December 3, 2007

Did you watch that Democratic debate, you know, the rich-folks-only debate?

Eric Scheie agrees to cover a debate for Pajamas Media only to discover that it's not going to be so easy to watch it:
Thinking I must be crazy or just stupid (for the Democrats would never hold a debate on a channel that wasn’t generally available to the public, would they?) I spent quite a bit of time fiddling with the controls looking for [HDNet]....

As it turns out, the only way to get this channel is to upgrade my monthly service to “HD TV,” (plus pay an extra charge for “special” channels like HDNet), but that even then my existing equipment (which I paid for and had installed) would not work. To actually receive the new signal, I would have to buy a new receiver, and on top of that I’d have to buy a new satellite dish, have old one yanked off the wall and the new one installed!
Ha ha. You know I have an HD TV, and I pay for cable plus extra for HD service, but I still don't get HDNet, because it's extra extra. So I was 2 steps closer than Eric to being able to watch it, but I still couldn't watch it.
So, the Democratic Party — the party of the working class — is broadcasting tonight’s debate from an elitist network run by billionaire Mark Cuban that requires expensive equipment and high monthly charges to access.

What’s up with that? Is this a signal that despite the egalitarian rhetoric, that they’re actually the party of the rich and famous? Imagine the outcry if the GOP broadcast its debate from fancy network that ordinary people couldn’t access. There’d be cries that the Republicans were in a “gated community.”
And, amusingly enough, it's where you have to go to watch Dan Rather.

Eric decides to "blind-blog" the debate:
I couldn’t watch it, and so I can’t tell you what the questions or the answers were. But here’s what I think probably happened.

Hillary won, hands down....

44 comments:

MadisonMan said...

I should ask the same question I asked Re: Democrats on Fox. How many democratic primary voters would watch this?

Why even do it? Are they just going through some motions here in a Thanksgiving-to-Christmas hiatus-type thing when all the voters are busy with other things like family, parties, shopping, shoveling, ...

Ann Althouse said...

Oh, get out. How is this comparable to the show being on Fox? It's about access, not cootie-phobia.

rsb said...

Isn't this two party system we have lovely? Aren't they all the same except for donkey one and elephant two. What a sorry bunch of used car salesmen we have once again. Oh yes, let's be PC, one donkey used car saleswoman.
I'm still bummed I couldn't watch the Packers last Thursday too.

Icepick said...

Imagine the outcry if the GOP broadcast its debate from fancy network that ordinary people couldn’t access.

This is just crap. Ordinary people can and do have HD TVs and receive the hi-def channels. Market penetration isn't too deep yet, but so what? It's not like this stuff is restricted to only The Rich. Hell, I've got a friend living in a double-wide that has an HD TV and pays for all the HD channels his cable company provides.

Incidentally, would everyone be complaining in the same way if the debate were on HBO?

Roger said...

"cootie phobia?"

I am mystified with the revelation that democrats wouldnt watch a debate on Fox--that seems rather childish to me, especially after the CNN republican debate.

Henry said...

ESPN sportswriter Bill Simmons has a funny column up about how we complain about the media today.

To piggyback on his concept: "Leading up to the 2008 election, each party will hold several dozen debates, all televised. Some will be televised on obscure, high cost cable channels. No remotely interesting programming will be preempted. People will complain about this..."

One thing Simmons complains about it is the low market penetration of the NFL network that broadcast last week's Green Bay - Dallas game. So Simmons went to a sports bar to watch it and had a good time.

I guess that wasn't an option in this case. But then, last night's debate wasn't a meaningful contest.

AJ Lynch said...

The point Ann is making is you could not make this stuff up....the Dem wranglers must be just plain dumb and are pandering to loony Dan Rather and ego-maniac Mark Cuban at the expense of everyday Americans most of whom think cable extras are too darn expensive already!

Also.."cootie-phobia" is an all-timer. Make sure Ruth Ann logs this one in for Blogworld posterity.

AJ Lynch said...

Someone brought up HBO. MSM made a big deal about the Sopranos yet it is a fact that most Americans don't have HBO and so most Americans have never even seen one episode of that show.

MadisonMan said...

roger, who would watch was just a question I asked during the whine-fest by Republicans after the CNN "debate": how many of either party's primary voters watch/receive the channel? I think it's even more appropriate to ask with the HD thing and then ask why are they even doing this? Some favor to the owner?

Tim said...

"Ordinary people can and do have HD TVs and receive the hi-def channels. Market penetration isn't too deep yet, but so what?"

