Except for Disagreements, They Agree

There was a bizarre editorial in the LA Times yesterday about how Obama and McCain are really pretty similar dudes and it's awesome that they're both so centristy and the same. One could debunk this contention, but the editorial itself doesn't really argue for it. They concede, for example, that McCain and Obama have serious disagreements about:

• Iraq
• Iran
• Health care
• Taxes
• Trade
• Abortion rights
• Gun control

That's a lot of disagreement! They also concede that the two candidates "have different plans to solve the mortgage crisis." What's more, after asserting that Obama and McCain "support the same policies" on the environment, they immediately acknowledge that they support different policies, "Obama's would reduce them to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, while McCain's would cut them by 60%" though they fail to note the difference between auctioning permits and giving them away. In the course of acknowledging disagreement about abortion, they note that Obama and McCain would appoint different kinds of judges, but they don't seem to consider the fact that the federal judiciary actually deals with all kinds of issues other than abortion. Nor do they mention Social Security, which is kind of a big deal.

One could go on like this, but I'm not sure what the point would be. Clearly, though, there's a substantial difference between the candidates and I have no idea why the press would think that obscuring that is a good idea -- conflict sells papers! And it's true!

Comments

Reuters: WELLINGTON, New Zealand - One of the last shipments to a U.S. research base in Antarctica before the onset of winter darkness was a year's supply of condoms, a New Zealand newspaper reported Monday.

Bill Henriksen, the manager of the McMurdo base station, said nearly 16,500 condoms were delivered last month and would be made available, free of charge, to staff throughout the year to avoid the potential embarrassment of having to buy them.

The base only has a skeleton staff through the long winter.

"Since everybody knows everyone, it becomes a little bit uncomfortable," Henriksen told the Southland Times newspaper.

About 125 scientists and staff are stationed at McMurdo base, the largest community in Antarctica, during the winter months when there is constant darkness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Since everybody knows everyone...."

Gee, ya think? I might browse Monster.com next year to see if McMurdo has any openings.

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 8:45 AM

OT, but "Lakers in 5!" is no longer operative.

Heh.

(Matt, if you give us a basketball post, we won't clutter these substantive posts... Please!)

Posted by TL | June 9, 2008 8:52 AM

TL, Matt has Justin Rose winning the U.S. Open in three rounds.

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 8:56 AM

It is not so much conflict that sells papers as a good horse race. This is looking to be a blowout and they are trying to help McCain a bit by comparing to the best politician of our time.

Posted by Stephen | June 9, 2008 8:57 AM

I wouldn't wipe my asshole with the L.A. Times.

Posted by ee | June 9, 2008 9:02 AM

There's really only one potentially winning approach for the GOP:

1) Obscure the enormous differences between the two candidates on the issues; and
2) throw a lot of shit at Obama, and hope some of it sticks.

Item 1 is the job of the media, to a great degree. Looks like they're doing their part.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 9, 2008 9:04 AM

Matt, I assure you your post involved ten times more thought than anyone at the LA Times is capable of putting into its analysis. Thinking are hard...make head hurt.

Posted by Glenn | June 9, 2008 9:09 AM

low-tech cyclist, item #2 is not also the job of the media?

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 9:10 AM

steve duncan@1: If fiction can be trusted, Antarctica is something like 70/30 male. (Per Kim Stanley Robinson's ANTARCTICA). So I, at least, would take a pass on the six months of darkness.

Posted by Tom Scudder | June 9, 2008 9:17 AM

Tom, maybe the trains are always on time.........

Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 9:30 AM

As others noted, conflict is good for a business, but a blowout is bad.

Also, writing about policy differences requires hard work and expertise. But if the media can shift the ground to stuff like gaffes, scandals, and so forth, it will make covering the election a lot easier for them.

Posted by DTM | June 9, 2008 9:30 AM

The current (?) issue of the Economist is called 'America at its Best', and has a pic of Obama and McCain on the cover. They too are trying to even out the contest and make it seem like it's a no-lose situation - they're both great (especially McCain)! The description of McCain touts his 'political courage'....riiight.

I think Stephen has the right idea: it can't be a blowout for Obama because that would be boring to cover. And it can't be too obvious which candidate is better, because that would violate the High Broderism that characterizes the Economist's coverage of US politics (eg after agonized and long argument, they endorsed Kerry, just barely, in 2004. No matter that Bush had a shockingly disasterous first term, and is, from either a truly liberal or conservative POV, patently among the worst presidents the county has had). And no matter that in 2008 GOP neglect and malfesance have brought the country to a crisis point: both candidates MUST be great, especially McCain, because God is in his heaven and all's right with the world, and god bless us every one. If the GOP were running Daffy Duck, the Economist would dutifully mention Daffy's relative inexperience, but cite his 'comic aplomb' and 'wry sensibility'. Yes, more Economist bashing, but they just absolutely suck about American politics.

