For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Would Democrats ever win national elections if the media weren't biased?
If virtually every major press outlet in the country wasn't so obviously in the tank for Obama, would someone with so little experience have gotten beyond the Iowa caucuses or New Hampshire primaries? If media had done their job and properly exposed Obama's connections to Rev. Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Franklin Raines, and Jim Johnson, would he even be in this race?
At the Congressional level, if media outlets exposed how Democrats have blocked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform for many years, and are FAR more responsible for today's financial crisis than the Republicans, would we be looking at the possibility of a GOP landslide in five weeks rather than the Democrats getting a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate?
If your answers to these question are "No, No, No, and Yes" respectively, what does it say about America in 2008, and what can possibly be done to fix the problem?
Comments Policy
Really?
September 30, 2008 - 09:49 ET by arkansaszippersDoes everybody really feel that all of Obama's success to get to this point can be directly and solely attributed to a biased media? I'm asking an honest question here; I'm not looking for insults, just opinions.
AZ
September 30, 2008 - 09:56 ET by Noel SheppardAZ,
Yep. Let me ask you a different question, if Obama was white with the very same credentials and connections to radical figures and folks so integrally tied to corruption in the Chicago area as well as Fannie Mae, would he have gotten through the primaries?
Obama is a media creation -- period. Without their support the past 18 months, he would have been out of the race by February. ns
»→ You're right Noel
September 30, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Cool ArrowUnder the same set of circumstances, as a white man, I'm thinking that "joined at the hip to David Duke" thing might throw a little kink in my campaigning.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Noel, if it weren't for the MSM, Obama would still be...
September 30, 2008 - 11:18 ET by R D Helm...teaching training classes at ACORN.
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
Even at this late date...
September 30, 2008 - 13:43 ET by PrairieSkythe idea that Obama may actually end up as president just boggles my mind. The fact that he managed to not only survive the primaries, but actually win the nomination, is nothing short of shocking...Just ask Hillary.
When Obama first announced he was running, I thought then, and still do, that he was a lightweight with lofty aspirations for unattainable goals. I firmly believed that he would be gone after the first round of primaries. As the weeks went on, and it became clear that the MSM was firmly behind him, the realization that there is no way that he would have achieved what he did in the primaries without the media's help, became clear.
Noel, your statement that Barack Obama is a media creation is dead on. No truer statement about him can be made. I keep hoping that the spell that he has cast (with the help of his media flunkies), on so many in this country, will break before it's too late, and he's actually elected president.
There is one thing that I wish someone could explain to me, at this point in the election...I cannot understand why it is that Obama appears to be benefiting from the voters' uncertainty and turmoil concerning the country's current economic crisis. What is it about Barack Obama that makes voters think that he has the better answers to these problems? Where in his background is there anything that makes these people think, for one moment, that he has one iota of training or experience, that would make him the best choice to deal with this, or any other crisis situation that our country would face?
I am at a complete loss to see or understand any of whatever it is about Obama that so many have seem to have convinced themselves of.
Lacking that, at this point, I am just trying to have faith that things will turn out for the best for our country. Because there is one thing that I am sure of...Barack Obama is not the answer.
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." President Ronald Reagan, January 20, 1981
PrairieSky
September 30, 2008 - 23:28 ET by JudithMy thoughts exactly. Are half of this country mental cases? I do not buy newspapers, listen to CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN etc. If all conservatives, Repubs, right leaning indies did this for four years it would affect these retards. There has to be a way to get these guys. Lets not participate and let them just do whatever they please, I think it would get to them more than anything. Oduma is an insane meglomaniac and really needs a psych eval.
Media and race
September 30, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Indiana JoeI believe that, yes. I think his race has garnered him much more media attention than a first-term Senator deserves. And I think that attention is the only real reason he won the nomination.
Why this infatuation with Obama? Let me ask you an honest question, no insults, just your opinion: To what do you attribute Obama's success? Honestly. Which policies, what attributes, what does he bring to the table that makes him uniquely suited to be in this unique position right now, as a fledgling Senator?
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Hmm...
