Was thinking the kinda the same thing, but I voted "Republican race". Their infuence in this race has been devistating, turning the base against the nominee? After all but picking our nominee. Doesnt get much worst then that?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
I also think the MSM has mostly influenced the D's this election cycle. My guess is that there's a nasty internal battle going on deep inside the D think tanks between the old socialist democrats (Hillary et al) and the new socialist democrats (Obama et al). Probably the same wrangling is going on deep inside the MSM editors/reporters/publishers. I dunno. Just a guess. Interesting to watch, though.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Can I vote again? I misread the question! I missed the word "race." (See? I'm not a racist...I don't even SEE "race"! LOL
I said Repub because they are the ones who are always kissing up, apologizing for everything, worrying about what the media will say about them etc.
Either way, they have had, and are having a lot of influence on the races. And they did pick the Republican candidate...now they are working on the Dem race.
So I guess I would say they've had too much influence all around.
Gee motherbelt what are you saying, just because Juan McCain has been a member of the MSM Party for the last eight years that the "media" has undue influence?
On reflection I cannot say I was that impressed with any of the Republican candidates this go around. We need an intelligent, experienced clear speaking conservative to unite the party, but I don't know whom that maybe yet.
Jeb Bush just to see how many people at the NYT would be standing on their window ledge in the morning. Jeb is not a true conservative but he is probably closer than President Bush.
Only in jest, we need a true conservative if any exist in politics today.
Unfortunately, I have about as much a chance of winning the lottery as he does of winning a general election, and that was verifiably demonstrated by his landslide loss to Obama.
Barring the introduction of a significant 3rd party candidate (e.g., a Ross Perot), a Democrat or Republican must appeal to middle-of-the-road swing voters to get elected (which is the ulitimate purpose in politics). If he cannot do it via charisma (a la Reagan), then it is centrist policies. A true-blue (or should I say true-red?) conservative candidate cannot be elected if he only gets the votes of die-hard conservatives. And neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are about to commit political suicide by nominating unelectable candidates.
Mother, of course you're a racist. Everyone knows that only a real racist would deny being racist! lol
I totally agree with you about the current clutch of Republicans being a collective group of Mr Wussypants. Where is the statesman (not politician) who stands on moral convictions and doesn't apologize for them???
this election course has seen the drive-bys' influence on repubs stronger than ever before...I really do believe the media had 90% influence on choosing McLame. There is no longer a true republican party, at least, not by my count. I don't even call myself a republican anymore. In conversation I am a conservative only.
In this case I think the LACK of coverage in the media on certain candidates has had more effect than the monumental butt kissing of the other. I mentioned Duncan Hunter in a conversation at work yesterday, and three of the four people listening didn't even know he was in the race.
I voted Mitt. The MSM was terrified of having a good family man in the White house. Just the image of him was too moral and good for the America they want. Where's the drama in being a faithfull husband and father?
Lacking any real dirt on the man they conjured up all kinds of negative garbage about Mormons. Guess what? Everyone West of the Rockies has at least one Mormon Neighbor. In my experience they are good neighbors and good friends.
I'm still holding out hope that somehow he can pull off a miracle at the convention.
-Jason in Washington State (East side, not the half loony West side) :-)
I completely agree. McCain's situation is a media victory of landslide proportions.
I curse them; but I not going to switch on my almost moribund TV to watch for the wrath of God. If everybody associated in the MSM suddenly were attacked with chronic and untreatable hives and a massive stone fell through the roof of the NYT explaining that the plague was on account of the chronic sin of bearing false witness, I suspect that the whole situation would go unreported.
If you count Rush and talk radio as members of the Media, then the biggest effect (believe it or not) is on the Democrat race. It was talk radio that jumped all over Hillary's stance (or lack of one) on driver's licenses for ILLEGALS in New York, and her botching of the issue during and after a debate. It's been downhill for her since.
