U.S. Elections 2008: General Elections -- Analysis and Commentary

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I love this forum. We always get into fights about classification and how communicating accurately is or isn't important. Words mean nothing if they don't convey a definite meaning.


# resistant to change
# having social or political views favoring conservatism
# cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
# button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
# a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
# bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
# a member of a Conservative Party

[Koga No Goshi]

The 4 point chart is an inherently simplistic and flawed system. I don't believe that it's in any way scientific, and like the ridiculously generic and oversimplified terms "left" and "right", being "plotted" on a diagram reduces the philosophy, ideology, politics, and unique ideas of a person to a single dot on a chart.

I can verify this is true. Last night I read every single post in the entire Political Leaning thread. What I expected to see after seeing the numeric scores (i.e. -5.67 social, -3.52 economic or whatever) rarely corresponded with what they actually wrote about their views on specific issues.

[ICantSpellDawg]

# resistant to change
# having social or political views favoring conservatism
# cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
# button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
# a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
# bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
# a member of a Conservative Party



I like change - make new words. That is change too.

Create new distinctions based on how you could best describe yourself.

[m52nickerson]

I If you take Conservative to mean the least radical in society on a bell curve, then it isn't that surprising or amazing that that a centrist voter would fluctuate between two populist parties.
Least radical? Wow, half the GOP would no longer be conservatives.

[seireikhaan]

I like change - make new words. That is change too.

Create new distinctions based on how you could best describe yourself.
Hmm...

So you like to change and conserve? Or do you just like to conserve the concept that we must always change? :inquisitive: Or perhaps changing what the idea of conserving is?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hmm...

So you like to change and conserve? Or do you just like to conserve the concept that we must always change? :inquisitive: Or perhaps changing what the idea of conserving is?

exactly. It's a meaningless buzzword that only describe things based on a common understanding. If that understanding is no longer common then it isn't communicating the point effectively.

[Koga No Goshi]

exactly. It's a meaningless buzzword that only describe things based on a common understanding. If that understanding is no longer common then it isn't communicating the point effectively.

There's no such thing as a conservative party in America anymore, unless you're talking about obscure third parties. I have always viewed it as there is only a big social/domestic and big business/aggressive foreign policy party. At the most crude level, that is.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Least radical? Wow, half the GOP would no longer be conservatives.

Right. Not all of the G.O.P. is conservative. There are many conservatives in the Democratic party already.

We all know this, therefore it isn't much of a shocker.

[seireikhaan]

exactly. It's a meaningless buzzword that only describe things based on a common understanding. If that understanding is no longer common then it isn't communicating the point effectively.
Then why are you demanding the Pizzaman prove his "conservative-ness", if its nothing but a useless buzzword?

[Askthepizzaguy]

As a follow-up to my previous statement, I will offer a suggestion on top of my criticism of the superficial system.

My distaste for the generic and ugly partisan terms "left" and "right" does not diminish when you are tested for both economic and social libertarianism versus economic and social authoritarianism.

To truly get a feel for my viewpoint, and crudely predict "me" on a "chart", you'd need thousands of dimensions, one for each viewpoint. Then, you could arrange the dots on that chart as something similar to an electron probability cloud. You could almost predict me with a chart so dynamic.

People are bigger than two dimensions, and frankly, even with a thousand plotted points along a thousand different dimensions of political viewpoints, you still could not accurately predict me or anyone else. Unless of course, they adopted every position on the Republican, Democratic, or other partisan platform, precisely, without exception.

I do not see the world in black and white, in red versus blue, in stark terms of authoritarian versus libertarian, or in 2 dimensions across a graph, dividing us and separating us and classifying us like insects. I believe we have so much more unique things to offer than a generic dot on a generic graph about generic concepts. To even come close to describing the unfathomably complicated matrix that is the human mind, you cannot simply list two coordinates on a graph.

To conform to such simplicity, is to diminish humanity itself. There's a whole universe, between the reds and the blues and the greens and the yellows, there are metallics and and shades and hues and shapes and textures and flavors and sounds, all of them unique, all of them worthy.

When I hear people speak up and say "I am a Republican or I am a Democrat", I shudder. Chances are, they do not conform to two-thirds of their own party's platform, yet they will become emotionally attached to this large conforming group, and begin to criticize wholesale anyone who disagrees with their party, even if they happened to agree on the issue itself!

I might have a lot of views similar to TuffStuff, for example, on limiting federal power and cutting spending. Yet, if I were to criticize his party, there's a chance he might take it personally. Or his candidate, he might identify with and take it personally. Perhaps Tuff himself is better than that, but many people are not. They cling like frightened monkeys to the hides of giant monolithic organizations that couldn't give two centipede turds about them, short of obtaining their vote and their money. This is why I dislike conformity... it diminishes the human being into a square block, another brick in the wall of a castle, the occupants of each castle firing cannonballs at one another.

Organized religion, nationalism, racism, sexism, partisanship... it all flows from the idea of mass conformity, so that those at the top can control us, predict us, and criticize us and keep us all in line, conforming to their shape.

I refuse. Dang it, I believe in many so-called conservative viewpoints, and language dictates that I might have to come up with labels to identify myself with. But I refuse to bend to a defect in our thinking, our language, simply to mollify my critics and fit in with my friends. I differ on some issues, and I refuse to register as a member of a party, I will listen to the opposition and those third parties as well, I will form my own opinion. I will not wave a flag unless it includes anyone who wants to be my friend, nor will I ever be "proud to be white", nor will I join any group claiming to represent my spirituality whilst dictating it for me.

I won't be plotted on a map, nor will I become a Red or Blue American. I won't find just one generic opponent to criticize, nor will I defend people who I agree with when they are wrong. I won't become another cog in the system, I won't dehumanize myself or my opponents by advocating groupthink. If you identify with a party, that's your business... if you identify with a candidate, thats your business. If you follow a major religion or philosophical movement, kudos for you.

However, when it becomes such a part of you that you immediately trust anyone who identifies with the same things you identify with, if you begin to form ideas about people you don't know because they identify with some group or person, if you begin to assume and criticize someone when you don't really understand them, if you become part of the machine and lose yourself to your ideological overlords, and become just another soldier in the great war of ideas between two or more great powers who could not care less about you... I feel sorry for such a person. That is where assumption, misconception, misinformation, propaganda, groupthink and ignorance deteriorate humanity to the point where there is at least one channel on TV that has lost all sense of reality and will continue to spout ideological talking points and spin news stories no matter what the circumstance, and will remain ignorant, loyal followers until the bitter end.

In short, I think it's insulting to diminish a person to a mere label, or a one-dimensional or two-dimensional measure. Plus a lot of blah, blah, blah that followed.

:soapbox:

:clown:

EDIT: bonus points/

# resistant to change
# having social or political views favoring conservatism
# cautious: avoiding excess; "a conservative estimate"
# button-down: unimaginatively conventional; "a colorful character in the buttoned-down, dull-grey world of business"- Newsweek
# a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas
# bourgeois: conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class; "a bourgeois mentality"
# a member of a Conservative Party

Resistant to what KIND of change??? Too generic to be useful. To change "back" to a conservative ideology from a progressive one would be "progressive". It's direction-neutral. In this instance, conservative or progressive have no compass bearing!

Conservative: having views favoring conservatism. Insertyourphrase-ism: Having views favoring insertyourphrase-ism. To define something by itself is not a definition.

Cautious: In all circumstances, or in some? For what purpose? Avoiding excess: By whose measure? What defines excess, and who does?

Unimaginatively conventional: describes moderates... am I a moderate? Does not describe me... am I unimaginative or too conventional?

Reluctant to accept change: Similar to resistant to change. Repeating earlier definition.

Bourgeois: I'm not middle class... yet I aspire to be. What am I?

Finally: I am not a member of the Conservative Party and I'm betting most "conservatives" aren't either.


Conclusion: even the definition of conservative defines nothing.

[ICantSpellDawg]

As a follow-up to my previous statement, I will offer a suggestion on top of my criticism of the superficial system.

My distaste for the generic and ugly partisan terms "left" and "right" does not diminish when you are tested for both economic and social libertarianism versus economic and social authoritarianism.

To truly get a feel for my viewpoint, and crudely predict "me" on a "chart", you'd need thousands of dimensions, one for each viewpoint. Then, you could arrange the dots on that chart as something similar to an electron probability cloud. You could almost predict me with a chart so dynamic.

People are bigger than two dimensions, and frankly, even with a thousand plotted points along a thousand different dimensions of political viewpoints, you still could not accurately predict me or anyone else. Unless of course, they adopted every position on the Republican, Democratic, or other partisan platform, precisely, without exception.

I do not see the world in black and white, in red versus blue, in stark terms of authoritarian versus libertarian, or in 2 dimensions across a graph, dividing us and separating us and classifying us like insects. I believe we have so much more unique things to offer than a generic dot on a generic graph about generic concepts. To even come close to describing the unfathomably complicated matrix that is the human mind, you cannot simply list two coordinates on a graph.

To conform to such simplicity, is to diminish humanity itself. There's a whole universe, between the reds and the blues and the greens and the yellows, there are metallics and and shades and hues and shapes and textures and flavors and sounds, all of them unique, all of them worthy.

When I hear people speak up and say "I am a Republican or I am a Democrat", I shudder. Chances are, they do not conform to two-thirds of their own party's platform, yet they will become emotionally attached to this large conforming group, and begin to criticize wholesale anyone who disagrees with their party, even if they happened to agree on the issue itself!

I might have a lot of views similar to TuffStuff, for example, on limiting federal power and cutting spending. Yet, if I were to criticize his party, there's a chance he might take it personally. Or his candidate, he might identify with and take it personally. Perhaps Tuff himself is better than that, but many people are not. They cling like frightened monkeys to the hides of giant monolithic organizations that couldn't give two centipede turds about them, short of obtaining their vote and their money. This is why I dislike conformity... it diminishes the human being into a square block, another brick in the wall of a castle, the occupants of each castle firing cannonballs at one another.

Organized religion, nationalism, racism, sexism, partisanship... it all flows from the idea of mass conformity, so that those at the top can control us, predict us, and criticize us and keep us all in line, conforming to their shape.

I refuse. Dang it, I believe in many so-called conservative viewpoints, and language dictates that I might have to come up with labels to identify myself with. But I refuse to bend to a defect in our thinking, our language, simply to mollify my critics and fit in with my friends. I differ on some issues, and I refuse to register as a member of a party, I will listen to the opposition and those third parties as well, I will form my own opinion. I will not wave a flag unless it includes anyone who wants to be my friend, nor will I ever be "proud to be white", nor will I join any group claiming to represent my spirituality whilst dictating it for me.

I won't be plotted on a map, nor will I become a Red or Blue American. I won't find just one generic opponent to criticize, nor will I defend people who I agree with when they are wrong. I won't become another cog in the system, I won't dehumanize myself or my opponents by advocating groupthink. If you identify with a party, that's your business... if you identify with a candidate, thats your business. If you follow a major religion or philosophical movement, kudos for you.

However, when it becomes such a part of you that you immediately trust anyone who identifies with the same things you identify with, if you begin to form ideas about people you don't know because they identify with some group or person, if you begin to assume and criticize someone when you don't really understand them, if you become part of the machine and lose yourself to your ideological overlords, and become just another soldier in the great war of ideas between two or more great powers who could not care less about you... I feel sorry for such a person. That is where assumption, misconception, misinformation, propaganda, groupthink and ignorance deteriorate humanity to the point where there is at least one channel on TV that has lost all sense of reality and will continue to spout ideological talking points and spin news stories no matter what the circumstance, and will remain ignorant, loyal followers until the bitter end.

In short, I think it's insulting to diminish a person to a mere label, or a one-dimensional or two-dimensional measure. Plus a lot of blah, blah, blah that followed.

:soapbox:

:clown:

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, "New Deal" conservative. I get it. No borders, no boxes. This is the 21st century, who needs definitive parameters?

[m52nickerson]

Teh gays marrying, woman's rights to choose, from a ........ a .....conservative........no ....I mean.....

Tuff's world is crumbling.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization,

You don't get it! :laugh2:

I am against legalizing most kinds of drugs, and especially all drugs which are purely addictive and harmful.

THIS is an example of why I hate labels and groupthink. You assume you know your fellow man when you don't, and criticize parts of them that don't exist! To plot me on a graph is to do the same thing, simplify me into a straw man. It's oversimplistic and irrational.

I won't be turned into an easily defined set of generic ideas to be bashed. I demand to have specific criticisms of specific ideas, not generic ones lobbed at generic opponents. To group and lump ideas and people together so blithely is to diminish them and create a straw man.

I refuse.

[Askthepizzaguy]

When asked, I tell people that I'm a mixed-up kinda guy. As I've said in other threads, I believe in the right for married gay couples to carry concealed handguns. I believe in small government and an end to the War on Drugs. What does that make me? I have no idea. And I'm not bothered for half of a second about it.

Most of those views are on the libertarian side of the spectrum, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're consistently libertarian.

Some people call libertarians "conservative" because they CONSISTENTLY oppose big brother governments!

:laugh2:

Others call them "liberal" for having such tolerant and relaxed social views, because they CONSISTENTLY favor liberty over control.

What do we call you? Whatever you want, as long as it makes sense. But remember, labels are flawed and simplistic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Looking at this makes me wonder how party whips exercise power in America. Anyone care to explain?


They don't carry the kind of "whip-hand" that they would in a parliamentary system. Yes, the whips do a lot of "you need to support your team" kind of encouragement, and this can be coupled with warnings that failing to vote a certain way can end up with you getting shifted to less important committees or even not receiving support from the parties Congressional or Senatorial committee.

Various Congressional caucuses wield just as much power as the appointed whip. In the Senate, you can even get a group of 10-20 Senators together and -- if they stick to their guns -- this cabal can effectively derail most efforts until they get their way (remember the gang of 14?).

A representative can't really be "whipped" too hard if they have strong support among their constituency. Each rep has a district of roughly 650k people. In that district, about 500k will be eligible to vote based on age etc. No more than 80% of those will actually bother to register and no more than 67% of those will show up for any vote. With 50% + 1 of those you win your seat back.

So, if the rep has 140K people who support her staunchly, she's in a position to tell the whip to go :daisy: himself when he comes a callin'.

There's always a tension between being a party loyalist and a maverick who does their own thing. Our culture likes mavericks, so it can play well.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Wow, I think I found a label I could enjoy...

"Maverick"


:yes:


Wait, doesn't McCain call himself a maverick? D'oh! There goes that idea...

[Divinus Arma]

And if someone is hit by a car, the ambulance doesn't require a credit card to be swiped before they take him to the emergency room.

You're right. They just get the bill later. And if they can't afford to pay, they are off the hook for the moment. And if they can afford to pay, they get nailed to the cross.

Then the insurance company cancels their plan. Then the victim has a permanent disability. Then he has a pre-existing condition and can't get coverage.

[Big_John]

pizzaguy, were you a drama major by any chance?

[Divinus Arma]

Shoulda said "Republicans for Obama". If being a conservative means promoting social darwinism, then I reject it.

Maybe I'm just a Republi-tard-o-crat.

[Koga No Goshi]

Great. You are a pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-drug legalization, "New Deal" conservative. I get it. No borders, no boxes. This is the 21st century, who needs definitive parameters?

This line of questioning you are subjecting Pizza to can just as easily be turned around on you, Tuff. What exactly is "conservative, small government" about thinking the government should be involved with people's personal choices about end of life, life partners, and drug use? So called Conservatives in the U.S. have this perpetual defensive mindset, like they have "been pushed far enough and are now drawing a line in the sand." No more change. We've had enough. What about all of those "conservative" and Constitutionalist ideas about how if something does not directly infringe upon your freedom, or harm you, it should be legal and allowed? That core philosophy which is supposed to dominate a stripped-down minimalist constitutional democracy seems to evaporate everytime the right finds some controversial social or moral wedge issue they can bible thump on.

[Koga No Goshi]

Wow, I think I found a label I could enjoy...

"Maverick"


:yes:


Wait, doesn't McCain call himself a maverick? D'oh! There goes that idea...

*Sighs, and does another shot of tequila*

You forgot to wink at the camera, Pizza.

P.S. Pizza, don't take this forum as any sort of representational cross section of the battle lines that are out there. I personally know more people who voted Bush once or twice who are registered Rep and voting Obama this year than I can count. Including two old friends from high school, an aunt and uncle, and my dad. It's not exactly the shocking, unheard of-upset for Reps to be disgruntled and dissing toeing the party line this year.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG is attempting to sensationalize his support for Obama using the word and association "conservative" when it is not sensational.

I hardly think anyone will change their vote because of a sensational word like "conservative". When I think "conservative", I think wild parties filled with naked people having all kinds of illegal fun. Surely everyone wants a piece of THIS action! Yeah! I want to be a conservative ROCK STAR!!!

:laugh2:

I hardly think I could change anyone's vote anyway. If you are going to vote, that means you took the time to register to vote, or are willing to drive to a poll. If you're willing to do that, voting means something to you. Something worthy of your time.

If it's something you really care about, reading my whimsical musings will not change your vote. If your mind is set, nothing I can say will affect it.

On the other hand, if you're still undecided at this point, you must think the candidates are donkey and elephant behinds, respectively, or you are sadly and grossly under-informed. If you're too negative, chances are you've listened to mostly the partisan attack ads or have just grown cynical over time, and nothing I do will inspire you to change your mind. If you're under-informed, I'm afraid I haven't got the time or energy to do the research for ya, so stay home and do something less dangerous than voting blindly.

In any case, I'm just some wacko typing in a magic box. No one really cares what I think, nor should you. Make up your own minds.

I saw a lot of signs that said "Republicans for Obama" on my way to work today. I can tell they were really popular with the McCain-Palin people who shared the parking lot with them and stood on opposing street corners. Fact is, people are jumping ship, conservatives and Republicans alike, to avoid the sinking and stinking ship that is the GOP nominee who was too moderate for conservatives and too conservative for moderates, and his inexperienced yet busty wench who is the holder of the sacred gold pocketwatch with a crucifix on it capable of hypnotizing the "crazy base" part of the Republican party and forcing them to obey her brutal commands and vote for her in spite of the fact that she has no idea what she is talking about, and focuses on attacking her opponent while totally avoiding her own media issues, scandals, and faults.

I wish independent conservatism like mine was "sensational", but frankly I am not sure anyone listens to me!

:laugh2:


*Sighs, and does another shot of tequila*

You forgot to wink at the camera, Pizza.

P.S. Pizza, don't take this forum as any sort of representational cross section of the battle lines that are out there. I personally know more people who voted Bush once or twice who are registered Rep and voting Obama this year than I can count. Including two old friends from high school, an aunt and uncle, and my dad. It's not exactly the shocking, unheard of-upset for Reps to be disgruntled and dissing toeing the party line this year.

I used to be in the GOP. It's true, because it rhymes.

Now I quit because Bush has steered the ship of America into the iceberg (oh, what a horrendously strained metaphor) of Iraq.

Iceberg of Iraq. Sandbar of Iraq.

[Askthepizzaguy]

pizzaguy, were you a drama major by any chance?

Stage gives me that certain kind of fright... what's it called?

Stage something fright.

Here, it's just my fingers which do all the work, and my eyes which bear the shame of all my typos and grammatical errors. I can deal with that.

[Koga No Goshi]

I think those of us who get too tied up in platforms and social agendas and ideologies and political affiliations kinda forget something, too.

I think most people out there don't really "weigh the choices." I honestly don't. I know that's cynical and takes a dim view of the voting mass in general but running into someone, anyone, who will passionately or even interestedly discuss the differences between the parties/candidates on a wide range of the issues, is very rare. An awful lot of people don't vote and, even out of those who do, the reasons usually have very little to do with the specific issues per se.

Regarding "conservative", I hear two completely dominant, overwhelmingly common reasons people vote Republican. "Taxes" and "defending ourselves." There is just a general perception that Republicans will lower taxes-- and even people making far less than the groups that tend to get any substantial tax cuts under Republicans tend to think this. I think the second group tends to be more ideological than the first group, but still... a lot of people just have the general perception that America is a frightfully insecure, vulnerable place surrounded by enemies bent on destroying us left and right, and that we need someone constantly talking about that in order to be or feel safe.

The people who get into the economics of tax policies, or the nuances of foreign policy effectiveness and his plan vs. the other guy's plan, are the minority. I think if Tuff or anyone else thinks that a big majority of the people who go out to the booths and vote Republican give a rat's gluteus about abortion or gay marriage or marijuana (or coke) they're mistaken. Those "soccer mom" and "joe the plumber" cliches that people always talk about-- those people are generally busy with day to day concerns and don't sit around reading Wikipedia about Keynes economics or comparing MSNBC's coverage to CNN's coverage. They just think eh I'm having trouble paying all my bills, the Reps will lower my taxes. Even if they make $47,000 or $62,000 a year and probably won't change one way or the other no matter who they vote for.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Tsk tsk, Koga...

Dare you suggest that America is a place that is safe enough? Why, we can never be safe enough, or have low enough taxes for the rich!

We need enough nuclear missiles to blow up the Earth precisely 999 and 1/2 times, no more, no less, and we must have them all armed and ready to go just in case we need to wipe out the human race as a last, horrible gasp of spite should Russia attack us or Iran bomb Jerusalem. And you know the Christians will be ever so pleased to bring about Armaggeddon so they can meet their God Jesus riding on the back of a ICBM heading for the Middle East. (You know, that whole general region. It's all such a bad place full of sand, we don't need it anyway. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, what's the difference?) Bomb their huts and take their oil, I always say.

We also need the most advanced and powerful military on the planet, and we need to spend 10 times as much as our nearest major competitor, nevermind our silly alliances and the lack of any other major superpowers. We also have to have them all deployed overseas in other people's countries so they won't get all uppity.

As for taxes, paying taxes is Un-American. We fought a war for independence from the British Empire so we would never have to pay taxes or help the poor or educate the children or cure the sick, only to build bigger and bigger bombs and also provide subsidies for corn, dung beetle research, NASA space programs, and tax cuts for the oil companies and CEO's of the world responsible for our current financial meltdown. Reward the corrupt and let the innocent starve, I always say! Kill them all and let God sort em out I always say!



Sarcasm overload. Brain entering self-destruct mode... in 3... 2... 1...

:bomb:

:laugh4: ...whew... I feel better now!

[KarlXII]

nevermind our silly alliances and the lack of any other major superpowers.

:china: Why hello there.

[Askthepizzaguy]

If China had a broad coalition of allies willing to side with them in a war against the United States, European Union, or NATO in general... or if they weren't 20 years behind us militarily or still a developing nation.... or if they weren't spending a tenth of what we were on military needs...

Maybe I'd see them as a threat. As it stands right now, their big threat is being able to buy and sell us on the open market. Oh to be deeply indebted and dependent on another nation's manufactured goods... this was not such a brilliant strategy.

[CountArach]

So how about that election, hey?

[KarlXII]

So how about that election, hey?

Husar just told me in the chat the reason he doesn't care about the Election Thread,

"Show me a thread about the German Elections that reach 118 pages, and then I'll care"

Something a long the lines of that.

[JR-]

Danial Hannan, a UK conservative on why he has his fingers crossed for Obama:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/19/do1904.xml

I like Hannan, and have a lot of sympathy with his argument, even though my natural inclination would be towards the republicans.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Chicago Tribune published a thoughtful and impressive endorsement of Senator Obama (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story) which, I think, hits several nails on their heads.

(I know, just another liberal media lickspittle editorial from a newspaper that has never in its 100 plus year history endorsed a ... Democrat candidate?)


It is, though, hard to figure John McCain these days. He argued that President Bush's tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, but he now supports them. He promises a balanced budget by the end of his first term, but his tax cut plan would add an estimated $4.2 trillion in debt over 10 years. He has responded to the economic crisis with an angry, populist message and a misguided, $300 billion proposal to buy up bad mortgages.