September 30, 2008 - 10:21 ET by arkansaszippersI think a lot of it can be attributed to his demeanor coupled with the fact that many people see John McCain as an extention of the Bush administration. Just for starters. I don't think it's right to vote based on personality, but that's the reality of the country; always has been. I think one of the reasons he's in this position is because it seemed easiest to make him seem the most presidential, when compared to the other Democratic canidates.
AZ
September 30, 2008 - 10:32 ET by Noel SheppardAZ,
You missed my point totally. How he looks compared to McCain would be irrelevant if he had been exposed as an empty suit before the primaries and caucuses. Furthermore, the reason he looked more "presidential" next to Edwards, Clinton, and Biden was BECAUSE of the media sycophancy. If they had exposed his lack of experience and connections to nefarious entities, he wouldn't have looked so "presidential" would he? ns
I agree with that, but
September 30, 2008 - 10:37 ET by arkansaszippersWhat I'm getting at is that a lot of people in this country don't really follow any issues whatsoever, and vote either along party lines or for whichever canidate seems like the best guy. His personality alone just rubs some people the right way. It's like the Kennedy debate against Nixon: people who heard the debate on radio thought Nixon won, while the poeple who saw it on TV thought Kennedy won. People just have an idea in their head of what a president should be like, regardless of issues, and Obama fits that bill for a lot of people. That's just my opinion.
AZ,
September 30, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Indiana JoeSo, what you're saying is, politics is all about perception, right? Okay, I can agree with that, I believe it myself.
Which brings us back to the original concept: How big a hand did the media have in creating that perception for Obama? We here feel it was a huge hand. It started long before the Republican race was settled, so it wasn't just a comparison to McCain. Obama, we feel, was selected by the media, annointed if you will, and promoted by them.
Would you, generally, agree with that assessment? If so, then his charisma doesn't seem to answer the question of "why?" The media can create the perception of charisma, so they shouldn't really be affected by it. It's a tool of politicians to get votes. Why would the media single out Obama for it's "helping hand?"
Inquiring minds and all.... ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Media
September 30, 2008 - 10:59 ET by arkansaszippersDon't get me wrong, I think the media has a huge hand in everything. I just don't believe that the spin is only on one side. Election season is basically just a constant back and forth war to discredit everybody but your candidate, and I think the media has a hand in that on both sides. I try to take everything I read or hear or see on TV with a grain of salt, because there really is very little straight news anymore. It's just what our country has come to; the natural progression of a capitalistic society. And that isn't a knock on capitalism either. I think it is just a byproduct.
And if the media helped create Obama, he was chosen because he already had natural qualities that are known to play well with the public.
MSM since day one
September 30, 2008 - 11:28 ET by SouthJersey1953Since day one, the MSM has been painting BHO as the President. When they refuse to report on anything negative about him and only show positive news clips, it only helps to lift him up. That is the only reason that he beat out Hillary for the nomination. Like someone else (most eveyone else) said earlier, if they had vetted him like they do most candidates, he never would have gotten past Iowa.
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
SJ1953
September 30, 2008 - 12:09 ET by Indiana Joe"...if they had vetted him like they do most candidates,..."
You left out something:
"...if they had vetted him like they do most Republican candidates,..."
Fixed it for ya. ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Media on both sides
September 30, 2008 - 12:07 ET by Indiana JoeOkay, I'm going to assume you mean that there are two "media" in the country, liberal-biased and conservative-biased. If you mean that "the MEDIA" just bounces back and forth in who they push, feel free to correct me. But I don't think you mean that, it doesn't make much sense IMO.
So, ABC pushes the Dems. Fox pushes the Reps. CNN pushes the Dems. The Washington Times pushes the Reps. CBS pushes the Dems. Rush Limbaugh pushes the Reps. The NYT pushes the Dems. NBC pushes the Dems. MSNBC pushes the Dems. AP pushes the Dems. The LAT pushes the Dems. The Washington Post pushes the Dems. Warren Buffett pushes the Dems. The Boston Globe pushes the Dems. The Chicago Sun-Times pushes the Dems. PBS pushes the Dems. George Soros pushes the Dems. The Miami Herald pushes the Dems. The Detroit Free-Press pushes the Dems.
