David Kirkpatrick

July 1, 2010

Andrew v. Andrew

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 2:40 pm

Sullivan versus Breitbart, that is. One is an actual principled journalist with a deep appreciation, and training, for the art bloodless war that is debate. The other is a hack rabble-rouser with an agenda. You decide.

In this much they are both entirely correct — you can’t expect any electronic communication to be “off the record.” Where they differ is whether to respect the journalistic principle of an “off the record” conversation whether it be oral, written or electronic.

(And yes, that opening graf was meant to provocate. I enjoy the work of both men, albeit in different ways at times. For the record they are both a little bit right in this conversation.)

October 7, 2008

Missing the debate tonight and light blogging

Filed under: Arts, et.al., Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 6:04 pm

This is looking like another week of lighter blogging. I’m doing some final detail work on the decorative metal historic preservation project I blogged about back in August.

As promised I will have some pictures very soon. This work has been truly amazing and my friend, Michael van Enter, has once again proven himself to be an absolute genius at making the impossible possible. Kudos to Beck construction as well for cranking out a massive project on a tight timeline. When all is said and done, Dallas’ Union Station will be restored to its full glory.

In other light blogging news, I’m going to a music industry event tonight so it may a day or so before I get my debate reactions up. I’ll be watching a DVRed version from C-Span.

September 27, 2008

Another reax from debate one

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 2:22 pm

Funny and insightful from a TPM commenter:

And here’s another note from TPM Reader TB. I guess I’m really not sure quite how to characterize it …

I think people really are missing the point about McCain’s failure to look at Obama. McCain was afraid of Obama. It was really clear–look at how much McCain blinked in the first half hour. I study monkey behavior–low ranking monkeys don’t look at high ranking monkeys. In a physical, instinctive sense, Obama owned McCain tonight and I think the instant polling reflects that.

So McCain may have given away his status as a low-ranking monkey. I’d never even considered monkey rank.

Late Monkey Science Update: In case anyone’s wondering, I looked up TPM Reader TB’s page at the University he teaches at. And no doubt about it, he appears to be a genuine monkey scientist, or to be more specific a researcher on social cognition and behavior in primates. I’d link to his page. But readers remain anonymous, save for their initials, until they tell us otherwise.

Update — Here’s more from TPM Election Central:

Focus Group: McCain’s Negativity Backfired In Debate
Time reports that a focus group run by Dem pollster Stan Greenberg found an interesting result for the debate: Voting decisions were not changed among undecided voters, but the perception of John McCain as a negative campaigner was strengthened immensely. Before the debate, McCain was seen as more negative by a seven-point margin, and then by a 26-point margin afterward — and for his trouble, Barack Obama’s numbers on readiness to be president actually increased. Thus, it appears that McCain’s decision to go on the offensive in this debate only backfired.

McCain lost this week big time. The tipping point may be at hand.

Here’s one debate reaction from NRO

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 4:58 am

Bill Buckley rolls and would perambulate if possible to ward off anyone who hopes to dare and read this linked travesty of wordsmithery.

Thanks to Fark.com for this link.

September 26, 2008

Obama narrowly wins debate, wins week big

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 11:32 pm

Whew. Here at the close of an absolutely insane week of economics and politics we had the first presidential debate. A debate that almost became a 90 minute monologue from Obama before McCain thought better of his idiotic threat to “boycott” the debate.

My initial take? It was a solid performance from both candidates, but I think Obama won narrowly by sticking to the questions a bit better and being much stronger with his rebuttals. McCain was a bit repetitive and seemed to fall back on his own talking points when rebutting rather than facing Obama’s responses head-on.

I’ll provide bits from my notes below the fold.

The big story is how badly McCain misjudged this entire week. He came off as a loony overreacter by first stating the “fundamentals of the economy are sound,” and immediately reversing course and claiming the financial crisis is the worst problem the US has faced since World War II. Not very statesmanlike.

He compounded the unforced error by “suspending” his campaign, but not really and being exposed in the press for the subterfuge. He then charged to DC to fix the financial mess himself and ended up blamed for scuttling the bailout by emboldening House GOPers who promptly threw him under the bus. It’s not correct,  but the impression is he single handedly screwed the bipartisan plan put together by Congress and the White House.

And of course he said he wouldn’t debate unless a bailout plan was in place. There’s no plan in place and he was behind his podium in Oxford, Mississippi, looking quite heavily made-up and relatively fresh.

The end result? Obama wins this critical week in the presidential race by a very, very wide margin. He looked and sounded presidential and serious where McCain looked like shit creek sailor without a paddle.

Go below the fold for my at-the-time notes on the debate from tonight.


April 17, 2008

ABC News is the big loser

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 1:05 pm

Commentary about last night’s “debate” is impossible to miss today. Judging by comments left by readers at various websites — most notably ABC News — the real loser was ABC News itself.

This Washington Post story pretty much sums up the general attitude.

From the link:

When Barack Obama met Hillary Clinton for another televised Democratic candidates’ debate last night, it was more than a step forward in the 2008 presidential election. It was another step downward for network news — in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances.

For the first 52 minutes of the two-hour, commercial-crammed show, Gibson and Stephanopoulos dwelled entirely on specious and gossipy trivia that already has been hashed and rehashed, in the hope of getting the candidates to claw at one another over disputes that are no longer news. Some were barely news to begin with.


This post about one of tonight’s debate “moderators” …

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 2:24 am

 … from Matthew Yglesias is getting a lot of traction on the blogosphere. And for good reason.

The linked post:

I’d forgotten that for months now Charlie Gibson has been asserting that $200,000 is a solid middle-class income, blissfully unaware that just 3.4 percent of U.S. households have an income of $200,000 or more. You could be richer than 96 percent of your fellow citizens, but still just folks to Gibson. Obviously that’s not on a par with being bad at bowling or anything on the “out of touch” scale, but it’s still disappointing to learn that even our salt of the earth working class multimillionaire television news personalities aren’t utterly infallible.

January 19, 2008

Science Debate 2008

Filed under: Politics, Science — Tags: , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 7:28 pm

If you think issues around science and technology should factor into your political decision in this presidential election, put some support behind the Sciencedebate 2008 people.

This group is pushing for a presidential debate specifically on the candidates’ stance toward science and technology.

A welcome inclusion to the sometimes drab and predictable debate format, and I think an important source of information about the candidates. Especially considering how science has fared under the Bush 43 regime.

Featured quote from the site:

“We all know that universities spin off economic engines.  You need look no further than Google™ to see that.   Furthermore, it is estimated that half the nation’s growth in GDP over the past half century can be attributed to science and engineering achievements.  But by 2010, if current trends continue, over 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia.  Isn’t this something the candidates for president should be discussing?”

-Lawrence Krauss
One of the organizers of Science Debate 2008
Here and here are lists of supporters.