The Republican Thread

[mr_genius]

naw it just kind of shows, to me, your mindset. Any article in times positive for McCain doesn't register for you, but if you see any article pro Obama it triggers your brain reaffirms your beliefs of bias in major media outlets.

But I'd bet there is truth that to you the only unbiased media to you would be one that has no positive Obama coverage.

 

Not really, I acknowledge pro-GOP bias at FOX news. For some reason you think all media should be 100% pro-Obama and attack McCain. But that is the 'truth' in your world view. Running constant pro-Obama stuff is ok because it fits in with your world view, as far as you are concerned talking about how great Obama is the truth as you think he is great.

[lostfan]

Not really, I acknowledge pro-GOP bias at FOX news. For some reason you think all media should be 100% pro-Obama and attack McCain. But that is the 'truth' in your world view. Running constant pro-Obama stuff is ok because it fits in with your world view, as far as you are concerned talking about how great Obama is the truth as you think he is great.

This type of response actually plays right into the point he's trying to make about internal bias/cognitive dissonance.

[mr_genius]

meh, my mistake then. I can go pull up the go-to "why isn't Obama leading by more" "why does Obama have trouble with working class whites" Times articles.

 

Oh you are saying the New York Times isn't pro-Obama? wow...... i don't even know what to tell you. There really is no debate when it comes to the New York Times.

[mr_genius]

This type of response actually plays right into the point he's trying to make about internal bias/cognitive dissonance.

 

It's what i've said all along. Every time we get into this lame debate about the media I always point it out.

[lostfan]

It's what i've said all along. Every time we get into this lame debate about the media I always point it out.

Yes... but valid points almost always get overridden or dismissed by what somebody "knows," or thinks they know, and is unwilling to let it be challenged regardless of the facts that are put before them. Generally, the point that loses out is "Media outlet xyz isn't as biased as you say it is because of _____" and then it will get laughed at with a response along the lines of "hahaha you're so dumb the media is totally in the tank for Obama" whether that is true or not. Yes liberals do it, and sometimes they admit it, but conservatives do it too, and I have NEVER seen one admit they are doing it.

[mr_genius]

Yes... but valid points almost always get overridden or dismissed by what somebody "knows," or thinks they know, and is unwilling to let it be challenged regardless of the facts that are put before them. Generally, the point that loses out is "Media outlet xyz isn't as biased as you say it is because of _____" and then it will get laughed at with a response along the lines of "hahaha you're so dumb the media is totally in the tank for Obama" whether that is true or not. Yes liberals do it, and sometimes they admit it, but conservatives do it too, and I have NEVER seen one admit they are doing it.

 

Well, I am positive the New York Times is biased, so I guess theres no point in arguing it.

 

Do you think any MSM news is pro-Democrat biased?

 

Do you think FOX is pro-GOP? Could someone convince you that FOX is biased towards the Dems? Would you laugh at someone who said Sean Hannity is pro-Obama?

 

[lostfan]

Well, I am positive the New York Times is biased, so I guess theres no point in arguing it.

 

Do you think any MSM news is pro-Democrat biased?

 

Do you think FOX is pro-GOP? Could someone convince you that FOX is biased towards the Dems? Would you laugh at someone who said Sean Hannity is pro-Obama?

Yes I would laugh hysterically. I do think the NYT is biased, but oftentimes the reasons for them doing a certain story or for there being a certain trend involves other things. Mainly $$$.

[mr_genius]

Yes I would laugh hysterically. I do think the NYT is biased, but oftentimes the reasons for them doing a certain story or for there being a certain trend involves other things. Mainly $$$.

 

I would laugh at them too, but I also laugh at the notion that the NY Times isn't completely pro-Democrat. And laugh with the same vigor.

 

The NYT loses money because of their weak and heavily biased news coverage

Edited August 22, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

I would laugh at them too, but I also laugh at the notion that the NY Times isn't completely pro-Democrat. And laugh with the same vigor.

 

The NYT loses money because of their weak and heavily biased news coverage

That trend isn't unique to the NYT either... the internet is killing old-school paper circulation.

[Balta1701]

That trend isn't unique to the NYT either... the internet is killing old-school paper circulation.

But it's also doing so because the old school ones refuse to adapt. Instead of adjusting their content or working on their quality, or you know, occasionally getting stuff right, they cut back. When they cut back on actual investigative reporting, the quality of the paper declines, and then fewer and fewer people subscribe, so they cut back.

[mr_genius]

That trend isn't unique to the NYT either... the internet is killing old-school paper circulation.

 

It's certainly isn't helping.

[NorthSideSox72]

But it's also doing so because the old school ones refuse to adapt. Instead of adjusting their content or working on their quality, or you know, occasionally getting stuff right, they cut back. When they cut back on actual investigative reporting, the quality of the paper declines, and then fewer and fewer people subscribe, so they cut back.