I think you get my point. Even if there are a few "right" biased press organs, it's far from an "even-steven" situation. And much like a football game where one team has 18 men on the field, while the other has 4, the outcome is pretty much a done deal. I think a game where each team has 11 is a much better way to find out which team is "best"... for anything.
I also think capitalism has nothing to do with this. The Big 3 Network news organizations are losing viewers. The NYT is hemorhaging cash.
Look at how successful Fox became, virtually overnight. That's because there was a huge market that was untapped. Ignoring a sizeable portion of the marketplace is hardly a text-book example of capitalism. Look at Limbaugh. A self-described "harmless little fuzzball" from a small town in Missouri is now the most listened to political pundit on the planet, and rich, rich, rich! Why? Because there was a huge market that no one else would bother with. Why has "liberal" talk-radio failed every time it's been tried? Market saturation, pure and simple. They say nothing different than you can hear or read just about anywhere else. They just tried saying it louder.
If money were the motive, why limit your customer base with ideology? No, it's because the ideology, the power to "shape history," is more attractive to some mind-sets than mere money.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Here
September 30, 2008 - 12:12 ET by arkansaszippersOk, just watch this (don't worry, it's short). I think this illustrates what I'm getting at about sides. I think this addresses both sides. And no, this is not the extent of my political philosophy; it just has a lot of truth to it, and besides, it's funny. Who doesn't enjoy a little Carlin from time to time?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa6lnk97Bc
Election season is
September 30, 2008 - 16:47 ET by motherbeltElection season is basically just a constant back and forth war to
discredit everybody but your candidate, and I think the media has a
hand in that on both sides.- Arkansaszippers
I agree with the first part of your statement. It's like a see-saw. But I thoruoghly disagree with your "on both sides" qualification. a
The media have definitely sat on the opposite side of the seesaw, first holding down the other Democrats, and now John McCain, so that they can never push it up off the ground. As a result, Obama is constantly being held aloft.
AZ
September 30, 2008 - 10:48 ET by Noel SheppardAZ,
But that's still irrelevant to your original question. You asked if folks here really believed that Obama was all a media creation, correct? I said, "Yes" because if the media had done their job when he first announced his candidacy, he would have dropped out of the race likely in February BEFORE most people got engaged in this process. Period. ns
Hickzippers
September 30, 2008 - 23:43 ET by JudithAnd a vast number vote because they think he's "cute". I think he is so ugly that I will never look at him no matter what. UGH!
Judith:
October 1, 2008 - 09:54 ET by j. frank wilson"Hickzippers?" You are as classless as you are clueless.
ArkZipper
October 1, 2008 - 00:05 ET by MrShy"People just have an idea in their head of what a president should be like"
They should, in a perfect world, but in the case of Obama, with the mighty help of the MSM's coddling and cloaking of him, in reality it's all about what a president looks, talks, walks and sounds like.
If people really care about what a president should *BE* like, this man would be rejected by almost every citizen of the U.S..
A president should "be" someone with integrity, core beliefs about how to govern, with relatively few skeleton's in the closet and relatively few and minor past associations (as no politician is ever snow-white clean... well, except seemingly this new Palin gal. :p)
Absolutely none of the above criteria apply to Empty O-Force One.
NOW PLAYING:
Governor Palin Get Your Gun
AZ, another question for you
September 30, 2008 - 10:39 ET by mom_roxDo you think the media had a role in affecting the Democratic primary results?
I understand your comment regarding Obama's demeanor. Is this what gave hime the edge over Hillary Clinton's expertise (or whatever you consider Clinton's best asset) or was there influence from the media?
regarding Barack Obama's tax plan - I never received a job from a poor person.
It's hard to say
September 30, 2008 - 10:46 ET by arkansaszippersIt's hard to say for sure. It could have been that, or it could have been the choice between either a black man or a woman; I think men still have the edge in this country, regardless of race. That, and a lot people didn't seem to like Hillary very much; she just seemed to have that certain something.
"Does everybody really feel
September 30, 2008 - 10:36 ET by celator"Does everybody really feel that all of Obama's success..."
Your question is a tad loaded (all???), but I'll give you my observation.