What is ordinary about the consumers of a product in which market penetration isn't too deep yet, as you characterize it?

"during the whine-fest by Republicans after the CNN "debate""

This is too f*cking precious. I'll attribute this to too much time in the cocoon. Otherwise, I can't possibly imagine the logic governing a mind in which Democrat primary voters are assumed to have absolutely no rightful interest in watching a Democrat debate on Fox, yet simultaneously complains about the Republican "whine-fest" about the partisan ambush staged by CNN (unless you think Democrat whack-jobs are appropriate questioners of Republicans candidates in a Republican primary for Republican voters...).

It's not at all clear how Democrat complaints with Fox are legitimate and Republican complaints with CNN are illegitimate, despite the fact we know CNN set up the Reps, and there is no evidence Fox has done the same to the Democrats. Unbelievable.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Icepick said: I've got a friend living in a double-wide that has an HD TV and pays for all the HD channels his cable company provides.

This of course provides us with a different version of reality for Democrat voters- maybe they all have the HD TV and superior cable packages; money spent this way instead of on health care, food and shelter, since the American taxpayer is picking up those bills for them?

SGT Ted said...

As it turns out, the only way to get this channel is to upgrade my monthly service to “HD TV,” (plus pay an extra charge for “special” channels like HDNet), but that even then my existing equipment (which I paid for and had installed) would not work. To actually receive the new signal, I would have to buy a new receiver, and on top of that I’d have to buy a new satellite dish, have old one yanked off the wall and the new one installed!

Hey, the Dems are now the party of the rich, so I guess the candidates figure they can afford all the new gear.

Der Hahn said...

MM, where are you getting the impression that significant numbers of people don't receive or watch Fox News as opposed to CNN?

According to this chart at journalism.org, Fox, CNN, and MSNBC are virtually tied based on the number of subscribers. Surf around the charts there and you'll find Fox has significant leads in viewership as well.

But if you want to continue to portray Democrats, especially the Democrat candidates, as afraid to expose themselves to information and opinions that might challenge them, go right ahead.

Icepick said...

Tim wrote: What is ordinary about the consumers of a product in which market penetration isn't too deep yet, as you characterize it?

What has to be extra-ordinary for someone to purchase an HD TV, or to pony up some extra cash for HD channels? Are HBO consumers extra-ordinary just because they get HBO? You could at least try to make a valid point.

An Edjamikated Redneck wrote: This of course provides us with a different version of reality for Democrat voters- maybe they all have the HD TV and superior cable packages; money spent this way instead of on health care, food and shelter, since the American taxpayer is picking up those bills for them?

And exactly where did I say that my friend is (1) a Democratic voter, and (2) receives government assistance? Not only did I make no such assertions, I didn't even hint at either topic. You need to go back and get some more edjamikation, dolt. This time focus on reading comprehension skills.

For the record, my friend is mostly apolitical, but votes Republican when he bothers to vote, and is not on government assistance.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...

Icepick, sorry to infer anything against your friend, but was using that as a jumping off point for a supposition of my own; my apologies if I didn't make that clear enough for you.

I also know some folks, whose voting records I am unaware of, that live in trailer parks, drive 15 year old cars and have HD TVs and cable channels out the wazoo.

My point was that the idea that only the rich have these channels is incorrect. They maybe expensive, but some folks will either forego expense others would consider primary to enjoy HD TV, or that some are able to afford these channels because you and I are paying their bills. It is the latter that I am accusing of voting Democratic.

An Edjamikated Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Icepick:

"Dolt" is a great word but it should always be paired with the word "'you" in the front.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What has to be extra-ordinary for someone to purchase an HD TV, or to pony up some extra cash for HD channels? Are HBO consumers extra-ordinary just because they get HBO? You could at least try to make a valid point.

I believe that the point is that most middle income voters (supposedly the target market of the Democrat party) have higher priorities than spending thousands of dollars on an HDTV set up (screen, speakers etc) and also spending hundreds of dollars extra a year to upgrade their cable/dish reception to premium packages,including HBO. Most middle and lower income people are more concerned with keeping their mortgages from defaulting, paying their car payments, buying heat and food.

The mantra of the Dems is that they are the party of the people. The demographics that they are trying (supposedly) to reach do not include people for whom it is the entire HDTV set up is an "ordinary" purchase. There is nothing "ordinary" about HDTV owners and subscribers at this time because of the cost of the technology. Just as there was nothing ordinary about the people who were the first home PC users. NOW it is ordinary, but in the early 70's only the elite households had personal computers.

