The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

Lack of experience does bug me a bit - but that's not the main reason. His "flip-flopping" doesn't even bother me because politican=flip-flop, depending on who's handing you your lobby (dirty) money.

 

But his positions on many social issues really bothers me.

 

And so do McCain's policies, so I give them both equal time on the "not liking" them.

There is a difference between flip-flopping, and adjusting and/or clarifying a position based on the terrain. One clear as day flip-flop from Obama was the telecom immunity thing. He just ouright chickened out on that one, and that bothered me.

 

[Rex Kickass]

damn Muslim loving terrorist black man! He's out to kill "whitey"!

 

If you really believe in the kind of change that Obama espouses, you should consider acting like it. Posts like this do your candidate and yourself a disservice.

[HuskyCaucasian]

If you really believe in the kind of change that Obama espouses, you should consider acting like it. Posts like this do your candidate and yourself a disservice.

it's called parody / comedy. deal with it.

[Rex Kickass]

it's called parody / comedy. deal with it.

It's only comedy when its funny.

[bmags]

This site especially of all the sites I've been on argues the media's lack of coverage on an issue. And it always cracks me up that as evidence they'll use web sites like abcnews.com, the washington post and other major news outlets as examples.

 

And the national review one of "taking the eye off the ball" was just dumb commentary. Is someone seriously going to argue we took our eye off the ball when major groups that planned 9/11 have taken back parts in Afghanistan while we have most of our troops committed to Iraq?

Edited July 28, 2008 by bmags

[lostfan]

^^bmags I'm trying to talk to you-know-who on the other site and tell him that right now, mostly for my own amusement since he's like a brick wall and doesn't listen to anything. I find it hilarious that he is so dismissive of the fact that I already forgot far more than he'll ever know on this subject, and others like it.

[bmags]

heh. Could've come in handy last week for me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na...99.story?page=1

 

ON THE MEDIA

In study, evidence of liberal-bias bias

Cable talking heads accuse broadcast networks of liberal bias -- but a think tank finds that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks.

By JAMES RAINEY, ON THE MEDIA

July 27, 2008

Haters of the mainstream media reheated a bit of conventional wisdom last week.

 

Barack Obama, they said, was getting a free ride from those insufferable liberals.

 

 

 

Challenges await Barack Obama at home

John McCain supports expansion of Americans With Disabilities Act

John McCain slams Barack Obama for canceling on the troops

Such pronouncements, sorry to say, tend to be wrong since they describe a monolithic media that no longer exists. Information today cascades from countless outlets and channels, from the Huffington Post to Politico.com to CBS News and beyond.

 

But now there's additional evidence that casts doubt on the bias claims aimed -- with particular venom -- at three broadcast networks.

 

The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, where researchers have tracked network news content for two decades, found that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Obama than on Republican John McCain during the first six weeks of the general-election campaign.

 

You read it right: tougher on the Democrat.

 

During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative.

 

Network reporting also tilted against McCain, but far less dramatically, with 43% of the statements positive and 57% negative, according to the Washington-based media center.

 

Conservatives have been snarling about the grotesque disparity revealed by another study, the online Tyndall Report, which showed Obama receiving more than twice as much network air time as McCain in the last month and a half. Obama got 166 minutes of coverage in the seven weeks after the end of the primary season, compared with 67 minutes for McCain, according to longtime network-news observer Andrew Tyndall.

 

I wrote last week that the networks should do more to better balance the air time. But I also suggested that much of the attention to Obama was far from glowing.

 

That earned a spasm of e-mails that described me as irrational, unpatriotic and . . . somehow . . . French.

 

But the center's director, RobertLichter, who has won conservative hearts with several of his previous studies, told me the facts were the facts.

 

"This information should blow away this silly assumption that more coverage is always better coverage," he said.

 

Here's a bit more on the research, so you'll understand how the communications professor and his researchers arrived at their conclusions.

 

The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.

 

The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.

 

Visual images and other more subjective cues are not assessed. But the tracking applies a measure of analytical rigor to a field rife with seat-of-the-pants fulminations.

 

The media center's most recent batch of data covers nightly newscasts beginning June 8, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton conceded the Democratic nomination, ushering in the start of the general-election campaign. The data ran through Monday, as Obama began his overseas trip.