One can see data reported here and in other sites which suggest two phenomena:
1. The MSM tells only part of the truth about Obama. They tread lightly on his bizarre multiple associations with radicals, ACORN, Rezco, etc etc. You know the list. One has to do one's own research to get a full-bodied understanding of what Obama's full story is all about. The MSM is simply not doing their job in this matter. Period. The reasons are multiple, but the result is clear.
2. They are generally ferociously negative toward McCain/Palin, both in headlines written and in story content--more so with Palin than McCain since she came on the scene. I've done my own content analysis in regional newspapers, and the bias against McCain-Palin is simply breathtaking.
There are so many examples of this curious bias reported on this site, and others, one would have to be brain dead to not notice.
Glenn Beck has a bit where he reads the McCain-Obama headlines in the previous day's newspapers, and the bias--pro-Obama, con-McCain-- is so stark it borders on the pathological. It's worth a listen.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
The really ridiculus part
September 30, 2008 - 10:38 ET by dscottThe really ridiculus part of this is McCain actually has the advantage IF he were to exert himself.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Yes, this is where we look
September 30, 2008 - 10:46 ET by celatorYes, this is where we look for leadership, and McCain must begin to display it consistently. It's my issue with him (among many other issues). This is the time to step up, clear the air, move forward, persuade voters, focus on themes, think big, be convincing. We are waiting, John.
Tell your bow-tied advisors to get lost. Man up to the challenge.
And if he wins the election, we have to be on him like white on rice. Make him accountable, and make his life miserable if he strays, politically.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Yes you idiot
September 30, 2008 - 10:43 ET by cvgbuckeyeAnyone this niave desreves to be insulted. Let me ask YOU something: JUST LOOK AT THESE (PEOPLE?); Harry Reid - Nancy Pelosi - Barney Frank and yes Barack Hussein Obama. There is not another nation in the free world that would put these people in offfice, let alone retain them. Save the MSM being 100% in the tank for liberals. Thanks to the MSM, we are no longer a representative democracy OR a republic. Voters have been supplanted by a Pravda style propaganda machine called the MSM and the election of our officials is no longer in our hands. The United States of America Democracy has passed. Long live the Brownshirts.
Look at this
September 30, 2008 - 10:48 ET by arkansaszippersYou could easily make the same argument about the possibility of any other country electing George W. Twice.
You forgot
September 30, 2008 - 11:20 ET by cvgbuckeyeYou forgot to say: Wullll now Haliburton and and and Dick Cheney shooting people and and and that criminal Karl Rove and and BOOOSH got drunk and and BOOOOSH stole the election........TWICE and and and.
PLEEEEEEZE!
Do you know that there have been over 60 thwarted terrorist attacks in the past seven years. That alone is enough that I would vote for BOOOOOSH again.
Ok...
September 30, 2008 - 11:26 ET by arkansaszippersThat's fine. I'm just saying the argument could be made.
Do you think those are the first thwarted terrorist attacks in history?
Do you think those are the
September 30, 2008 - 11:46 ET by Roger the ShrubberDo you think those are the first thwarted terrorist attacks in history?
What does that matter? Oh, right. It doesn't.
You made a claim that Chimpy McHitler is a dumbass. You were shown to be wrong. Now you move the goalpost to "Chimpy McHitler is no better than those countless presidents who must have thwarted terrorist attacks on US soil".
Now YOU sound like a dumbass. That argument most definitely can be made.
Chill out
September 30, 2008 - 11:54 ET by arkansaszippersFirst of all, I was making the claim that you could make a similar argument about Bush's electability in other countries; I wasn't calling anybody a dumbass. Get over yourself.
ark, your fly is open.
September 30, 2008 - 12:07 ET by R D HelmAnd Rog just took you to school.
If I were you, I think I'd pay attention.
-Dave
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them - Rick Roberts
My troll fuse length today: 0.003mm
How?
September 30, 2008 - 12:26 ET by arkansaszippersHow did I just get "taken to school?" By being called a dumbass?
Damn, zippy. You're hopeless.
September 30, 2008 - 16:03 ET by R D Helm:-O
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
Dude, you've been nuggied.
