No, it's far too distant in the future
14% (476 votes)
No, the media will see to that
70% (2418 votes)
Yes, somewhat
10% (331 votes)
Yes, fairly significantly
5% (168 votes)
Other (leave comment)
1% (45 votes)
Total votes: 3438
|
|
home blogs about forum contact search account 
“Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Will Spitzer Scandal Harm Dems in November?No, it's far too distant in the future 14% (476 votes) No, the media will see to that 70% (2418 votes) Yes, somewhat 10% (331 votes) Yes, fairly significantly 5% (168 votes) Other (leave comment) 1% (45 votes) Total votes: 3438 |
Editors’ Picks
Poll
MastheadEditor
Senior Editors Managing Editor Associate Editor Contributing Editors Contributing Writers Publisher 
|
|
[ Home | Blogs |
Forum |
About |
Contact
]
| |
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The top reason - and the one
March 13, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Chris NormanThe top reason - and the one under it, if the top one doesn't work for them.
Chris
March 13, 2008 - 16:00 ET by ForeverOnTheRightMy thoughts exactly. I chose the first one, but also thought that the secound one to be true too. The only thing that would change this is if it grew into a 800 pound gorilla that could not be ignored no matter how much the DNC and the MSM wanted it to go away.
Choice #2...of course the
March 13, 2008 - 15:40 ET by bigtimerChoice #2...of course the msm will downplay this all and see to it that it is zilch in Nov., they are and have already been doing a good job of that.
Unless something more comes of this before then...which even they can't handle.
Which I doubt.
self-destructive media continues
March 13, 2008 - 15:46 ET by RonCDemocrats aren't being harmed (media protection) but the MSM continue to do great harm to their own reputation.
Everyone was ready to Tune out Politics ... of the boring type
March 13, 2008 - 15:55 ET by JayTeeToo much Politics for Too long . . .this will be a popular Political story for awhile, and probably continue to pre-empt current slow moving Democratic Train.
B-HO and Hillary can't Compete for coverage . . .unless they CRANK IT UP or Play match the Story with Bill doing something to "one up" Spitzer.
FYI - statistics on party affiliation
March 13, 2008 - 15:58 ET by habbyguyJust did a quick google search to see how the 'Net (which generally mirrors the MSM) is doing on providing info on the party affiliation of recent dirtbags.
Searched on Spitzer Prostitute - 1.13 million hits. Added "Democrat" and it drops to 220K (19.5%)
Searched on "Larry Craig" bathroom - 160K hits. Added "Republican" and got 91K hits (57%)
Bottom line, even when there is a scandal involving a Democrat that can't successfully be swept under the rug, the MSM will find a way to use it to bring up Republican misdeeds...
I googled Spitzer Prostitute Republican, and got 179K hits (81% as many as Spitzer Prostitute Democrat). Yikes.
More likely to harm Republicans.
March 13, 2008 - 16:01 ET by cjbreischMore likely to harm Republicans.
To harm Democrats, people would have to actually KNOW that he's a Democrat. The whole point of not naming his party is to imply that he's one of those "corrupt Republicans", and to bring down the Republican party.
Hope so...
March 13, 2008 - 16:10 ET by ThalpyHope so.
How could it hurt ...
March 13, 2008 - 16:11 ET by Seton MotleyHow could it hurt the Democrats if Spitzer is never named a part of the fold?
Seton Motley
Director of Communications
Media Research Center
It will hurt the mean and
March 13, 2008 - 16:19 ET by mattmIt will hurt the mean and nasty wast right wing conspiracy.
Won't hurt in the slightest
March 13, 2008 - 16:22 ET by ThisnThatRemember the picture of Hillary and Spitzer standing together on a platform, hands together as they raised their arms in the air? You'll never see that picture, again.
If there was a picture of McCain and Craig celebrating together, though, the MSM would be running it every ... single ... day for 6 months straight, on the front page, with another revealing, negative headline each day.
The MSM is biased; it's corrupt; and it despertly wants a Dim to win in November. There will be no links at all to Hillary -- unless Obama wins the Dim nomination.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Well, I don't think it will
March 13, 2008 - 16:52 ET by fitzfongWell, I don't think it will help the Democrats. The long-term effect is dependent on how the Republicans play it. Liberals have often sought to exploit the corporate "poster boy" to highlight perceived inequities of the capitalist system. For some reason, Republicans have been reluctant to expose the abusive tactics and the "unintended" consequences brought about by seedy trial lawyers like Eliot Spitzer, John Edwards, Patrick Fitzgerald, Mike Nifong and hundreds of others for political gain. Rogue attorneys are the root cause of most of the social and economic ills in this country...they are the natural enemy of conservatives and of Americans, yet Republican Strategists lack either the will or the ability to effectively connect the dots so that we all can understand the damage they cause. Spitzer provides a perfect opportunity to shed light on this problem...if the RNC can effectively deal with this, there's a real opportunity here.
It won't hurt them at all
March 13, 2008 - 18:19 ET by mvfreemanFirst of all Spitzer's name won't be on any ballot and secondly November is still 8 months away.
I think most people aren't going to judge an entire politcal party based on the acts of one or two bad apples.
Other. It might help them.
March 13, 2008 - 18:47 ET by sarcasmoHillary just lost a "superdelegate," and Obama may have just gained one, making Obama that much more likely to get the nomination. Republicans correctly sense he'll be harder to beat.
JMR
A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.
"No, the media will see to
March 13, 2008 - 22:39 ET by brerol"No, the media will see to that"? Hell, the media has already have seen to that.
It depends.
March 13, 2008 - 23:15 ET by needle“No, the media will see to that”
…is the correct answer, if this is the only fiasco. On the other hand, if there is a series of significant embarrassments between now – let’s remember it is only March – and November, then this could contribute to an overall compelling picture of major incompetence and malfeasance.
It is helpful to remember that there were several Republican scandals, not just one, leading up to the 2006 election.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
I don't see how it's going
March 14, 2008 - 02:31 ET by ConservativeRexI don't see how it's going to hurt 'em. Hell, it took days for most media outlets to even admit that he's a dem. And some still haven't. Nah, they'll make sure it doesn't hurt the dems.
Why should it hurt them?
March 15, 2008 - 01:34 ET by goldwaterfanTwo words. David Vitter.
I think that's spelled
March 17, 2008 - 13:20 ET by fitzfongI think that's spelled B-a-r-n-e-y-F-r-a-n-k.
Of course not!
March 18, 2008 - 04:57 ET by BlueCat57Being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry.
If you have no (OK.They have standards, but they are pretty low.) moral standards how can you be measured against them?