Leaving talk radio out, it's obviously the Republican race, and for a different reason than immediately meets the eye. It was the MSM hounding of George Allen re:MACACA that cost him his Senate race in Virginia and eliminated him as a Presidential candidate. Hence Republicans got a candidate slate of wannabes, none of whom was a true, dynamic conservative. . . . and apparently Republicans have chosen the least odious wannabe.
I said the Democrat race is where the Media placed the majority of their eggs.
I am torn because the media did push McCain and at the same time the media fear McCain. They fear him because of the votes he can and will attract from the democrat and independent voter. The media in a twisted way of group think, thought the more they pushed McCain, the faster Republicans would run from McCain simply because the media was pushing him.
The medial got what they did not want. At least where McCain is concerned.
Interestingly enough, the media used the same tactic to get Obama where he is. They pushed Obama but for vastly different reasons. I think the media (with exceptions of course) have a palpable dislike of the Clintons. And the media is not alone.
We have all been lulled into thinking the Clintons were and are loved by the left. We were lulled into thinking this way because we thought the vigorous defence of Bill all these years and the seemingly teflon exterior of the Clintons was a love thing between the media and the Clintons. I have changed my mind. The media along with the rest of the left want to WIN and the Clinton's are losers on a very large scale with a vast part of the American population.
If you exclude the young college kids (with excptions) who's minds are mush, you are left with voters who have been around the block before and they are casting votes for other reasons.
I think the staggering amount of votes for Obama are a majority of "Anyone But Hillary" votes. The dems may love Billy boy but the cannot abide HIllary.
Listening to folks here in the Ft Lauderdale area, especially the hispanics, they are voting for Hillary but from their own lips, will NOT support Obama should he get the nomination. The ones I work with (in the resl estate business) freely admit it because he is black.
Color and anyone but hillary, will rule the day.
That is why McCain is now so dangerous to the left. It is also the reason they now have to tear him down. ie: NYT = McCain was born in the canal Zone so he is not a "naturalized citizen"??????
Military families who's children are born outside the continental Unitd States, but on Militay bases, ARE "naturalized citezens". Just try telling my sister, who was born in Cuba while my dad was executive officer of the base in Gitmo, she is not "naturaliazed" and you will never get up off the floor.
The media are going to have to deal with the candidates they have chosen.
While we blame the MSM for picking McCain, we do need to share some of the blame within our own ranks. I for one could never get behind Thompson because I had a feeling he wasn't serious. Lots of people on here disagree, but come on he only tried for 90 days and then he bailed and agreed to endorse McCain.
Conservatives were being too picky and waiting too long to make up their minds, but along the way they assumed that someone decent would win. They took it for granted that the party would find the right guy. Unbeknownst to them, McCain's people were getting mobilized.
We need to stop expecting the GOP to be our tool. If we want our ideas to advance, we have to get out there and start trying harder.
I understand where you are coming from, but by the time they got here (in La) we only had McCain and Huckabee to choose from.
My theory is: The States that are voting early are not very Conservative, thus they leave the rest of us with very little to choose from. Primaries should have only 2-4 voting days with State being scattered to give every "region" a voice. This would also limit the MSM's influence.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
On the Democrat side, the media really has just followed whatever seems to be happening at the time. There are many among them who were long-time Clinton supporters who started talking about Obama when he was "new and exciting". Then when Hillary won in NH and NV they were back with her, and when things swung the other way back to Obama. Since they basically have the same views it really has been whoever at the moment seems like they're going to win.
On the GOP side, the media took a decided, consistent outlook that was very anti-Romney and pro-McCain. They also were very kind to Huckabee as they clearly would have loved to see him nominated. There was a deliberate attempt to smear and keep down the strongest candidates (Mitt and Rudy) and prop up McCain, who they agree with on many things, and Huckabee because they wanted to beat up on him later. So overall they definitely had more of an effect on the Republican race.
Does anyone realize Romney continues to have more deligates than Huckelbee?