McCain failed in his most important executive decision. Give him credit for choosing a female running mate--but he passed up any number of supremely qualified Republican women who could have served. Having called Obama not ready to lead, McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. His campaign has tried to stage-manage Palin's exposure to the public. But it's clear she is not prepared to step in at a moment's notice and serve as president. McCain put his campaign before his country.

Obama chose a more experienced and more thoughtful running mate--he put governing before politicking. Sen. Joe Biden doesn't bring many votes to Obama, but he would help him from day one to lead the country.

...


Obama is deeply grounded in the best aspirations of this country, and we need to return to those aspirations. He has had the character and the will to achieve great things despite the obstacles that he faced as an unprivileged black man in the U.S.

He has risen with his honor, grace and civility intact. He has the intelligence to understand the grave economic and national security risks that face us, to listen to good advice and make careful decisions.

When Obama said at the 2004 Democratic Convention that we weren't a nation of red states and blue states, he spoke of union the way Abraham Lincoln did.

It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think of Conservatives as being right leaning centrists and liberals as being left leaning centrists - both with some overlap in the center. We are hearing alot about "Conservatives" shifting to Obama - which happens to be interesting if it a conservative who disagrees with Obama on a number of articles. It sounds like ATPG is the constituency that Obama has always been courting. If that is Obama's constituency, then maybe he doesn't consider him conservative either?

It is funny that we are talking fragmentation in terms of what conservatism is - I remember when we were doing this to liberalism 15 years ago.

[OverKnight]

I guess adversity leads to some navel-gazing.

Fact-check article on the ACORN (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/acorn_accusations.html) controversey. Essentially we have hyperbole on one side and some obfuscation on the other.

[PBI]

Anyone interested to note Colin Powell endorses Obama? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/) (It's on BBC but not on the website yet, Fox is the only site I could find with a report)

Is this a big deal? Is Powell still a significant political figure? BBC News is wetting itself in joy of course, but I get the impression they may be overplaying it somewhat.

[Lemur]

(I know, just another liberal media lickspittle editorial from a newspaper that has never in its 100 plus year history endorsed a ... Democrat candidate?)
Actually, The Chicago Tribune is generally regarded as favoring the Republicans by a small margin. It's not a rabid partisan outlet, but the editorials swing to the right.

Quite a few right-leaning newspapers have come out for Obama, including The Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_10750163).


If that is Obama's constituency, then maybe he doesn't consider him conservative either?
Actually, I think Obama has a naturally conservative temperament, but that's an impossible thing to prove, and an uphill battle to even suggest to those who have been on a steady diet of National Review and/or Fox News.

[m52nickerson]

Anyone interested to note Colin Powell endorses Obama? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/) (It's on BBC but not on the website yet, Fox is the only site I could find with a report)

Is this a big deal? Is Powell still a significant political figure? BBC News is wetting itself in joy of course, but I get the impression they may be overplaying it somewhat.

I think it is. There are many people on both sides of the isle who highly respect Colin Powell.

[KukriKhan]

Anyone interested to note Colin Powell endorses Obama? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/) (It's on BBC but not on the website yet, Fox is the only site I could find with a report)

Is this a big deal? Is Powell still a significant political figure? BBC News is wetting itself in joy of course, but I get the impression they may be overplaying it somewhat.

It's probably just a blip on the radar of 'the big picture', but, for this up-to-now undecided, unaffiliated voter-citizen, it's huge... monster huge. I'll be watching Gen Powell's interview with intense interest this morning.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, The Chicago Tribune is generally regarded as favoring the Republicans by a small margin. It's not a rabid partisan outlet, but the editorials swing to the right.

Yes, I know. I was getting my retaliation in early. :damnmate: My ironic flourish withered nonetheless.

Oh the shame. My feeble irony deficiency exposed publicly by an educated prosimian. :embarassed:

One wonders if irony deficiency can be remedied by spinach? :wink:

[Banquo's Ghost]

The Economist has a nifty little map reflecting the Global Electoral College (http://www.economist.com/vote2008/). It's based on the premise that if the world could have a say in the US election, what would the verdict be?

Apparently the answer is that Senator McCain would win Cuba. :shocked2:

(And Moldova, to be fair. Not to mention, sub-Saharan Africa seems to be up for grabs).

The GOP. Bringing global socialism even to the very doors of reactionary dictatorships. :2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

Eh, it's more like a representation of how Economist readers would vote.

I find it hard to believe that the numbers are so skewed towards Obama in Pakistan, for example.

[Lemur]

This shouldn't be making me laugh so hard, but it did. Terry Tate debates Sarah Palin (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=07kO9TtHYzQ).

[Askthepizzaguy]

She read "all of them".

At that point I stopped listening. She's an embarrassment to the Republican party, not to mention anyone within earshot.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Eh, it's more like a representation of how Economist readers would vote.


Of course it is. And just a bit of fun. :beam:

But given that the subscribers to The Economist tend to be fiscal conservatives and pretty firmly in the business/free trade camp, it's still interesting.

[Fragony]

She read "all of them".

At that point I stopped listening. She's an embarrassment to the Republican party, not to mention anyone within earshot.

Yes, but...... well her butt. I would definatily do her, and she isn't nowhere as scary as that music industry pawn that is the running mate of Obama.

[Xiahou]

Actually, I think Obama has a naturally conservative temperament, but that's an impossible thing to prove, and an uphill battle to even suggest to those who have been on a steady diet of National Review and/or Fox News.
Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....


As to Powell's endorsement, he says it's because he doesn't want any more conservative justices appointed, he likes Obama's "style", and it would be a historic moment if an African American got elected. That sounds like a principled conservative argument for supporting Obama. :dizzy2:

Regardless, I for one, welcome our new liberal overlords. :smash:

[KukriKhan]

Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608) the video of the Powell interview, for those interested.

I can't account for his Nat'l Security Advisor or SecState days, but as a military guy, I know that Powell had a distinct knack for putting the right guy in the right task at the right time, with definitive guidance and more resources that that guy/those guys needed to accomplish the objectives and missions he assigned to them.

So, I'll vouch for his "human relations" abilities. If he thinks Senator O is the right guy at this time, it's a very pursuading argument to me.

I bet $20 that when the election is over, Senator Mac will say something like: "Hell, after I watched Powell endorse Obama, even I wanted to vote for him. Heh."

[Lemur]

The Houston Chronicle, a right-leaning newspaper that has not endorsed a Democrat since 1964 endorses Obama today (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/6065490.html). As with so many, Palin is the tipping point.


Perhaps the worst mistake McCain made in his campaign for the White House was the choice of the inexperienced and inflammatory Palin as his vice-presidential running mate. Had he selected a moderate, experienced Republican lawmaker such as Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison with a strong appeal to independents, the Chronicle's choice for an endorsement would have been far more difficult.

-edit-

Here's Powell outside of the studio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh_c5bbvmqc), being interviewed. Even more damning, frankly.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/2939476582_7b1cf99e83.jpg

[Koga No Goshi]

I think of Conservatives as being right leaning centrists and liberals as being left leaning centrists - both with some overlap in the center. We are hearing alot about "Conservatives" shifting to Obama - which happens to be interesting if it a conservative who disagrees with Obama on a number of articles. It sounds like ATPG is the constituency that Obama has always been courting. If that is Obama's constituency, then maybe he doesn't consider him conservative either?

It is funny that we are talking fragmentation in terms of what conservatism is - I remember when we were doing this to liberalism 15 years ago.

This is the way every Dem always has to campaign- in the primary you move to the left, in the general campaign you move to the center. As a general statement there haven't been very many Democrats who suddenly took an extremist nosedive to the left away from their Presidential campaign message. Some even go further right. Example would be Clinton ditching his promises to gay Democrats, eventually ditching healthcare, and siding very centrist/centrist right in his economic policies. He certainly was not the super twinkly-light extra anchovy far far far far far super super duper radical leftie leftogasm that the right made him out to be, much like they are making out Obama to be and made Hillary out to be until the primaries started. (The primaries illustrated, at least to Democrats, how much more like a Republican Hillary is than we'd care to vote for, and this wasn't helped by the fact that the people who'd spend the last 16 years screaming about how super super radical left-wing she was suddenly changed their tune and suggested having Republicans vote for her, or expressing sympathy and outrage at her treatment in the primary.)


Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....

As Pizza already asked.... someone is complaining about Obama's "liberal policies" after 8 years of super intrusion and big government and big spending under Bush?

[Crazed Rabbit]

The Zogby poll is damn close:
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1597

That's within statistical error. :dizzy2:

And, Sarah Palin on SNL:
Part 1, Opening (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/gov-palin-cold-open/773761/)

Part 2, Weekend Update (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/update-palin-rap/773781/)

Good stuff!

Quick Points on Healthcare and DA's support for Obama:

In regards to DA's metaphors, the state sends the Fire Department out free to help people, but they don't pay to rebuild the house if that person doesn't have insurance.
Having 'rights' that require taking away property from others strikes me as being the antithesis of liberty. Having seen the results of healthcare insurance reform in Texas, which managed to lower costs, I think that's the best route.
Finally, the dems have a good shot at getting a supermajority in the Senate, so they would have absolute control, unlike what the GOP had, in being able to pass legislation.
Bush being able to appoint two SCOTUS judges led to the 2nd Amendment being recognized as an individual right. If Kerry had been elected, those accursed liberal judges would have thrown our human rights out the window to advance their statist views, as with Kelo vs New London.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Finally, the dems have a good shot at getting a supermajority in the Senate, so they would have absolute control, unlike what the GOP had, in being able to pass legislation.
CR

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Or anyone who's actually looked at his solidly liberal voting record. But this election is all about feelings over facts....

He said he had a conservative temperament.



As to Powell's endorsement, he says it's because he doesn't want any more conservative justices appointed, he likes Obama's "style", and it would be a historic moment if an African American got elected. That sounds like a principled conservative argument for supporting Obama. :dizzy2:



I guess you watched his interview as carefully as you read lemur's post :smash:

[Crazed Rabbit]

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

Ha! Don't you remember the 'Gang of 14' or whatever, that prevented the GOP from effectively closing ranks and threatening to change the rules of the Senate?

CR

[Kralizec]

This made absolutely no difference to the Republicans. When they didn't have a filibuster-proof majority they just threatened to change the rules of Congress and make everything an up or down vote. They in effect, ruled with a supermajority.

Wich was never an effective threat because of McCain and others.

[Koga No Goshi]

Ha! Don't you remember the 'Gang of 14' or whatever, that prevented the GOP from effectively closing ranks and threatening to change the rules of the Senate?

CR

Point remains, you're trying to make a boogeyman out of the proposed specter of a Democratic majority. As if we haven't just endured two terms of one of the most partisan-extremist administrations in history.

When you insist how bad Dem control would be, it's pretty hard to do that credibly when we're coming out of near total Republican control and some of the worst legislation and foreign policy in U.S. history.

[Tribesman]

Bush being able to appoint two SCOTUS judges led to the 2nd Amendment being recognized as an individual right. If Kerry had been elected, those accursed liberal judges would have thrown our human rights out the window to advance their statist views, as with Kelo vs New London.

Hmmm...human rights , like torture detention without trial and extra-judicial murder....Nope human rights as in GUNS guns GUNS:dizzy2:
Are you feeling clingyhttp://beeradvocate.com/beer/style/66/ ?

Oh looky looky a link :idea2:, if there is a link posted then it must be true:yes:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[CountArach]

Anyone interested to note Colin Powell endorses Obama? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/19/colin-powell-endorses-obama/) (It's on BBC but not on the website yet, Fox is the only site I could find with a report)

Is this a big deal? Is Powell still a significant political figure? BBC News is wetting itself in joy of course, but I get the impression they may be overplaying it somewhat.
Powell has an 80% approval rating (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/42_see_powell_endorsement_of_obama_as_possible). Also from that poll:
"In a survey in February, Powell’s endorsement was the only one out of a list of 15 different public figures, publications, national associations and politicians that would have a significant net positive impact on voters. Twenty-eight percent (28%) said a Powell endorsement would make voters more likely to vote for a candidate versus 19% who would be less likely to vote for that candidate. "

Also it gives Obama a lot of free media and a good start to the news cycle, two things that should never be sniffed at. Now my next question is whether or not McCain will try to make Obama look like Bush III :tongue:

[KukriKhan]

Now my next question is whether or not McCain will try to make Obama look like Bush III

Funny you should put it that way. The only weapon left in McCain's ammo pouch is the "I'm not GWB" bullet. Which a lot of folks thought he ought to have deployed much earlier. His speech today is starting to show his willingness to fire it down-range. Too little, too late? Maybe. It'll either alienate his remaining "base", or convince enough indie/undie voters to give him the nod, as something different from Bush/Cheney.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I have to believe that if McCain tries to position himself as anything less than George Bush himself, people would have to be really uninformed to buy it. Differing on a few issues but supporting over 90 percent of his policies makes him appear to be a Bush clone.

I don't see how he can frame himself as "not Bush", but frankly people will believe anything.

[Koga No Goshi]

I have to believe that if McCain tries to position himself as anything less than George Bush himself, people would have to be really uninformed to buy it. Differing on a few issues but supporting over 90 percent of his policies makes him appear to be a Bush clone.

I don't see how he can frame himself as "not Bush", but frankly people will believe anything.

I've become quite convinced that when we see swings in the polls it has very little to do with people buying anything... more to do with presentation or the right image or buzzword being thrown out. Like the huge boost after Sarah Palin appearing out of nowhere, and making a virtually policy-free attack speech.

GOP campaigning usually has little to do with proving a platform is better. More to do with giving GOP voters and Independents every possible excuse, however wafer thin, to vote Republican. Be it "we promise, we'll end abortion this time" or "the Democrats will be worse, trust us."

[Lord Winter]

and the Democrats don't do the same? Its really the wholesystem thats broken.

[Koga No Goshi]

and the Democrats don't do the same? Its really the wholesystem thats broken.

You honestly believe Obama is focusing as little on the issues as McCain is, and throwing it all to image (Palin) and personal attacks?

Of course partisans aren't going to see it that way. But I think it's crystal clear to pretty much everyone else that the Rove, style-over-substance strategy of wedge issuing a 51% "mandate" is something the country is fed up with. They're responding to Obama because of his message and plans, despite the claim from the right that it's all just a cult of personality. Cult of personality is not what people indicate as their reason for preferring Obama in every poll.

[Lord Winter]

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

And the presidental race isn't the only one happening ethier. My local race for senate is far worse. I can't tell you anything about the canidates based on the campigens except that the republican has voted with Bush and Hitler and the Democrat hates freedom along with supporting rapist. To say that democrats are above partisian politics because of Obama is missing the big picture.

[Lemur]

Another right-leaning newspaper (http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/101908-President), in this case a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1958. I trust all of our Republican Orgahs are keeping score of which intellectuals, writers, ex-generals and publications to purge from the rolls of the elect.


Also of great concern is McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Like Obama, she has little experience in governing, but unlike the Illinois senator, she is a candidate of little intellectual curiosity who appears to be hopelessly unready to be president. The fact that people are confused by the difference between Palin and comedian Tina Fey's caustic impersonation is clear evidence that Palin should not be, as they say, a heartbeat away from the presidency.

We also are dismayed by the tenor of the McCain-Palin campaign. If their goal is to severely wound an Obama presidency should that come to pass, they are dangerously close to succeeding.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

And the presidental race isn't the only one happening ethier. My local race for senate is far worse. I can't tell you anything about the canidates based on the campigens except that the republican has voted with Bush and Hitler and the Democrat hates freedom along with supporting rapist. To say that democrats are above partisian politics because of Obama is missing the big picture.

Saying that a lot of voters just vote on the image doesn't really address my statement that the GOP goes more fullthroatedly for pure image and style over substance and policy and issues. I'd be surprised if you could find a large number of Obama voters who CAN'T talk about any of the issues. The only reason he's ahead IMHO is precisely because people have definite opinions about the last 8 years.

[Lord Winter]

How is using Bush as a platform to get elected show more substance then using moral issues?

[m52nickerson]

Yes, Macain has been worse recently, but I would not be surprised if most Obama supporters could not talk about his positions. I know its the same if not even more with the diehard MaCain crowd but you can't deny that the average voter has never in any election decided his vote by the issues. Its always been ruled by image.

I would disagree with you. Obama has a large following of young internet savvy supporters who not only know what his plans are and they go out and explain these to other. Obama has also spent more time speaking about his plans in his speeches.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another right-leaning newspaper (http://www.theeagle.com/editorial/101908-President), in this case a paper which has not endorsed a Democrat for President since 1958. I trust all of our Republican Orgahs are keeping score of which intellectuals, writers, ex-generals and publications to purge from the rolls of the elect.


Is it necessary to bring up every small town newspaper? I mean, the WSJ would matter more. Republicans supporting Obama isn't unheard of, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't use every single example as some new way to get in a dig at the republicans here.

CR

[Lemur]

CR, do I need to point out that the WSJ has refrained from endorsing anyone for President for seventy years? So the odds of being able to cater to your whims are terrifyingly low.

I think it's newsworthy that so many editorial boards that haven't endorsed a Dem in the average Orgah's lifetime are coming out for Obama.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Whoops, didn't know about the WSJ. Wasn't really paying attention to that back in '04.

Anyways, the Powell endorsement is big news. I don't think posting individually about every local paper endorsing Obama and getting a dig in at republican members is newsworthy.

CR

[OverKnight]

The Zogby poll is damn close:
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll: Obama 47.8%, McCain 45.1%

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1597

That's within statistical error. :dizzy2:


Something I didn't know from fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1019.html):


The national tracking polls are actually in pretty good agreement with one another, with IBD/TIPP, Research 2000, Gallup, and Hotline all settling in the 5-7 point range. Zogby is the outlier at Obama +2.7, and that's because Zogby has the odd practice of fixing his poll's party identification weights based on what they were in the last presidential election. In Zogby's world, then, it's still 2004, when there were roughly as many Republicans as Democrats. Although Zogby's trendlines may be worth looking at, his topline numbers are basically unusable.


Still it seems that Obama has reached his "ceiling", the maximum number of people who would vote for him. It looks like things will tighten as we get close to Election day. The question is, will it tighten enough for McCain to eke out a victory?

[Koga No Goshi]

How is using Bush as a platform to get elected show more substance then using moral issues?

How is pointing out that McCain offers nothing substantively different from 8 years of Bush off-topic?

[Lord Winter]

I'm not saying that Obama has no substance, I already admited that overall Obama is doing a better job of running a campigen based on the issues. However the democratic party as a whole is not as aloft from partisinship as you think it is. I'm just tired of hearing my democratic senate candiate run his whole campigen around the idea that EVERY republican is the same as Bush. His oppenet in question is a fairly moderate (though I would perfer slightly more) republican that has gone against Bush. Yes comparing MaCain's policy to Bush is valid you just can't use that in every single race. It shows nothing about what the party is going to change and its hippocritical when many democrats supported the same things there now using against the GOP.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm not saying that Obama has no substance, I already admited that overall Obama is doing a better job of running a campigen based on the issues. However the democratic party as a whole is not as aloft from partisinship as you think it is. I'm just tired of hearing my democratic senate candiate run his whole campigen around the idea that EVERY republican is the same as Bush. His oppenet in question is a fairly moderate (though I would perfer slightly more) republican that has gone against Bush. Yes comparing MaCain's policy to Bush is valid you just can't use that in every single race. It shows nothing about what the party is going to change and its hippocritical when many democrats supported the same things there now using against the GOP.

A) Nobody said the Democratic Party is stringently clean of partisanship.
B) I'm tired of people excusing pretty much any incompetency or poor campaign or slew of attack ads with "but sometimes Dems do it, too." Is this Republicans' grand strategy to convince independents that they are better than the Democrats?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Something I didn't know from fivethirtyeight.com (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/10/todays-polls-1019.html):

Still it seems that Obama has reached his "ceiling", the maximum number of people who would vote for him. It looks like things will tighten as we get close to Election day. The question is, will it tighten enough for McCain to eke out a victory?

I think they'll tighten as well. The key, as always, is the distribution of those percentages. A minority grand total of support, placed in the correct combination of states, yields a majority in the electoral college.

Florida is, by all accounts, too close to call.

Obama could run the table in OH, PA, VA, NM, WI, MI etc., or McCain could squeeze by to win and turn the tables.

Btw, I don't think you should dismiss Zogby's numbers quite so quickly. A majority of Americans still self-report themselves as conservative or somewhat conservative. Obama clearly has a modest advantage, and we have finally reached the point in time where people start to wake up and think about voting (aside from us politico junkies, we decided a long time back). It will be very interesting to see the trends over the next 14 days.

[Lord Winter]

A) Nobody said the Democratic Party is stringently clean of partisanship.
B) I'm tired of people excusing pretty much any incompetency or poor campaign or slew of attack ads with "but sometimes Dems do it, too." Is this Republicans' grand strategy to convince independents that they are better than the Democrats?

Earlier you seemed like you were excusing the democrats from any major campaign failings.
B) Either way it doesn't excuse the GOP or the Dems from substanceless campaign tactics, but I do get tired of everyone saying that the GOP is the only party with a problem and the democrats aren't doing anything wrong either.

[Koga No Goshi]

Earlier you seemed like you were excusing the democrats from any major campaign failings.
B) Either way it doesn't excuse the GOP or the Dems from substanceless campaign tactics, but I do get tired of everyone saying that the GOP is the only party with a problem and the democrats aren't doing anything wrong either.

What I get tired of is, let's take the Obama campaign as an example. Even a lot of the more conservative leaning posters around here have made comments, even in this very thread, that Obama did a better job in the debates of staying on message, on-issue, etc. That McCain frequently meandered off-point and acts exciteable and vague about his plans and policies. I didn't do a count but if you went back through here looking for comments conservatives made about how they've been disappointed with McCain and/or his campaign, they would not be few. And that's not even getting into Governor Palin. *Shudder*

What I get fed up with, though, is the constant insistence that if either party uses a particular tactic, or any obscure element of either base can be found to use a particular tactic, everything is equal and all bets are off and you can't listen to or trust either side. When the Dems or more specifically Obama and his team have put together such a great campaign--- and not just against McCain, few people six months ago thought he could beat Hillary Clinton, including Hillary Clinton. And they have attacked back in a measured manner and almost always in direct response to a slew of negative personal attacks from the McCain camp-- everything from implying Obama is perverted and wants to teach kindergarteners sex education to that he hangs around with domestic terrorists to making vague innuendos about his name, ethnicity or religious affiliations. There are relatively few analysts or commentators out there of even arguably neutral constitution who would deny that the acutely negative tenor of the campaign started with the McCain campaign, and has been consistently perpetuated by the McCain campaign. And I would even go so far as to say that even the sharper attacks by the Obama camp are still basically on-topic and relevant; McCain's connection in the Keating 5 scandal very much calling into question his trustworthiness at the reigns of government with the economic crisis is certainly vastly more relevant than implying Obama hangs out with terrorists because he's participated on some non-profit education issues with some guy who was in the Weathermen back when Obama was six years old-- even though the guy has won citizen of the year type awards since then and somehow no one sees the need to arrest him today and send him off to Gitmo.

It's hard to even get McCain to be on message about anything, and even when he is, he either gives really vague remarks ("I know where Osama is. I know how to get him.") or else changes his position between 8am and 12pm so often it's hard to pin him down. Is he a fiscal conservative or a big government interventionist? Is he for balancing the budget or is he for deficit spending supply siding a la Reagan and Bush? Who knows-- it can change from appearance to appearance. And even the positions he's tried to foothold with like his mortgage buyout plan and his running back to D.C. and cancelling his campaign and his healthcare plan, fail to gain any traction in the polls. So he falls back on attack, attack, attack. That's all you can do when you can't win on the issues. And it's served the Republican Party well in virtually every Presidential election cycle since Bush I. Character assasination and Karl Rove style negative substance-free campaigning with some wedge issues thrown in.