Both candidates MUST be good (especially the Republican) no matter who they are. And if one is not so good, the Economist (and LAT, et. al) will *make* them good, because they simply must be. Reminds me of the old routine: 'Just $11 down and $11 a month! That's right, you heard right, just $11 dollars down and $11 a month! And if you don't have the $11...we'll loan you the $11!'.

Posted by jonnybutter | June 9, 2008 9:37 AM

Matthew-

Great blog, stumbled over here a couple of weeks ago.

Anyways, I think that your notion from the article that:
"What's more, after asserting that Obama and McCain "support the same policies" on the environment, they immediately acknowledge that they support different policies, "Obama's would reduce them to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, while McCain's would cut them by 60%" though they fail to note the difference between auctioning permits and giving them away"

I guess that the op-ed's assumption is that "doing something" about environmental issues is a wholesale-stance, while "doing nothing" a la Tom Coburn is another wholesale-stance (sadly, I might add).

Posted by Joel | June 9, 2008 10:24 AM

I meant Jim Inhofe. Right state, wrong senator.

Posted by Joel | June 9, 2008 10:31 AM

Isn't someone going to point out that both Obama and McCain seem to favor mere meat people over our certain advanced future cyber forms, so they really aren't different at all?

Posted by El Cid | June 9, 2008 10:53 AM

El Cid-

The Borg Queen is pleased with your observation.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

Posted by Joel | June 9, 2008 11:11 AM

I wouldn't wipe my asshole with the L.A. Times.

Me neither. Much less comfortable than a good brand of toilet paper. More expensive and less convenient as well. When you think about it, there's really no reason to wipe your asshole with the L.A. Times.

Posted by Seitz | June 9, 2008 12:25 PM

They obscure the differences BECAUSE THEY WANT MCCAIN IN OFFICE. Is that so hard to grasp?

The media and many pundits did the same thing in 2000 when they weren't relentlessly calling Gore a liar and hypocrite, yet it didn't take a genius to see that the real liar and hypocrite, as well as ideological radical, was George W. Bush. As we now should all understand, Gore was leagues away from Bush on every issue, and we're suffering as nation and as a globe because of our collective failure to get this.

After the Iraq War fiasco, don't you see what the press is up to?

Posted by J | June 9, 2008 1:41 PM

It's really pretty simple.

If the US MSM acknowledged that this looks like a blowout election for the Democrats, they'd then have to talk about why the Republicans are going to get a beating. And since that would involve acknowledging how deep a hole the GOP has driven the country into, aided and abetted by a compliant and lazy MSM, well, that's just not something sensible, serious, and well-paid people want to think about.

So a horserace it has to be.

Posted by Tony J | June 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Agreed--the LA Times has become progressively unreadable the last few years. Guess that happens when you have constant cutbacks and editorial turnover.

Posted by CJ | June 9, 2008 3:15 PM

16,500 condoms divided by 125 scientists = 132 condoms per person.

Divided by let's say four winter months, that would be 31 condoms per month.

So in other words, these guys get laid nightly but only have one orgasm.

Must be cold down there.

El Cid: "Isn't someone going to point out that both Obama and McCain seem to favor mere meat people over our certain advanced future cyber forms, so they really aren't different at all?"

I volunteer.

Yes, it's true. You've seen one chimp, you've seen them all.

More importantly, Obama will end up in a war with Iran just like McCain will. The only difference will be how fast.

Not that it matters, because Bush will start the war first anyway - at least if Obama wins, according to Daniel Pipes.

I've said for some time now that Bush and Cheney will start the Iran war this year because it will tie the hands of the incoming administration, no matter who it is, and insure continuing war and oil profits for their cronies.

Daniel Pipes just admitted this is true.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 9, 2008 7:16 PM

...that they're both so centristy and the same

Heh. I like the word "centristy".

Posted by Bengt Larsson | June 9, 2008 9:48 PM

I'll just note for the record that this strategy of blurring McCain's and Obama's messages originates with the McCain campaign. The press is doing Steve Schmidt's (preposterous) bidding.

Posted by southpaw | June 10, 2008 1:15 AM