Our problem was the choices. Conservative views were split. Therefore votes were hay-wire. Thompson may not have had traction but he left before florida and Charlie Crist handed McCain a win.
Never mind the states going first in the vote process were the most liberal states. There were lots of vairables.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Democrat
February 28, 2008 - 04:49 ET by Cool ArrowCurrently the MSM has the most influence on the Dem race.
They've already fixed the Republican race.
♣ a seal
Was thinking the kinda the
February 28, 2008 - 09:49 ET by general companyWas thinking the kinda the same thing, but I voted "Republican race". Their infuence in this race has been devistating, turning the base against the nominee? After all but picking our nominee. Doesnt get much worst then that?
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
I'm with you guys...
February 28, 2008 - 11:03 ET by MassConservThough, like GC I picked the Rebublican race.
They did their damage on the Repubs and once the fix was in they moved on to working their own side.
It's Republican for sure.
February 28, 2008 - 11:20 ET by mattmIt's Republican for sure. The media practically picked the GOP candidate. They can't decide about the Big-O or H-bomb, so the effect is neutralized.
gc... I voted the same
February 28, 2008 - 19:21 ET by bigtimergc...
I voted the same for the same reasons too.
Plus over the years watching them destroy other repub candidates aalong with the dem. party.
I voted that way too
February 28, 2008 - 12:42 ET by celatorI also think the MSM has mostly influenced the D's this election cycle. My guess is that there's a nasty internal battle going on deep inside the D think tanks between the old socialist democrats (Hillary et al) and the new socialist democrats (Obama et al). Probably the same wrangling is going on deep inside the MSM editors/reporters/publishers. I dunno. Just a guess. Interesting to watch, though.
Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.
Can I vote again? I
February 28, 2008 - 07:40 ET by motherbeltCan I vote again? I misread the question! I missed the word "race." (See? I'm not a racist...I don't even SEE "race"! LOL
I said Repub because they are the ones who are always kissing up, apologizing for everything, worrying about what the media will say about them etc.
Either way, they have had, and are having a lot of influence on the races. And they did pick the Republican candidate...now they are working on the Dem race.
So I guess I would say they've had too much influence all around.
Juan McCain of the MSM Party
February 28, 2008 - 08:38 ET by CTGee motherbelt what are you saying, just because Juan McCain has been a member of the MSM Party for the last eight years that the "media" has undue influence?
On reflection I cannot say I was that impressed with any of the Republican candidates this go around. We need an intelligent, experienced clear speaking conservative to unite the party, but I don't know whom that maybe yet.
CT,
February 28, 2008 - 09:11 ET by AgnosticJeb Bush just to see how many people at the NYT would be standing on their window ledge in the morning. Jeb is not a true conservative but he is probably closer than President Bush.
Only in jest, we need a true conservative if any exist in politics today.
Agnostic
February 28, 2008 - 10:19 ET by lotrTwo words: Alan Keyes
Unfortunately, I have about as much a chance of winning the lottery as he does of winning a general election, and that was verifiably demonstrated by his landslide loss to Obama.
Barring the introduction of a significant 3rd party candidate (e.g., a Ross Perot), a Democrat or Republican must appeal to middle-of-the-road swing voters to get elected (which is the ulitimate purpose in politics). If he cannot do it via charisma (a la Reagan), then it is centrist policies. A true-blue (or should I say true-red?) conservative candidate cannot be elected if he only gets the votes of die-hard conservatives. And neither the Republican nor Democratic parties are about to commit political suicide by nominating unelectable candidates.
Racist?
February 28, 2008 - 13:57 ET by jefflebowskiMother, of course you're a racist. Everyone knows that only a real racist would deny being racist! lol
I totally agree with you about the current clutch of Republicans being a collective group of Mr Wussypants. Where is the statesman (not politician) who stands on moral convictions and doesn't apologize for them???
the dummycraps, however...