Getting back to the present, though: Obama and McCain. You can look at both campaigns and say "well they have both used some attack tactics, therefore they are both not focusing on substance and I'm sick of both of them." But I think that's a really obtuse view and frankly given the difference in mud vs. message between these two campaigns, which even a lot of conservative posters around here have acknowledged (even if only indirectly by making comments about being "disappointed" with McCain, his campaign, or his performance in appearances) it comes off like making up an excuse not to look at things as they are and instead pretend that the paper mache depth of the McCain campaign is really no worse than what the Dems are doing and so there is no need to change my viewpoint, or how I will vote.

This is one of the best-run, best-managed Dem campaigns in decades. Whereas McCain offers more of the W Bush style Karl Rove "lie, cheat, smear and scare tactic yourself into that bare 51%if you gotta" tactics. To say that they've both been equally negative and off-topic is putting on some neon pink all-weather shades in favor of the Republicans.

[CountArach]

Obama raises $150 Million last month (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/us/politics/20donate.html?ref=us)

Senator Barack Obama’s announcement on Sunday of his record-shattering $150 million fund-raising total for September underscored just how much his campaign has upended standards for raising money in presidential campaigns.

His campaign has now raised more than $600 million, almost equaling what all the candidates from both major parties collected in private donations in 2004.

It is a remarkable ascent to previously unimagined financial heights — Mr. Obama’s September total more than doubled the record $66 million he collected in August — that has been cheered by some and decried by others concerned about the influence of money in politics. The impact on the way presidential campaigns are financed is likely to be profound, potentially providing an epitaph on the tombstone of the existing public finance system.

[Don Corleone]

Well, I was starting to actually consider Obama. And then, like a brick to the head, followed by somebody urinating on my back when I'm down, the New York Times comes through and reminds me of who Democrats really are. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cindy%20mccain&st=cse&oref=slogin)

An 8 point lead, Obama is getting 1/2 hour blocks of prime time television and playing to sold out crowds in 'battleground' states like North Carolina and how does he choose to play? :daisy: dirty. He gets his favorite propaganda rag to go do a hatchet job on Cindy McCain, drudging up mud from 30 years go, like the fact that John McCain left Carol McCain for Cindy in the early 80's and that she did painkillers. Now that hatchet jobs on wives are on the table, can't wait to see what skeletons come out of that unglued maniac Michelle Obama's closet. Wonder what she did all those years she was ashamed to be American...

Class. Really classy. And don't give me that :daisy: that the NY Times does want they want, and it has no ties to the Obama campaign. They won't post the weather without getting it approved by Obama's campaign.

Thanks for settling my mind for me, so I can return to political oblivion early this year. I know McCain has no hope of winning, and based on this article, I know Obama's coming to the door with the guns drawn, kicking everyone in the crotch to make them kneel down. Janet Reno's going to come off looking like Mother Theresa comared to what we're in for in the next four years.

And to think, I almost bought your :daisy: this time.

[Don Corleone]

For example, let's take a look at this little piece of prose, the 2nd to last paragraph on the first page of the article...


Carol McCain was still a presence on the social scene, working in the Reagan White House and as an events planner. Everyone knew her story: she had stood by her husband during his captivity in North Vietnam, never passing word of a debilitating car accident, only to discover, a few years after their reunion, that he was leaving her for a younger, richer woman.

Class. Real class. What the :daisy: was I thinking? Of course Democrats' ideas sound good... they say whatever you want to hear... they don't mean any of it. It's all about getting elected by any means necessary, and :daisy: and :daisy: to anyone that gets in their way.

Cindy McCain? Really? A 30 year old divorce and an addiction to painkillers? That's where you want this fight? Fine. My new hobby is finding every last piece of :daisy: I can on Bill Ayer's Pal and his wife, the Ashamed American.

[Ronin]

just for you don! :wiseguy:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfestMadMax.gif

[Don Corleone]

Amen Brother Ronin.

[m52nickerson]

@ Don

Senator Obama controls the NY times and were considering voting for him just as much as I have a third arm growing out of my head.

Spare us the melodrama!

[Don Corleone]

@ Don

Senator Obama controls the NY times and were considering voting for him just as much as I have a third arm growing out of my head.

Spare us the melodrama!

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

[Dutch_guy]

Well, I was starting to actually consider Obama. And then, like a brick to the head, followed by somebody urinating on my back when I'm down, the New York Times comes through and reminds me of who Democrats really are. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18cindy.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cindy%20mccain&st=cse&oref=slogin)


So you're going to base your vote on something a magazine said, instead of on his policies and merit ?



You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

But as far as I know, McCain's mudslinging campaign didn't do much for him at all. It lost him credibility, and didn't win him the votes he needed - as the polls show he's still lagging behind. So why would the NY times risk so much to put 'their' candidate in harms way, just to score a cheap point against McCain's wife ?

:balloon2:

[Koga No Goshi]

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

*This* is what decides your vote? Months of negative McCain campaigning, and now something about McCain's marriage history (was on-topic for Giuliani back in the primaries..) and Cindy McCain is what gives you that last excuse to vote Republican?

If these are the sorts of things that decide your vote, don't complain about the use of dirty tactics in campaigns. For some bizarre reason this one hatchet in the NY times decides the course of the country for the next 4-8 years for you, but negative campaigning in the opposite direction like the McCain robocalls implying Obama is a terrorist are actually gaining McCain voters in states like Ohio. So as long as people will give away their vote (for or against) based on smear tactics, they're going to continue to be used I expect.

Cast your vote anyway you wish, Don. But it's rather nervy to make pretense that by not voting Obama, what you're doing is voting against smear tactics, when McCain's campaign has been virtually nothing but smear.

[TinCow]

Simply put, mudslinging is used because it works. It may sometimes backfire, but on average it gains more voters than it repels. That's why it has been an integral part of pretty much every political campaign since recorded history began. I don't blame the politicians for it anymore, I blame the people who are influenced by it. It's no different than the War on Drugs. Going after the producers is a hopeless battle, the only real way to have an impact is by reducing demand.

[Koga No Goshi]

Simply put, mudslinging is used because it works. It may sometimes backfire, but on average it gains more voters than it repels. That's why it has been an integral part of pretty much every political campaign since recorded history began. I don't blame the politicians for it anymore, I blame the people who are influenced by it. It's no different than the War on Drugs. Going after the producers is a hopeless battle, the only real way to have an impact is by reducing demand.

When they were competing for legitimacy against each other, Marc Antony alleged that Octavian only held so much favor from Caesar because he provided sexual favors to him.

So yes, as TinCow says... it's not going to stop. But I still think someone who says they are deciding their vote by disgust of smear tactics, and then goes and votes for McCain.... is wearing blinders.

[Xiahou]

Just when I was feeling down about this election, Biden, God love him, comes along and promises an intenational crisis within six months if Obama is elected (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/biden-predicts-early-crisis-will-test-obama/).

Making room in his mouth for the other foot, he goes on to say that Obama's decisions during the crisis will make him unpopular. :laugh4:

To be fair, he tries to go on to claim that he thinks Obama will be tough enough to handle it, but that begs the questions: Why elect Obama in the first place? Vote for McCain instead and the world's bad-actors won't have an inexperienced leader to test in the first place. :idea2:

On a lighter Biden note, "jobs" is a three letter word (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU). :laugh4:

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right? :beam:

[Don Corleone]

I just don't think it's right to go after McCain's wife. I'll admit, perhaps I had too much coffee on my way in to work when I heard the story on Imus, but seriously, it is pretty slimy. If you want to know who trashed Giuliani over his personal life during the primaries, talk to Mitt Romney.

I just don't know. I really don't know. It seems like such a shallow, meanspirited, SMALL thing to do... to go drop the house, not on McCain, but his wife. I won't argue that McCain has run a clean campaign, but it's not like Obama has either.

It's not a matter of comparing who said what first, or who said what that was worse. What really bothered me about all of this was the decision to go after McCain's wife. And I dont care what anybody says, the NY Times is part and parcel part of the Obama campaign.

Aside from which, I'm starting to question how much Obama will really step in and try to regulate Wall Street, which would be his primary attraction to me. As for McCain, not only did he approve the bailout, he approved the extra 150billion of bribes, with nary a complaint.

I really despise the way our system works sometimes. Its no wonder they're all crooks. Who else would subject their loved ones, spouse AND children, to this sort of abuse.

[Koga No Goshi]

Just when I was feeling down about this election, Biden, God love him, comes along and promises an intenational crisis within six months if Obama is elected (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/20/biden-predicts-early-crisis-will-test-obama/).

Making room in his mouth for the other foot, he goes on to say that Obama's decisions during the crisis will make him unpopulalr. :laugh4:

To be fair, he tries to go on to claim that he thinks Obama will be tough enough to handle it, but that begs the questions: Why elect Obama in the first place? Vote for McCain instead and the world's bad-actors won't have an inexperienced leader to test in the first place. :idea2:

On a lighter Biden note, "jobs" is a three letter word (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq-eeWow_WU). :laugh4:

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right? :beam:

I don't know why you would posture as if Dems presented Biden as some sort of bastion of perfection. Most of us if you go back in this thread said that he's a gaffe machine and that we were surprised (look at the predictions about the VP debate) that he didn't flub sooner and say something that could be badly misinterpreted. I suppose making up a myth that the DNC has tried to brainwash everyone into believing Biden is without flaw makes you guys seem like more of the media-oppressed underdogs? :) I've never seen anyone say anything positive about him other than he pretty much unquestionably has the resume to be President if need be. George Bush is proof enough that perfect smoothtalking skills or even basic English mastery are not necessary for holding the office. ;)


I just don't think it's right to go after McCain's wife. I'll admit, perhaps I had too much coffee on my way in to work when I heard the story on Imus, but seriously, it is pretty slimy. If you want to know who trashed Giuliani over his personal life during the primaries, talk to Mitt Romney.

She has made herself part of this campaign. Wasn't she the first one who said people shouldn't be dismissing Palin's foreign policy experience because Alaska is within vision range of Russia? You heard that interview where she was asked if McCain ever had any of the symptoms of PTSD, nightmares or cold sweats or anything? Cindy replied "oh no no.. he was trained.... PTSD, that's a problem with the drafted guys."

Personally I consider what they wheel out wives and family members to say on camera to be beneath discussion most of the time. Not off-topic, or inappropriate to discuss-- but beneath discussion because I'm not electing the wife. However if the campaign wheels her out to start making stupid class warfare comments about PTSD and who suffers from it, or why Palin is qualified to deal with foreign leaders, she's going to take some return fire. So if you consider Cindy an innocent bystander we have the McCain campaign as much to blame as anyone for wheeling her out to make canned statements about politics and policies.

Personally, btw, I considered Cindy's comments about PTSD to be every bit as haughtily patrician and offensive as Barbara Bush's "oh well... you know... most of these people were... were underprivileged anyway, so this is really working out quite well for them" about Katrina victims.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm)
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.

[Kralizec]

ou heard that interview where she was asked if McCain ever had any of the symptoms of PTSD, nightmares or cold sweats or anything? Cindy replied "oh no no.. he was trained.... PTSD, that's a problem with the drafted guys."

The way you put it, it sounds like she meant that people who joined the military voluntarily or who served longer before being shipped off are less likely to get PTSD. Regardless of the validity, I don't see what's offensive about it, much less how you managed to read "class warfare" between the lines.

[Ronin]

Just keep telling yourself, Palin is the dumb one- Biden was brought on the ticket for his wisdom and experience, right? :beam:

I never said that Biden was a genious.....but as dumb as Palin???....I´m hard pressed to find anyone has obtuse has her from what I have seen of her.

also....Obama isn´t 72 and with known health issues either...so Biden can sit on his office and watch the clock hands go around...that´s not a problem.

[Xiahou]

I don't know why you would posture as if Dems presented Biden as some sort of bastion of perfection. Most of us if you go back in this thread said that he's a gaffe machine and that we were surprised (look at the predictions about the VP debate) that he didn't flub sooner and say something that could be badly misinterpreted. I suppose making up a myth that the DNC has tried to brainwash everyone into believing Biden is without flaw makes you guys seem like more of the media-oppressed underdogs? :) I've never seen anyone say anything positive about him other than he pretty much unquestionably has the resume to be President if need be. George Bush is proof enough that perfect smoothtalking skills or even basic English mastery are not necessary for holding the office. ;)Well, Biden was presented as having the experience and foreign policy cred to balance out the ticket. More often than not, they guys sounds like a nincompoop and regularly puts his foot in his mouth. If I may draw the comparison again, McCain is said to have shown a 'lack of judgment' in selecting Palin. What does Biden say about Obama? Of the Democrats who ran in the primary, he picked one of the one's who performed the worst and who has a reputation for embarrassing gaffes. Why didn't he pick Hillary and unify the party? Because he was mad about how ugly the primary got? Because he didn't think he needed her? :shrug:

[Hooahguy]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm)
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.
if they pass that bill im moving.....
"fairness doctrine".... yea right...

arent the dems content w/ the newspapers and almost all the TV stations?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We are at the creschendo.

Every presidential election, this point in time features the most positive assessment of the Democrat's chances. Win or lose, the Dem nominee never does quite as well as the media or the two week out polls suggest.

The big danger now is overconfidence. As Biden's latest gaffe suggests, it is too easy for the frontrunner candidates to start thinking of the task ahead and to lose focus on securing the election. This sense of "asumption" does present an opportunity for the underdog -- especially in a race where, in the privacy of the voter booth, nobody is quite sure how people will vote or why.*

All in all, however, I see no reason to alter my assesment (Obama by 10-15 in the EC).

To get there, he and his advisors have run a very effective campaign. They packaged "change" as a commodity and it sold extremely well in the early primaries. By the time Hillary was able to hammer back enough to force out particulars and detail, his lead was too big to completely overcome. Moreover, his negatives were VERY low for somebody who was in a tooth-and-nail primary battle for that long. Kudos to he and his team. In the general, he was slipping into an even battle with McCain (and such usually end up narrowly in the GOP column) when the payoff for 12 or more years of credit silliness came due. Since Bush, already unpopular following Katrina and the lengthy war on terror, was the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania, most of the "raspberries" being blown are being aimed at him and at his party (With some justification. This problem may have started under Clinton, but NOTHING was done by the Bush admin to change the landscape -- Bush even embraced the pressure for sub-prime lending as part of his "compassionate conservatism").

This economic kerflaffle -- which may still deepen into a debacle -- cut McCain's legs out from under him and was smoothly exploited by Obama and team, who never went over the top, but did take care to connect McCain and the incumbent President as often as possible.


This economic crisis could not have come at a better time for Obama (and no, I'm not blaming him for it, his personal contribution is no more and no less than any other junior Dem senator). Crisis -- any -- is "show time" for the executive (unless your so lame a duck that action would be counted against you regardless of what action you took -- see G. W. Bush). Obama will have, in all likelihood, a strongly Democrat Congress and a nation who are worried, frustrated, and a little scared. In other words, during the 1st year of his administration, enough people will be worried that he should be able to enact significant portions of his political agenda. Then, crowning this, the economic recovery that will happen 12-24 months from now more or less independently of whatever Washington does will create an era of good feelings and positive attitude that will be cast as a direct result of Obama's bold and transformative leadership.

Barring a major foreign policy screw-up or horrid criminal scandal (which Biden is already trying to inoculate against), Obama will set his stamp on American and her culture every bit as powerfully as Ron Reagan, and quite possibly as emphatically as one of the Roosevelts. We are sitting at the threshold of a watershed moment in history, a change in direction and character which will dominate most of the rest of my life (25+ years). If this proves to be the case, I will pray that things turn out well; that I am wrong; and that a shift toward a more European-style socialist democracy is in the best interests of the United States.


*My Father told me on several occasions that, in the election of 1960, he went into his voting booth with the set intention of voting for Richard Nixon. He didn't like Nixon, but did respect Nixon's experience in foreign affairs, his strong stand against Communism, and his overall experience as a leader. Then, in the privacy of that booth, he found that he couldn't vote against the first Irish Catholic nominee to make a serious run at the presidency.

[Koga No Goshi]

And in regards to why a democratic majority is a bad thing:
The Fairness Doctrine (http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dems_get_set_to_muzzle_the_right_134399.htm)
Or, having the government control what TV and radio outlets air.

I can only bitterly laugh at the idea the democrats are going to save our civil liberties after the 'suffering' they've experienced under Bush*.

CR
*note for knee jerk partisans - I'm not saying civil rights didn't suffer, but not to the 'the sky is falling' extent some dems insist, and that the current democratic majority in Congress has done nothing to stem that.

I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine is going to make a return, personally. Leftie pundits are pretty much just as against it as rightie ones. And its elimination spawned a whole new industry of private, for-profit entertainment news that has become utterly entrenched and won't be going away anytime soon.

Out of curiosity, though, since you guys spend so much of your time complaining about MSNBC... what would you have against the fairness doctrine, per se? Or is MSNBC just a convenient rationale for loading up the airwaves with as much exclusively conservative-leaning perspectives as possible and saying it's all okay "because they have the NY Times and MSNBC"?


if they pass that bill im moving.....
"fairness doctrine".... yea right...

arent the dems content w/ the newspapers and almost all the TV stations?

The Fairness Doctrine used to be the law of the land in the U.S. It was smashed by Reagan and had almost nothing to do with "protecting your freedoms of opinion", it had to do with deregulating the news and giving birth to the private sector news-entertainment bastard child that we all know and love today.

The Fairness Doctrine has been suggested by some as a remedy for the increasingly fact-free, partisan-polarity shift in so called "news" in the United States which has resulted from it being deregulated and encouraged to become private and for-profit in paradigm. For profit means if it sells them more advertiser slots to cover Britney Spears that's what you're going to hear about instead of who won the election in the UK or what happened in Pakistan last week. It is not some brand new concept thought up by radical lefties, it's an old law that Reagan got rid of and some have thought might be a good idea to bring back in some form. It's not mind control, it is simply a requirement that in news reporting if you cover controversial topics or partisan topics you must provide airtime to both perspectives on said issue, instead of 9 people all saying the same thing and ignoring opposing viewpoints.

So, before saying ridiculous things like "omg omg violation of freedoms if they do this I'm leaving", get to know the history of the law first.


I never said that Biden was a genious.....but as dumb as Palin???....I´m hard pressed to find anyone has obtuse has her from what I have seen of her.

also....Obama isn´t 72 and with known health issues either...so Biden can sit on his office and watch the clock hands go around...that´s not a problem.

Fairly clearly a double standard going on. Palin is a moron is apparently = Biden says stupid things sometimes. The bar for Palin is just not to drool on herself or completely freeze up and not have an answer, or say something patently false even to underinformed crowds. The bar for Biden is apparently to have no flaw whatsoever, and never say anything that someone would consider stupid. And that makes them equal.

P.S., the Obama camp could have totally soundproof isolation warded Biden from reporters and interviews and none of you on the right would have any right whatsoever to complain about it if you are supporting McCain/Palin. It certainly would have been a way to make sure he never gaffed or said anything controversial. But it wouldn't have been very good for a open democratic process, either.

[OverKnight]

Frontline has a two hour special on both candidates. I watched it and was impressed. While we are all caught up in the daily nitty gritty of the campaign, it's interesting to look back.

Here's a link to view it online: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/view/

Edit: I think someone already commented in this thread on former Senator Daschle's weird Sally Jessy Raphael-esque glasses. It's worth watching this just to see them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I do not believe the Fairness Doctrine is going to make a return, personally. Leftie pundits are pretty much just as against it as rightie ones. And its elimination spawned a whole new industry of private, for-profit entertainment news that has become utterly entrenched and won't be going away anytime soon.

But the leftists in congress want it back.


it's an old law that Reagan got rid of and some have thought might be a good idea to bring back in some form. It's not mind control, it is simply a requirement that in news reporting if you cover controversial topics or partisan topics you must provide airtime to both perspectives on said issue, instead of 9 people all saying the same thing and ignoring opposing viewpoints.

It's government control of the press, and there's no excuse for it.

Further, the ridiculousness of it is shown unintentionally in your post. You mention 'both perspectives' of an issue, as though there are only two sides to each debate.

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml)

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh Don, just admit you simply have the hots for Cindy McCain. :smash:

[m52nickerson]

The NY Times has been in lockstep with the Obama Campaign since the primaries. I'm sorry, I just don't see that they would do the hatchet job on pill-popping Cindy the Homewrecker without at least tacit approval from Obama's communication director. I just don't believe it. I really, to the depths of my core, believe that the Obama campaign vetted that story before it ran.

I've calmed down some, but I haven't backed off my thinking. I knew that McCain had some slimers working for him, and it's why I was leaning towards Obama in the first place. Now that I see Obama's seeing McCain's personal attacks, and raising him with a personal attack on McCain's wife, well, let's just say any considerations I had for exploring the other side of the street just went right out the window.

You can call me a kook and a fruitbat all you want, you're not going to change my mind. That was payback straight from Obama's camp for all the Bill Ayers associations.

If you're really being honest and you don't think Obama had anything to do with this story... ask yourself, why would the NY Times run something like that in the first place? They whored themselves, they've cost themselves a lot on the credibility scale, and you're going to tell me that they did it out of the goodness of their hearts? No. This is about Obama taking religious-right voters away from McCain, and punching McCain's wife at the same time.

You know, you add up Hillary, Sarah Palin and now Cindy McCain... Obama really seems to have some issues with respect for women, doesn't he?

The times is a publication run by people who have a more liberal view. Of course they are going to be harder on the McCain campaign. It not like people hear have been playing nice, but none of us are on a campaign payroll. Obama is not calling the shots at the times no more then McCain is calling the shots for the conservatives here.

[Koga No Goshi]

Further, the ridiculousness of it is shown unintentionally in your post. You mention 'both perspectives' of an issue, as though there are only two sides to each debate.

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml)

CR

You exhaust a lot of breath talking about media bias or sources being in the tank for Obama and the Democrats. So what, exactly, do you want?

The Fairness Doctrine is not "government control" over media in any sense other than baseline regulation back when news was considered an important fixture for democracy (informed electorate and all that.) It was even run in the red as a public service with various subsidies back in the 40's and 50's.

Giving equivalent coverage of different perspectives on a given issue is just a rule that any serious professional journalist should be doing anyway, regulatory doctrine or not. The fact that so many private for-profit news corporations have emerged and dominate the air waves with so called "news" is the only reason this is even coming up as a point of discussion. But you make it sound like it's just liberals saying, "MU HA HA HA HA! We shall control government and then CONTROL YOUR NEWS!"

If news needs to be "forced" to give more than one partisan perspective on an issue, it isn't news anyway. Even if the Fairness Doctrine returned it wouldn't even affect serious news journalism or shows like Larry King which already routinely give equal airtime to differing viewpoints on a given controversial issue. It would, however, affect jokes like Fox, who demonstrably give many more slots to conservative viewpoints across the board. I can't say I'd lose sleep over that.

[m52nickerson]

But the leftists in congress want it back.



Yes they do. I don't like it.

.....just a note Obama was asked about it and he does not support it.

[Koga No Goshi]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/obama-canvasser-punched-i_b_136003.html)

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

[Strike For The South]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/obama-canvasser-punched-i_b_136003.html)

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

I shouldn't but I find that story hilarious. Just imagine you're out campaigning and BOOM HEAD SHOT

[Crazed Rabbit]

Woman punched in face while canvassing for Obama. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-dorchen/obama-canvasser-punched-i_b_136003.html)

Apparently when she got home after the incident Obama had already left her a voicemail message saying that he felt terrible this happened while she was working for his campaign.

No news source? It's not like there'd be a lack of them if this happened.


