Clinton Interview on Fox News

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Now, would you like to tell me why the electoral system in the US is an "utter joke" or would you rather continue to sit on your high horse and tell yourself how dumb I am?

Without even looking at the long line of contemporary instances of electoral college failure, it's easily picked apart on it's basic ideals.

There is no law that holds the electors to the will of the people. That is a shocking declaration of anti-democratic intentions.

The basis for the electoral college is eerily similar to what happened in florida during the 2000 election. The electoral college was a concession to the south, who wanted their slave populations to count towards electoral votes, but didn't want them able to vote. Some democratic institution...institutionalized racism and elitism.

The system was devised after a long summer spent discussing how to create a nation, and received little to no debate. It's a point of history that the system that was set up was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, which resulted very quickly in election problems between Jefferson and adams, and later burr and jackson. Hell, Jackson lost the presidency in 1826 even though he held over 40 percent of both the electoral and popular votes in a 5 candidate race. Some democracy.

It's also incredibly indifferent to huge swaths of the American population. In the 2000 election, 17 states were left unvisited by presidential candidates. Are you going to try and tell me that a third of the states in the union don't matter in Presidential Elections? Because if the electoral college is as functional as you claim, that's the only logical answer.

Putting the fate of the country in the swing electoral votes, that aren't bound in any way to the will of people, of Ohio seems like a faulty system, to me. I'm not the only one who thinks the electoral college is a failure either, other radicals who have opposed it throughout history are fringe characters like Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, Nixon and Ford. Even James Madison, someone present during the Constitutional Convention thought the electoral college was a bad idea and expressed his position more than 200 years ago.

Do you need any other reasons? There are 5 examples in the last 200 years of the election of president being taken out of the hands of the voters and decided by other branches of the legislative government (and 1 in the courts). Again, some democracy.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Without even looking at the long line of contemporary instances of electoral college failure, it's easily picked apart on it's basic ideals.

And the condescending attitude begins.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

There is no law that holds the electors to the will of the people. That is a shocking declaration of anti-democratic intentions.

Intentions that are over 200 years old and dead with those who first imagined them. The electoral college hasn't strayed from the will of the people since that time. Maybe there should be a law, but the Leafs will win the Cup (just a fun phrase instead of hell freezing over...I realize the Leafs might actually win it again someday) before the electoral college strays from that will. It won't happen. The intentions, however, are irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The basis for the electoral college is eerily similar to what happened in florida during the 2000 election. The electoral college was a concession to the south, who wanted their slave populations to count towards electoral votes, but didn't want them able to vote. Some democratic institution...institutionalized racism and elitism.

Wow, nice job of supplanting the real reason for the concession with one of the many arguments used to support it. The truth is that the South wanted this system to ensure that the President of the United States was not a function of who was popular in New York, Boston and Philadelphia. It ensured that the rural states of the South and elsewhere had some voice in determining the leadership of their nation. States rights, which was in fact the main reason behind the Civil War contrary to popular belief, was the entire issue.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The system was devised after a long summer spent discussing how to create a nation, and received little to no debate. It's a point of history that the system that was set up was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, which resulted very quickly in election problems between Jefferson and adams, and later burr and jackson. Hell, Jackson lost the presidency in 1826 even though he held over 40 percent of both the electoral and popular votes in a 5 candidate race. Some democracy.

You've got a real focus on the infancy of the system. Ancient history. Completely irrelevant in this discussion. "Some democracy" one of the top 10 favorite phrases of angry young Canadians!

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

It's also incredibly indifferent to huge swaths of the American population. In the 2000 election, 17 states were left unvisited by presidential candidates. Are you going to try and tell me that a third of the states in the union don't matter in Presidential Elections? Because if the electoral college is as functional as you claim, that's the only logical answer.