By holding a debate in what is a venue more likely to be seen by upper income demographics the Dems are just showing poor judgement because their "target market" isn't likely to see the debate.

Icepick said...

Dust Bunny Queen wrote: I believe that the point is that most middle income voters (supposedly the target market of the Democrat party) have higher priorities than spending thousands of dollars on an HDTV set up (screen, speakers etc) and also spending hundreds of dollars extra a year to upgrade their cable/dish reception to premium packages,including HBO. Most middle and lower income people are more concerned with keeping their mortgages from defaulting, paying their car payments, buying heat and food.

I bought a 32" HD set for about $800 almost four years ago. (It's not a Plasma or LCD, that's why it was so cheap for the times.) The upgrade to the HD channels (including the necessary receiver) costs me $15.95 a month, or $191.40 a year. That's hardly thousands of dollars in start up costs and hundreds of extra dollars a year for the service.

This whole arguement is just another lame excuse for a story by a writer who has nothing substantive to say.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

AJ Lynch: "cootie-phobia" noted for the archives as yet another Althouse coinage. Right up there with "for the love of Hubbard."


Also, just an aside: I haven't subscribed to HBO for years [more than 12], but I have seen every episode of Sopranos, Deadwood, Entourage, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Wire and Rome. It's called "NetFlix."

Roger said...

MM: thanks.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I bought a 32" HD set for about $800 almost four years ago. (It's not a Plasma or LCD, that's why it was so cheap for the times.) The upgrade to the HD channels (including the necessary receiver) costs me $15.95 a month, or $191.40 a year. That's hardly thousands of dollars in start up costs and hundreds of extra dollars a year for the service.

LOL are you still using a 256 bit processor and 28K dial up?

When I went to upgrade my satellite reception to HDTV the cost is $150 to upgrade to a new receiver and an additional $ 30.98 a month for the HDTV service(Dish) $371.18 a year this is in addition to the channel package of 68.97 a month for a total of 99.95 a month or approx $1200 a year. This also assumes that I don't want to purchase any PPV movies. Add a "DECENT" HD TV and sound system and we are talking thousands of dollars. And by the way, $191.40 is pretty close to a couple of hundred dollars.
Parse it anyway you want, but the fact is that people who currently have HDTV systems and subscriptions are not middle or lower middle class. As prices come down, so will the numbers of people go up who have HDTV. But right now they are in the minority and are not the stated base of the Dem party.

The Dems say that that is their base, but we know that is just lip service. They feel that they have that group in the bag, so they don't have to put a debate where they (lower/mid class) can see it. Instead they put their debate on an "elite" venue.

AJ Lynch said...

Ruth Ann:

You are the best.

Re HBO, I will keep that in mnd - I will be moving soon and have to decide between Comcast or Verizon for cable. I have HBO now and never watch it. so may take you suggestion and use my Blockbuster in lieu of paying for HBO.

Lastly, "for the love of Hubbard" where the heck did she come up with that? Let me guess - some Tom Cruise thing?

Tim said...

"You could at least try to make a valid point."

You could make a good faith effort in comprehending the point made.

But let me slow it down a few gears for you and let’s see if that helps. "Ordinary" in this context implies certain things about HD screen ownership and access to HD content that are contradicted by your statement "Market penetration isn't too deep yet, but so what?” The "so what" is that in light of currently shallow market penetration, "ordinary people" do not in fact own HD screens with access to HD content as they do own ordinary TVs with access to ordinary content, be it broadcast, satellite or cable. That the Democrat candidates for president (or their apologists) might somehow think they are reaching "ordinary" voters with a debate broadcast on HDNet is risible; unless, of course, they actually believe they are doing so, in which case their surpassing ignorance is meaningful.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

AJ Lynch: Althouse coined it when writing about TomKat's wedding in Italy. And you are correct that it's a reference to Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.

[I used it once on national radio and it made Michael Medved laugh.]

Blockbuster? Phooey! Netflix.

bill said...

numbers from a 2004 survey: Currently, the average HDTV viewer is male (57%), older (34% are 55-plus), and 26% have a household income in excess of $100,000.

Meaning 74% have a household income less than $100,000.