The Fairness Doctrine is not "government control" over media in any sense other than baseline regulation

And that's government control over what citizens can say on TV and the radio. It's not a 'baseline regulation' about something like broadcast frequencies, it is dictating what private news entities must say.

How you can engage in any kind of defense of this is baffling. Who do you think is going to decide what are 'both' - not all- sides of an issue are? The government, of course - the government would decide what stances on a political issue should be. The reason the lefties in Congress want it is so they can use it as a cudgel to hammer ideological opponents.

And it turns out that's why you don't care. Your left leaning mainstream media will be unaffected, while:

It would, however, affect jokes like Fox, who demonstrably give many more slots to conservative viewpoints across the board. I can't say I'd lose sleep over that.

I can hardly describe the appalling sentiment behind that remark. You're saying it's alright if the government exerts control over what a private news firm broadcasts for purposes of ideological balance, decided by the government, because you don't like that news firm.

That is a disturbing undermining of the principles of democracy and a free press. What happened to Voltaires cry for defending free speech? No, you want the government to decide on issues of the press - how can the press be free at all if the government decides what they have to say about political issues?

You are selling out the constitution and liberty for a partisan gain. For shame.

CR

[Xiahou]

EDIT: Palin is more accessible to the media than Biden or Obama, says CBS. (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry4531447.shtml)

CRThat's interesting, and certainly a lot different from the current action line you hear everywhere. We always knew, even if it was somewhat hypocritically unreported, that Obama has been bad about keeping his press corps in the dark and making himself available to them. Instead, all we hear about is Palin hiding from the media. :shrug:

[Koga No Goshi]

No news source? It's not like there'd be a lack of them if this happened.

Oh yes, I just made it up. My bad, forgot to mention that.


And that's government control over what citizens can say on TV and the radio. It's not a 'baseline regulation' about something like broadcast frequencies, it is dictating what private news entities must say.

No, it merely calls for journalism to be journalism. Including all available information and not merely stumping an opinion piece is practically the first rule of journalism. And we're talking about a different time frame were news was NOT almost wholly privatized and run for-profit and entertainment and selling ad spots and being controversial and sensationalist. If you want "news entertainment" and put Daily Show into the same category as Keith Olbermann and Fox News, that's fine. But don't look for tax subsidies for it under the guise that you are a professional, objective news provider.


How you can engage in any kind of defense of this is baffling. Who do you think is going to decide what are 'both' - not all- sides of an issue are? The government, of course - the government would decide what stances on a political issue should be. The reason the lefties in Congress want it is so they can use it as a cudgel to hammer ideological opponents.

You're running off on your own little self-deluded crusade. I did not propose nor suggest we should have the Fairness Doctrine back per se. But I think that private for-profit news entertainment should not be the only available televised source of news. Perhaps some form of subsidized public journalism which has no profit incentive to replace world politics stories with Britney Spears stories would be a start. But then smallminded people like yourself who see things only in terms of whose partisan agenda something helps would probably lump it in with PBS and say it was nothing more than a "liberal pet project."


And it turns out that's why you don't care. Your left leaning mainstream media will be unaffected, while:

Objective, professionally journalistic media would be unaffected by a Fairness Doctrine or anything similar.


I can hardly describe the appalling sentiment behind that remark. You're saying it's alright if the government exerts control over what a private news firm broadcasts for purposes of ideological balance, decided by the government, because you don't like that news firm.

Since you are incapable of reading allow me to reiterate it for you once again. News media used to be treated as a public service, provided at a loss, and subsidized by tax dollars as a service like education or firefighting or emergency broadcast networks. It was viewed as something crucial to maintaining a functional democracy. Talking about the fairness doctrine back in the 50's or 60's and then screeching like a wounded water buffalo that liberals are out to force Democratic talking points into your precious private news-entertainment syndicates are apples and oranges. But, it doesn't seem like you want to have an informed discussion on the topic of the Fairness Doctrine. It seems like you want to rant and screech scare tactics about it and misrepresent it.


That is a disturbing undermining of the principles of democracy and a free press. What happened to Voltaires cry for defending free speech? No, you want the government to decide on issues of the press - how can the press be free at all if the government decides what they have to say about political issues?

You are selling out the constitution and liberty for a partisan gain. For shame.

CR

Now this is truly getting melodramatic. All that's missing is wearing a phantom of the opera mask.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh yes, I just made it up. My bad, forgot to mention that.

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.


No, it merely calls for journalism to be journalism.

As defined by the government. And enforced by politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.


News media used to be treated as a public service, provided at a loss, and subsidized by tax dollars as a service like education or firefighting or emergency broadcast networks.

No, it shouldn't. You should let the people decide what they want to watch.


Objective, professionally journalistic media

Again, as defined by the government. Do you define the NYT as objective?

Do you really think whatever board is created to enforce this will be wise and just as Solomon and be alone among mankind in searching for true justice?

There are so many biter arguments among us in regards to what news source is fair, how can you want to give the government the power to decide which media is being "objective"?


It seems like you want to rant and screech scare tactics about it and misrepresent it.

Scare tactics? I call it for what it is, while you whitewash it and think the government will be more objective than any person in history. Or you think your favorite media won't be harmed while all those conservative outlets will be shut down, which is the real goal of this doctrine for the lefties in power.

And you know what, people should be able to get partisan news if they want to. Having the government dictate what news should be like is unconstitutional, and people like you who don't care because it fits with your ideology are one reason we lose freedoms in this country; people don't care if others lose freedoms.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.

It only just happened today and I heard it on the radio. http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html Although yes, I agree with you, if this had been some little pro-McCain church lady, we would have heard of nothing else, all day long.


As defined by the government. And enforced by politicians, appointees, and bureaucrats.

As opposed to objectivity and journalistic standards being enforced by editors and shareholders of Fox News Corp or MSNBC. I can see why you feel this would be a crisis. Queue me running around with my hair on fire.


No, it shouldn't. You should let the people decide what they want to watch.

This is exactly what I meant when I said you're screeching and using scare tactics. Exactly how would a regulation about equal air time in professional news "dictate" what people are allowed to watch? Even if such a regulation existed Fox and similar outlets would have to identify themselves as entertainment along the same ilk as the Daily Show which is where it belongs anyhow.


Again, as defined by the government. Do you define the NYT as objective?

Are we talking about the same NYT that carried the article that pretty much launched the Iraq War? And the same NYT that failed, along with all other mainstream news media in the country, to do anything but cheerlead for the war until it was too late and stopping and realizing they'd failed in any sort of journalistic duty to question, research, and report on the facts (for which they apologized after the fact) came way too late to add to any informed decisionmaking about our foreign policy? Hell in 2004 people were still saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Cheney was still sneaking out of his bunker and occasionally saying it even at the same time Bush was begrudgingly eating crow.


Do you really think whatever board is created to enforce this will be wise and just as Solomon and be alone among mankind in searching for true justice?

Wow, we're getting Biblical over this issue?


There are so many biter arguments among us in regards to what news source is fair, how can you want to give the government the power to decide which media is being "objective"?

This partisan skepticism that "anything saying something that doesn't help my side is probably just biased" has been created by the privatization of the news media and the elimination of any form of equal time regulation. People just stay insulated with news geared for someone already of their particular political habits or worldviews, and stay so insulated from any objective presentation of all facts together that they dismiss anything out of their comfort zone as spin from the enemy camp. The free & fair private news entertainment industry you are way off on a crusade defending has created this situation, not cured it.


Scare tactics? I call it for what it is, while you whitewash it and think the government will be more objective than any person in history. Or you think your favorite media won't be harmed while all those conservative outlets will be shut down, which is the real goal of this doctrine for the lefties in power.

I made any such claim? I think that for a lot of networks laughably calling themselves "news", you couldn't possibly make their jounalistic quality any worse even if you tried. Having any form of formal or informal expectation that a journalistic agency calling itself a news provider would strive to do its own journalistic duty to include all facts rather than pre-fixing a style or slant calculated to resonate best with a target market because you are a for-profit business and trying to sell ad space would be an improvement. Or are you arguing that "Obama, Osama: Coincidence? Next up, Britney Spears pregnant again" has been a big step up in our journalistic quality?


And you know what, people should be able to get partisan news if they want to.

We get down to the real truth of the matter. If people want to watch partisan b.s. that's fine. It should be clearly categorized as editorialism or entertainment or opinion/commentary segments. Not seamlessly blended in with other segments under a big banner of FOX NEWS: FAIR AND BALANCED.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm sorry, but one blog post with no evidence shouldn't be enough to launch another attack against republicans. Sadly it is for the media.


That kind of thing has happened plenty of times.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It only just happened today and I heard it on the radio. http://www.wisn.com/politics/17754232/detail.html

Well there ya go. The guy who attacked sounds like a real nut,


As opposed to objectivity and journalistic standards being enforced by editors and shareholders of Fox News Corp or MSNBC. I can see why you feel this would be a crisis. Queue me running around with my hair on fire.

No, not opposed to that. Fox News and MSNBC don't have the power to set standards for any other company in the news business.


This is exactly what I meant when I said you're screeching and using scare tactics. Exactly how would a regulation about equal air time in professional news "dictate" what people are allowed to watch? Even if such a regulation existed Fox and similar outlets would have to identify themselves as entertainment along the same ilk as the Daily Show which is where it belongs anyhow.

Government shouldn't try to set up public news stations, what companies succeed should depend on what people watch. This doctrine takes freedom away from the press.


Are we talking about the same NYT blah blah blah

Can you answer the question?



Wow, we're getting Biblical over this issue?

Can you answer the question?


This partisan skepticism that "anything saying something that doesn't help my side is probably just biased" has been created by the privatization of the news media and the elimination of any form of equal time regulation. People just stay insulated with news geared for someone already of their particular political habits or worldviews, and stay so insulated from any objective presentation of all facts together that they dismiss anything out of their comfort zone as spin from the enemy camp. The free & fair private news entertainment industry you are way off on a crusade defending has created this situation, not cured it.

No it hasn't. The press didn't sink to new levels because the benevolent and wise government was no longer was there.


I made any such claim? I think that for a lot of networks laughably calling themselves "news", you couldn't possibly make their jounalistic quality any worse even if you tried. Having any form of formal or informal expectation that a journalistic agency calling itself a news provider would strive to do its own journalistic duty to include all facts rather than pre-fixing a style or slant calculated to resonate best with a target market because you are a for-profit business and trying to sell ad space would be an improvement.

Government should not try to enforce such standards.


Or are you arguing that "Obama, Osama: Coincidence? Next up, Britney Spears pregnant again" has been a big step up in our journalistic quality?

No, it's about the same as 100 years ago.


We get down to the real truth of the matter. If people want to watch partisan b.s. that's fine. It should be clearly categorized as editorialism or entertainment or opinion/commentary segments. Not seamlessly blended in with other segments under a big banner of FOX NEWS: FAIR AND BALANCED.

If you don't like it, don't watch it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others using the government as a cudgel.

That's the heart of the matter; leftists angry at conservative news want to force them to call themselves biased, change their ways, or be fined by the government. It's called a 'chilling effect'.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

Well there ya go. The guy who attacked sounds like a real nut

If we reversed the parties on this story I expect you'd have a rather more biting remark to make about it.


No, not opposed to that. Fox News and MSNBC don't have the power to set standards for any other company in the news business.

No but nearly all media in the U.S. is ultimately privately owned by roughly six people. So the argument that something along the lines of an equal time regulation would result in dictatorial tyranny by the few over overall journalistic standards or perspectives is ridiculous. All private news networks already have a master other than journalism: what sells. Controversy, scandal and sensationalism.


Government shouldn't try to set up public news stations, what companies succeed should depend on what people watch. This doctrine takes freedom away from the press.

I disagree. Any professionally trained journalist with an education in journalism should treat including all facts as a reflexive part of the job. Not as some controlling imposition from the government. In other words, real news networks should be doing this anyway. And if they're not, they have no business calling themselves news.


Can you answer the question?

My answer to the question would be the same as virtually every major news media provider out there. No, it's not objective. But that's not some vindication of a Republican persecution complex because of the New York Times. The media is not objective nor even journalistic much of the time because it is not required to be. It is not, in fact, required to do anything other than attract viewers. If the news strictly stuck to reporting the news it would have a hard time attracting mass audiences and selling multi million dollar ad spaces. But to say the solution to that is throw in celebrity gossip and whatever irrelevant scandals or dirty gossip stories people get excited hearing, but have no national news value whatsoever, is cynical.


Can you answer the question?

Already answered it. An equal time regulation would call for news agencies to do nothing other than what they should be doing in the first place, and the more reliable ones do. If objective or aggregate or bipartisan organizations akin to something like Factcheck, which already exist and which already cover issues of media slant and grand totals of positive vs. negative statements, positive vs. negative representation of specific issues or viewpoints or agendas, actually had a voice in how well rated or weightily received various news organizations were by the public, that would be a good thing. Not a bad thing. You act like the Fairness Doctrine was a government gulag. When I think of some of the things possible under equal time reporting I recall things like the calm discussion in news interviews with figures even like the controversial Malcolm X, who had a chance to address or discuss in real-time people criticizing him or opposing integration. And I wonder if that would ever fly today, or if a lot of news agencies would just call him a Muslim terrorist and loop the same 5 second clip of him saying something that scared a lot of white people over and over for 4 months and let that stand as the "news record" of his viewpoint.


No it hasn't. The press didn't sink to new levels because the benevolent and wise government was no longer was there.

You're right, it sank to new lows because instead of being held to any sort of journalistic standard it is now held only to the profit and sales motive. And with predictably crass results.


Government should not try to enforce such standards.

That is one opinion.


No, it's about the same as 100 years ago.

Disagreed, see above.


If you don't like it, don't watch it. Stop trying to force your opinions on others using the government as a cudgel.

Okay so news doesn't actually need to be news. It can lie and misrepresent or overreport and underreport things to fit a certain ideological mindset and that's okay, because if you don't like it, you can just tune out and tune into a station with the opposite slant. That is good for an informed electorate and for democracy and for the voters. (That is, by the way, the purpose the news should serve in a functional democracy, and why it is granted freedom of the press.)


That's the heart of the matter; leftists angry at conservative news want to force them to call themselves biased, change their ways, or be fined by the government. It's called a 'chilling effect'.

CR

The fact that you even ACKNOWLEDGE that there is "conservative news" out there, and that it is not admitting that it is at all slanted, has proven my point much better than anything else I can think to say on the matter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Any chance that we could get Koga v CR for President? At least this debate has some energy to it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

O'Reilly just said that Fox was a traditional Conservative leaning network that has liberals on air constantly. I agree with that quick summary.

Link (http://www.newshounds.us/2008/10/20/oreilly_fox_news_leans_traditional_conservative.php)

Maybe this was on at 8 as well and that's why you are talking about it. I just heard it now and thought I'd share.

[Koga No Goshi]

O'Reilly just said that Fox was a traditional Conservative leaning network that has liberals on air constantly. I agree with that quick summary.

I would agree with that shockingly near-reality statement from O'Reilly. But I think the fact that the electorate is basically divided based on "what slant of media they like", and from which slant of media they draw much of their evidence and worldview, is evidence of a dysfunctional state of news media. Not a desirable condition.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I would agree with that shockingly near-reality statement from O'Reilly. But I think the fact that the electorate is basically divided based on "what slant of media they like", and from which slant of media they draw much of their evidence and worldview, is evidence of a dysfunctional state of news media. Not a desirable condition.

I don't get the vibe that O'Reilly loves McCain.

Would you rather a Shep Smith or a Keith Olberman as a main anchor?
Who do you think is a fair and balanced anchor? Matthews?

The Fox shows that are clearly biased in this election are Fox and Friends and Brit Hume's special report. I don't detect that O'Reilly has a horse in this election And Hannity is just a loud mouth while Colmes makes more decent points than people give him credit for. The other shows lean right, but I don't feel that they are anymore partisan or seething than I find Blitzer or Cooper on the other side.

CNN has some decent anchors, even though they all give off a New York Times vibe and are easily frustrated with conservatives. I like TJ Holmes as the exception. Dobbs and Cafferty are just as utterly insane as O'Reilly, but I like O'Reilly better.

MSNBC takes partisan reporting to another level by any standard. I think they make Fox look fair and balanced - which is a feet.



Also - serious news junkies have moved online. I read balanced news on a regular basis. I watch Fox for kicks because Fox and Friends is hilarious and exhibits many of the frustrations that I feel with the election. I don't like when they try to hammer the little topics as election changing, though -too much wishful thinking.

[Koga No Goshi]

I don't get the vibe that O'Reilly loves McCain.

Would you rather a Shep Smith or a Keith Olberman as a main anchor?
Who do you think is a fair and balanced anchor? Matthews?

The Fox shows that are clearly biased in this election are Fox and Friends and Brit Hume's special report. I don't detect that O'Reilly has a horse in this election And Hannity is just a loud mouth while Colmes makes more decent points than people give him credit for. The other shows lean right, but I don't feel that they are anymore partisan or seething than I find Blitzer or Cooper on the other side.

CNN has some decent anchors, even though they all give off a New York Times vibe and are easily frustrated with conservatives. I like TJ Holmes as the exception. Dobbs and Cafferty are just as utterly insane as O'Reilly, but I like O'Reilly better.

MSNBC takes partisan reporting to another level by any standard. I think they make Fox look fair and balanced - which is a feet.



Also - serious news junkies have moved online. I read balanced news on a regular basis. I watch Fox for kicks because Fox and Friends is hilarious and exhibits many of the frustrations that I feel with the election. I don't like when they try to hammer the little topics as election changing, though -too much wishful thinking.

Andersen Cooper would come to mind. Basically if you have to try to sniff around and figure out how someone votes, they are doing a good job as a journalist. (The same applies to reading ruling opinions by judges, another job which requires objectivity and professionalism to function properly.) Not liking Bush or McCain specifically doesn't exactly land you immediate objectivity status if you spend 95% of your time on the air ranting for one specific ideological agenda.

Agreed that serious news junkies have moved on. I'm just in shock that someone thinks there's such a sanctity to mainstream U.S. news that something like a basic standard of journalistic integrity would be viewed as a devastatingly crushing blow to freedom of the press and the news in the U.S. You couldn't make many of these networks worse in terms of being a serious news source if you wanted to.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Andersen Cooper would come to mind. Basically if you have to try to sniff around and figure out how someone votes, they are doing a good job as a journalist. Not liking Bush or McCain specifically doesn't exactly land you immediate objectivity status if you spend 95% of your time on the air ranting for one specific ideological agenda.

Agreed that serious news junkies have moved on. I'm just in shock that someone thinks there's such a sanctity to mainstream U.S. news that something like a basic standard of journalistic integrity would be viewed as a devastatingly crushing blow to freedom of the press and the news in the U.S. You couldn't make many of these networks worse in terms of being a serious news source if you wanted to.

Part of me likes MSNBC. I want CNN to become like a middle ground (it will need to bend a bit from the left, but not too much) news network. Fox can stay center right and MSNBC can stay center left (which I think they are, but the Bush admin has driven them insane).

We have network news, Cable News, Print news, professional internet news, Personal internet news, BBC, Bloomberg, News/talk radio, professional Blogs, personal blogs.

I'm not that worried about media. I think that you can never rely on a news source to give it to you straight. If you are the kind of person that can't seek truth and is reserved to hear people tell them what is true, you will never know it. You have to seek it and compare sources - this is how you become informed.

Thomas Jefferson once said "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers". We are better off not being able to rely on a lazy man's news source for truth.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If we reversed the parties on this story I expect you'd have a rather more biting remark to make about it.

Perhaps. But I don't recall you saying anything when I posted about that McCain supporter who was attacked.

Oh, wait, you complained about me posting the story and said nothing bad about the attacker.


All private news networks already have a master other than journalism: what sells. Controversy, scandal and sensationalism.

That's always been the case with the press, even with the Fairness Doctrine. You seem to think this is something new. Ever heard of 'yellow journalism' and the origin of the phrase?


I disagree. Any professionally trained journalist with an education in journalism should treat including all facts as a reflexive part of the job. Not as some controlling imposition from the government. In other words, real news networks should be doing this anyway. And if they're not, they have no business calling themselves news.

No, no, no.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding. The fairness doctrine talks of giving both sides equal time. That's separate from giving all the facts. Indeed, I'd argue that it is detrimental to find some group and stick their viewpoint into a news report instead of just reporting the facts.

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with facts, just having 'both sides' of an issue represented.

You know the one, major flaw with that?
There aren't always two discrete sides to an issue. But it's awfully convenient for the two main parties. They get their views in, and everybody else gets the shaft.


My answer to the question would be the same as virtually every major news media provider out there. No, it's not objective.

So you think they should be fined, then?


You act like the Fairness Doctrine was a government gulag.
No, a government gag on the press would be more apt. You act like it was the savior of journalism.

It is simple; the fairness doctrine allows the government to control what the press says. That anyone would defend such power by the government over the press is almost unthinkable.

But I suppose when you get really angry at Fox News, it's alright to abuse the constitution to get them.


You're right, it sank to new lows because instead of being held to any sort of journalistic standard it is now held only to the profit and sales motive. And with predictably crass results.
Those have always been the goals since the creation of the press. The fairness doctrine wouldn't even have an effect on that.


That is one opinion.

It is the only opinion that respects the constitution.

The press was not 'granted' freedom of the press; it is a right given by God and enshrined in the constitution.

It is an extension of freedom of speech. Like freedom of speech, the government has absolutely no place to control what a person can say even if the government thinks that will help the country.

Is the word freedom confusing to you? It means the government can't control what you say, nor can it control what the press reports. It doesn't matter if you think taking freedom will help people.

The constitution was written to guard against such men as yourself, who would say the world would be better if we sacrificed our freedom. Or as Daniel Webster said:

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

CR

[Koga No Goshi]

No, no, no.

That's a fundamental misunderstanding. The fairness doctrine talks of giving both sides equal time. That's separate from giving all the facts. Indeed, I'd argue that it is detrimental to find some group and stick their viewpoint into a news report instead of just reporting the facts.

The fairness doctrine has nothing to do with facts, just having 'both sides' of an issue represented.

You know the one, major flaw with that?
There aren't always two discrete sides to an issue. But it's awfully convenient for the two main parties. They get their views in, and everybody else gets the shaft.

I have never proposed a complete re-embrace of the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it back in the 1980's. It wouldn't work, anyway. The news industry has changed too much and become heavily privatized and interwoven with entertainment. Hey if you wanna go off about how mainstream news crafts only one or two "narratives" about America and it doesn't reflect everyone or all the viewpoints out there, I'm with you. But I fail to see how a fully unregulated for-profit system has made this any better.


So you think they should be fined, then?

I'm not a policymaker and there is no law before Congress at the moment to use as a frame of reference. I hadn't laid around dreaming up what sorts of disincentives news agencies should be given to fully embrace only a one-sided ideological spin of news presentation. Or on the flipside, what sort of incentives for highly rated, viewpoint-inclusive, wide-range coverage objective news organizations should receive. Certainly there is room for discussion on it.


No, a government gag on the press would be more apt. You act like it was the savior of journalism.

Your mind is made up that any government involvement in anything is evil. The only thing I can't figure out about your stance is what exactly convinces you, besides ideology, that letting the private market dictate everything is better. In many cases it's worse, and the quality of U.S. news integrity is very much one of them. I would submit in addition that the government has been able to use a privatized, controlled by a few hands media to further its agenda as easily, if not more easily, than a media constrained to some form of objective reporting. Note the almost complete lack of anything besides cheerleading across the board in U.S. media leading up to the Iraq War. Softball questions, no serious questioning or professional skepticism, just wholehearted swallowing of the sushi sliced and blended version of facts filtered down to us from the Bush Administration. Which has landed us in the Iraq War. A disaster which, quite possibly, could have been averted or at least greatly hindered had ANY major news been doing its job. The flimsiness of the case for going to war, so crystal clear in retrospect, was equally crystal clear in advance to anyone who was not getting all their information purely from mainstream U.S. news.