In the modern history of the Presidential election, only one candidate has visited every state during his campaign, that was Richard Nixon. The logistical and financial costs of such an endeavor were, in the past, prohibitive. Today, that's less of an issue with increased efficiency of travel and the huge piles of money that candidates spend on their campaigns. At the same time, the amazing expansion in technology over the last century and especially the last couple of decades have allowed these candidates to reach more and more people in more and more ways. TV, radio, mail, internet etc. allow candidates to reach virtually every registered voter in the country on multiple occasions. Not visiting a state during a campaign does certainly NOT indicate that it is unimportant. A personal visit might be nice for the hundreds or a few thousand voters that actually get to hear the candidate speak in person, but the overall effect of such visits are not overwhelming. As you well know, the reason most candidates don't visit certain areas have more to do with regional tendencies and preferences than a candidate's choice to ignore a group of voters. Nice spin though. Your answer is certainly NOT the only logical answer.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Putting the fate of the country in the swing electoral votes, that aren't bound in any way to the will of people, of Ohio seems like a faulty system, to me. I'm not the only one who thinks the electoral college is a failure either, other radicals who have opposed it throughout history are fringe characters like Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, Nixon and Ford. Even James Madison, someone present during the Constitutional Convention thought the electoral college was a bad idea and expressed his position more than 200 years ago.

Can you explain why the fate of the country lie in just a few votes? That's a flawed statement. Those votes only become important if other votes fall the correct way. In reality, those votes are no more important than the votes of any other area. If you can show me a logical reason as to why the state of Ohio determines the result of every Presidential election you might have a point. Again, the binding to the will of the people argument holds no water. They aren't bound by law, but believe me, they are bound....and history proves it.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do you need any other reasons? There are 5 examples in the last 200 years of the election of president being taken out of the hands of the voters and decided by other branches of the legislative government (and 1 in the courts). Again, some democracy.

You've given me nothing recent, save 2000. The issue there was certifying the vote to determine who won the state of Florida. It only mattered because of how the votes fell in the other states. It had nothing to do with flaws in the electoral college.

Issues do arise in our system, as they do in every system. The nature of politics produces voter fraud (IOWA...I feel exit polls are a form of this BTW). Bureaucracy and differing laws from state to state produce inconsistancies in how votes are cast and counted. These are real problems that need to be fixed. The system is certainly not perfect, but the electoral college is a GOOD thing.

Why?

The electoral college ensures that a certain group of people do not hold all of the power in determining the President. The issues of rural America are just as important as those of the largest urban centers. The electoral college helps give rural America a say. On a straight popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to win based on the vote of the 34 most populous counties in the nation. How is that democratic?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

^^FWIW, I think that if the only alternative to the electoral college were a first-past-the-post nationwide election based strictly on percentage of popular vote, then yes, the electoral college would be a good thing. But you have to admit that the electoral college is at best a poor way of solving this problem--and not for nothing, the framers knew this too, and added the proviso that a slave be worth 3/5 of a person for determining the number of electors (and also of congressmen) for each state, to further tilt the balance of power toward those "rural" areas--which were in large part slaveholding areas, at least until Kansas came along, IIRC.

Another function of the electoral college was as a check on untrammeled democratic power. Indeed--there wasn't even a requirement that states use elections in order to choose their electors. As a practical matter most eventually did--but the U.S. was never conceived as a direct democracy, but as a representative republic run by a small cadre of the elite, who would be of the same social class as those who had the right to vote, and who had the means to participate in the electoral system.

In short, the electoral college was a great way to balance power among state delegations of electors--and though this may be "ancient history," it's proved to be at best a clunky way of shifting power toward rural areas per se.

Here's one problem: the number of electoral votes is a function of each state's congressional delegation. Well, what's to stop a state that wants more power from simply redistricting their congressional districts so that they have a larger delegation--and thus more electoral votes and therefore more power in presidential elections, power that is especially useful if said state trends in a certain direction. Sound implausible? Tom Delay did exactly this in Texas.