 

Most on-air statements during that time could not be classified as positive or negative, Lichter said. The study found, on average, less than two opinion statements per night on the candidates on all three networks combined -- not exactly embracing or pummeling Obama or McCain. But when a point of view did emerge, it tended to tilt against Obama.

 

That was a reversal of the trend during the primaries, when the same researchers found that 64% of statements about Obama -- new to the political spotlight -- were positive, but just 43% of statements about McCain were positive.

(there is more, read link)

[Balta1701]

There is a difference between flip-flopping, and adjusting and/or clarifying a position based on the terrain. One clear as day flip-flop from Obama was the telecom immunity thing. He just ouright chickened out on that one, and that bothered me.

Am I the only one who really hates that "Flip flopping" is considered a bad thing? I for one have no problem at all with the concept of changing one's position based on new information or hell even based on a new piece of polling data...if they're flip-flopping to a policy position I support. I think it's fit to judge each one based on how they act before, during, and after the flip, and which position they're taking on. For example, Obama's cave on telecom immunity...ugh. McCain's flip-flopping on torture and wiretapping, ugh. George W. Bush's unspoken embrace of all things diplomatic which has suddenly dramatically improved our ability to deal with our supposed enemies? (i.e. North Korea, Iran). Yay!

[NorthSideSox72]

Am I the only one who really hates that "Flip flopping" is considered a bad thing? I for one have no problem at all with the concept of changing one's position based on new information or hell even based on a new piece of polling data...if they're flip-flopping to a policy position I support. I think it's fit to judge each one based on how they act before, during, and after the flip, and which position they're taking on. For example, Obama's cave on telecom immunity...ugh. McCain's flip-flopping on torture and wiretapping, ugh. George W. Bush's unspoken embrace of all things diplomatic which has suddenly dramatically improved our ability to deal with our supposed enemies? (i.e. North Korea, Iran). Yay!

It all depends on the reasoning, and any relevant change in the situation, IMO.

 

[StrangeSox]

It all depends on the reasoning, and any relevant change in the situation, IMO.

 

Agreed.

 

"Flip-flopping" because you're a political wind sock is a terrible trait. "Flip-flopping" because some time over the past 3, 5, 10, etc. years you've learned new information and/ or events have changed and your reasoning has brought you to new conclusions is a good trait.

 

We see plenty of the former out of politicians on the national stage.

[Chet Lemon]

Am I the only one who really hates that "Flip flopping" is considered a bad thing?

 

Nope. Ahhnold beat you to it.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hmwkMSz...QYurlAD91T69580

 

[BigSqwert]

You gotta love the predictability of the framing from McCain’s Media. John McCain challenges Barack Obama to go to Iraq, and so he goes. Then he makes the exact same courtesy calls with other heads of state with whom he would be in close contact should he win the presidency that John McCain made just a couple of months ago, but according to Suzanne Malveaux on CNN’s Late Edition, “some people” are worried that Obama is just a little audacious for making this trip. Riiiiigggghhhhttt. Just who would be these people, Malveaux? Would they be those same GOP/RNC types that have been whispering these ridiculous slurs because Obama’s trip was so successful and made their candidate look like an intemperate, ill-prepared and out of touch amateur?

 

S

enator, I want to u

s

e a word that you love to u

s

e,

“

audacity.

”

A lot of people loo

k

ed at the trip and they

s

aw the palace

s

, the world leader

s

, the 200,000 that were gathered in Berlin, and they

s

aid,

“

The audacity of thi

s

trip, it loo

k

s

li

k

e he i

s

running for pre

s

ident of the world.

”

 

Are we quoting Krauthammer and Brooks again on another media outlet? It appears so. The question goes out to McCain’s Media yet again: by what standard have these two chuckleheads–who have yet to be right on anything, mind you–earned the privilege of framing the debate of this race?

 

Kudos to Obama for responding the only way you should to these intelligence-insulting media narratives.

 

OBAMA:

Well, let me ma

k

e a couple point

s

. Fir

s

t of all, I ba

s

ically met with the

s

ame fol

k

s

that John McCain met with after he won the nomination. He met with all the

s

e leader

s

. He al

s

o added a trip to Mexico, a trip to Canada, a trip to Colombia, and nobody

s

ugge

s

ted that that wa

s

“

audaciou

s

.