It is simple; the fairness doctrine allows the government to control what the press says. That anyone would defend such power by the government over the press is almost unthinkable.

That's a misrepresentation. The Fairness Doctrine requires that you must present more than just one side of an issue, if you are giving airtime to one opinion or advocate of a particular policy or issue. Which, as I have stated many times, is just basic journalism. Not "control of what the press says." The press, contrary to the impression you seem to be under, does not have a recognized role in order to go out and advocate for one-sided agendas or provide news only for certain constituencies. You are basically saying that if controversy erupts in a town over whether or not to construct a new Wal Mart which will put a lot of local businesses under, it's perfectly legitimate journalism to just go talk to Wal Mart executives about it. That's not journalism at all. That's a thinly veiled advocacy of corporate interests using control of public airwaves to do so.


But I suppose when you get really angry at Fox News, it's alright to abuse the constitution to get them.

Not worthy of comment.


Those have always been the goals since the creation of the press. The fairness doctrine wouldn't even have an effect on that.

Revisionism. Re-read the Constitution about the recognized role of the press and what role serves as its justification for freedom of the press. Not to "go forth and make ye some profit with scandalous coverage of gossip." It's to ensure the existence of an informed electorate. And all you have done throughout this entire exchange is defend for-profit practices which dumb down, rather than elevate, intellectual discourse and critical thought in the U.S.


It is the only opinion that respects the constitution.

In CR's world.


The press was not 'granted' freedom of the press; it is a right given by God and enshrined in the constitution.

It is an extension of freedom of speech. Like freedom of speech, the government has absolutely no place to control what a person can say even if the government thinks that will help the country.

Is the word freedom confusing to you? It means the government can't control what you say, nor can it control what the press reports. It doesn't matter if you think taking freedom will help people.

The constitution was written to guard against such men as yourself, who would say the world would be better if we sacrificed our freedom. Or as Daniel Webster said:

CR

Ahem. The law does not support your ideological interpretation:


The courts have rarely treated content-based regulation of the press with any sympathy. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), the Court unanimously struck down a state law requiring newspapers criticizing political candidates to publish their responses. The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.

Content-based regulation of television and radio, however, have been sustained by the Supreme Court in various cases. Since there are a limited number of frequencies for non-cable television and radio stations, the government licenses them to various companies. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that the problem of scarcity does not permit the raising of a First Amendment issue. The government may restrain broadcasters, but only on a content-neutral basis.

In Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the FCC to restrict the use of profane language in broadcasting.

Televised news is using public airwaves. Owned by the American public. And under the reasoning that there is limited access to televised broadcasted content, there is indeed legal precedent for some norms of regulation for fair representation. In other words, if every televised news agency presented the same one side of a news or political or controversial issue, that is an infringement and abuse of the public airwaves without providing fair access to alternative points of view. This is made even worse by the fact that most media in the U.S., both radio and television, is owned by a very very very small number of corporate business interests. That was, in fact, precisely the legal reasoning behind the original equal airtime regulations. And equal airtime practices were not viewed as "controlling content" or forcing the press to say or not say anything. All they require is that if you put an advocate of something--- let's say.... SEGREGATION... on the air... you must also invite an advocate of integration. However you are consistently misrepresenting it as if such a regulation would forbid or constrict news agencies from their "right" to cover the topic at all.

It would, of course, create a significant obstacle for partisan hackeries posing as major professional news providers. Which seems to be closer to the real cause of your panic over something like equal airtime regulation.

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)


I'm not that worried about media. I think that you can never rely on a news source to give it to you straight. If you are the kind of person that can't seek truth and is reserved to hear people tell them what is true, you will never know it. You have to seek it and compare sources - this is how you become informed.

Part of the reason you feel this way, Tuff, is because you have grown up in a deregulated private news media world created by Reagan. And it is very much to your credit as an intelligent person that you do not trust that you are being given a comprehensive reporting of all the facts when you watch mainstream U.S. news. No news agency, obviously, is going to be perfect and include every single bit of possible fact on a given topic. But we aren't even discussing that level of scrutiny, we are discussing the open and shameless endorsement of specific political ideologies or private interests and slants in what unabashedly calls itself professional news agencies. Which CR feels apparently is not only the constitutional purpose of the media but also quite desirable.

[Fragony]

Is Obama merely a man? Or has he been touched by the gods? Has he finally arived?

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/274531/eb5d597e/afp_is_ook_dol_op_obama.html

[JR-]

and finally, in my last expose of British cheerleading in the US election, i give you Boris:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml

Obama conquers another Tory.

[Kralizec]

Hooking into the "equal time" discussion...

The current government in Slovakia is pushing through such a measure now (click (http://www.praguepost.com/articles/2008/04/23/support-for-slovak-media-rights.php)). The majority of newspapers responded a couple of months ago by printing empty frontpages in protest several times.

It's not uncommon in many European countries that a media outlet is ordered by court to print/show a rectification if they're shown to have published damaging falsehoods, but that's a far cry from preemtively forcing the media to give opposing viewpoints as much attention. It's antiethical to the freedom of press.

[CountArach]

Following up on moronic pieces of polling:

https://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r44/CountArach/2961024314_7e2339b14b_o.png

[Lemur]

I dont care what anybody says, the NY Times is part and parcel part of the Obama campaign.
I guess when they endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain in the primaries, they were just creating some deniability then? Who knew the Sulzbergers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Ownership) were so crafty?


He said he had a conservative temperament.
Yup, and I'm far from the only one (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepacker/2008/10/not-quite-colin.html) who sees this:


Ken Adelman is a lifelong conservative Republican. Campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001. Adelman’s friendship with Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their wives goes back to the sixties, and he introduced Cheney to Paul Wolfowitz at a Washington brunch the day Reagan was sworn in.

Two weeks from now that’s going to change: Ken Adelman intends to vote for Barack Obama. He can hardly believe it himself. [...]


Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you thought joe the plumber was alone you were very very wrong. In her new speech (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/21/palin-dubs-obama-barack-the-wealth-spender/#more-25734) palin reveals:

Tito the builder
Rose the teacher
Phil the bricklayer

and last but not least:

Barack the Wealth Spender

:laugh4:

[Fragony]

Leading my cheers, just because and because

[ICantSpellDawg]

Following up on moronic pieces of polling:



Why? They've only been wrong once in the last 5 elections. I loved kid's choice when I was a kid. Usually when kids vote, you get insight into what their parents have been talking about.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's a misrepresentation. The Fairness Doctrine requires that you must present more than just one side of an issue, if you are giving airtime to one opinion or advocate of a particular policy or issue. Which, as I have stated many times, is just basic journalism.



The state claimed that the law had been passed to ensure press responsibility. Finding that only freedom, and not press responsibility, is mandated by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that the government may not force newspapers to publish that which they do not desire to publish.


I have never proposed a complete re-embrace of the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it back in the 1980's. It wouldn't work, anyway. The news industry has changed too much and become heavily privatized and interwoven with entertainment. Hey if you wanna go off about how mainstream news crafts only one or two "narratives" about America and it doesn't reflect everyone or all the viewpoints out there, I'm with you. But I fail to see how a fully unregulated for-profit system has made this any better.

You missed the point. Here it is, simplified:
The "fairness doctrine" stipulates both sides of an issue be represented. There are hardly any issues where there are just two sides. Grouping complex issues into only two camps lowers the level of discussion in America.


Your mind is made up that any government involvement in anything is evil.

Wrong.


This is made even worse by the fact that most media in the U.S., both radio and television, is owned by a very very very small number of corporate business interests. That was, in fact, precisely the legal reasoning behind the original equal airtime regulations.

Wrong. This isn't 1949. The available sources of information are numerous.


It would, of course, create a significant obstacle for partisan hackeries posing as major professional news providers. Which seems to be closer to the real cause of your panic over something like equal airtime regulation.

Wrong. It's been used by democratic and republican presidents to suppress opposition views:

Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings."

As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue."

But I suppose your completely surprised when the government abuses its power!

The FCC also found your opinions about how the fairness doctrine ensured anything good is wrong:

FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles.

and (http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/421365)

In reaching that conclusion the Commission invoked essentially the same grounds as it has in the present action--chiefly, that growth in the number of broadcast outlets reduced any need for the doctrine, that the doctrine often worked to dissuade broadcasters from presenting any treatment of controversial viewpoints, that it put the government in the doubtful position of evaluating program content, and that it created an opportunity for incumbents to abuse it for partisan purposes.

Why? It's simple; if stations risk being fined or punished for not doing the correct thing about airing opinions, then they won't air any opinions.

CR

[Lemur]

and finally, in my last expose of British cheerleading in the US election, i give you Boris:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/10/21/do2101.xml

Obama conquers another Tory.
Wow, you gotta hand it to the Brit politicians, they know how to write. A devastating paragraph:


Democracy and capitalism are the two great pillars of the American idea. To have rocked one of those pillars may be regarded as a misfortune. To have damaged the reputation of both, at home and abroad, is a pretty stunning achievement for an American president.

Yowza. And this sums a lot up:


[Obama] is patently not the Marxist subversive loony Lefty that some of his detractors allege.

I revere Melanie Phillips, and I have carefully studied her blog entries about Obama and the vote-stealers, or Obama and his association with a quondam terrorist called Ayers.

In the end I gave up, goggle-eyed and exhausted, having trolled the wilds of the Neocon internet without finding anything remotely approaching a smoking gun.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh, almost forgot:
Another Republican Endorses Obama (http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/10/spotted-mark-fo.html)

At this rate, you'd think he [Obama] was polling 60%

CR

[Lemur]

At this rate, you'd think he [Obama] was polling 60%
It's because he's a traitor.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/wantedfortreason.jpg

[Koga No Goshi]

You missed the point. Here it is, simplified:
The "fairness doctrine" stipulates both sides of an issue be represented. There are hardly any issues where there are just two sides. Grouping complex issues into only two camps lowers the level of discussion in America.

Agreed. Which is why I never proposed simply "re-activating" the Fairness Doctrine. You keep acting as if I had. I've been speaking in "theory" about some sort of formal or informal standard of journalistic integrity and inclusiveness of multiple viewpoints (I even suggested just a rating system which could easily be done without Federal control) which is severely lacking at the moment. Right now basically it's "the news that says what I like is trusty, the news that says something I don't like is worthy of skepticism." If people are pretty much incapable of making an informed decision or examining facts before leaping to a politically ideological conclusion on a given issue, the news is catering to biases, or presenting slants, or providing only one perspective. Whatever it's doing, it's not providing a journalistic news service.


Wrong. This isn't 1949. The available sources of information are numerous.

Irrelevant. Most people still get most of their news from television and television is still limited access. P.S., you can just reply to things with "wrong" over and over-- it neither advances your argument nor makes you right. It just makes you obnoxious and imperative.


Wrong. It's been used by democratic and republican presidents to suppress opposition views:

Agreed, your point? Since I never advocated and in fact specifically mentioned not endorsing the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it off in the 80's, you are straw manning, as usual. However, the legal reasoning behind some form of fair access to viewpoints on the airwaves remains totally unchanged regardless of how well or how poorly you personally feel the Fairness Doctrine as a specific piece of legislation worked. Your argument is so incredibly poor, what you are basically saying is an equivalent of saying "The Patriot Act arguably didn't work well and had multiple problems for improving our military preparedness or defensive measures, therefore, the reasoning to have any military preparedness or defensive measures at all have been proven invalid." That is precisely what you are arguing, and it's ridiculous.


But I suppose your completely surprised when the government abuses its power!

It is more surprising than when I find out that something privately run for-profit proved corrupt when presented with the choice of being legit or making more money.


The FCC also found your opinions about how the fairness doctrine ensured anything good is wrong:

LOL you are quoting the FCC, I'm surprised you don't distance yourself from them as an unconstitutional government intrusion into free speech trying to institute a liberal no-cussing dictatorship in the U.S. and control our brainwaves. You are using one content-regulating Federally controlled regulatory board which, in your words would be "controlling what the press says" and murdering free speech, to attack another one. You don't find that hysterically funny and ironic?


Why? It's simple; if stations risk being fined or punished for not doing the correct thing about airing opinions, then they won't air any opinions.

True. A revamped system, more like an incentive system, would be much better. And/or a rating system based on aggregates of media slant watchdogs and factcheck organizations which would have some kind of real meaning in terms of how reliably a news agency is viewed.

[Lemur]

In the interest of taking all of this a bit less seriously, I present you with the first (safe for work) two minutes of Who's Nailin' Paylin? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYRGjjvNoZ4), the first direct-to-video pornographic tribute to Alaska's Governor. Having watched it, I must say, Lisa Ann is no Tina Fey. You can see the all-important myspace page here (http://www.myspace.com/whosnalinpaylin).


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/l_6c325396b5ee4c19894775bdfad3a1b5.jpg

[Ronin]

I knew Sarah Palin reminded me of someone :laugh4: :eyebrows:

[PanzerJaeger]

It's because he's a traitor.


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/wantedfortreason.jpg

Wow. First MLK now Kennedy. I would say that comparison is one overpriced yard sign too far, but I fear the kool aid has long since been consumed and digested.

You guys are going to be sorely disappointed when O lives up exactly to their standards.. historical not fictional, that is.

[Lemur]

This is pretty darn funny. (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=188638) The interview with the current Mayor of Wassila (around the two minute mark) is damning.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Agreed. Which is why I never proposed simply "re-activating" the Fairness Doctrine. You keep acting as if I had. I've been speaking in "theory" about some sort of formal or informal standard of journalistic integrity and inclusiveness of multiple viewpoints (I even suggested just a rating system which could easily be done without Federal control) which is severely lacking at the moment. Right now basically it's "the news that says what I like is trusty, the news that says something I don't like is worthy of skepticism." If people are pretty much incapable of making an informed decision or examining facts before leaping to a politically ideological conclusion on a given issue, the news is catering to biases, or presenting slants, or providing only one perspective. Whatever it's doing, it's not providing a journalistic news service.

Ah, another "the people are too stupid to think for themselves" liberal. Funny how the leftests always have so very little trust in citizens - but never fail to trust in the government as the answer. All the arguments against the fairness doctrine apply to your wished for government control over journalism standards, or whatever. It's unconstitutional, hampers free speech, and can be used as a tool to attack opposition press.


Irrelevant. Most people still get most of their news from television and television is still limited access.

Wrong, again. (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1454)

Nearly half of respondents (48%) said their primary source of news and information is the Internet, ... Overall, 29% said television is their main source of news,

And it is crucial to this debate. News sources are not scarce, and so there is absolutely no need to make sure they are all perfectly balanced (besides being practically impossible).

It's funny how all your arguments turn out to be wrong.



Agreed, your point? Since I never advocated and in fact specifically mentioned not endorsing the Fairness Doctrine exactly where we left it off in the 80's, you are straw manning, as usual.

Gee, maybe you should think about how the new control program you want could be abused as well.


It is more surprising than when I find out that something privately run for-profit proved corrupt when presented with the choice of being legit or making more money.

Corrupt? Who are you to declare a news source corrupt, or what is a 'legit' news source? Unless they're taking bribes to give favorable news, you're just ranting again about those 'evil private corporations'.


LOL you are quoting the FCC, I'm blah blah blah

What a long winded way to avoid dealing with the fact that the FCC declared the fairness doctrine unconstitutional, and that it had a negative impact on free speech.


True. A revamped system, more like an incentive system, would be much better. And/or a rating system based on aggregates of media slant watchdogs and factcheck organizations which would have some kind of real meaning in terms of how reliably a news agency is viewed.

Why not just let people decide for themselves? Or can't the people be trusted?

CR

[Lemur]

A little bit of news for the after-lunch work posters: McCain's campaign is probably abandoning Wisconsin and New Hampshire (http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2008/10/stephanopoulo-3.html). This news comes shortly after McCain's camp admitted that they probably can't win in Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/1008/McCain_camp_pushes_back_on_report_theyre_losing_hope_in_CO.html).

The math gets ugly fast.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I also believe the fairness doctrine is a bad idea.

People need to understand there is bias in everything. I think those groups which fact-check everything should be able to give a bias rating to each "non-fiction" television program, radio program, and newspaper. Obviously those places without any journalistic integrity, or any sort of understanding as to what the truth is.

Al Franken's Air America, Rush Limbaugh's program, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Huffington, Olbermann, etc.

(Wingnuts) These would all get a HUGE bias rating.

Lou Dobbs, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.

(Not specifically partisan, but ideological) These would all get a significant bias rating.

Then we just need to figure out who the least biased journalists in America are, who give the most factually accurate, consistently even-handed approach to the news.

(Least biased) I give Anderson Cooper my vote, as well as many others whose names escape me at the moment. These journalists should be given more credibility when they report something. I sincerely doubt that good journalists will harp for hours on end about Omaba-Ayers or the Keating Five (McCain accused of bad judgment but cleared of impropriety). Those things are old news, and unless there are new developments or there is a crime or ethics violation, talking about them at this point when there is nothing new to talk about is nothing less than naked partisan smearing.

Good journalists will talk about real news, and not invent stories or paint a politician or group a certain way using cherry-picked information. So they should have a low "bias rating".

Obviously, the "bias ratings" could themselves be biased, but whenever we have fact-checking groups check the facts of both sides or all sides, I think that we should be able to trust them to some extent with the concept of bias. Otherwise we shouldn't trust them to check facts to begin with.

If the bias ratings are unofficial and non binding, I'd say we have room for them in our society. I'd certainly like to warn people that some out there are completely and totally up their own rear ends with a viewpoint, to the point where it distorts fact.

___________

And unless Obama starts cursing in front of schoolchildren while wearing a dress, he's won the election.

[Koga No Goshi]

Ah, another "the people are too stupid to think for themselves" liberal. Funny how the leftests always have so very little trust in citizens - but never fail to trust in the government as the answer. All the arguments against the fairness doctrine apply to your wished for government control over journalism standards, or whatever. It's unconstitutional, hampers free speech, and can be used as a tool to attack opposition press.

Do you have an argument that doesn't amount to sneering at me? Or are we falling back on character assasination now that arguing on the issues has failed, like any good Republican?


And it is crucial to this debate. News sources are not scarce, and so there is absolutely no need to make sure they are all perfectly balanced (besides being practically impossible).

It's funny how all your arguments turn out to be wrong.

Access to the airwaves is owned by the public. Your argument in no way diminishes or changes that. It is a public resource being used by a small number of private entities. If those entities choose to monopolize use only for certain viewpoints or agendas, that is abuse and can indeed be revoked, by the FCC or Federal Government if necessary. Fully legally, I might add. Laws qualifying what constitutes an acceptable range of affording equal access to representation of viewpoints on the airwaves is fair game within our legal system. Arguing that you do not like the Fairness Doctrine is not an overturning of the fact that ultimately the public has the right, through the government, to challenge monopolistic or exclusive use of the airwaves by private companies.


Corrupt? Who are you to declare a news source corrupt, or what is a 'legit' news source? Unless they're taking bribes to give favorable news, you're just ranting again about those 'evil private corporations'.

I'm a citizen in a democracy. That gives me license to be critical and skeptical of everyone, especially if they are using a government-sanctioned power or right or resource. What are you, exactly? And it is you arguing that freedom of the press and freedom of a private for-profit entertainment press are precisely the same thing. That is revisionism. That's the "new news" which has existed pretty much since Reagan created it. Not "freedom of the press" as granted in the Constitution and "god-given", as you dramatically argued a post back, though you are conflating that with the right of a small number of private businesses to control all news broadcasting and basically be as biased or pro-corporate or slanted or irresponsible journalistically as they wish. Heck, you're going against GOD now to criticize anything they do, according to you!


What a long winded way to avoid dealing with the fact that the FCC declared the fairness doctrine unconstitutional, and that it had a negative impact on free speech.

What a long winded series of posts frantically panicking over the Fairness Doctrine which I have never advocated reinstating in unmodified fashion. Straw man, straw man, straw man. (Of course, the reason you straw man and keep insisting it's about the Fairness Doctrine is because you don't have even a conservative point to stand on in terms of saying no content regulation whatsoever is legally supportable-- you yourself quoted the FCC which--- lo and behold--- REGULATES CONTENT!) I'll take the lessons I've learned from your arguing style and now go attack someone who doesn't like wiretapping because it must then follow that the U.S. has no right to have a military or engage in self-defense. I see how this "conservative" mindset works now.. ;) logical fallacies for the win.


Why not just let people decide for themselves? Or can't the people be trusted?

People have a choice? Someone can just skip youtube and broadcast their point of view over the airwaves like Fox or MSNBC if they don't like what either one of them is saying and excluding from discussion? That's news to me.

[Koga No Goshi]

If the bias ratings are unofficial and non binding, I'd say we have room for them in our society. I'd certainly like to warn people that some out there are completely and totally up their own rear ends with a viewpoint, to the point where it distorts fact.


We pretty much already do this in unofficial fashion anyway. Why not just make it official? I would love to see stats about what the average bias rating news service a particular politician gave interviews with, for instance. Bloggers and watchdogs already do a lot of this work, either non profit or volunteer or piecemeal. A bigger entity doing it on an ongoing basis would be great.

But agreed, Pizza. There are people BEYOND the level of "I realize Fox has some balance issues but for the most part I agree with everything they say" and delve way off into "no way, the regular media is all leftist b.s. and Fox is the only one even remotely possibly near balanced but even they sell out to the g-d left wing too g-d much." The sort of people who listen to Michael Savage would be an excellent example. (I once heard him blame most of the poor results of Bush policies as "Bush catering to the left-wing too much and not doing things the way he originally planned." .... Whut?)

[Crazed Rabbit]

Do you have an argument that doesn't amount to sneering at me? Or are we falling back on character assasination now that arguing on the issues has failed, like any good Republican?

Do you have an argument that doesn't amount to dismissing the public as fools and dunces who can't think for themselves?

Government regulation of political content does not work. If didn't work before and won't work now. It will allow the government to try to censure opposition press. It is unconstitutional.


Fully legally, I might add. Laws qualifying what constitutes an acceptable range of affording equal access to representation of viewpoints on the airwaves is fair game within our legal system.

Wrong - you are aware that the FCC said that was unconstitutional, right?


That's the "new news" which has existed pretty much since Reagan created it.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

So you never have heard of yellow journalism! :laugh4:


(Of course, the reason you straw man and keep insisting it's about the Fairness Doctrine is because you don't have even a conservative point to stand on in terms of saying no content regulation whatsoever is legally supportable-- you yourself quoted the FCC which--- lo and behold--- REGULATES CONTENT!)

They regulate content in terms of profanity and the like. They said the regulation you want is illegal.


People have a choice? Someone can just skip youtube and broadcast their point of view over the airwaves like Fox or MSNBC if they don't like what either one of them is saying and excluding from discussion? That's news to me.

Yes, they do. They can choose between different news sources.

CR

[Ronin]

This is pretty darn funny. (http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=188638) The interview with the current Mayor of Wassila (around the two minute mark) is damning.

the folks in Wassila sure know how to pick'em :laugh4:

[Koga No Goshi]

Do you have an argument that doesn't amount to dismissing the public as fools and dunces who can't think for themselves?

Quote me saying this.


Government regulation of political content does not work. If didn't work before and won't work now. It will allow the government to try to censure opposition press. It is unconstitutional.

You are entitled to your own opinion that a particular regulation didn't work. You are not, however, entitled to your own facts. Regulation of content on public airwaves is quite legal. Regulation of content on PRIVATE airwaves is not. (i.e. pay cable, internet, etc.) What part of this basic distinction do you not understand?


Wrong - you are aware that the FCC said that was unconstitutional, right?