The main problem with the electoral college is that it was born in that "ancient history" that you didn't think was useful--and therefore, in spite of being the main federal electoral institution, its composition has literally no oversight at the federal level apart from the courts. The framers were pretty smart--but they could not have foreseen a nation of nearly 300 million people, each with the right to vote to choose electors in one of 50 different regions, each of them doing so by different rules. For this reason, the electoral system is not set up to deal appropriately with this problem. I don't think straight popular vote is the answer either, but if there's a system in need of democratic reforms, it's this one. There needs to be an integrated, federal electoral system which is at arms length from the states--which balances regional powers and enshrines that balance in the government itself. There need to be rules preventing congressmen from jerrymandering their own districts. There need to be rules governing the role of money in politics. But most importantly, there needs to be a system for electing a president which does not depend on the states to volunteer their compliance, but which holds them accountable to a nationwide standard of democracy--one which hews to the democratic values of the framers while responding to the challenges of the present. The electoral college isn't that system. (and for heaven's sake, they need to have ballots look the same in every voting district across the nation!)

That's not to say that Canada's is flawless--you may well be right about the "glass houses" thing.

BTW--what do you mean that exit polls are a form of fraud? Not sure I understand.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Incidentally, since this thread is ranging rather far afield from its original topic, I thought Clinton was awesome in his appearance on Fox. He's an ex-president, so he's got nothing to lose, I guess--but to me he looked (although he was clearly angry) calm, cool and collected and about a thousand times smarter than the chucklehead who was doing the interview.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

^^
BTW--what do you mean that exit polls are a form of fraud? Not sure I understand.

Who conducts them? Who releases the information and when?

I believe people are influenced by exit polls in two ways...

1. They tend to vote with the crowd
2. They decide its already over anyway so why vote.

I believe carefully timed exit polls can have a rather large impact on elections. I think they should be illegal. After all, they serve no purpose even if done on the up and up.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Incidentally, since this thread is ranging rather far afield from its original topic, I thought Clinton was awesome in his appearance on Fox. He's an ex-president, so he's got nothing to lose, I guess--but to me he looked (although he was clearly angry) calm, cool and collected and about a thousand times smarter than the chucklehead who was doing the interview.

1. There should be a level of respect for the office. Clinton is a former President. He deserves a level of respect. No matter how much you might hate a President, you must show that respect and do your job with reverance.

2. Chris Wallace lives for this kind of stuff. He is notorious for it. He's done the same thing to Rumsfeld on a couple of occasions. I can't stand the guy, but then again I can't stand about 99% of television journalists.

3. I would've liked to have seen Clinton avoid the "what about the Bush admin" answers. It would have enhanced his response even more. However, given the situation his answers were not inappropriate.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

3. I would've liked to have seen Clinton avoid the "what about the Bush admin" answers. It would have enhanced his response even more. However, given the situation his answers were not inappropriate.

Good points. As for this one, I guess it partly depends on whether you believe, as many on the left in this country do, that Fox news is merely the mouthpiece of the Republicans and the Bush administration--in which case Wallace's critique of Clinton was not just bad journalism, but him acting as a proxy for other politicians who want to cover their butts during what may be a difficult time as the implications of the intelligence estimate start to sink in. If indeed, Wallace was acting as a proxy for the Bush administration, then Clinton's critique of Bush is appropriate. Maybe less so if you just see Wallace as a bad journalist.

However, what Clinton said has the added advantage of being true. That doesn't mean that 9/11 was Bush's fault--but it does mean that he ought to quit pointing fingers at Clinton and start working on the problem before he too is a lame duck.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Good points. As for this one, I guess it partly depends on whether you believe, as many on the left in this country do, that Fox news is merely the mouthpiece of the Republicans and the Bush administration--in which case Wallace's critique of Clinton was not just bad journalism, but him acting as a proxy for other politicians who want to cover their butts during what may be a difficult time as the implications of the intelligence estimate start to sink in. If indeed, Wallace was acting as a proxy for the Bush administration, then Clinton's critique of Bush is appropriate. Maybe less so if you just see Wallace as a bad journalist.

However, what Clinton said has the added advantage of being true. That doesn't mean that 9/11 was Bush's fault--but it does mean that he ought to quit pointing fingers at Clinton and start working on the problem before he too is a lame duck.

The problem with that theory, and I mentioned this earlier, is that Bush has declassified the rest of the estimate. The documents in question were cherry picked portions only.