US Digital Television Households
*In 2004, 2.6 million U.S. households had HDTV, 6 million had DVR, 17.6 million had VOD-enable televisions, and 50.7 million had digital TV

*By year end 2005, 5.5 million U.S. households are projected to have HDTV, 11.6 million to have DVR, 23.8 percent to have VOD enabled televisons and 58.5 million to have digital TV

*The projection for 2009 is that 48.7 million of households will have HDTV, 47.4 million will have DVR, 47.1 million will have VOD enabled, and 111.7 million will have dgital TV

Promo sheet for 2007 study: Mean annual income of HDTV owners is $84,800.

AJ Lynch said...

Ruth Ann:

I almost guess something about the telescope heh.. and Ruth Ann was on a national radio program? Jeez that means you are more famous than the proprietor.

knoxwhirled said...

I am mystified with the revelation that democrats wouldnt watch a debate on Fox.

It was chickenshit for the democrats to refuse to debate on Fox. It would have been rather cool if Obama or Hillary was like, "Bring it on, Brit Hume!" or "I'd love to take on Chris Matthews!"

Instead, they gave ammunition to those who never miss an opportunity to portray Democrats as wimps.

AJ Lynch said...

US census says median household income in 2006 was $48,201 while a previous commenter reports the mean income for HD TV was $84,000 which is 75% higher than the median of $48K!! Yes I guess the Dems were trying to reach those rich contributors of theirs.

Knoxwhirled:

Dems are wimps generally so no portrayals are needed.

Icepick said...

LOL are you still using a 256 bit processor and 28K dial up?

Nope. I use a cable modem. I forget what processor my home desk top uses, but it should be pretty good, as it's not that old.

When I went to upgrade my satellite reception to HDTV the cost is $150 to upgrade to a new receiver and an additional $ 30.98 a month for the HDTV service(Dish) $371.18 a year this is in addition to the channel package of 68.97 a month for a total of 99.95 a month or approx $1200 a year.

Well, I can hardly be blamed that you have a crappy deal, now, can I?

Oops, I over-stated my costs. It's only $72 a year for the HD package. The rest is for the HD DVR.

This also assumes that I don't want to purchase any PPV movies.

In four years I haven't purchased one movie on PPV. NetFlix is much more cost efficient.

Add a "DECENT" HD TV and sound system and we are talking thousands of dollars.

"DECENT" depends on the person. If you're spending that much on a TV and sound system, more power to you. Cheaper but still good systems are available. For example, here's a set that's well regarded and costs less than $750. (It's possible to go smaller and cheaper yet, but that's the size I've got, so I wouldn't look for anything smaller.) They don't make my set anymore, but it works quite well, and as I said it cost me just under $800.

Personally, I haven't bothered with the home theatre system yet, as most of the stuff I watch doesn't require audiophile quality sound. But it's not THAT hard to find okay systems that cost about $200. Of course, if you insist on getting a Bose system, you can expect to pay lots more. But it's possible to spend a lot less and still get something that's "decent".

Parse it anyway you want, but the fact is that people who currently have HDTV systems and subscriptions are not middle or lower middle class.

Gee, I've been promoted to Upper Class again! How wonderful! And I don't even have to pay the AMT. (Oops, I may have to this year, if Congress doesn't get its ass in gear.)

Actually, Bill's stats put the last comment above to rest. HD is for the MASSES, baby! But I will say this, anyone with an HD TV that can't find anything better to watch than yet another partisan debate has problems, and should probably seek professional help. If nothing else, the Deuce is probably showing a college basketball game....

Icepick said...

"Ordinary" in this context implies certain things about HD screen ownership and access to HD content that are contradicted by your statement "Market penetration isn't too deep yet, but so what?”

You have got to be kidding me. Do you really think that those of us that own HD TVs are EXTRA-ORDINARY Masters of the Universe types? (See Tom Wolfe, not Saturday morning cartoons.)

Here's another example for you: The new flavors of Diet Dr. Pepper don't have great market penetration yet, either. Does that mean that those who buy Cherry Chocolate Diet Dr. Pepper all have vacation homes in Palm Beach? Or does it just mean that everyone isn't buying it, yet?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Here's another example for you: The new flavors of Diet Dr. Pepper don't have great market penetration yet, either. Does that mean that those who buy Cherry Chocolate Diet Dr. Pepper all have vacation homes in Palm Beach? Or does it just mean that everyone isn't buying it, yet?

Now you are just being silly. (I would say stupid but I'm really too nice) You are comparing the market penetration of items that cost substantially the same. The market penetration is based on taste preference and not cost or affordability.

If you want to compare the market penetration of Dom Perignon to Andre champagne or Cadillac Escalades to Ford Escapes, then we would have a valid argument and a comparable analogy.