The FCC is not a court. It has no power to declare something unconstitutional, legally. And the fact that you even use them as your basis undermines your entire argument. They are, by your definition, a Federal "control" and intrusion on pure private freedom of the press. Next up: quoting the FDA saying that it's unconstitutional to establish Federal food quality standards.


They regulate content in terms of profanity and the like. They said the regulation you want is illegal.

Ah okay, so regulation is okay-- but CR gets to decide how much. The FCC is okay because we can't have bad words on the air. But some form of standard about equal access for viewpoints is not acceptable at all. I see we have our priorities in order.


Yes, they do. They can choose between different news sources.


Different equally bad ones all covering Britney Spears cutting her hair off or American Idol results or plastic surgery for pets on the same day major world events are happening.

Oh by the way... ask our "conservative" administration how forbidding footage of coffins of servicemen or covering soldier funerals is respecting the god-given freedom of the press.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Koga-

The danger with making it official is that any publicly regulated group can be influenced by political parties. Like any apparatus of government, partisans can abuse the system once it is in place.

Those who fact-check the government should be in no way official or regulated by the government. They must make self-evident their claims by posting proof and facts. Not having government oversight means that they must only answer to we, the people, and if they are caught being partisan or don't properly fact check or cite sources, they will become discredited and will no longer be a viable entity in the marketplace.

It's this conservative's viewpoint that the government should not regulate the aspects of our democracy that act as a check on the government itself, because when you control those who fact-check you, they aren't really fact-checking you, they are cherry-picking facts to check.

Crazed Rabbit and Koga-

There may be a legitimate argument behind what you're trying to accomplish, but frankly from an outsider's perspective (note: my bias, if any, is as an Obama supporter) the discussion has diminished to mutual straw-man arguments and sneering.

CR, I believe if you take a break and come back and re-read some of the things you've said, they do come off a certain way. It hurts the legitimacy of what you're trying to express.

Koga, to be fair, not all Republicans are a certain way. And when responding to some of CR's more questionable tactics, you sometimes do it yourself.

That's about as even-handed as I can be. Surely there is merit in what you guys are debating, but I as a spectator and a lover of debate would like to see more objective argument and less sniping and sneering. I'm no moderator and I'm not telling anyone what to do, just requesting a better debate.

I believe the discussion could be elevated, and if it cannot, it should take a break and come back with a fresh perspective, or not at all.

:bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

Insight (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k) into the democratic mindset...

[Lemur]

The discussion has diminished to mutual straw-man arguments and sneering.
Well if you're going to be all picky and have taste and expect a civil discussion, I'm not sure what we're supposed to do with you. Sheesh.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Lemur-

I know you're :laugh2: and not being serious of course, but,

Listen, it's a free country and if people want to have less credible arguments involving questionable methods of discussion, it's their Constitutional right.

However, to impress a critic like myself, we have to get serious and not respond with emotional reactions, character assassination, or diminishing our opponents. Some people like the kind of "fair and balanced" discussions you get on Fox News or Air America, but others, like me, don't!

We have a lot of intelligent, mature people here, we have moderators, we have internet resources, and we have fair judges on both sides and in the middle. Why not do what those money-grubbing networks can't do, because they have to pander to the lowest common denominator, and try to have an elevated discussion?

I attempted to have one with Caius a while back I believe. While he didn't respond, I made sure that everything I said was on-point and relevant to the discussion, I didn't attack him personally, and I made sure everything that was written was in a respectful tone. We could use some of that here, I imagine. No disrespect to either CR or Koga.

[PanzerJaeger]

Interesting article on slate. (http://www.slate.com/id/2202658/)


Has Sarah Palin "gone rogue"? For the last few weeks, Republicans inside and outside the McCain campaign have speculated about those moments when Palin and John McCain have appeared to disagree: Palin pressed to have the campaign compete for Michigan voters when strategists had given up on the state. She disagreed with McCain's opposition to a marriage amendment. She disagreed with McCain's opposition to removing North Korea from the list of terrorist nations. She thinks the campaign should talk about Barack Obama's ties to his former pastor Jeremiah Wright.

They suggest that Palin has accepted defeat and is attempting to position herself as a national figure for future elections. To me, though, it seems like she's the only one in the McCain camp that really wants to win.

It's stupid to "give up" on any state in such a public manner, it's stupid to shed valuable voters over a wedge issue like gay marriage, and it's stupid not to talk about Wright - a much deeper and damning association than Ayers.

[Askthepizzaguy]

An admission by PanzerJaeger that McCain's campaign is "stupid" (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2042689&postcount=3653)?

:laugh2:


Just kidding, PJ. You make some valid points.

[PanzerJaeger]

An admission by PanzerJaeger that McCain's campaign is "stupid" (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2042689&postcount=3653)?

:laugh2:


Just kidding, PJ. You make some valid points.

Hehe, I'll be the first to tell you John McCains campaign has been terrible. So many missed opportunities... Schmit is no Rove. :shame:

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can respect someone I disagree with who has not lost touch with reality. Those who believe their viewpoint so much that they consciously omit the facts honestly should not vote or hold any power whatsoever.

When someone has an honest philosophical difference, I admire that, and seek to learn as much as possible from that person. Honest people with different viewpoints have access to different information, and have arrived at different conclusions for a reason. I'm always curious to know what that reason is, and what information they have.

I would have thought that anyone could plainly see that McCain's campaign has just lost touch with reality, but I have to balance that with the fact that I presently support Obama. My perspective may be flawed, I just don't see how. It's refreshing to know that McCain-Palin supporters are also dissatisfied with the way the campaign has been run.

Although, I must say, Karl Rove is not exactly a heroic figure in my book. Getting Bush elected is not a victory, it's a failure for all of us. You might dispute that, of course.

:laugh2:

[Lemur]

Block African witchcraft curses against McCain and Palin NOW! (http://www.injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=view&MID=CB007FA2&GroupID=2A004N9G&label=&paging=all)

Dear friends:

THIS IS EXTREMELY SERIOUS.

Minutes ago I spoke with friend Dr. Norman G. Marvin, M.D. and he is so concerned at what he has learned about Barack Obama's family in Kenya that he is calling a special prayer meeting in his home to pray against the witchcraft curses attempted by them against John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Dr. Marvin sent me the below e-mail from Flo Ellers. Flo is credentialed with the International Fellowship of Ministries which is based in Washington State. She is also a member of EndTime Handmaidens and Servants of Jasper, Arkansas.

IF YOU KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, PLEASE PRAY TODAY AND CONTINUALLY THAT ALL SUCH CURSES BE BROKEN AND SATAN'S PLAN FOR AMERICA BE DEFEATED, IN JESUS' NAME. PRAY AND COVER MCCAIN AND PALIN WITH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW TO DO SPIRITUAL WARFARE, IT IS TIME YOU LEARN!!!

Jim

________________________________________

From Flo Ellers. Excerpt. (Emphasis supplied in bold and underlines.)

Two days ago, I listened to a 9-6-08 message by Bree Keyton, a young woman evangelist who had just traveled to Kenya and visited Obama's home village and what she found out about his relations with his tribal people was chilling. And his "cousin" Odinga was dreadful. She said the witches, warlocks and those involved in satanism and the occult get up daily at 3 a.m. to release curses against McCain and Palin so B. Hussein Obama is elected.

Bree Keyton told the tribal "Christians" you are NOT Christian if you practice "tribalism" where they do voodoo to conjure up a goddess spirit or a "genie" and then come to church on Sunday to worship Jesus! What she discovered there is apparent in most churches around the world; namely, mixture in the church. Some renounced their devilish practices of blood covenant by killing sheep, goats, humans to be inducted into the tribe or to get a wife or to get revenge.

She said the current president of Kenya is a Christian. However, Obama's cousin Odinga ran aganist him and said he rigged the election and stirred up the masses to rape woman and boys, kill and burn and torture Christians, etc. until Obama contacted Condeleeza Rice and she granted Obama the right to contact Odinga and other ruling elders and he "convinced" them to stop terrorizing the Christians. Bree Keyton said the current Christian President was forced by our government (!) to "create" an office for Odinga (to make "peace") so he was made the Prime Minister (!) to make peace between the Christians and Odinga's Muslim religion!

Bree Keyton went and visited Obama's tribal people and she found out Obama is 75% Arab and his family are Muslims. Odinga is strill trying to become the President of Kenya. If he does, he will make a law forbidding all public preaching and institute Sharia Law. Bree K. said Odinga has made a pact with satan.

Bree K. also said when Obama visited his tribe in '06 and as late as Jan. '08 he went to every elder's home which has a "shrine" inside to worship the genie and asked for their blessing. She was told Obama and Odinga were both "destined" before they were born to be president/leader of their nation. They say "he is the chosen one". She said Obama's grandmother sacrificed a black and a white chicken to the "goddess of the river" so both whites and blacks will vote for Obama. All Islam loves and worships Obama. The world is mesmerized by him. Oprah's 200 million followers are out to elect Obama. Also, Dick Morris of Fox News was sent to Kenya to help Odinga run his campaign! I find that unbelievable.

The occultists are "weaving lazy 8's around McCain's mind to make him look confused and like an idiot". Bree K. said we need to break these curses off of him that are being sent from Kenya.

I read a portion of "Obama Nation" book and looked at several websites and found most of this information to be true, all except the curses part, of course....

End of excerpt.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Wow.

I truly hope that Jesus comes back someday, so he can disassociate himself from all those wackos.

[Koga No Goshi]

Koga-

The danger with making it official is that any publicly regulated group can be influenced by political parties. Like any apparatus of government, partisans can abuse the system once it is in place.

Those who fact-check the government should be in no way official or regulated by the government. They must make self-evident their claims by posting proof and facts. Not having government oversight means that they must only answer to we, the people, and if they are caught being partisan or don't properly fact check or cite sources, they will become discredited and will no longer be a viable entity in the marketplace.

It's this conservative's viewpoint that the government should not regulate the aspects of our democracy that act as a check on the government itself, because when you control those who fact-check you, they aren't really fact-checking you, they are cherry-picking facts to check.


I agree. But we're not even able to get to that point of discussion (I have said many times that a better direction may very well be informal channels such as a rating system) because CR is off on a crusade about resurrecting the Fairness Doctrine exactly as we left it, dessicated in its coffin, in the 1980's. (which no one even suggested) :laugh4:


Crazed Rabbit and Koga-

There may be a legitimate argument behind what you're trying to accomplish, but frankly from an outsider's perspective (note: my bias, if any, is as an Obama supporter) the discussion has diminished to mutual straw-man arguments and sneering.
:bow:

Absolutely fair criticism. I do have ... difficulty not responding in kind when someone slams into you with a vitriol equal to you having just slapped they momma. I apologize to anyone I have bored with my long yammerings or annoyed with my return snipes. :yes:



Listen, it's a free country and if people want to have less credible arguments involving questionable methods of discussion, it's their Constitutional right.

However, to impress a critic like myself, we have to get serious and not respond with emotional reactions, character assassination, or diminishing our opponents. Some people like the kind of "fair and balanced" discussions you get on Fox News or Air America, but others, like me, don't!


Would very much like this to be the more characteristic tenor of discussion around here. Unfortunately it is difficult when the only person weighing in on a topic prefaces every comment with "as is typical of liberals seeking to mind-control people..."

[PanzerJaeger]

I can respect someone I disagree with who has not lost touch with reality. Those who believe their viewpoint so much that they consciously omit the facts honestly should not vote or hold any power whatsoever.

When someone has an honest philosophical difference, I admire that, and seek to learn as much as possible from that person. Honest people with different viewpoints have access to different information, and have arrived at different conclusions for a reason. I'm always curious to know what that reason is, and what information they have.

I would have thought that anyone could plainly see that McCain's campaign has just lost touch with reality, but I have to balance that with the fact that I presently support Obama. My perspective may be flawed, I just don't see how. It's refreshing to know that McCain-Palin supporters are also dissatisfied with the way the campaign has been run.

Although, I must say, Karl Rove is not exactly a heroic figure in my book. Getting Bush elected is not a victory, it's a failure for all of us. You might dispute that, of course.

:laugh2:

Indeed. :beam:

McCain's campaign has been all over the place, with no consistent message whatsoever. He has wasted time propping up stupid issues that no one really cares about, and has missed valuable opportunities to draw favorable distinctions between himself and Obama. The campaign suspension was ultimately a failed gamble and the public "dropping out" of states is weak and unnecessary. I am voting for McCain because I formed my ideological preferences a long time ago and I can think of very few things that could change my mind during the campaign. If I were just a casual voter, however, Obama's brand definitely has been marketed better.

Now then, no matter your opinion of GWB, you have to admit that Rove was good at his job. 2004 was a master stroke. Remember, Republicans have been working at a registration disadvantage for decades. ~;)

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed. :beam:

McCain's campaign has been all over the place, with no consistent message whatsoever. He has wasted time propping up stupid issues that no one really cares about, and has missed valuable opportunities to draw favorable distinctions between himself and Obama. The campaign suspension was ultimately a failed gamble and the public "dropping out" of states is weak and unnecessary. I am voting for McCain because I formed my ideological preferences a long time ago and I can think of very few things that could change my mind during the campaign. If I were just a casual voter, however, Obama's brand definitely has been marketed better.

Now then, no matter your opinion of GWB, you have to admit that Rove was good at his job. 2004 was a master stroke. Remember, Republicans have been working at a registration disadvantage for decades. ~;)

I have to give proper respect for the putting-aside-partisanship honesty in this post.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I can respect just about anyone who can put their views aside and just be an honest person speaking objectively for even a moment or two out of their day.

I worry about the wing nuts on both sides tearing us all down, especially those of us in the middle or center-left, center-right. We're the only ones trying to unite and rescue the nation, everyone else is just trying to destroy the opposition.

In order to combat extremism, militancy, ultra-partisanship, and uncivility within our own nation in its hour of need, we need to give credit where credit is due, to people on all sides of the aisle who don't succumb to the partisan noise machine.

We need to bring sanity back to this country, and negative attacks that have nothing to do with the issues, "Crossfire"-style shouting matches, debates without moderation or ideas, and smearing our ideological opposition as the devil incarnate needs to end.

It will get us nowhere, hurt us whether our side wins or loses, and also divide this country and ENSURE nothing gets done, which will by default allow those with power to continue abusing it and let the USA veer off a cliff with no one at the wheel. I really hope everyone here, regardless of party affiliation or voting preference, understands the importance of this.

Wouldn't it be awkward, after months of smearing Obama as a terrorist, should he become President, for those who smeared him to stand in solemn respect for him? Why, then they would be standing and saluting a terrorist! And that would indeed be bad for America. (sarcasm)

Bottom line, if your opponent isn't a terrorist or has no legitimate ties to one, then we have to stop making that false association, or else it's going to bite the entire country in the rear end come January. All our brave soldiers saluting a "terrorist"... why, that would highlight the ridiculousness of the accusation, now wouldn't it?

That's why when wing nuts on my side call Bush a terrorist and burn him in effigy I shake my head in shame. He's a terrible, terrible, horrendous president, yes, but he's personally not fought any of these wars and those soldiers he sent to fight in them are not terrorists. They have rules of engagement they must follow and are prosecuted when they do not. Calling Bush a terrorist is the same as calling every Iraq war veteran a terrorist in this case.

When wing nuts on our own "side" do stupid things that embarrass themselves and endanger this country, we need to speak up. This isn't about choosing sides, it's about doing what's right.

[Koga No Goshi]

In order to combat extremism, militancy, ultra-partisanship, and uncivility within our own nation in its hour of need, we need to give credit where credit is due, to people on all sides of the aisle who don't succumb to the partisan noise machine.

We need to bring sanity back to this country, and negative attacks that have nothing to do with the issues, "Crossfire"-style shouting matches, debates without moderation or ideas, and smearing our ideological opposition as the devil incarnate needs to end.

I blame general stupidity and complacency first and foremost. Few people take voting as a real civic responsibility worthy of time and research and attention. Most view it as something to cast based on 1 issue or whoever comes off with the snazziest one-liners in the campaign and feels like a homeboy to you.

But I also think this indirectly brings us back into the discussion CR and I were having. I think that when the sole calling of news is to make money and sell ad space, this is what we get. Jerry Springer style screaming and dramatic partisanship and conflict and sides trying to destroy each other. It's exciting, it sells. How many people said they fell asleep during the debates, or didn't bother watching? I bet if a headline had said "McCain throws coffee mug at Obama in debate" they all would have woken up and made sure to watch it.

We're looking at years of concentrating on, and elevating, the "lowest common denominator" as the "real America", the "patriotic America", "the true Americans", etc. And aiming at that audience as the baseline norm of discourse and marketing in our news and political machinery.

Look at, as another example, the heat Obama took for how often he said "Senator McCain is right." You, Pizza, would say that is pushing the discourse towards being more reasonable and elevated. ANd I would agree with you. Know what about half the people out there would say? It was weakness, it invited attack, it made him look wussy. That's the maturity level of a lot of the viewership out there, that we're deciding who should run the frathouse.

[m52nickerson]

Ah, another "the people are too stupid to think for themselves" liberal. Funny how the leftests always have so very little trust in citizens - but never fail to trust in the government as the answer. All the arguments against the fairness doctrine apply to your wished for government control over journalism standards, or whatever. It's unconstitutional, hampers free speech, and can be used as a tool to attack opposition press.

Yes when in doubt make broad over reaching statements about teh liberals.

While I am not for the fairness doctrine let me point out that it would not be unconstitutional or hampers free speech any more then the FCC rules do now.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes when in doubt make broad over reaching statements about teh liberals.

While I am not for the fairness doctrine let me point out that it would not be unconstitutional or hampers free speech any more then the FCC rules do now.

Holy crap. m52 you just condensed my entire argument into two lines.

[m52nickerson]

Holy crap. m52 you just condensed my entire argument into two lines.

Your welcome.


That's what we do hear on mythbusters, we take large thing and make them small.

[Koga No Goshi]

Your welcome.

Wanna be my Cliff's Notes?:2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

According to Palin I dont live in "Real America" What a tool.

[Koga No Goshi]

According to Palin I dont live in "Real America" What a tool.

Don't feel bad. If you eliminate all the blue states too, then the majority of Americans aren't real Americans. We have more votes than they do so who cares. ;)

[PanzerJaeger]

According to Palin I dont live in "Real America" What a tool.

Score another point for the media spin machine.. Did you read what she said and her further clarification?

[Strike For The South]

Score another point for the media spin machine.. Did you read what she said and her further clarification?

At this point I'd much rather tale what they feed me but if you insist

[Incongruous]

I read something today, whioch I felt was rather sad.
Apparently the constitution of the U.S.A used to be suchg that, it was the man with the second highest vote count who was appointed VP.

In light of the two candidates, It is a shame that the 12th amendment (is that it?) changed that I feel.

[Strike For The South]

"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation,

I grew up in the a city with about 1.5 million people. Not a small town not the best of America not hard wroking

[Koga No Goshi]

At this point I'd much rather tale what they feed me but if you insist

Even if Palin backpedalled on the comment, it is a widely-held notion among the far right fringes. Hell, it's not even the fringes. It comes up in practically every election, and accusation that the left is unpatriotic and not the real America has been a cornerstone of every Presidential campaign since.... can anyone even remember when it started?

Michelle Bachmann (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14777.html) was happy to hop on Chris Matthews and comment about Palin's remark that yes, Obama is very anti-America and affiliates closely with radical left-wing parts of America that are anti-America in their views. I'm sure a lot of rightie pundits, definitely on the radio if not elsewhere, were quick to parrot agreement. It's nothing different than what they're saying and implying about the left a great deal of the time, so I'm just surprised people act like it's a shocking news-bit that Palin would mention it.


"We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard-working, very patriotic, very pro-America areas of this great nation,

True story: we don't work in California..... while paying more for almost everything than people in little under-5,000 people towns. We just lay around dreaming up ways to sabotage America and sleeping in till 2pm everyday.

[PanzerJaeger]

Seems like your standard playing to the crowd. Also, she has since said that no insult was implied.

[Koga No Goshi]

RE: Palin's "real America", I don't think it needed to be implied, I think it was already understood what she meant. When people go to these little nothing towns and pander to how they're the real heartland America and work hard and this and that... the implication is always... as opposed to those godless war protesting hippies in big cities. If she didn't say it, people in that town probably did and do.

[Strike For The South]

Seems like your standard playing to the crowd. Also, she has since said that no insult was implied.

Of course she is going to say that. Her and T.Boone Pickens are on my poop list. That is a bad list

[PanzerJaeger]

Of course she is going to say that. Her and T.Boone Pickens are on my poop list. That is a bad list

If a little "We've got a great looking crowd tonight!" crowd working is all it takes to get on your poop list, I'll make sure I watch my mouth around you! :beam:



I don't think it needed to be implied, I think it was already understood what she meant. When people go to these little nothing towns and pander to how they're the real heartland America and work hard and this and that... the implication is always... as opposed to those godless war protesting hippies in big cities. If she didn't say it, people in that town probably did and do.

I don't think you can condemn a person based solely on what you assume is understood but was never said. On the other hand, the democrats have made it clear what they think of small town America on several occasions this election cycle. I would think Strike would be more upset over those implicit insults than a few words in a Palin address. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

If a little "We've got a great looking crowd tonight!" crowd working is all it takes to get on your poop list, I'll make sure I watch my mouth around you! :beam:




I don't think you can condemn a person based solely on what you assume is understood but was never said. On the other hand, the democrats have made it clear what they think of small town America on several occasions this election cycle. I would think Strike would be more upset over those implicit insults than a few words in a Palin address. :shrug:

Panzer I think I called Obama nasty names to just look in this thread. Palin is pandering to the LCD and you know that.

[Koga No Goshi]

Palin is pandering to the LCD and you know that.

The liquid crystal display?

[Askthepizzaguy]

"Lowest common denominator". In other words, the Republican party.




I joke, of course. Some of them are all right. :grin:

[Askthepizzaguy]

Oh, be nicthe.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh, be nicthe.

Since things seemed to have slowed down a bit, for the moment, in the 2008 Presidential Election/Campaign department, can I take this opportunity to order a large pizza with extra pepperoni, green peppers and onions delivered to an address which will be supplied in PM?

And, do I get the Orgah discount?

[Askthepizzaguy]

You certainly can go ahead and order, you don't need my permission. Oh, and about the discount, ask whomever it is you're gonna be ordering from.

[Koga No Goshi]

You certainly can go ahead and order, you don't need my permission. Oh, and about the discount, ask whomever it is you're gonna be ordering from.

Your name is "Askthepizzaguy"! So I asked the pizza guy! :furious3:

[Marshal Murat]

"Socialist" is a racist word (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493)


The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

Great stuff. :404:

[Lemur]

Just so we're all clear, John McCain (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/mccain_calls_western_pa_most_p.php) said today: "Western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most God-loving, most patriotic part of America... this is a great part of the country."

It follows logically that every other part of the country is less patriotic and less God-loving. Sucks to be you.

[m52nickerson]

"Socialist" is a racist word (http://voices.kansascity.com/node/2493)

Great stuff. :404:

10 to 1 odds that McCain Godwin's himself before the end.

[Koga No Goshi]

Just so we're all clear, John McCain (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/mccain_calls_western_pa_most_p.php) said today: "Western Pennsylvania is the most patriotic, most God-loving, most patriotic part of America... this is a great part of the country."

It follows logically that every other part of the country is less patriotic and less God-loving. Sucks to be you.

The rest of the country is every bit as God loving! How offensive! Just because all the rest of us worship a different God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Dollar) doesn't make us any less God-loving!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I don't know about you guys, but I'm torn between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

[Ronin]

Seems like your standard playing to the crowd. Also, she has since said that no insult was implied.

