I didn't realize that you would be appearing with such a blatant partisan hack. At first I was surprised that you didn't challenge Kleiman for his sources on unsubstantiated claims such as that the McCain camp skimped on the internal vetting process and are "just now learning what they got", but it soon became clear that he's not the type to let facts stand in the way of his agenda. Wasn't there a more truly reality-based person you could have spent your time with?
At least you finally discussed some of your distaste for McCain, although the exact reasons are still unclear to me. The fact that you find it so easy to judge the failure of McCain's first marriage seems to say more about you than about him. Is it that you've never, ever had a serious relationship that didn't work out, and thus have no idea how things can sometimes go wrong? Or have you always luckily been able to demonize the other person afterwards, so that it's clear to you that John must be a villain and totally wrong if he's not still with his first wife?
You don't know what happened with McCain's first wife. You automatically assume that his only problem with her was with her physical changes - she was crippled and had gained weight. Didn't it ever cross your mind that both her and his ordeals might have led to other changes in both of them, as well? It would be nice to think that years of stress and hardship and pain magically solve people's problems and bring them together, but the two of them might not have been all that well suited to each other to begin with, and certainly what they had both been through would put all kinds of strain on any marriage. Who are you to judge? His first wife is still on good terms with John McCain - are you going to attack her too, for not understanding her own situation as well as you do?
I've been a fan of yours for a long time, but to write off this accomplished person in such a petty, emotional way based on something you can't possibly know much about makes me question your judgment and maturity. If you have anything at all against McCain that isn't a pet peeve or petty quibble or based on ridiculously scanty information, I hope you'll fill us in on it at some point.
I enjoyed the discussion of bankruptcy at the end.
(The rest, not so much - you, Megan, hadn't really followed up the Palin issue yet, and Kleiman always takes the Democratic talking points as the only point of view that exists.)
While the arguments you presented were fascinating, I still feel a moral pull. How is it possible that the person never has to pay back the money he borrowed? I can understand reasonable payments, and of course there was the Sabbatical year canceling debts in the Bible... but do we at least agree on the moral issue - he still owes the money, even it is no longer collectible in court. Surely any decent person would recognize his obligation to give it back when possible?
http://www.slate.com/id/2198543
is a pretty complete treatment of the Joe Biden plagiarism discussion that Kleiman tried to brush away. I think the description there of "creepy" is pretty apt.
Megan,
Why was Andrea on MSNBC so incredibly sad after the VP speech? Why is Keith so nasty? Does the Media have an Ombudsperson?
What if an elected official was so biased/nasty? The (Free?) Press would have her/his head in less than 24-hours.
Why the Free Pass to MSNBC? Is the Press afraid that they will not be invited?
What gives?
I didn't realize that you would be appearing with such a blatant partisan hack. At first I was surprised that you didn't challenge Kleiman for his sources on unsubstantiated claims such as that the McCain camp skimped on the internal vetting process and are "just now learning what they got", but it soon became clear that he's not the type to let facts stand in the way of his agenda. Wasn't there a more truly reality-based person you could have spent your time with?
At least you finally discussed some of your distaste for McCain, although the exact reasons are still unclear to me. The fact that you find it so easy to judge the failure of McCain's first marriage seems to say more about you than about him. Is it that you've never, ever had a serious relationship that didn't work out, and thus have no idea how things can sometimes go wrong? Or have you always luckily been able to demonize the other person afterwards, so that it's clear to you that John must be a villain and totally wrong if he's not still with his first wife?
You don't know what happened with McCain's first wife. You automatically assume that his only problem with her was with her physical changes - she was crippled and had gained weight. Didn't it ever cross your mind that both her and his ordeals might have led to other changes in both of them, as well? It would be nice to think that years of stress and hardship and pain magically solve people's problems and bring them together, but the two of them might not have been all that well suited to each other to begin with, and certainly what they had both been through would put all kinds of strain on any marriage. Who are you to judge? His first wife is still on good terms with John McCain - are you going to attack her too, for not understanding her own situation as well as you do?
I've been a fan of yours for a long time, but to write off this accomplished person in such a petty, emotional way based on something you can't possibly know much about makes me question your judgment and maturity. If you have anything at all against McCain that isn't a pet peeve or petty quibble or based on ridiculously scanty information, I hope you'll fill us in on it at some point.
Honestly, this was painful to watch. The debate in a nutshell:
MM: I think that attacking Palin will make her out to be more sympathetic to swing voters.
MK: That's because swing voters don't know about [bad thing she did]
MM: I agree but I still don't think most voters care about...
MK: Well, you know she lied about [something she lied about]
repeat ad finem
Yes, Ann, Mark Kleiman is a blatant partisan hack.
Sheesh.
Watch the previous Bloggingheads with McArdle and Kleiman if you want to understand what he's about.
I enjoyed the discussion of bankruptcy at the end.
(The rest, not so much - you, Megan, hadn't really followed up the Palin issue yet, and Kleiman always takes the Democratic talking points as the only point of view that exists.)
While the arguments you presented were fascinating, I still feel a moral pull. How is it possible that the person never has to pay back the money he borrowed? I can understand reasonable payments, and of course there was the Sabbatical year canceling debts in the Bible... but do we at least agree on the moral issue - he still owes the money, even it is no longer collectible in court. Surely any decent person would recognize his obligation to give it back when possible?
http://www.slate.com/id/2198543
is a pretty complete treatment of the Joe Biden plagiarism discussion that Kleiman tried to brush away. I think the description there of "creepy" is pretty apt.