February 28, 2008 - 07:52 ET by sentforth5this election course has seen the drive-bys' influence on repubs stronger than ever before...I really do believe the media had 90% influence on choosing McLame. There is no longer a true republican party, at least, not by my count. I don't even call myself a republican anymore. In conversation I am a conservative only.
Rephrase?
February 28, 2008 - 07:57 ET by dronetekI think you need to rephase the question. It can be taken as their bias influenced the republican election.
I voted Republican
February 28, 2008 - 08:20 ET by OldSailor88In this case I think the LACK of coverage in the media on certain candidates has had more effect than the monumental butt kissing of the other. I mentioned Duncan Hunter in a conversation at work yesterday, and three of the four people listening didn't even know he was in the race.
Stultus est sicut stultus facit
another poll in need of "NOTA."
February 28, 2008 - 08:45 ET by sarcasmoSome of us would have voted "George Soros, both parties" for example.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
I Miss Mitt
February 28, 2008 - 10:43 ET by Just JasonI voted Mitt. The MSM was terrified of having a good family man in the White house. Just the image of him was too moral and good for the America they want. Where's the drama in being a faithfull husband and father?
Lacking any real dirt on the man they conjured up all kinds of negative garbage about Mormons. Guess what? Everyone West of the Rockies has at least one Mormon Neighbor. In my experience they are good neighbors and good friends.
I'm still holding out hope that somehow he can pull off a miracle at the convention.
-Jason in Washington State (East side, not the half loony West side) :-)
SORRY
February 28, 2008 - 10:47 ET by paulnashtnThe majority seems to think because the media has spent MUCH more time and newsprint on the dems that that equals influence.
The fact is that the influence was in the early primaries when they were promoting McCain and are, in fact, primarily responsible for his nomination
VOTE REPUBLICAN
I agree. in spite of myself
February 28, 2008 - 19:37 ET by needleI completely agree. McCain's situation is a media victory of landslide proportions.
I curse them; but I not going to switch on my almost moribund TV to watch for the wrath of God. If everybody associated in the MSM suddenly were attacked with chronic and untreatable hives and a massive stone fell through the roof of the NYT explaining that the plague was on account of the chronic sin of bearing false witness, I suspect that the whole situation would go unreported.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Depends
February 28, 2008 - 12:41 ET by CaringwhiteguyIf you count Rush and talk radio as members of the Media, then the biggest effect (believe it or not) is on the Democrat race. It was talk radio that jumped all over Hillary's stance (or lack of one) on driver's licenses for ILLEGALS in New York, and her botching of the issue during and after a debate. It's been downhill for her since.
Leaving talk radio out, it's obviously the Republican race, and for a different reason than immediately meets the eye. It was the MSM hounding of George Allen re:MACACA that cost him his Senate race in Virginia and eliminated him as a Presidential candidate. Hence Republicans got a candidate slate of wannabes, none of whom was a true, dynamic conservative. . . . and apparently Republicans have chosen the least odious wannabe.
I said Democrat but
February 28, 2008 - 12:01 ET by DelsaI said the Democrat race is where the Media placed the majority of their eggs.
I am torn because the media did push McCain and at the same time the media fear McCain. They fear him because of the votes he can and will attract from the democrat and independent voter. The media in a twisted way of group think, thought the more they pushed McCain, the faster Republicans would run from McCain simply because the media was pushing him.
The medial got what they did not want. At least where McCain is concerned.
Interestingly enough, the media used the same tactic to get Obama where he is. They pushed Obama but for vastly different reasons. I think the media (with exceptions of course) have a palpable dislike of the Clintons. And the media is not alone.
We have all been lulled into thinking the Clintons were and are loved by the left. We were lulled into thinking this way because we thought the vigorous defence of Bill all these years and the seemingly teflon exterior of the Clintons was a love thing between the media and the Clintons. I have changed my mind. The media along with the rest of the left want to WIN and the Clinton's are losers on a very large scale with a vast part of the American population.
If you exclude the young college kids (with excptions) who's minds are mush, you are left with voters who have been around the block before and they are casting votes for other reasons.