Backpedaling much is she?

does this mean that Palin is a flip-flopper? :juggle2::wiseguy:

you cannot say incredibly stupid, false things and then just laugh it off by saying you where just "playing to the crow"....there is a difference between saying "you´re a great crowd" and "those guys aren´t real citizens of this country"

If you have to stoop so low to play to your crowd, then that says something about your crowd that I won´t say here because I don´t want to get banned! :soapbox:

[Lemur]

I guess this belongs in News of the Weird, but it's too political, so here goes:


Al-Qaeda Endorses McCain for President (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477.html)

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. [...]

It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.
ad_icon

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America." [...]

"The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."

Islamist militants have generally had less to say about Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Leaders of the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah expressed a favorable view of Obama during the primary campaign but later rejected the Democrat after he delivered speeches expressing support for Israel.

Personally, I think it's kind of silly, and I don't believe Americans should base anything on what Al Qaeda has to say. However I can't help but imagine the red flashing sirens on Drudge if this happened to Obama ...

[Don Corleone]

True story: we don't work in California..... while paying more for almost everything than people in little under-5,000 people towns. We just lay around dreaming up ways to sabotage America and sleeping in till 2pm everyday.

At least you're good enough to admit it. ~D

[LittleGrizzly]

Bush did far more for the Al Qaeda cause than any man alive today (and far more than any dead osama's did) he must go down in history as the man who made al qaeda a huge power and presence in international politics, i think some lessons have been learnt and john mccain would not follow such a self destructive path, i think with his 'strongman act' and 'tough rhetoric' he would be a little better for al qaeda than obama but i don't think theres much left america wants and is able to do that could help al qaeda out more

That is assuming america can't or doesn't want to invade iran....

[TinCow]

Too funny not to post.


GM: OK, the bugbear attacks you. What do you do?

OBAMA: I send one of my 672 henchmen after it.

MCCAIN: OK, seriously. Why does he have so many henchmen? I'm a level
72 ranger and he's only a level 8 paladin.

OBAMA: Well, if you'd bought the Grassroots Organizing and
Oratory/Colgate Smile proficiencies you could min max it so that
you...

MCCAIN: Why is he even IN this campaign? I thought this was supposed
to be a high level party.

OBAMA: Well, maybe some people got tired of the grim and squinty
"Matterhorn, son of Marathon" shtick you keep doing. Dude, could you
be any less original?

MCCAIN: Oh my god, I did not leave my left nut in a tiger cage in the
Tomb of Horrors to spend my Friday nights mopping up after the new
kid.

OBAMA: "My friends, I am a totally unoriginal grizzled character class
stereotype. I should lead the party because I have more testicular
damage than that one."

MCCAIN: Yeah, well, you pal around with dark elves.

OBAMA: OH NO YOU DIDN'T.

MCCAIN: Whatever, so's your mom.

OBAMA: So's your FACE.

MCCAIN: So's your Mom's face!

HILARY: :daisy: you guys. Why am I playing the cleric?

MCCAIN: Hilary, we've been over this.

HILARY: No, dude. I am so sick of being the girlfriend healer.
Seriously, I can't even use a sword. :daisy: this noise.

KUCINICH: IM A BARD

OBAMA: That's nice.

KUCINICH: MY FAMILIAR IS A PURPLE SNOW LEOPARD

MCCAIN: Oh, Jesus. Here we go.

KUCINICH: DID I MENTION MY WIFE IS A TOTALLY :daisy: DRYAD WITH 20 CHARISMA

HILARY: C'mon you guys, I've been playing this :daisy: since Gygax was in
eighth grade. Why can't I be the party leader with the magic sword for
once?

MCCAIN: Because no one wants to see you in a bronze bra.

OBAMA: Oh dude, BURRRRRNNNN.

HILARY: SCREW YOU, Grandpa. I will so kick your ass.

MCCAIN: Yeah? Bring it! I didn't spend 3 years in the Abyss with
Githzerai hooking my nads up to a car battery to get beat by some
Wellesley girl.

HILARY: WHATEVER, you can't even lift your arms over your head.

RON PAUL: I brought my Planescape character!

OBAMA: Dude, we're playing Forgotten Realms.

RON PAUL: I rift in from Sigil! I'm a Chaotic Neutral Tiefling
Barbarian/Monk/Rogue!

MCCAIN: DUDE, that is not even LEGAL.

RON PAUL: Ronpaul the Barbarian say: :daisy: it! Guns and abortions and
weed for everyone! WHEEE!

PALIN: Hi folks! Sorry I'm late! I brought caribou burgers.

HILARY: Who the HELL is this?

MCCAIN: It's cool, she's with me.

HILARY: No! No, it's not cool! Every time you bring one of your
rodeo-queen girlfriends in here she ends up playing some succubus
infiltrator and killing the whole party!

MCCAIN: Now, that is patently untrue.

BIDEN: He has a point. Cindy turned out to be a vampire.

MCCAIN: DUDE. SHUT UP.

GM: You guys, seriously, if you don't knock it off with the bickering
I'm going to start docking XP.

MCCAIN: You know what? :daisy: it. I'm suspending the campaign.

GM: You can't do that! Only I can suspend the campaign! I didn't
suspend it for the 1988 Mountain Dew shortage and I'm not going to
suspend it now.

KUCINICH: YOU GUYS I AM TOTALLY CASTING A CANTRIP

MCCAIN: Oh my god, Dennis, shut up, you don't even count.

KUCINICH: YOU GUYS ARE :daisy:

BIDEN: Where are the Cheetos?

RON PAUL: Wait. What happen to tiny Mormon Man?

GM: You find Mitt's lifeless, drained corpse has been stuffed in the
broom closet.

HILARY: Oh, God DAMMIT.

MCAIN: Not ok! NOT OK!

OBAMA: What, I didn't even get a detect evil roll for that one?

HILARY: I TOLD you she was a succubus, but did anyone listen? Oohhhhh
no, Hilary's just jealous of the beauty queen.

RON PAUL: Pretty Lady screw Mitt lifeless. Ronpaul SMASH!!

MCCAIN: Would you please go light up a spliff and stay out of this?
The grown ups are talking.

RON PAUL: Why pretty lady suck life out of Mitt and not Ronpaul? Not fair!

HILARY: I mean, never mind that I'm the one with 17 Wisdom, but does
anyone listen to the girl? Noooooo.

RON PAUL: Also Mitt have stupid name. Who name kid after baseball equipment?

KUCINICH: HAY YOU GUYS CHECK OUT MY HEAD OF VECNA TRICK

HILARY: This never would have happened when Tim Russert was our GM.

GM: You know what? Forget it. Rocks fall, everyone dies.

OBAMA: :daisy: you guys. I'm going to go play Bunnies and Burrows at Jon
Stewart's house.

HILARY: Me too.

MCCAIN: Me too.

KUCINICH: GAZEBO!

[Spino]

I guess this belongs in News of the Weird, but it's too political, so here goes:


Al-Qaeda Endorses McCain for President (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102477.html)

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. [...]

It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world.
ad_icon

"It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda," said the posting, attributed to Muhammad Haafid, a longtime contributor to the password-protected site. "Al-Qaeda then will succeed in exhausting America." [...]

"The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful 'son of Bush' -- someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk," Raisman said. "They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain."

Islamist militants have generally had less to say about Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Leaders of the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah expressed a favorable view of Obama during the primary campaign but later rejected the Democrat after he delivered speeches expressing support for Israel.

Personally, I think it's kind of silly, and I don't believe Americans should base anything on what Al Qaeda has to say. However I can't help but imagine the red flashing sirens on Drudge if this happened to Obama ...

This is not weird at all. Their logic is either flawed or pinpoint perfect. In spite of their Allah fueled delusions I'm inclined to believe the latter. Al Qaeda's leadership is obviously paying close attention to our election campaigns as well as who is the preferred candidate of certain Middle Eastern leaders/nations. Al Qaeda is keen on playing some part in affecting our election and this is truly a clever move. Part of the McCain campaign's strategy earlier in the year was to illustrate who our enemies would prefer to have win this election (i.e. Iran's preference for Obama over McCain) and use that as a selling point to voters concerned about terrorism, our troops in Iraq or Israel. It worked against the Obama campaign as witnessed by McCain's stronger standing in the foreign policy polls back in the Spring/Summer. An endorsement of Obama by Iran only helps the McCain campaign.

As to Al Qaeda's logic...

A McCain administration will certainly allow Al Qaeda to maintain a high recruitment rate but the truth of the matter is Al Qaeda isn't doing too well in Iraq right now. Many regions of Iraq that were tolerant of Al Qaeda's presence are now working with Coalition forces to keep them out and inter-factional strife is at its lowest point since we invaded. So either Al Qaeda honestly believes what they're selling or they're playing a simple game of reverse psychology. Once we pull out the spotty Iraqi military won't stand a chance against Al Qaeda's unorthodox methods. With McCain in office Al Qaeda will maintain strong recruitment levels but will achieve little headway. With Obama in office Al Qaeda recruitment levels may or may not decrease but their leadership knows it will simply be a matter of time before they'll have free run of Iraq and a much better chance of succeeding after we pull out. At that point they can create and promote another boogie man to encourage new recruits to join the ranks. Upon our withdrawal suddenly the long term prospects of the creation of a powerful, model Islamic state will become that much closer to reality. It's not BS when you consider that Al Qaeda's far reaching goals are the creation of such states throughout the Middle East. Iraq is a large Arab nation with a wealth of natural resources that can better serve Al Qaeda's purposes unlike Afghanistan whose most profitable raw material is opium poppies (a resource that, unlike oil, offends a fundamentalist's sensibilities). In the turmoil following our pullout the Iraqi economy will no doubt tank leaving the younger male members of the population extremely susceptible to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts. Even Iran's best efforts to counter this (while following their own geopolitical agenda) won't stand a chance against Al Qaeda. Also factor in that young Iraqis, being predominantly of Arabic descent, will probably feel more comfortable siding with fellow Arabs fighting for Al Qaeda on behalf of the Iraqi people than Arab or Persian insurgents backed by Persian money fighting on behalf of Iran.

Anyway it's easy to see why Al Qaeda is supporting McCain instead of Obama, they're simply looking to improve Obama's chances of winning.

[PanzerJaeger]

The military overwhelmingly (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/) supports McCain.

I guess most of them remember the purges and cuts under Clinton. :shame:

[Lemur]

When it comes time to actually open their wallets, the military favor Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm).


U.S. soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous campaigns in which military donations tended to favor GOP White House hopefuls, a nonpartisan group reported Thursday.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said. [...]

The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.

Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 soldiers serving abroad, the report said.

From the Military Times poll (http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_methodology_100608W/):

The voluntary nature of the survey could affect the results — if supporters of one candidate are more prone to express their opinions, for example. The dependence on e-mail could also affect the results, because e-mail users may have different characteristics than the military population as a whole.

Characteristics of Military Times readers may also affect the results. The group surveyed is significantly older than the military as a whole, and the survey group contains a higher percentage of officers than is present in the military.

Conversely, junior enlisted troops, women and racial and ethnic minorities made up a smaller share of the sample than of the military at large. While it is difficult to predict how those factors affect the results, those groups are generally regarded as more supportive of Democratic candidates.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Anyway it's easy to see why Al Qaeda is supporting McCain instead of Obama, they're simply looking to improve Obama's chances of winning.I dunno..I think I'll take their word for it. AQ really does want McCain to win. I don't think AQ expects Americans to do the opposite of what AQ tells them to do.

Whether or not AQ is right in their analysis, or whether Obama or McCain would serve America's interests better, is a matter of debate.

For AQ though, the choice for McCain seems logical. In their eyes, America is losing. Militarily bogged down, economically collapsing. They'll have more of it. They are looking for a fight, and hope to get more of it from McCain. If AQ had it their way, America would invade all the Arab countries. In fact, nothing would make AQ happier than to see the whole of Arabia turned into Palestine, and America into Israel. This is pretty much their mental map of the world as it is anyway. It is the world they long for. AQ has never shed a tear for lost Arab lives or for Arab misery. They relish in it. Nobody disrespects the sanctity of the life of an Arab more than AQ does.

If I had it my way, everybody would leave the Middle East tomorrow. No more buying of oil either. Then put a big fence around it and let them decide: wait forever in that hellhole of their own making until Allah finally gives them their earthly reward for their pious ways, or forget about that nonsense and get a life - like the Chinese, the Indians, assorted Islamic countries and everybody else.

[Spino]

When it comes time to actually open their wallets, the military favor Obama (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-14-military-donations_N.htm).


U.S. soldiers have donated more presidential campaign money to Democrat Barack Obama than to Republican John McCain, a reversal of previous campaigns in which military donations tended to favor GOP White House hopefuls, a nonpartisan group reported Thursday.

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said. [...]

The report tracked donations of $200 or more. It found that 859 members of the military donated a total of $335,536 to Obama. McCain received $280,513 from 558 military donors.

Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain. That was less than the amount received by Republican Ron Paul, who collected $45,512 from 99 soldiers serving abroad, the report said.

With the average Ron Paul supporter you know you're dealing with people who are old school Republican isolationists in nature. With the average McCain supporter you know you're getting a mish mash of traditional & Neo-Conservative Republicans. With Obama you're getting liberal Democrats and... Well some months back I remember hearing how African Americans have donated an unprecedented amount of money to the Obama campaign. Using PZ's article as a jumping point I am incredibly curious as to what the racial makeup of the military donors was like for all the candidates listed.

[CountArach]

The military overwhelmingly (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/) supports McCain.

I guess most of them remember the purges and cuts under Clinton. :shame:
Are you really surprised that the Army is supporting a man who is both a Hawk and was once in the army himself? There was never any doubt that McCain was going to win the military vote.

[Spino]

If I had it my way, everybody would leave the Middle East tomorrow. No more buying of oil either. Then put a big fence around it and let them decide: wait forever in that hellhole of their own making until Allah finally gives them their earthly reward for their pious ways, or forget about that nonsense and get a life - like the Chinese, the Indians, assorted Islamic countries and everybody else.

I agree. The social darwinist in me says if you're going to invade a nation then conquer it old school style, none of this international aid or tepid nation building crap. But beyond my Darwinian grumblings I couldn't give a flying fornication about what happens in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Rwanda, Darfur, etc. Let them roast babies on a spit and glaze and baste them with crude oil, who cares! Good riddance to the lot of them.

As to getting a life... Be mindful that the Chinese are becoming the great colonial power of the 21st century. Mandarin intrigues are taking place in Africa as we speak.

[Louis VI the Fat]

the most God-loving, most patriotic part of America... this is a great part of the country.Obviously, McCain is right.

If I were a liberal American, I wouldn't take offense. I'd say that McCain is bloody right. 'Rural America' - if that is the term, really is the most God-fearing, most patriotic part of America. Albeit to a large extent by their own definition of God-fearing and, especially, patriotic. Neither of which qualifications I would want to apply to me.

Likewise, urban America, and blue America, are the most liberal, most cosmopolitan, and the least patriotic (in the narrow-minded sense of the word) parts of America. Which, I guess, in turn are negative qualifications for the other America.

As for which is the 'real America'...well logic seems to dictate that both are.


(And then there is the history of the meaning of the phrase 'the real America' / the real France / the real where ever: ever since the Romans, the rural life, the countryfolk, have been deemed the 'real this-or-that'. As oppossed to the artificial city, the cosmopolitans, the people who make their living not by tilling the soil and tending the livestock, but through trade, mone-lending, writing and God knows what other abominations....)

[PanzerJaeger]

Are you really surprised that the Army is supporting a man who is both a Hawk and was once in the army himself? There was never any doubt that McCain was going to win the military vote.

I did not mean to give the impression that those results were surprising to me.

Naturally the majority of the military will side with the man that would best lead and support them in their operations. Its a no-brainer.

[Ronin]

The military overwhelmingly (http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/10/military_poll_100508w/) supports McCain.

I guess most of them remember the purges and cuts under Clinton. :shame:

you mean gun-ho military types tend to vote republican?????

shocked am I...:zzz::coffeenews:

[PanzerJaeger]

you mean gun-ho military types tend to vote republican?????

shocked am I...:zzz::coffeenews:

Tough crowd tonight... :beam:

[Koga No Goshi]

Four years ago, Kerry was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Two years ago, Hillary Clinton was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Today, Obama is a "radically left-wing liberal."

Is it just me, or does the meaning of the word "radical" or "super" or "left-wing" get lost when it seems to apply to ANYONE, regardless of conservative or liberal bent within the Democratic tent, so long as a D is above their name and they don't vote like Lieberman does?

Seriously this is something that bugs me, this shoving all of us off into the extremist pile. Cheney's an extremist. Falwell's an extremist. But in different regards, naturally (economic/political vs. social). But Powell is not an extremist or super-radical. McCain didn't used to be before his Presidential incarnation and even now it's kinda more like he's pandering to them than truly one of them IMHO.

But Barack Obama... a super radical left-wing extremist? Seriously, what would happen to you guys if a for real SOCIALIST calling himself SOCIALIST ran for office? Would your heads explode from the strain of establishing a continuum space to place him on? You do know we have had SOCIALISTS run for office in the past, correct? I don't get this whole "if you are to the left of Liberman, you are super radically left-wing." Lumping everything from Hillary Clinton to Lenin and Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara.

[PanzerJaeger]

Four years ago, Kerry was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Two years ago, Hillary Clinton was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Today, Obama is a "radically left-wing liberal."

Is it just me, or does the meaning of the word "radical" or "super" or "left-wing" get lost when it seems to apply to ANYONE, regardless of conservative or liberal bent within the Democratic tent, so long as a D is above their name and they don't vote like Lieberman does?

Which democrat "of conservative bent" has been called "radically left wing"?

[OverKnight]

Too funny not to post.



Where did you get that? Obviously it was written by an old schooler (no mention of the abomination that is DnD 4.0.).


Are you really surprised that the Army is supporting a man who is both a Hawk and was once in the army himself? There was never any doubt that McCain was going to win the military vote.

Well McCain was a Navy Aviator. That might be reason enough for the average Groundpounder (Army), Jarhead (Marine) or Bluesuiter (Air Force) to vote against him. :laugh4:

[Ronin]

Four years ago, Kerry was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Two years ago, Hillary Clinton was a "radically left-wing liberal."

Today, Obama is a "radically left-wing liberal."

Is it just me, or does the meaning of the word "radical" or "super" or "left-wing" get lost when it seems to apply to ANYONE, regardless of conservative or liberal bent within the Democratic tent, so long as a D is above their name and they don't vote like Lieberman does?

Seriously this is something that bugs me, this shoving all of us off into the extremist pile. Cheney's an extremist. Falwell's an extremist. But in different regards, naturally (economic/political vs. social). But Powell is not an extremist or super-radical. McCain didn't used to be before his Presidential incarnation and even now it's kinda more like he's pandering to them than truly one of them IMHO.

But Barack Obama... a super radical left-wing extremist? Seriously, what would happen to you guys if a for real SOCIALIST calling himself SOCIALIST ran for office? Would your heads explode from the strain of establishing a continuum space to place him on? You do know we have had SOCIALISTS run for office in the past, correct? I don't get this whole "if you are to the left of Liberman, you are super radically left-wing." Lumping everything from Hillary Clinton to Lenin and Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara.

Republicans don´t let small things like the correct meanings of words get in their way...if it sounds scary and makes the sheep...errr...their electorate vote for them they will use it..

after all this is the same republican party that attacked Kerry's war record....in an election where their candidate was Dubya.....and they managed to do it with a straight face.~:pimp:

[Don Corleone]

For every "most radical, left-wing" I hear, I hear a corresponding "most extreme, far-right wing"...
I've heard people use this term to refer to Lindsey Graham, even Chuck Hagel!

According to either side, there is no middle!

It's not you, Koga. There is a spectrum on the left, not an extreme out of bounds "left side". Evan Byah's not an extreme lefty. Nor is Hillary, for that matter. She's not a left-wing idealogue, her problem is that she feels government is there to serve her personal needs, but she's far from alone in that view. Biden's not that left leaning. But even among his peers, Obama is more left than average. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Hell, one or two concessions on 3rd term abortions and I could be tempted by the Blue Dog Democrats (especially right now).

I was thinking about this today. One unintended consequence of ending the capital gains tax is that municipal bonds haven't been particularly attractive for the past 10 years or so. As a result, municipalities are having trouble funding new projects. Maybe a higher capital gains rate for a while will have some positive affects as well.

[PanzerJaeger]

Republicans don´t let small things like the correct meanings of words get in their way...if it sounds scary and makes the sheep...errr...their electorate vote for them they will use it..

after all this is the same republican party that attacked Kerry's war record....in an election where their candidate was Dubya.....and they managed to do it with a straight face.~:pimp:

For future reference, next time the Dems plan on running a "war hero", they may want to take the time to ensure he didn't throw his medals away and accuse his fellow soldiers of being pillagers and rapists.

That kind of thing doesn't play well with the sheep, and makes GWB look just peachy by comparison. :yes:

[Ronin]

For future reference, next time the Dems plan on running a "war hero", they may want to take the time to ensure he didn't throw his medals away and accuse his fellow soldiers of being pillagers and rapists.

That kind of thing doesn't play well with the sheep, and makes GWB look just peachy by comparison. :yes:

a disillusioned soldier plays worse than a daddy's boy draft dodging coward?....

wow.....I´ll keep that in mind for future reference..

[m52nickerson]

For future reference, next time the Dems plan on running a "war hero", they may want to take the time to ensure he didn't throw his medals away and accuse his fellow soldiers of being pillagers and rapists.

That kind of thing doesn't play well with the sheep, and makes GWB look just peachy by comparison. :yes:

Your right, a decorated veteran that starts making false statements loses all his honor.............what is McCain's excuse? I forgot no one can say anything bad about McCain because of his service or the republicans go nuts.

Not that there are any double standards. Obama tax credits, wealth redistribution. McCain's tax credits, the way to save health care. Make sense to me and the GOP.

[Koga No Goshi]

For every "most radical, left-wing" I hear, I hear a corresponding "most extreme, far-right wing"...
I've heard people use this term to refer to Lindsey Graham, even Chuck Hagel!

According to either side, there is no middle!

It's not you, Koga. There is a spectrum on the left, not an extreme out of bounds "left side". Evan Byah's not an extreme lefty. Nor is Hillary, for that matter. She's not a left-wing idealogue, her problem is that she feels government is there to serve her personal needs, but she's far from alone in that view. Biden's not that left leaning. But even among his peers, Obama is more left than average. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing. Hell, one or two concessions on 3rd term abortions and I could be tempted by the Blue Dog Democrats (especially right now).

I was thinking about this today. One unintended consequence of ending the capital gains tax is that municipal bonds haven't been particularly attractive for the past 10 years or so. As a result, municipalities are having trouble funding new projects. Maybe a higher capital gains rate for a while will have some positive affects as well.

This, I can accept as very reasonable. What I can't is the perception (and, as you say, probably some on the right feel the same in reverse) that the media is being constantly bombarded with pundits or commentators from the right describing pretty much anyone left of Lieberman as super-radically left wing. And especially when it is applied to someone like Hillary Clinton, I'm just like HUH?! There isn't even a WORD for me, if Hillary is as far left as the venacular allows you to go.

[LittleGrizzly]

Whenever i hear that bla bla (usually someone to the right of me) is a super radical left winger it just informs me of how far over to the right that person is...

TBH though its all relative, everyone is thier own centre ground, so unless your a moderate yourself fairly moderate voices from the other side can seem quite extreme...

Though i think a majority of the super radically left wing talk is more about scare/discourage voters from obama than commentaters stating how far to the left obama is to them, or more to the point how far to the right they are from obama

[ICantSpellDawg]

Whenever i hear that bla bla (usually someone to the right of me) is a super radical left winger it just informs me of how far over to the right that person is...

TBH though its all relative, everyone is thier own centre ground, so unless your a moderate yourself fairly moderate voices from the other side can seem quite extreme...