September 30, 2008 - 16:25 ET by celatorDude, you've been nuggied. Several times. Recess is over, go back to class. And drink more milk.
The major media report only half the news. Why are they surprised they have only half the potential audience?
Your argument was made, and
September 30, 2008 - 12:20 ET by Roger the ShrubberYour argument was made, and was found to be lacking.
Perhaps you need to reconsider your decision to expose yourself to criticism, seeing that your ego is inadequate to handle it.
cvg,
September 30, 2008 - 10:51 ET by Indiana Joe"Voters have been supplanted by a Pravda style propaganda machine called the MSM and the election of our officials is no longer in our hands."
Here's a good place to vent on that topic.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
az... Here's an honest
September 30, 2008 - 10:52 ET by Clear thinkeraz...
Here's an honest answer. Obama has two things going for him. He has good oratory skills, and the media. That's it!
Liberals Lash Out At Sarah’s Parents
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
We beg to differ!
September 30, 2008 - 11:00 ET by JWFThat accent that cannot be placed anywhere in the U.S. The quick finish at the end of a sentence. You are buying into the media hype on his oratory skills too. The media says that. I want to slap the man when I hear his speeches. It is grating.
Sincerely,
a Veteran of a 1000 psychic wars.
Speech
September 30, 2008 - 11:08 ET by arkansaszippersHow did you feel when you heard George Bush stumble through a speech? Did you vote for him?
AZ,
September 30, 2008 - 12:18 ET by Indiana JoeNow you're letting yourself get led away from a serious discussion of this. You sound like you're saying that how someone says something is more important than what he says. Bush is not eloquent, we noticed, we get it. But what he means can be understood, and conservatives tend to agree with many of his opinions. Painting the opposition as dumb is no way to have a productive debate.
OTOH, people have been swooning over Obama's "speaking skills." When you claim, or assign someone, a talent, it isn't hard to understand that they will be expected to display that talent. The media has gushed over Obama's "eloquence" repeatedly and continuously. When he stumbles, people will notice, just like someone billed as the "fastest runner" will be mocked for taking 30 seconds to run 100 yards.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Zip
September 30, 2008 - 11:30 ET by well99I cant speak for everyone but my view is that without the media he would of gone no where.With Rezko connections and ties to Bill Ayers Biden would of had more votes.Also look at his connection with Acorn.How many times have they had people convicted or on trial for voter fraud.If you look at his record of taking care of people in his district it is terrible.The msm has been running interference for him since the start.If they had put as much effort vetting him as Sara he wouldnt of stood a chance.Good question though.
AZ
September 30, 2008 - 12:10 ET by RESTLESS 1C'mon man, lets be real here. If any republican had the kinds of ties, coupled with the lack of experience, he would have been forced out before he started. Yes, the msm ignoring these glaring facts about st obama is the only reason we know his name.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Obama and the biased media
September 30, 2008 - 12:19 ET by U.B. ZangaIt is difficult to imagine someone so inexperienced, unaccomplished, and indecisive in the role of our President. The media's emotionally charged excitement and traditional leftward bias coupled with Obama's natural appeal to young voters appears responsible for the fact that we have to take his prospects seriously. We need to admit that there is a market for political emotionalism and crass "news" and "analysis" (e.g., if the National Enquirer can generate interest in marital infidelities--real and invented--why not the New York Times?) but, based on multi-year ratings declines, the "Blue" (politically speaking) Media are crowding an overserved market. As a media consumer, I believe we now have more choices that ten years ago. As we leave the "Blue Media", those who remain expect more strident defense of their irrationalities and the observed polarization results. Hence, Obama's political prospects are pursued with frenetic fanaticism and there is little we can do except fight back with facts and judgement.
Hickzippers
September 30, 2008 - 23:21 ET by JudithHELL YES!!!!!!
Subversives for Obama
September 30, 2008 - 09:50 ET by GothampcAnother excellent piece by Melanie Phillips.
Pieces like this prove how the media hates America. If they can speak out about Obama trouble over in Britain, why can't they do it here?
Ms. Phillips ends the piece:
"And yet despite all of this, virtually no-one in the mainstream media is asking any questions. Has there ever been a more staggering, surreal and scary race to the White House?"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2178136/subversives-for-obama.thtml
Goth
September 30, 2008 - 11:34 ET by well99Good link thanks.
