously, stick a fork in this thing. It's done.

slickdpx, you don't understand, you elitist: people are wondering baout Obama's status as a secret Muslim, and if you don't think that George S. should have asked him about that, it's just because you're an out-of-touch wine-sipping elitist who isn't in touch with what people *really* care about! How do you KNOW it's a factual error? That's the nature of the question! It's secret! And it's something people believe and want to hear more about!

Don't you go laying your condescending bullcrap about how you're more in touch with the needs of the public to be informed by journalists by mouthing off right-wing oppo-research talking points. It's a load of disingenuous crap you're spewing because you think it makes you seem smart when it fact it makes you seem like a pain in the butt teenager being a smartass.

"...if his candidate isn't nominated..." that is.

So what they are really saying is the behavior is perfectly acceptable assuming it does not involve Obama. This behavior was not only accepted, but encouraged when someone else was the recipient of less than friendly questioning. So to Mr. Klein, fair is not fair, he would enjoy the same very separate set of rules for the debates that we see in the media. They could have simplified it by simply saying: Dear ABC, we enjoy watching you claw Clinton's eyes out, but unless you kiss Obama's feet, expect outcry. Klein and others, please stop demeaning what it means to be a liberal. I always thought our side was better, well, not so much. BTW- you're still a fox, though I've lost my respect for you, but that happened far before reading this. If only you stood up for the party and the cause this way. Oh, and remember when you cared about healthcard, I guess that wasn't as worthy as being in the in crowd and the latest cause celeb, Mr. Obama.

shorter soulite and others:

unfair debates: it's okay
if it's a Clinton.

If it's Obama, whip out that petition, quit debating, scream "Off with their heads!"

Don't forget to call posters
obscene names. It's all in the service of Unity.

See you when McCain gets sworn in.

The left is getting more and more bitter, I am just wondering when their going to reach for their guns and start picking off people that don't look like them.....

So what they are really saying is the behavior is perfectly acceptable assuming it does not involve Obama.

unfair debates: it's okay if it's a Clinton.

I'm trying to get a Democrat elected president; so, obviously, is Ezra. I don't know what the fuck you Kool-Aid drinkers are trying to do.

Where, oh where, were these august scribes and pundits when Hillary was being treated the same way by NBC/MSNBC????

Clinton said she would support Obama if he got the nomination Wednesday night. She said she would go anywhere, do anything to support the nominee.
Sounds like trying to get a Dem elected to me.

Sounds like trying to get a Dem elected to me.

I'll support Clinton if she gets that miracle ticket she's praying for, because it's just too important to beat McCain...but her behavior in the last month or so has been nothing short of disgraceful.

"Well then, that makes it perfectly okay that she's deliberately advancing GOP narratives"

The case against Obama on this charge is rather better (e.g., see here - isn't that relevant somehow?

This is unbelievable. Where was the outrage when NBC applied the Stephanopoulos treatment to Hillary? How could so many smart people not see how totally biased they are? Is this really a way to ensure better debates-or just a way to ensure that the candidate of choice gets more favorable treatment?

Is that selective outrage? It reeks, whatever it is.

I think it is true that there is a bit of a double-standard here: there is progressive outrage when Obama is being "gotcha"-ed; less so when Clinton is in the line of fire. (Some of this may indeed stem from the desire of our career liberals to get a spot on GE's "Hardball.") From this, however, it does not follow that the correct response is: it was fine when it was Clinton, it's fine when it's Obama. No, the correct response is: the Village totally sucks in either case, and it should be obvious by now that their target is any Democrat they feel like picking on at the moment, using whatever bullshit rationalizations that suit them. (Especially the much-remarked up "meta" defense: we have to ask about it because "people" want to know, and they want to know because we keep asking about it.) As I promised above, this will NOT happen to McCain. THAT's the problem!

Sorry, forgot to identify myself in the immediately preceding comment

Hurray! I'm for the other team!

Didn't Obama say something about "blaming the refs" when you're losing? I can't believe you guys are falling for it. I thought you were smarter than that.

bobbo: "Prediction: Sometime in the next few months, major press figures like Gibson will announce, deeply chastened, that "America has spoken: we will no longer engage in the 'gotcha' game that has so offended our viewers, and will focus on substance." This will occur right around the time the press starts focusing on McCain. Further prediction: questioning McCain on his flip-flops, his inability to tell Shia from Sunni, his unintelligble views on taxes and the economy, etc., will now be considered "gotcha" questioning and will be off limits.

This prediction is scarily brilliant.

Rilkefan, that eriposte piece you link to boils down to two points: Obama supposedly giving Clinton the finger (debunked here); and Obama saying some things with which eriposte has an ideological disagreement. Yawn.

Wow is this what is was like for the non-believers in Hitler's Germany?

I thought the Republicans were intellectually dishonest, turns out it just may be a contagious disease.

Petey's right, where were you Ezra when GE/NBC/MSNBC did this to Hillary?