Though i think a majority of the super radically left wing talk is more about scare/discourage voters from obama than commentaters stating how far to the left obama is to them, or more to the point how far to the right they are from obama

It's hard to believe how insane people can be. Especially when you're insane.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This is not weird at all. Their logic is either flawed or pinpoint perfect. In spite of their Allah fueled delusions I'm inclined to believe the latter. Al Qaeda's leadership is obviously paying close attention to our election campaigns as well as who is the preferred candidate of certain Middle Eastern leaders/nations. Al Qaeda is keen on playing some part in affecting our election and this is truly a clever move. Part of the McCain campaign's strategy earlier in the year was to illustrate who our enemies would prefer to have win this election (i.e. Iran's preference for Obama over McCain) and use that as a selling point to voters concerned about terrorism, our troops in Iraq or Israel. It worked against the Obama campaign as witnessed by McCain's stronger standing in the foreign policy polls back in the Spring/Summer. An endorsement of Obama by Iran only helps the McCain campaign.

As to Al Qaeda's logic...

A McCain administration will certainly allow Al Qaeda to maintain a high recruitment rate but the truth of the matter is Al Qaeda isn't doing too well in Iraq right now. Many regions of Iraq that were tolerant of Al Qaeda's presence are now working with Coalition forces to keep them out and inter-factional strife is at its lowest point since we invaded. So either Al Qaeda honestly believes what they're selling or they're playing a simple game of reverse psychology. Once we pull out the spotty Iraqi military won't stand a chance against Al Qaeda's unorthodox methods. With McCain in office Al Qaeda will maintain strong recruitment levels but will achieve little headway. With Obama in office Al Qaeda recruitment levels may or may not decrease but their leadership knows it will simply be a matter of time before they'll have free run of Iraq and a much better chance of succeeding after we pull out. At that point they can create and promote another boogie man to encourage new recruits to join the ranks. Upon our withdrawal suddenly the long term prospects of the creation of a powerful, model Islamic state will become that much closer to reality. It's not BS when you consider that Al Qaeda's far reaching goals are the creation of such states throughout the Middle East. Iraq is a large Arab nation with a wealth of natural resources that can better serve Al Qaeda's purposes unlike Afghanistan whose most profitable raw material is opium poppies (a resource that, unlike oil, offends a fundamentalist's sensibilities). In the turmoil following our pullout the Iraqi economy will no doubt tank leaving the younger male members of the population extremely susceptible to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts. Even Iran's best efforts to counter this (while following their own geopolitical agenda) won't stand a chance against Al Qaeda. Also factor in that young Iraqis, being predominantly of Arabic descent, will probably feel more comfortable siding with fellow Arabs fighting for Al Qaeda on behalf of the Iraqi people than Arab or Persian insurgents backed by Persian money fighting on behalf of Iran.

Anyway it's easy to see why Al Qaeda is supporting McCain instead of Obama, they're simply looking to improve Obama's chances of winning.

I think you aren't giving Al Qaeda enough credit. They CLEARLY knew that their statement wouldn't be trusted, and that it would be assumed that they were supporting McCain to get Obama elected. Therefore their plan ALL ALONG was to trick us into electing McCain! ~:eek:

[TinCow]

Where did you get that? Obviously it was written by an old schooler (no mention of the abomination that is DnD 4.0.).

It's from a LiveJournal post:
http://somehedgehog.livejournal.com/245807.html

[drone]

I think you aren't giving Al Qaeda enough credit. They CLEARLY knew that their statement wouldn't be trusted, and that it would be assumed that they were supporting McCain to get Obama elected. Therefore their plan ALL ALONG was to trick us into electing McCain! ~:eek:

Calm down Vizzini, we already have the land war in Asia. And both candidates are poisoned. ~;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrRIjW_6xo4

I watched this and realized how awkward it is that he was thrown off by a sneeze. It was pretty funny.

I looked for other videos of politicians sneezing, throwing up or farting and couldn't find any.

[Spino]

I think you aren't giving Al Qaeda enough credit. They CLEARLY knew that their statement wouldn't be trusted, and that it would be assumed that they were supporting McCain to get Obama elected. Therefore their plan ALL ALONG was to trick us into electing McCain! ~:eek:

Yes but what if we already know that they know that we know that it was their plan all along to trick us into electing McCain? Hmm? Yes? What say you? :dizzy2:

[Koga No Goshi]

When Edwards got a $400 haircut, a fit was thrown and Edwards had to pay back his campaign.

When Hillary paid $3,000 for various hair treatments & stylings, Hillary paid back her campaign.

$150,000 has been spent on Palin and her family's wardrobe for the campaign trail.... and people are saying "What's the big deal?"

Comments?

[Ronin]

but...but....it´s all being given to charity!! :wiseguy:


hey...all the woman has is looks...so they had to invest there!

[Strike For The South]

When Edwards got a $400 haircut, a fit was thrown and Edwards had to pay back his campaign.

When Hillary paid $3,000 for various hair treatments & stylings, Hillary paid back her campaign.

$150,000 has been spent on Palin and her family's wardrobe for the campaign trail.... and people are saying "What's the big deal?"

Comments?

How in Gods name can a haircut be 400$? Thats unpossible

[drone]

It's the RNC's money. They are just doing their best to stimulate the economy and help out retailers who are looking at a grim Christmas season forecast.

~D Would you prefer it spent on attack ads?

[Koga No Goshi]

It's the RNC's money. They are just doing their best to stimulate the economy and help out retailers who are looking at a grim Christmas season forecast.

~D Would you prefer it spent on attack ads?

Not at all, haha. I think it's fantastic they spent more than the huge majority of American family's incomes on CLOTHING. I just think that if they could have found a parallel "questionable use" of campaign contributor funds in the Obama camp for things like designer clothes and outfitting Biden's whole family with new threads we would be in such deep crap right now.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Not as deep doo-doo as if al-Qa'ida had endorsed Obama...:beam:

[Koga No Goshi]

Not as deep doo-doo as if al-Qa'ida had endorsed Obama...:beam:

Absolutely true. You notice how these things that would destroy the Dems' chances, happen to the Reps, with no effect? :)

[Strike For The South]

I find Campbell Brown Very attractive almost as attractive as Ronald Martin.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Absolutely true. You notice how these things that would destroy the Dems' chances, happen to the Reps, with no effect? :)

Yes, and I wonder why. The American people are, on the whole, remarkably well balanced, but there seems to be an indulgence of the Republican party that does not extend to the Democrats. The GOP can launch attacks unthinkable for a Democrat.

Is this because there is an innate right-leaning tendency among voters (so they are more likely to believe bad things about Democrats) or do they hold the Democratic party to higher standards and higher hopes?

The al-Qa'ida thing has been treated in exactly the right way - with contempt and little publicity, but I suspect the chorus of scalded cats would have been singing along with the fat lady if Senator Obama had been the recipient of such "support".

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes, and I wonder why. The American people are, on the whole, remarkably well balanced, but there seems to be an indulgence of the Republican party that does not extend to the Democrats. The GOP can launch attacks unthinkable for a Democrat.

Is this because there is an innate right-leaning tendency among voters (so they are more likely to believe bad things about Democrats) or do they hold the Democratic party to higher standards and higher hopes?

The al-Qa'ida thing has been treated in exactly the right way - with contempt and little publicity, but I suspect the chorus of scalded cats would have been singing along with the fat lady if Senator Obama had been the recipient of such "support".

It's because they have defined the Republican Party as the default American party, and the Democrats as a variant of it that has to prove itself first. They have pitched the whole national dialogue on that slant. And when you control 90% of the talk radio airwaves that reach across much of non-big-city America, it becomes very widespread.

The thing that gets me though is that I think the most basic "pro-America" element of any politics, supporting the troops, has been something the Dems have been railing for for 8 years, while Reps have been making snappish retorts to criticism like "you don't get the Army you want" or "we have enough VA funding" and they get a free pass on it. Are military families really this indoctrinated that they SUPPORT "not being able to afford" proper equipment and care for our soldiers at the same time no-bid contracts are being handed out left and right to private entities?

I think this is a symptom of the ADHD attention span of Americans. They will take the guy who worked for six years for veterans, and the guy who screams just at campaign speeches that he's for veterans (but has an abyssmal voting record to support said claim) and think the 2nd guy supports the troops more, because he gives them that short-term temporary morale boost. And they are either ignoring, or not paying enough attention, to see the contradiction.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your right, a decorated veteran that starts making false statements loses all his honor.............what is McCain's excuse? I forgot no one can say anything bad about McCain because of his service or the republicans go nuts.

Not that there are any double standards. Obama tax credits, wealth redistribution. McCain's tax credits, the way to save health care. Make sense to me and the GOP.

Of the Nam vet crowd, most of the right wingers would have preferred to elect Hackworth. Unfortunately for us, the :daisy: was far too smart to put himself through the political meatgrinder.

[Spino]

I find Campbell Brown Very attractive almost as attractive as Ronald Martin.

You're barely scraping the surface. I've seen her without makeup on.... ~:eek: :help: :thumbsdown: :dizzy2:

[Gregoshi]

I think you aren't giving Al Qaeda enough credit...Therefore their plan ALL ALONG was to trick us into electing McCain! ~:eek:
Or it isn't a "trick" at all. McCain wants to stay in Iraq indefinitely. Obama would rather pull out of Iraq ASAP and concentrate on the "real war" - Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda lives and breaths. Therefore, if McCain gets elected, America stays distracted in Iraq. If Obama wins, Al Qaeda is up to its eyeballs in an Afghanistanian "surge". Which would they prefer?

[Lemur]

Much to my surprise, the Powell endorsement (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/this_race_goes_to_11.html?hpid=topnews) seems to be having an effect. I never know how these "undecided" freaks are going to jump. They must be a different species. I mean, seriously, how could you claim that you don't have enough info at this point? What kind of rocks do these people have in their brains?


Barack Obama is up 11 points on John McCain among likely voters in the new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, 54 to 43 percent. Though little changed from yesterday, Obama's national lead is now his biggest of the campaign in Post-ABC polling.

Former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement provides a new boost for Obama, who has made significant progress with voters as a leader in international affairs.

[CountArach]

The Powell endorsement isn't having too muchof an effect (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111319/Eight-Voters-Aware-Powell-Endorsement.aspx):

But only a relatively small 12% of those aware of the Powell endorsement indicated in the survey that Powell's gesture makes them more likely to vote for Obama. (This means only 10% of the entire registered-voter population is both aware of the endorsement and report that it makes them more likely to vote for Obama.) An even smaller group of 4% of those aware of the endorsement (or 3% of all voters) say it makes them less likely to vote for Obama.
I think most of those 12% of people are Obama supporters anyway.

[Koga No Goshi]

The Powell endorsement isn't having too muchof an effect (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111319/Eight-Voters-Aware-Powell-Endorsement.aspx):

I think most of those 12% of people are Obama supporters anyway.

A black guy endorsing a black guy doesn't do much to budge the people to whom Obama's race and name are a factor in whether they'll vote for him, IMHO. I would have been surprised if it made a huge impact, especially considering his almost total irrelevance (at least, his treatment as such) since Bush told him to skeedaddle out and sell the Iraq War.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Much to my surprise, the Powell endorsement (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/this_race_goes_to_11.html?hpid=topnews) seems to be having an effect. I never know how these "undecided" freaks are going to jump. They must be a different species. I mean, seriously, how could you claim that you don't have enough info at this point? What kind of rocks do these people have in their brains?


Barack Obama is up 11 points on John McCain among likely voters in the new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, 54 to 43 percent. Though little changed from yesterday, Obama's national lead is now his biggest of the campaign in Post-ABC polling.

Former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement provides a new boost for Obama, who has made significant progress with voters as a leader in international affairs.


While there ARE a few folks who are undecided until the very end, I have always thought that quite a few of those last moment deciders are trying to wait long enough to determine a very likely winner and then jump on the bandwagon. Seems rather silly in a country with a secret ballot, but there you go.

For those in that group, Powell's endorsement was the "white smoke" they'd been seeking.

[Makanyane]

Please excuse me butting in on the end of a long thread, but I cannot see any possible reason why anyone remotely sane could possibly vote for any outcome that could in any remote eventuality result in the Palin woman being left in charge of a large city let alone half a continent... Please, please bear that horrible prospect in mind before anyone is tempted to vote for the party supporting her as 'vice' anything.

[CrossLOPER]

Please excuse me butting in on the end of a long thread, but I cannot see any possible reason why anyone remotely sane could possibly vote for any outcome that could in any remote eventuality result in the Palin woman being left in charge of a large city let alone half a continent... Please, please bear that horrible prospect in mind before anyone is tempted to vote for the party supporting her as 'vice' anything.
Where have you been in the past eight years?

[Hooahguy]

no offense Makanyane, but i think you just dont make much sense in what you said.
i see no problem in voting for palin. she is a lot more in touch with average americans than obama will ever hope to be. the fact that obama wants to take away our hard earned money and give it to those who havent worked so hard for it makes me want to retch. i worked incredibly hard for my money, searching for jobs and working full time during the summer.
my dad works 3 jobs and were middle class. we're not rich. as the 2nd of 5 kids, i dont want to see my fathers incredibly hard earned money taken away to benefit some crackhead.
socialism or capitalism? obama is for the former, palin for the latter. the choice is clear.

[Xiahou]

The Powell endorsement isn't having too muchof an effect (http://www.gallup.com/poll/111319/Eight-Voters-Aware-Powell-Endorsement.aspx):

I think most of those 12% of people are Obama supporters anyway.
For me, Powell burned up most of his credibility after the Iraq war. This "progressive" CommonDreams article (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0422-13.htm) kinda sums it up for me.

Trying to have things both ways, Powell fails twice, appearing both irrelevant and disloyal. If he was the reluctant warrior, then he was used by the so-called Gestapo. If he was as gung-ho as the others, how can Woodward describe him as semi-despondent "because he knew that this was a war that might have been avoided?"

Powell's a soldier, his defenders say. He was outvoted on the war, so he saluted and did the mission.

There are three answers to that:

It depends on the mission.

He's not a soldier any more.

You don't do the mission, then complain when it flops. I also think the State Dept seemed kind of rudderless under his control, as compared to under Rice. Also add to the fact that he knew who the Plame leaker was from the beginning and kept it from his boss, and I just don't really think much of him any more.

Years ago, I had hoped Powell would run for president. Now, I wouldn't vote for him if he did. :shrug:

[woad&fangs]

How is Palin "more in touch"?

[Spino]

Much to my surprise, the Powell endorsement (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/10/this_race_goes_to_11.html?hpid=topnews) seems to be having an effect. I never know how these "undecided" freaks are going to jump. They must be a different species. I mean, seriously, how could you claim that you don't have enough info at this point? What kind of rocks do these people have in their brains?


Barack Obama is up 11 points on John McCain among likely voters in the new Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll, 54 to 43 percent. Though little changed from yesterday, Obama's national lead is now his biggest of the campaign in Post-ABC polling.

Former secretary of state Colin Powell's endorsement provides a new boost for Obama, who has made significant progress with voters as a leader in international affairs.

I think Powell's official statement for his not endorsing Obama earlier in the campaign is politically loaded bullchips. I believe Powell's endorsement had nothing to do with him "getting to know Obama" and had everything to do with him hedging his bets until the time was right to commit to what he felt was a politically safe bet on the dark horse (pun intended) he was rooting for all along. The fact that Powell was so reluctant to furnish an endorsement months ago tells you he was simply biding his time and praying for good omens. Had the recent polls been unfavorable to Obama Powell could have chose to not endorse anyone and fall back on the excuse that McCain did not accurately represent sensible conservative views and that Obama was insufficiently risky to merit dismissing his participation in the race. An easy out that helps him to maintain his credibility while risking little to nothing. Then there's the race factor... It has become more than a little tiring to hear African-Americans say they're not endorsing Obama because he's black. When you have 90-95%+ of the African American population lining up to vote for Obama and donating unprecedented amounts of money to his campaign the idea that his race isn't a factor is ludicrous to the extreme.

To be honest I never really looked at Powell closely before. Prior to this his pro-affirmative action stance was the only thing that threw me for a loop but I readily dismissed it for reasons I will list below.

Powell's endorsement of Obama obviously sends a mixed message. He was a major player in both Bush White Houses, he helped to sell the UN on the cassus belli to invade Iraq and yet he comes out in favor of a candidate with a decidedly liberal past who constantly uses his anti-Iraq War position as a selling point. And yet at the same time Powell, inexplicably, openly cites his displeasure at the prospect of seeing two more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court?!? These are the positions of a self proclaimed conservative? Powell's support of a politician notorious for his anti-Iraq war position reeks of hypocrisy. Had Powell an ounce of integrity he would have resigned instead of playing a part in selling the invasion of Iraq but he didn't, he stuck it out until Bush's second term so as to not tarnish his sparkling record in the eyes of his biggest benefactor, the Republican party.

Now to the issue of Powell openly voicing his displeasure at the prospect of having two more conservative judges appointed to the Supreme Court. To be honest I actually found this revelation more revealing about the man than his endorsement of Obama. It falls in line with the pro-affirmative action stance he has held for ages, a position that I previously believed was held simply because Powell is an African American of the generation that can readily recall the pre-Civil Rights social landscape. That same reason could be applied to his endorsement of Obama but now I believe there is more to it than that after all. If Powell's comment on the Supreme Court judges doesn't tell you about his real political alignment I don't know what does.

In light of his political maneuvering I think Powell's yet another example of a high ranking general working the system to his personal advantage. Here's some more food for thought... I wonder what will happen to Powell's income if Obama is elected? The last time I checked Powell charges a whopping $100-200K per appearance! With an endorsement of a liberal and wildly popular Democratic candidate suddenly institutions and universities that would have never considered hiring Powell for an event because of his political associations will open their doors and wallets to the man. It's safe to say if Obama wins Powell's guest speaker dance card will be full for the next 4 years. Even if Obama loses the prospect of Powell's fee jumping dramatically will improve in light of the surge in demand. Last but not least there's always the chance Powell could receive a cabinet appointment and have the pleasure of being the first African American cabinet member to work for the first African American president. At this point I wouldn't put it past him if he accepted a position in Obama's cabinet.

Powell's problem now is that he is taking a huge gamble with his credibility on this endorsement. By now most conservatives have already taken him off their various 'Like' & 'Respect' lists but how will this go over with independents on November 4th and beyond? If Obama loses and resumes his far left political practices in Congress then everyone who endorsed him and believed him to be a shining example of intellect wrapped in a moderate, centrist package is going to look like a fool.

Am I reading too much into this? Not a chance, this is politics.

A poll by any other name... Here's a poll which shows Obama's lead dwindling to a mere point which could fuel the notion that McCain's 'Obama's a tax raising & spending liberal socialist' attacks are working...

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309635713550536#polla

[Xiahou]

no offense Makanyane, but i think you just dont make much sense in what you said.
i see no problem in voting for palin. she is a lot more in touch with average americans than obama will ever hope to be. the fact that obama wants to take away our hard earned money and give it to those who havent worked so hard for it makes me want to retch. i worked incredibly hard for my money, searching for jobs and working full time during the summer.
my dad works 3 jobs and were middle class. we're not rich. as the 2nd of 5 kids, i dont want to see my fathers incredibly hard earned money taken away to benefit some crackhead.
socialism or capitalism? obama is for the former, palin for the latter. the choice is clear.
Absolutely. Since her nomination, she has showed herself to be a quick learner and now is spending more time with the media than any of the other candidates. She strikes me as a pragmatic conservative, as opposed to an ideological one. I've always thought McCain was competent on foreign policy, but the rest of his platform left me less than enthusiastic. The addition of Palin makes the ticket much more palatable.

One thing that always sticks in my mind for Palin was in a video interview with her I saw (people were trying to use the clip as proof that Trig isn't her son :rolleyes: ). The interviewer complements her on how nice her house is (the governor's mansion), and her immediate response was that (paraphrasing) "This isn't my house, it's the people of Alaska's, I just live in it". :2thumbsup:

[Spino]

Interesting article on the media coverage in this election year from, of all people, Orson Scott Card. Orson is a best selling sci-fi author & Democrat who apparently takes exception to the notion that the mainstream media is not biased to the left...

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card

Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission.

:2thumbsup:

[seireikhaan]

Just curious, Xiahou, but how does Palin NOT strike you as an idealogue? Everything I've seen from her is how much she just loves "Joe the Plumber, and Wendy the Nurse, and Bob the Builder, and how much she loves God and country. Energy is the only thing I've been able to discern she has any actual sort of view which is her own, beyond doubt.

[Ronin]

no offense Makanyane, but i think you just dont make much sense in what you said.
i see no problem in voting for palin. she is a lot more in touch with average americans than obama will ever hope to be. the fact that obama wants to take away our hard earned money and give it to those who havent worked so hard for it makes me want to retch. i worked incredibly hard for my money, searching for jobs and working full time during the summer.
my dad works 3 jobs and were middle class. we're not rich. as the 2nd of 5 kids, i dont want to see my fathers incredibly hard earned money taken away to benefit some crackhead.
socialism or capitalism? obama is for the former, palin for the latter. the choice is clear.

i´m sorry...but I have a hard time reconciling this...

after what the US government has just done to the financial system you think Obama is the socialist?

your government just socialized the financial systems debt :deal2: how does it feel to belong to a "commy pinko socialist" nation?




One thing that always sticks in my mind for Palin was in a video interview with her I saw (people were trying to use the clip as proof that Trig isn't her son ). The interviewer complements her on how nice her house is (the governor's mansion), and her immediate response was that (paraphrasing) "This isn't my house, it's the people of Alaska's, I just live in it".

anyone can come of as "idealistic" in an interview...you are prepared and usually come off better than what you really are.....so the mansion belongs to the people of Alaska uh?...how about the money for those travel expenses of hers?...does it belong to the people as well?....she sure was using it as she saw fit.

Palin has shown nothing more than the ability to repeat messages that where probably drilled into her head by party speech writers.

last week I saw video of a campaign speech she gave, on the subject of the economic crisis Palin brutally contradicted herself in the space of 5 minutes regarding the subject of government intervention on the market....and by contradiction I mean 2 statements that are complete 180º shifs from eachother in the space of a few minutes...

and you know what I found really scary about that video?

It wasn´t that she contradicted herself....politicians do it frequently, even if not in such an obvious fashion.

no...what was really scary was that the crowd at the rally cheered for both antagonistic sentences....~:eek: that means these people aren´t even thinking about what their chosen candidate is telling them....and these people vote....now that´s scary.

[CountArach]

How is Palin "more in touch"?
Her kids play Hockey, or something.

[Strike For The South]

Her kids play Hockey, or something.

Palin lives in Alaska. Alaskans get Texans and Inuits to drill there oil. Nuff said

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think the democratic muggers of Pittsburgh need a reminder to stay (http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/17789356/detail.html) classy (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_594853.html)...


A knife-wielding man robbed a McCain-Palin campaign volunteer and etched a “B” into her face after he saw a McCain bumper sticker on the woman’s car, Pittsburgh police said.

Ashley Todd, 20, of College Station, Texas, was using an ATM at Liberty Avenue and Pearl Street in Bloomfield just before 9 p.m. Wednesday when a man approached her, put a knife to her throat and demanded $60, police said.

Todd handed the man $60 she had in her pocket and stepped away from him, investigators said. The man then noticed the bumper sticker on the woman's car, which was parked in front of the ATM. The man became very angry, made comments to Todd about John McCain and punched her in the back of the head, knocking her to the ground, police said.

"He continued to kick and punch her repeatedly and said he would teach her a lesson for supporting John McCain," said police Chief Nate Harper.

The man then carved the "B" into Todd's right cheek. Todd, who isn't familiar with the area, drove to a friend's house nearby and told her friend she wasn't sure of the exact location where the robbery took place but remembered a green sign above the ATM. The friend called police and the officer met them on Cypress Street in Bloomfield, police said.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/2008/1023/17790608_240X180.jpg
CR