Even so, I don't have a problem with those responses because they are fair questions to be asking Wallace given his antagonistic approach to the interview.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

And the condescending attitude begins.

I did not mean to be condescending in that post at all. What I said was simply an observation. Had I chosen to be condescending, however, I feel I would've been quite within the boundaries of polite conversation, especially in light of your demonstration of real lack of knowledge on the issue, which I will further demonstrate because I am bored and drunk.

Intentions that are over 200 years old and dead with those who first imagined them. The electoral college hasn't strayed from the will of the people since that time. Maybe there should be a law, but the Leafs will win the Cup (just a fun phrase instead of hell freezing over...I realize the Leafs might actually win it again someday) before the electoral college strays from that will. It won't happen. The intentions, however, are irrelevant.

This states precisely nothing, except for the assertions regarding the electoral college and it not having 'strayed from the will of the peoeple' since those 'ancient' times of yore. Those assertions of course being completely false. Like I mentioned in my previous post, I can point to 5 instances of Electoral College failure within the last 200 years.

Wow, nice job of supplanting the real reason for the concession with one of the many arguments used to support it. The truth is that the South wanted this system to ensure that the President of the United States was not a function of who was popular in New York, Boston and Philadelphia. It ensured that the rural states of the South and elsewhere had some voice in determining the leadership of their nation. States rights, which was in fact the main reason behind the Civil War contrary to popular belief, was the entire issue.

Again, I believe this to be false. The south had a greater population than the north collectively. 'Fears' of Boston controlling Charlotte are largely over stated. I find it odd though, that you would dismiss the 'ancient' history of the constitution and electoral college, yet refer to the antiquated defense of the electoral college being a defense of the smaller states. Small states are invariable dragged along behind the larger ones, as they have been through the entire history of the United States. This notion of protecting wyoming from California is absurd, especially for someone like you who doesn't pay attention to 'ancient' history.

You've got a real focus on the infancy of the system. Ancient history. Completely irrelevant in this discussion. "Some democracy" one of the top 10 favorite phrases of angry young Canadians!

Again, I can't believe how badly you got me on this one. I don't know how I could've been so wrong! bwahahaha. Hilarious.

In the modern history of the Presidential election, only one candidate has visited every state during his campaign, that was Richard Nixon. The logistical and financial costs of such an endeavor were, in the past, prohibitive. Today, that's less of an issue with increased efficiency of travel and the huge piles of money that candidates spend on their campaigns. At the same time, the amazing expansion in technology over the last century and especially the last couple of decades have allowed these candidates to reach more and more people in more and more ways. TV, radio, mail, internet etc. allow candidates to reach virtually every registered voter in the country on multiple occasions. Not visiting a state during a campaign does certainly NOT indicate that it is unimportant. A personal visit might be nice for the hundreds or a few thousand voters that actually get to hear the candidate speak in person, but the overall effect of such visits are not overwhelming. As you well know, the reason most candidates don't visit certain areas have more to do with regional tendencies and preferences than a candidate's choice to ignore a group of voters. Nice spin though. Your answer is certainly NOT the only logical answer.

This is nice and all, but I'm not talking about a candidate foregoing a state, two states or even 5 states. Hell, even 10 states, one fifth of the Union. I'm talking about BOTH candidates ignoring 1/3 of the Union. Logistical problems though, I'm sure.

Can you explain why the fate of the country lie in just a few votes? That's a flawed statement. Those votes only become important if other votes fall the correct way. In reality, those votes are no more important than the votes of any other area. If you can show me a logical reason as to why the state of Ohio determines the result of every Presidential election you might have a point. Again, the binding to the will of the people argument holds no water. They aren't bound by law, but believe me, they are bound....and history proves it.

Again, you're using non-factual (I don't know if you're using them on purpose, so I won't call them lies) statements to reinforce your position. The reality is that YES, some votes DO count more than others, of other areas. Don't believe me? "The result is that in 1988, for example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven least populous jurisdiction of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the 9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote in the other States listed." The US Election Atlas explains it better than I could in my state. A vote in wyoming is three times as powerful as a vote in California.

