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

[Lemur]

and finally, in my last expose of British cheerleading in the US election, i give you Boris:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../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

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.

[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?, 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.

[Ronin]

I knew Sarah Palin reminded me of someone

[PanzerJaeger]

It's because he's a traitor.

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. 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.

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. This news comes shortly after McCain's camp admitted that they probably can't win in Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado.

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.

So you never have heard of yellow journalism!

(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. 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

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

Insight 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 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.

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"?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Just kidding, PJ. You make some valid points.

[PanzerJaeger]

An admission by PanzerJaeger that McCain's campaign is "stupid"?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

[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.

[Lemur]

Block African witchcraft curses against McCain and Palin NOW!

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)

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.

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.

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.

Indeed.

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.

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.