»→ Obama smart move
September 30, 2008 - 09:55 ET by Cool ArrowMcCain's twisting in thewind trying to explain how we really need a bailout.
But Obama's soundbite of the day is that we need to increase FDIC protection to $250,000. Simple and easy to understande.
Advantage Obama.
"I've got a bracelet too" - Barack Obama
Side Issues
September 30, 2008 - 10:08 ET by GothampcObama's soundbite illustrates how Democrats think. They try to push through side issue items in times of perceived crisis. FDIC is really a side issue at the moment that can be dealt with at a later time.
Another illustration is voter fraud. In 2000, the Democrats screamed they were going to revamp the voting system so that everyone was sure their vote was counted. Eight years later we still haven't seen it. When Republicans make suggestions like providing id when citizens vote, Democrats scream murder.
It goes beyond that. When
September 30, 2008 - 10:36 ET by SmartypantsIt goes beyond that. When Obama tells everyone he's going to cut taxes for 95% of the population, the media scoops it up like it's an absolute fact. No questions asked. If a Republican candidate for office made this same claim, all other things being equal, the media would be screaming about how irresponsible it is to cut taxes in the face of budget deficits. They would further question how the tax cuts would be fairly spread out. Republicans are scrutinized at every turn; Democrats are taken at face value.
95% get tax cut
September 30, 2008 - 11:36 ET by SouthJersey1953The thing that gets me about his stupid "95% of the people will get a tax cut" is that the MSM REFUSES to mention that this is true ONLY after he repeals the Bush tax cut (which translates to a net tax increase).
McCain/PALIN '08
PALIN/Jindal '12
Cool,
September 30, 2008 - 16:09 ET by R D HelmI heard today that the repubs first proposed to put that provision in yeasterday's bill, but the dems rejected it.
Actually, I am on the fence about this. I realize that depositors need some reassurance right now, but the libertarian in me balks at using taxpayer funds for bailouts of any kind, which is what the FDIC will be doing for the depositors who have money in banks that go under.
And you are right about McCain. He isn't looking too sure of himself in all this.
LOL-He should have heeded my advice and stayed the hell away from DC during all this.
-Dave
Fear makes people do weird things....it makes their brains stop working. - Dave Ramsey
My troll fuse length today: 0.000mm
honor
September 30, 2008 - 10:01 ET by MazziI have been screaming at the TV for a week now - there is only ONE thing that can get through. McCain. He MUST get off his "honorable notions" and tell the truth, even if he has to say mean things about others. The TRUTH! No one else can do it.
Right now, even the biased media is not so far gone that they will not air McCain's comments. Palin has been "put in her place" so firmly by the media, that she can not do it. Anything she says will be negated by a spot of lipstick on her tooth, or something else equally as ridiculous. That's not to say that she is a deflated balloon - far from it, but the media will mock her to the point that no one hears the message.
The media can block lesser politician's comments, but they can not block McCain.
And What does McCain do? He goes out there and takes the Charlie Brown wishy-washy stance. I am FURIOUS! McCain.. you MUST tell the truth! Even if it's seems dishonorable. It is your DUTY to the American people to keep Obama and his cronies out of power.
If you readers agree, I beg you to write to McCain and say just that. His sense of "honor" is going to get us all screwed, and HE is the only one who can protect us. As much as I hate to say that, it is the truth.
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." ~ Barrack Hussein Obama ~
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." ~ Sen. Joe Biden
agree, Mazzi
September 30, 2008 - 10:45 ET by mom_roxWhat happened to John McCain's Straight Talk? It was completely absent at the debate. In the past, he has framed his points with talking directly to Americans with Straight Talk.
regarding Barack Obama's tax plan - I never received a job from a poor person.
Pass the word
September 30, 2008 - 14:13 ET by MazziI sent a plea to McCain begging him to use his ability as the ONLY person who can break through the MSM's wall of silence and tell the American public the truth. I specifically appealed to his honor - that the American people need him to do this, even if it means being disloyal to some of his friends in politics.