AJ Lynch said...

Icepick:

You are being a bit obstinate here.

Frugal Americans and many of them are Dems and Reps have not overwhelmed the cable companies to buy every single one of their latest pricey offerings.

I believe about 20-25% don't even have basic cable or basic satellite so what does that tell you as to the scope and depth of the audience for a debate on HD?

Icepick said...

DBQ, I have amply demostrated that one doesn't have to spend THOUSANDs and THOUSANDs of dollars on a decent HDTV, as you claimed. I have also demonstrated that it's not necessary to spend hundreds of additional dollars a year to get HD programming, as you claimed. In other words, there is NOT some enormous barrier that makes it impossible for the non-rich to afford entry into HDTV viewership, as you claimed. You can call me stupid if you wish, but I've shown that your claims are simply wrong.

(Not to mention elitist in the extreme. You are quite content to assert that YOU aren't one of the little people, although typically you still seem to want to speak for them.)

The claim that Scheie, and you, and AJ, et al have made is that HD is only for the rich. That is patent non-sense. The fact that everyone doesn't have it RIGHT NOW isn't some indication of its overwhelming expense. It is an indication that people haven't all dumped their old sets yet, or don't want to spend the extra money for whatever reason.

For example, I don't want to spend the money on a home theatre system. I could, but I'd rather spend the money elsewhere.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Icepick, you are about as sharp as a sock full of oatmeal. The claim isn't that you have to be "rich" to have HDTV, but rather that as you said ....in your very own words....."the market penetration isn't too deep". We'll leave the debate about just WHY the market is shallow for HDTV at this time. cough(affordability and availability)cough.

That being acknowledged the fact that the Democrats are holding a debate on a venue that isn't viewed by the majority of what is supposed to be their potential voters is about on the same level of smarts as the aforementioned sock full of oatmeal.

Try real hard to concentrate. If you wanted to reach a lot of people with your message, are you going to use a delivery system that hasn't a deep market penetration... aka.. not many people have it.... or would you use a method where you can reach the most people? THINK HARD.

I just hope you aren't in advertising. Your clients would be doomed.

Trooper York said...

Thinking hard about deep market penetration is not what we really want talk about is it? Because that's Mitt's issue and he has it covered with his hotel porn. Allegedly.

Icepick said...

Icepick:

You are being a bit obstinate here.

Frugal Americans and many of them are Dems and Reps have not overwhelmed the cable companies to buy every single one of their latest pricey offerings


Choosing to not buy something is NOT the same as being denied access.

I believe about 20-25% don't even have basic cable or basic satellite so what does that tell you as to the scope and depth of the audience for a debate on HD?

Well, one thing it tells me is this: If the debate were on CNN, then 20-25% of the people STILL wouldn’t be able to see it.

More seriously, let’s look at some more facts & figures.

I had no idea how many homes had access to HDNet, or how many subscribed. So I did some hard-core research – I used a search engine on these here interwebs! Searching for “hdnet democratic debate”, I found the site of the group sponsoring the debate: THE IOWA BROWN AND BLACK PRESIDENTIAL FORUM. There I found the following:

The HDNet networks are currently available in over 60 million homes and have approximately 7 million subscribers on both cable and satellite.

Not great numbers, but not insubstantial, either. (About 2.6 million people watched the Republican YouTube debate on CNN, for comparison.)

Why did the Dems decide to hold the debate on HDNet? They didn’t. The Iowa Black & Brown Presidential Forum did. Why did they do it? Probably because HDNet offered.

But shouldn’t the Democratic candidates have declined to debate in this elitist forum? Not unless they wanted to offend “the nation’s only presidential forum in which all candidates have the opportunity to answer essential concerns of African-Americans and Latinos. The non-partisan event began with U.S. Presidential candidate debates in 1984 and has figured prominently in the Iowa caucuses. It is recognized as the oldest, continuous minority forum for presidential candidates in America and one of the longest-running presidential debates in the nation.” That wouldn’t have been very smart, now, would it?

But isn’t it terrible that HDNet is restricting access to this debate? Yes it is! Look at these bits of info from the IBBPF site:

The commercial-free broadcast will be simulcast on Mediacom’s ‘Connections’ channel in Iowa and surrounding states.

and

IPTV will be rebroadcasting the Iowa Brown & Black Presidential Forum, Monday, December 3, starting at 9:00 pm.

How dare they restrict access by agreeing to broadcast this event through other widely available channels!? What could they have possibly been thinking?! Oh, wait, that’s not right….