I see the blogger formerly known as Josh Marshall didn't sign, nor did Atrios, wha' happened?

I was looking for the link to the letter you all sent about how the Mainstream Corporate Media, especially MSNBC and NBC, treated Hillary Clinton back in October...and I couldn't find it.

Surely you wrote one, right?

Can you reprint that letter and give a link for it, Ezra?

Thnx.

Petey's right, where were you Ezra when GE/NBC/MSNBC did this to Hillary?

It's almost impossible for me to convey the damage Tim Russert and Brian Williams are doing to the republic this evening. So far, the questioning has gone something like: "Hillary, are you a racist?" "Barack, are you a scary black man who will continually remind us that we are racists?" "Senator Obama, why are you such a dick?" "Senator Clinton, would you like to comment on Senator Obama's past drug use?" "Senator Obama, you say you want to move us forward, but your press people have released documents mentioning Hillary Clinton. Please explain."

It's literally the worst moderation I've yet seen. It's not moderation. It's trivialization. 28 minutes in, there's not been a question about any issue, any cause, any problem.

uh, tom, that's not a petition

Tom Hilton:

Where is your outrage when Obama uses GOP talking points against Hillary? He started last fall. He SAID she wasn't trustworthy, he SAID, she would do anything to win and more. I was offended at the time, I still am. All of this situational righteous indignation is getting old.

BTW- I thought the ABC debate was awful, but really no different from the others. This time they were ganging up on Obama instead of Clinton, although she took some hard questions too.

uh, tom, that's not a petition

MonaL, if you're going to bring up vague accusations like that, please provide links so that we can determine whether a) Obama actually said those things, b) that's your interpretation of some things Obama said that sound vaguely like that, or c) that's your understanding of Taylor Marsh's misreporting of some things that sound vaguely like that.

That said, none of those things are anywhere close to the same ballpark as comparing Obama unfavorably to the Republican nominee. Which is just one of the many gifts Clinton has been showering on the GOP lately.

Kmblue, looks like Obma isn't the only one incapable of handling tough questions.

Again: Do you think it is appropriate for moderators to take a stand on an issue during a debate?

I'd like these hillary whackjobs to site some sources where progressives defended Tim Russer of Chris Matthews the way they are defending Georgie boy and Charlie 'don't raise my taxes' gibson.

These people are traitors to everything the Democratic party stands for. They only care about themselves. How appropriate they back Clinton.

err, cite. Whatever.

Hrh, maybe I should have just kept it that way so I could slam them as elitists when they corrected me instead of responding. God knows Anonymous loves to do that petty kindergarten shit.

Russert.

The Left is getting more and more bitter because their Anointed One turns out to have more skeletons in his closet than John Wayne Gacy and can't defend himself any better than that clown. Obama started out as the Great Black/White Hope and is devolving into a warmed over Dukakerrymondalegorecarter.

Hey sotrite

This is what you were writing all over the left blogs last September:
" No matter what you say, the only way to get new leadership in a party is to force that party's defeat. I'll actively work to that ends, even though that means voting for Republicans. Just not voting only removes a vote from the D column. voting for R when you usually vote D more or less doubles the party's losses."

Your comments about whiny nutjobs working against the Democratic party must be drawn from your personal experience.

"

I'd like these hillary whackjobs to site some sources where progressives defended Tim Russer of Chris Matthews the way they are defending Georgie boy and Charlie 'don't raise my taxes' gibson.

These people are traitors to everything the Democratic party stands for. They only care about themselves. How appropriate they back Clinton."

Posted by: Soullite | April 18, 2008 8:31 PM
--------------------------

Again, because you seem to have a difficult time grasping this point: SOME people-like Ezra-DID complain about the bias of the NBC debates. However, there was no petition, and no 2-day headlines at HuffPo about it. The howls of outrage were muted.

And as far as Democrats (who disagree with you)being traitors-how presumptuous of you. Who are you, exactly, to decide that those of us who don't share YOUR views are bad Dems?

You'd better get over yourself, because you and those who agree with you cannot win elections without the rest of us. But, hey, if you want to cut your nose off to spite your face, then have at it. Good luck with that attitude in November.

One must not question "The Precious"! What sacrilege!

Give me a break, Ezra. And please, put down the Kool-AId and quickly get yourself to the nearest Obamabots-Anonymous meeting!

It doesn't really matter what other reporters think of the questions asked. The voters will decide the importance of the questions. Women, however, are taking note of the uproar after this debate in comparison to the other debates which primarily hammered Hillary. Hey, we know she can take it, but that doesn't mean we don't resent her having to take it over and over and over.

There certainly wasn't any talk of a petition when Hillary was getting a rough time.

The double standard is very clear.

The game is too early for any player to really develop any guide that can contain that valuable of information that another can offer considering the game has yet to even be released. Why pay for information when many sites even provide that information for free. Majority of the information these paid for guides are scraped off other sites, blogs and forums and combined, compacted and reworded to become their own guide.