I have sent emails to everyone I know asking them to email McCain about this too.
Please pass the word. http://www.johnmccain.com/Contact/
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." ~ Barrack Hussein Obama ~
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." ~ Sen. Joe Biden
Mazzi reply
September 30, 2008 - 23:56 ET by JudithI already have twice. Everyone on this blog, email McCain at : info@johnmccain.com. Let him have it, I did.
Absolutely spot on!
September 30, 2008 - 10:04 ET by c5thenWithout the MSM stacking the deck and effectively hiding information from the lazy ill-informed public, the liberals wouldn't have a chance at getting elected, let alone re-elected.
The democrats have been running on a platform of 'free money' for whomever they happen to be speaking to for the last 40 years (at least).
Not totally, but its helping.
September 30, 2008 - 10:08 ET by MeanderingIts not all thanks to the media. He is an enthusiastic speaker and an intelligent individual (he is connected to the right people, but we are unable to officially stick him to these questionable people). However, you cannot take the media away from his rise to stardom. Would he be where he is without the media maybe, but it wouldn't nearly be as close as it is, in fact McCain might be running against Hillary right now, but you never now.
So is it thanks to the media we have Obama, probably, but I don't think we can pin all of his success to the media.
Will make ya Puke....Our Future
September 30, 2008 - 10:16 ET by sjanus11These Commie Pinkos, complain about torture at Gitmo, Well What do you call What they are doing to these small CHILDREN . WARNING DO not eat while watching, may make ya upchuck .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW9b0xr06qA
"If your 20 and not a Liberal, You have no Heart. If you are 40 and not a Conservative, You have no Brain" Sir Winston Churchhill
Noel,
September 30, 2008 - 10:14 ET by Indiana Joe"what can possibly be done to fix the problem?"
Wow, you're playing my song! This occurred to me about a week ago or so. Not much traffic, but it's right on topic.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
The Roll of the Press and the Dice
September 30, 2008 - 10:16 ET by CellaWithout the help of the press, and money from pals of questionable reputation, Obama couldn't even have been elected to a seat on a small town city council. (Well, maybe, if he had been rolling dice for the spot in an alley off of main street.)
It's become a true propoganda machine...
September 30, 2008 - 10:19 ET by retroconI never thought that the alphabet MSM would become Pravda for the leftist Democrats, but it has. Alinsky and Marx have made great strides.
As mentioned in other posts here, it ALL falls to McCain to say the things he needs to say in the debates, when many of the voters in this country are watching, and it's not edited by the MSM.
Sarah has an opportunity as well, maybe McCain will play nice, and Sarah will be allowed to be the "pitbull." I hope so.
But McCain and his "we don't need to point fingers" B.S. leaves the public to believe that it's conservative policies that created this mess!!! That's not acceptible. If you can't point to what caused a problem, then you can't propose the right solutions to the problem.
Hey, Newsbusters.org, here's a suggestion, let's get an ongoing thread of debate arguments. Doesn't have to be just for us from the right, but let's put the bloggers to work coming up with the best arguments and short soundbites for the next debates. Maybe someone will pay attention!
...follow the money, just follow the money...
September 30, 2008 - 10:19 ET by vrwc131999...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Seems this whole mess got started back in 1999 with slick willy in control....
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. "
btw: notice the mention of Obama's advisor - ''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) .
2005...
" How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett "
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&refer=&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
"But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix."
and...
"Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess. "
well
September 30, 2008 - 10:26 ET by arkansaszippersI don't know that you can pin this mess solely on either party. Everybody's hands are dirty on this one.
But the media is covering
September 30, 2008 - 12:25 ET by Indiana JoeBut the media is covering for the Dems. Most people who just watch the news, and don't surf the net and google this stuff, believe it when NP and HR point at the Republicans and Bush. Most don't know the history of this mess.
And that's the whole point here. If the media reported it, people would know how much blame to assign to whom.
"Both sides." It's always "both sides" when a Dem is caught. If not, it's "Republicans." Actually research this. Maybe some mud goes both ways, but this is a liberal Democrat program with way more Dem fingerprints on it than Reps. And the MSM is hiding that fact, by and large.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Regular People
September 30, 2008 - 12:28 ET by arkansaszippersI think on an issue such as this, most people don't care who's fault it is. They just want it fixed.