In short, HDNet, by televising a local Iowan debate nationally, actually made this debate MORE widely available, not less. Is that clear enough for you?

Icepick said...

Icepick, you are about as sharp as a sock full of oatmeal.

And yet, still sharper than you are. Let's take a look!

The claim isn't that you have to be "rich" to have HDTV, but rather that as you said ....in your very own words....."the market penetration isn't too deep".

Here's an earlier quote of yours: Parse it anyway you want, but the fact is that people who currently have HDTV systems and subscriptions are not middle or lower middle class.

That certainly sounds like you are saying only the upper and upper middle classes can afford it. In fact, that is exactly what you wrote. The fact that you're backing off from that now to my position demostrates that you can be taught.

We'll leave the debate about just WHY the market is shallow for HDTV at this time. cough(affordability and availability)cough.

I blew the "affordability and availability" claims you made out of the water with my comment at 3:57 pm. You made widely exaggerated claims about the expense of HD TVs, as I demostrated amply. Your claims don't hold up, no matter how (cough - cough) tubercular you get, Camille.

That being acknowledged the fact that the Democrats are holding a debate on a venue that isn't viewed by the majority of what is supposed to be their potential voters is about on the same level of smarts as the aforementioned sock full of oatmeal.

This has already been dismissed: The forum was a debate for Iowans, and Iowans have had ample opportunity to view this debate, as I demostrated in my comment at 7:25 pm.

Additionally, if you have a problem with how the debate was broadcast, your problem is with The Iowa Black & Brown Presidential Forum.

Try real hard to concentrate. If you wanted to reach a lot of people with your message, are you going to use a delivery system that hasn't a deep market penetration... aka.. not many people have it.... or would you use a method where you can reach the most people? THINK HARD.

Again, as I showed, the debate was widely available in Iowa. The fact that you didn't bother to figure that out speaks more for your inability to do your own thinking and research than it says about my abilities.

I just hope you aren't in advertising. Your clients would be doomed.

I'm not in advertising. I'm in finance, where we're expected to either (a) know what the hell we're talking about, or (b) do the research and analysis to make certain that we reach stage (a). I hope you're not in finance, or any other field where you have to know what you're talking about.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

"The HDNet networks are currently available in over 60 million homes and have approximately 7 million subscribers on both cable and satellite"

So available to 60 million but ONLY 7 million have subscribed, that's pretty paltry. 11.6% have subscribed. Plus you have to have a TV that will accept HDTV. Which tells us that 88% of households can't afford it or decline to pay for it.

A Cadillac Escalde is "available" to everyone who has a driver's license. How many people will buy one?

Here's an earlier quote of yours: Parse it anyway you want, but the fact is that people who currently have HDTV systems and subscriptions are not middle or lower middle class.

Yes, that was my statement and I stand by that.

That certainly sounds like you are saying only the upper and upper middle classes can afford it. In fact, that is exactly what you wrote. The fact that you're backing off from that now to my position demostrates that you can be taught.

No backing down. I said that people in the middle and lower income strata have other priorities. You were the one who tried to say that I said that only "rich" people could afford HDTV. You need to distinguish between "rich" and "income levels". In fact all Democrats need to look this up. Income does not equal wealth. What you do with income your equals wealth. Buying HDTV systems does not make you wealty.

And, yes....I am in finances. I've been a financial planner/stockbroker for over 20 years. Probably almost as long as you've been on this earh.

Been fun debating with you.

reader_iam said...

I post this comment as I start to watch a cablecast, on C-SPAN II, a Democratic Presidential Candidates' Forum from Saturday.

This would be inaccessible to anyone right where I am without cable, or even with one of the basic cables (unless those tiers have seriously changed since last I checked).

I mean ... well, you know.

reader_iam said...

Anyone here want to argue for a four(ish)-debate schedule/format, broadcast by habit and assumption, if not agreement (though there was), by all three major networks--ABC, CBS and NBC--plus, if you like, PBS, moderated by the League of Women Voters, or some such?

Yeah, baby.

reader_iam said...

Actually, those were the days, my friends, in some ways ... but I wouldn't want to take that more than a smidge or so far. Oh, no no no.

no one said...

I am mystified with the revelation that democrats wouldnt watch a debate on Fox.

What is the reality-based source for this revelation?

leeshink said...

spot on with this write-up, i like the way you discuss the things. i'm impressed, i must say. i'll probably be back again to read more. thanks for sharing this with us.

Lee Shin
www.trendone.net