”

 

I thin

k

people a

s

s

umed that what he wa

s

doing wa

s

to tal

k

to world leader

s

who we may have deal with

s

hould we become pre

s

ident. That

’

s

part of the job that I

’

m applying for.

 

And

s

o

—

s

o I wa

s

puzzled by thi

s

notion that

s

omehow what we were doing wa

s

in any way different from what

S

enator McCain or a lot of pre

s

idential candidate

s

have done in the pa

s

t.

 

LINK

 

[kapkomet]

LINK

Meeting these people isn't audacious. Political stump speeches, back drops, etc. included after this NOT being a "political trip" is perhaps audacious in some people's minds.

 

[lostfan]

Meeting these people isn't audacious. Political stump speeches, back drops, etc. included after this NOT being a "political trip" is perhaps audacious in some people's minds.

If he wasn't going to do any of the above then what would have been the point of going? If he wasn't going as a campaign trip (he was, it was no secret), he would've been going as a Senator. Senators are politicians, no? It would've been "political" no matter what and I highly doubt he would've done it as a vacation. I think you're focused entirely too much on that one word.

[kapkomet]

If he wasn't going to do any of the above then what would have been the point of going? If he wasn't going as a campaign trip (he was, it was no secret), he would've been going as a Senator. Senators are politicians, no? It would've been "political" no matter what and I highly doubt he would've done it as a vacation. I think you're focused entirely too much on that one word.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass, of course it was all a stage and political. I don't care. Some people obviously do.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

McCain Adviser Steve Forbes: Cap-And-Trade Wouldn’t ‘Get Very Far’ Under McCain

 

Speaking with CNN’s Glenn Beck on Friday, former GOP presidential candidate and current McCain economic adviser Steve Forbes disparaged Sen. McCain’s signature plan to put mandatory reductions on greenhouse gases with a cap-and-trade system. McCain has repeatedly pointed to his record on promoting global warming legislation as a key distinction between himself and the current president. Forbes predicted: I think cap and trade is going to go the way of some other things,

 

On July 9, conservative journalist Larry Kudlow reported that he was told “on deep background” by a “senior McCain official” that McCain was off cap-and-trade. The campaign publicly responded that “any notion that the senator is abandoning or minimizing his support for cap-and-trade is ‘totally false.’” Forbes is signaling that Kudlow may be right, and McCain will follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush. As a candidate in 2000, Bush pledged to impose mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide, but reversed that position once he took the oath of office. In 2001, newly elected Vice President Dick Cheney said of Bush’s pledge, “It was a mistake.”

[bmags]

going the way of some other things...

 

is that implying it's going to the graveyard?

 

Cap and trade has been the only thing that works. Unless they can show something else that will work better I don't know how you can disagree with it. (unless you are from WV)

[HuskyCaucasian]

going the way of some other things...

 

is that implying it's going to the graveyard?

 

Yes. I didnt post the full quote, but they go on to talk about how Clinton promised cap and trade and never lived up to it. It's almost like he implied McCain's stance was simply pandering for votes or not realistically reachable (aka wouldn't pass congress)

 

Here's the full quote:

I think cap and trade is going to go the way of some other things, as you may remember, when he came into office, Bill Clinton had a proposal of tax carbons and stuff like that. I don’t think those things are going to get very far as people start to examine the details of them.

[StrangeSox]

going the way of some other things...

 

is that implying it's going to the graveyard?

 

Cap and trade has been the only thing that works. Unless they can show something else that will work better I don't know how you can disagree with it. (unless you are from WV)

Cap and trade has been a massive failure everywhere its been implemented.

[Texsox]

Am I the only one who really hates that "Flip flopping" is considered a bad thing? I for one have no problem at all with the concept of changing one's position based on new information or hell even based on a new piece of polling data...if they're flip-flopping to a policy position I support. I think it's fit to judge each one based on how they act before, during, and after the flip, and which position they're taking on. For example, Obama's cave on telecom immunity...ugh. McCain's flip-flopping on torture and wiretapping, ugh. George W. Bush's unspoken embrace of all things diplomatic which has suddenly dramatically improved our ability to deal with our supposed enemies? (i.e. North Korea, Iran). Yay!

