Wired: McCain Campaign Backs Out on Tech Debate
Wired: McCain Campaign Backs Out on Tech Debate
November 1, 2008
Wired reports that the McCain campaign bailed on a technology debate scheduled for Thursday just hours before it was to begin.
According to Wired's Nicholas Thompson, a debate on tech issues had been arranged between an Obama rep and McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Tickets to the event sold out quickly. Thompson writes:
Then, oops, yesterday morning, a couple hours before the event began, the McCain camp emailed to say that, actually, no, sorry, Holtz-Eakin can't make it for the 12:30 debate. Apparently he had very important meetings to attend. Right. Apparently, though, he stepped out in the middle. At 1pm he was on MSNBC attacking Obama, trying to tie him to George Bush's economic policies...
In short: the McCain camp chickened out. Spinning is easy; debating is hard. And defending John McCain’s record on broadband deployment, spectrum issues, and net neutrality is particularly hard...
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:14pm
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Valdearg: IE: Male body/Female Mind or Female Body/Male Mind.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:13pm
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Valdearg: @Zip: TG == Transgendered/Transsexual.
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:09pm
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
DarkSaber: Forget it Zippy, it's an abbreviation of a big word and so would be wasted on you
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:07pm
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
ZippyDSMlee: Vlag:....TG?
Posted 02/09/10 at 03:02pm
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Valdearg: @DS: Im sure that's what they'd do if it wasn't legal to just tell Gays/TG's to "Screw off," just because they're who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 02:50pm
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
DarkSaber: Whoever told him/her/it that is dumb. They should have done like most companies and made-up some bullshit, yet legal, reason for it not getting the job.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I'm impressed that they actually used email. I would have expected them to use carrier pidgeon or telegraph :D
But seriously I'm not surprised that he checkened out. To paraphrase the report "Spinning is easy, polishing a turd is hard".
...Is he holding one of the first cell phones in his hand? Or does he actually still use that? (refering to McCain picture).
The tubes must have been clogged.
McCain lost anyways, but every needs to make sure and vote still.
So I'm wondering something. Neither of these potential presidents look worth the gas I'll have to spend getting to the voting place. What is so great about Obama that most of my generation and apprently gamers want to go his way? All he seems to do is make long winded plans about what he intends to do with my taxes. McCain isn't really any better... Gah! What's going on in this country?! I shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils!
/rant
Oh, and that Wired thing looks a little jaded....
Why vote for a lesser evil?
C'thulu 2012...
Damnit, I wanted to at LEAST have SOME sort of reassurance to voting for mccain. Obama just seems to be spouting off crap and seems to want to drive the country into the ground, mccain seems to be promising more of the same, which is crap, but not anything near as bad as what obama is saying.
"But obama's promising to blah blah blah and that's good!"
I can promise that pouring lice down your pants will cure the common cold, but it's just gonna make your butt itch.
Then we have mccain, who quite frankly just doesn't impress me in any aspect other than his resolve to finish up in the middle east, and his determination to stop socialized institutions.
However, if obama promised to abolish the DMCA and other IP bills, he'd get my vote, maybe.
My other thoughts are:Obama's gonna get us attacked and WWIII will start on U.S. soil, With Mccain it'll be somewhere else and I'll have enough warning to move to some remote location in alaska.
I think you have you candidates mixed up. McCain hasn't made commitments to finish up in the middle east, in fact he has critisized Obama for saying he would. As for socialized institutions.. Im afraid I am English and we happen to believe the NHS should be a human right and think it absolutely ludicrous a huge country like the US cannot do the same thing, though I appreciate this is the culture clash; Obama is still more rightwing than our Tory party ever was, even though he is your most left wing candidate.
As for the pathetic WWIII comment, we live in the nuclear age. Do you really think a GENUINE world war would see you unscathed? At least with Obama there is likely to be better relations with the rest of the world and the US. Right now it couldn't be much worse, but I can count on John "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" McCain to find a way...
Actually, the rest of the world LOVE Obama. Pretty much, anyways. Obama's not an idiotm they realize that, and he actually GIVES A DAMN ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES. We're not a solitary force in the world, we haven't been since the Cold War. When the Soviet Union disappeared from the face of the earth, so did the force that balanced us out, the force that kept us in check.
McCain is too old to see that. A lot of people are too old to see that. They're all, "Commies are bad! Commies are evil!" Well, Communists weren't the best bunch of folks (they didn't exactly invite their citizens over for parties, that's for certain), but they were a balancing force.
Also, if McCain kicks the bucket, we'll have Palin to worry about. She's not afraid of open war with Russia... Because, you know, forces invading Russia always do so well...
Hint: The "Build from the Bottom" economic philosophy that Obama supports works better that the Trickle Down theory that McCain supports... And Obama offers lower taxes pretty much across the entire fboard than McCain.
Am I the only one who briefly experienced a shudder of revulsion upon reading the words "Thompson writes:"?
I know, that's just... Weird...
Thompson for Obama? That possibility makes me scared... He usually doesn't diss what he supports easily, so it sounds like he's not for McCain...