I think the staggering amount of votes for Obama are a majority of "Anyone But Hillary" votes. The dems may love Billy boy but the cannot abide HIllary.
Listening to folks here in the Ft Lauderdale area, especially the hispanics, they are voting for Hillary but from their own lips, will NOT support Obama should he get the nomination. The ones I work with (in the resl estate business) freely admit it because he is black.
Color and anyone but hillary, will rule the day.
That is why McCain is now so dangerous to the left. It is also the reason they now have to tear him down. ie: NYT = McCain was born in the canal Zone so he is not a "naturalized citizen"??????
Military families who's children are born outside the continental Unitd States, but on Militay bases, ARE "naturalized citezens". Just try telling my sister, who was born in Cuba while my dad was executive officer of the base in Gitmo, she is not "naturaliazed" and you will never get up off the floor.
The media are going to have to deal with the candidates they have chosen.
If McCain wins the media will pick our candidate forever
February 28, 2008 - 12:29 ET by Daniel BakerMcCain will nominate CFR loving supreme court. Thus the power will always be in the medias hands
Depends
February 28, 2008 - 13:44 ET by DelsaGet a grip. The MSN is NOT talk radio.
I do not address talk radio because the discussion as I read it, does not include them.
As I look at it, Obama is NOT being pushed by talk radio any more than talk radio is pushing McCain.
We may agree Republicans have the wrong candidate but the reasons for it have nothing to do with talk radio.
GOP race
February 28, 2008 - 13:58 ET by candanceWhile we blame the MSM for picking McCain, we do need to share some of the blame within our own ranks. I for one could never get behind Thompson because I had a feeling he wasn't serious. Lots of people on here disagree, but come on he only tried for 90 days and then he bailed and agreed to endorse McCain.
Conservatives were being too picky and waiting too long to make up their minds, but along the way they assumed that someone decent would win. They took it for granted that the party would find the right guy. Unbeknownst to them, McCain's people were getting mobilized.
We need to stop expecting the GOP to be our tool. If we want our ideas to advance, we have to get out there and start trying harder.
I understand where you are
February 28, 2008 - 22:28 ET by general companyI understand where you are coming from, but by the time they got here (in La) we only had McCain and Huckabee to choose from.
My theory is: The States that are voting early are not very Conservative, thus they leave the rest of us with very little to choose from. Primaries should have only 2-4 voting days with State being scattered to give every "region" a voice. This would also limit the MSM's influence.
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Media agenda
February 28, 2008 - 14:07 ET by seldumondeOn the Democrat side, the media really has just followed whatever seems to be happening at the time. There are many among them who were long-time Clinton supporters who started talking about Obama when he was "new and exciting". Then when Hillary won in NH and NV they were back with her, and when things swung the other way back to Obama. Since they basically have the same views it really has been whoever at the moment seems like they're going to win.
On the GOP side, the media took a decided, consistent outlook that was very anti-Romney and pro-McCain. They also were very kind to Huckabee as they clearly would have loved to see him nominated. There was a deliberate attempt to smear and keep down the strongest candidates (Mitt and Rudy) and prop up McCain, who they agree with on many things, and Huckabee because they wanted to beat up on him later. So overall they definitely had more of an effect on the Republican race.
GOP race
February 28, 2008 - 14:11 ET by DelsaDoes anyone realize Romney continues to have more deligates than Huckelbee?
Our problem was the choices. Conservative views were split. Therefore votes were hay-wire. Thompson may not have had traction but he left before florida and Charlie Crist handed McCain a win.
Never mind the states going first in the vote process were the most liberal states. There were lots of vairables.
McCain can and will beat any of the democrats.
Our choices were difficult and now?...
Republican
February 28, 2008 - 22:10 ET by pbthinkerThey've already got the Republican no one wanted, now they have to get the only Democrat that has a chance of beating him. Can they do it?
Democrats: Stuck on Stupid since 2000.