Maybe I'm just speaking for myself.
Oh, come now!
September 30, 2008 - 12:43 ET by Indiana JoeIn your last post, you talked about who's to blame. Now, no one cares?
Tell Pelosi no one cares, when she was on the House floor blaming Republicans. Tell Obama no one cares when he was blaming McCain and Bush at last week's debate. They sure seem to care about who gets blamed for this friggin' mess.
I forgot about that "third way:" If you can't blame Republicans, and you can't "share" the blame equally... then "no one cares."
You're reverting to talking points, AZ. Lots of folks care, because we don't want to have to go through this again. And the way to avoid that is finding out how we got here to begin with. Eyes wide open and all.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I just said everybody's to
September 30, 2008 - 12:52 ET by arkansaszippersI just said everybody's to blame, and I don't really care who. But like I said, that's just me. And didn't McCain do the same amount of finger pointing? I'm just saying, it's hard to believe much this close to an election.
Okay,
September 30, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Indiana JoeSo you don't care who's to blame, but it matters who did the blaming?
Really, is it that hard for you to just admit that your side may have had a bigger hand in this than they are willing to admit to? You seemed interested in blame when you thought it would go mostly on the right. Why is it that blame, lies, cheating, stealing, campaign cash, sexual escapades, divorce, pregnancy, just about anything that could possibly be bad for a politician is always "no problem" for the left when it's their guy, but the end of Constituitonal government as we know it when it's a Republican?
Why is it that Gerry Studds was supported to stay in his seat for having sex with an intern, but Mark Foley was forced to resign for sending one an email? I mean, doesn't that kind of thing bother you at all? Doesn't the inherent dishonesty and injustice of it nag at you just a little? I'd be embarrassed and ashamed to have to defend that kind of thinking.
It seems you just can't step back from your politics and look at the basic question of right and wrong, good and bad, fair and unfair. It's a shame, really. You don't seem like a bad guy. But there is such a thing as right and wrong, it's not some outdated corny concept. And something as fleeting and ultimately meaningless as political ideology shouldn't come between a person and their sense of justice, their conscience.
A real shame. But it's been nice having a civil conversation with you. Disappointing, but pleasant, anyway.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
huh
September 30, 2008 - 13:12 ET by arkansaszippersI'm not taking sides; I said I don't care who's the most to blame, because everybody is to blame on this one in my opinion.
The only reason I mentioned John McCain pointing fingers is because you had alluded to Democrats pointing fingers, and I wanted to point out that the finger pointing has been rampant all around.
As I said, I find it hard to trust any side nowadays; did you even watch the Carlin video?
carlin video
September 30, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Indiana JoeAs in George Carlin?
No. thought we were talking about media bias, and our thoughts on that. Don't know what anyone named Carlin, George or otherwise, would have to do with that.
I'm just tired of a conversation that's going nowhere. Circular. I thought we were trying to make some kind of progress here, a meeting of minds, so to speak. You asked for a serious discussion, "no insults," and no distractions, I thought. I was just trying to have one.
Up until today, you haven't seemed to have any problem trusting the left enough to come here with their talking points. So forgive me if I'm a little suspicious of your new-found "neutrality."
Maybe that's progress of a sort, I don't know. But I'm done with this topic for now. See ya around.
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - H. Poincaré
Carlin
September 30, 2008 - 13:31 ET by arkansaszippersThe one I tried to show you earlier. This one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqa6lnk97Bc
even Bill admits it was the dems...
September 30, 2008 - 13:25 ET by vrwc13http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2RZ0sUcVcE
ht to dee bunk
v
thanks Bill
Hickzippers reply
October 1, 2008 - 00:02 ET by JudithHey, you are beginning to sound like John McCain. Bipartisanship, don't point fingers, we all need to work together, blah blah blah. STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT NO MATTER WHAT THE COST! or go home.
Thoughts about Obama
September 30, 2008 - 10:19 ET by misterbill'Some cause happiness
wherever they go;
others, whenever they go.'
-- Oscar Wilde