 

The world is changing rapidly and we want politicians who make a decision in 1954 and gosh and golly, they stick with that decision forever.

 

The flip-flop was a brilliant campaign strategy that we will be paying the price for for a very long time. It use to be stubbornness in the face of new evidence or situations was considered a weakness, not anymore.

 

We now believe the words from a politician's mouth over the media and we believe that positions should never change.

[Balta1701]

Cap and trade has been a massive failure everywhere its been implemented.

That's because the most notable place that implemented it...Europe...went with the McCain style, polluter-giveaway version of a cap and trade system where the emissions credits are just handed out to polluters who are then able to resell them to others at a profit, rather than making the polluters actually have to buy their credits in the first place.

[Rex Kickass]

The world is changing rapidly and we want politicians who make a decision in 1954 and gosh and golly, they stick with that decision forever.

 

The flip-flop was a brilliant campaign strategy that we will be paying the price for for a very long time. It use to be stubbornness in the face of new evidence or situations was considered a weakness, not anymore.

 

We now believe the words from a politician's mouth over the media and we believe that positions should never change.

 

The Flip-Flop charge before had resonance because it seemed to apply chiefly to someone who's original position didn't feel genuine. (i.e. Gore's vote on the 1991 Gulf War based on how much camera time he could get story, or i voted for it before i voted against it). When it's used to showcase a genuine honest flexibility, which is what it has become used to do, it just becomes background noise.

[bmags]

Clean air Act of 1990:

 

Acid Rain

 

A two-phase, market-based system will reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions from power plants by more than half. By the year 2000, total annual emissions are to be capped at 8.9 million tons, a reductions of 10 million tons from 1980 levels. Plants will be issued allowances based on fixed emission rates set in the law and on their previous fossil-fuel use. They will pay penalties if emissions exceed the allowances they hold. Allowances can be banked or traded. In Phase I, large, high-emission plants, located in eastern and midwestern states, will achieve reductions by 1995. In Phase II, which commences on January 1, 2000, emission limits will be imposed on smaller, cleaner plants and tightened on Phase I plants. All sources will install continuous emission monitors to assure compliance. Nitrogen-oxide reductions will also be achieved, but through performance standards set by EPA.

 

I was under the impression this greatly lowered our SO2 and I was under the impression this was cap and trade. Certainly worked better than CAA of 77 no?

[HuskyCaucasian]

I think i had said this before, but I'll say it again.

 

On a base level, there is not always an issue with "flip-flopping". Often it is legitimately based on a change in conditions. I cant think of a good example off the top of my head, but i know I have seen them in the past.

 

However, it's when a change in opinion comes with no real explanation and happens to coincide with political expedience, it is a flip-flop. My 2 examples are not going to surprise anyone, but they are the ones I know most about:

 

1) In 1999, John McCain was against over-turning Roe v Wade. His exact words were- "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." But in 2008, he said this "I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade"

 

Now he has always said he is not in favor of abortion as best as I know. the problem comes with this sudden change in mind about overturning RvW. He never gave an explanation and it sure seemed to coincide with his need to woo evangelicals to get the nomination. That's a Flip-Flop for political expedience.

 

2) In 2004, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage: "The constitutional amendment we’re debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans" But on March 29, ABC reported that McCain confided to Jerry Falwell that he would support such an amendment: "McCain 'reconfirmed' to Falwell that he would support a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman if a federal court were to strike down state constitutional bans on gay marriage."

 

Once again, he never gave an explanation and it sure seemed to coincide with his need to woo evangelicals to get the nomination. That's a Flip-Flop for political expedience.

 

There is a list for something like 70 McCain "flip-flops" and I think you can argue (although I disagree) that many of them are "conditions based". But many have no logical reason for change.

 

Many might be considered political pandering, but aren't always flip-flops... just trying to have two sides of the same coin. For that I reference his stance on Supreme Court Justices.

 

Many "flip-flops" are also what i would call hypocrisy more than anything else. For that I reference McCain's never ending ties to lobbyists which he decries.

[bmags]

how about his immigration stance and torture stance.

 

those irk me to no end.