Also, despite your Dave Nonis type assertions about some sort of 'code' enforcing the electors to vote with the the will of the people, the historical record shows otherwise. If you don't believe me, feel free to educate yourself on the aforementioneds election of 1800 (that would be jefferson vs. adams, jefferson being the victor) and 1824 (Jackson vs. Adams (But really vs. burr)), both of which ended up being sorted out by the house of reps (very democratic I might add). Hell, read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s article in rolling stone about the 2004 election.

You've given me nothing recent, save 2000.

Is 1960 recent enough for you, when the state of hawaii sent two sets of electors to washington?

Issues do arise in our system, as they do in every system. The nature of politics produces voter fraud (IOWA...I feel exit polls are a form of this BTW). Bureaucracy and differing laws from state to state produce inconsistancies in how votes are cast and counted. These are real problems that need to be fixed. The system is certainly not perfect, but the electoral college is a GOOD thing.

Why?

The electoral college ensures that a certain group of people do not hold all of the power in determining the President.

[ Ya, a certain group of people called American Citizens.

The issues of rural America are just as important as those of the largest urban centers. The electoral college helps give rural America a say. On a straight popular vote, it would be possible for a candidate to win based on the vote of the 34 most populous counties in the nation. How is that democratic?

I've made no mention that it is, I'm just saying the electoral college is a joke.

[White Doors]

Fox fights back!

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNew...895062-ap.html

[Bobblehead]

And Giuliani defends Clinton.
link

[Reaper]

Ailes said he was surprised the story created such a reaction and that he understood the political response.
"They're trying to do this to rally their base, go after Fox News, set up a straw man," he said. "That's fine. America's favourite indoor sport is politics. I quit it 14 years ago because I hated it.

LOL... The Fox News Chief implying he's not "involved" in politics is like a gardener implying he doesn't involve himself with water.

Fox news has been pushing the political agenda of Right Wing Rupert Murdoch for some time now so for Ailes to fire back and call Clinton's response "an attack on journalists everywhere" holds about as much credibility as Tobacco companies claiming that there is no link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The problem with that theory, and I mentioned this earlier, is that Bush has declassified the rest of the estimate. The documents in question were cherry picked portions only.

Both sides are liable to cherry pick portions of longer documents that the public doesn't have the time or appetite for reading. But to declassify something that takes longer to read than "War and Peace," is in some ways the best way to keep it secret. Most people are just going to shrug and turn their attention back to the O.C.

So I'm not convinced that declassifying this is evidence that the Bush agenda here is above board--but either way, I think politics explains a lot of Clinton's reaction. The difference is that he has nothing to gain--he can hold no higher office than he has already held, and is a polarizing enough figure (and too conservative for most Dems nowadays) that he's at best on the margins of the political debate. But it sounds like you and I are in agreement about his right to stick up for himself either way.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Found this article on the matter today.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/MediaNew...895062-ap.html

What a joke. My favorite load of crap from the article.

"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, 'hold on a second."'

Professional? Mild mannered? Respectful? Chris Wallace?????? Bwaaaahahahaha!!! Yup, good old Roger Ailes has officially lost his mind. Chris Wallace and those discriptiors are not used in the same paragraph, let alone sentence. Wallace is an annoying scumbag, and it seems everyone knows it but Ailes.

[White Doors]

I think it's cute when Lanny pretends to ignore me.

[Azure]

Who is Roger Ailes?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

Who is Roger Ailes?

Media advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Media consultant to HW Bush. Chairman of Fox News. He likes to claim he's completely unbiased in his approach to the media or news.

[Displaced Flames fan]

What a complete waste of time. I'm sorry I ever responded to you Flash.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Media advisor to Nixon and Reagan. Media consultant to HW Bush. Chairman of Fox News. He likes to claim he's completely unbiased in his approach to the media or news.

Ah..

I did Google his name..just for the record.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

What a complete waste of time. I'm sorry I ever responded to you Flash.

I'm not sure I understand this post. Why a waste of time?