I don't think this is exactly true. People are cutting back because of the internet primarily. And I'd contend that the old school newspapers still get stuff "right" a lot more often than the TV-based media outlets, and most of the garbage internet-based stuff out there.

 

And all the major papers have been going through major changes to their content and layout lately, and are continuing to do so.

 

[StrangeSox]

Why read yesterday's news in print when you can read the news "as it is happening" on the internets?

[NorthSideSox72]

Why read yesterday's news in print when you can read the news "as it is happening" on the internets?

THAT is why people are doing fewer newspaper subscriptions.

 

But that's also why many papers are putting huge changes into their websites, trying to be as up to date as everyone else.

 

[EvilMonkey]

During the last Presidential election, didn't Biden suggest to Lurch that he tap Mccain for his VP spot? That is going to be interesting hearing Biden talk bad about McCain after all his many previous years of praise.

[EvilMonkey]

Warren Buffet seems to think it would be a good idea for Edwards supporters who donated to start a class action lawsuit to get their money back.

http://www.slate.com/id/2197768/#buffettedwards

 

QUICK: You know, one of the things that the nation is watching is next week, the first of the conventions kicks off, the Democratic National Convention. Originally, John Edwards was expected to be speaking at that convention, but after some revelations and a spectacular fall about--some revelations about his private life, he will no longer be speaking at the convention. Warren, you're somebody who has been supporting Barack Obama. Did you ever give money to John Edwards along the way?

 

BUFFETT: No, I didn't--I didn't give money to John Edwards. And, in fact, I think if I'd given money to him, I'd probably be asking for it back now. It's an interesting situation because John Edwards essentially was soliciting money from people to further his ambitions for the presidency, and, you know, people sent him 50, $100, $200, and I would say that they sent it in while they were being misled by the person who was soliciting the money from them. And, you know, I think if I were Edwards, I might give up a haircut or two and refund at least, you know, the people that gave the 50 or $100, $200 items, because they-- if they had known the facts, they wouldn't have sent him the money, and he is the guy that didn't give them the facts. I mean, he knew that, in effect, he wouldn't be elected president. I mean, the story was out there during the campaign. He denied it, but it was out there. And, in fact, I've never heard of it, but it might be kind of interesting if somebody, some contributor, would bring a class-action suit on behalf of all these people who essentially were led to send money to a man under totally false circumstances, false pretenses, and where he knew it and didn't tell them the truth.

 

QUICK: Hm, that'd be ironic for a trial lawyer...

 

BUFFETT: Yeah.

 

 

[whitesoxfan101]

 

 

I just can't get enough of Obama without a teleprompter. Between Biden and Obama, we should get a few more fun ones like this by early November.

Edited August 23, 2008 by whitesoxfan101

[EvilMonkey]

And with everything John McCain or his supports say being code word for some sort of race-baiting, comes this bit of ass kissing on the left claiming that Biden's own DIRECT raciallt insensitive remarks are an asset. There is spin, and then the is SPIN!

 

Harwood: Biden's Racially-Insensitive Gaffes 'A Strength'

By Mark Finkelstein (Bio | Archive)

August 23, 2008 - 09:27 ET

 

You know the old software programmer's excuse: "that's not a bug. That's a feature!" John Harwood of CNBC/NYT came up with a political variation on the theme this morning to buff up Joe Biden. Biden's gaffes, including the racially-insensitive ones, are actually . . . "a strength."

 

Harwood was chatting with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski on a special Morning Joe edition today, and the topic of Biden's famous "clean and articulate" comment about Obama arose. Biden also made headlines of course with his crack about 7-11s being populated by people with Indian accents.

 

JOHN HARWOOD: He is not somebody who is infused with political correctness, the verbal equivalent of putting his pinky up when he opens his mouth. So this is what, the way ordinary voters are as well. They're not always worried about sort of calibrating every single word by "ooh, is this racially insensitive?" That's something that Joe Biden brings as an asset to the ticket. The gaffes actually show one of his strengths.

 

View video here.

 

R-i-g-h-h-h-t. And no doubt Harwood and the rest of the MSM would also celebrate a Republican candidate prone to racially-insensitive comments. Or not. And of course we remember how the liberal media found Dan Quayle's gaffes endearing, no?

 

Joe's just been named, but Harwood's got to be the early clubhouse leader in the Biden Spinning Sweepstakes.

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelst...tually-strength

 

[EvilMonkey]

But lest we not forget that now is the season for the DIRECT charges or racism to come flying out, blaming all of the white folk who don't vote for Obama as being racist!

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/

 

If Obama Loses

Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.

By Jacob Weisberg

Posted Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008, at 12:02 AM ET

 

Barack Obama

What with the Bush legacy of reckless war and economic mismanagement, 2008 is a year that favors the generic Democratic candidate over the generic Republican one. Yet Barack Obama, with every natural and structural advantage in the presidential race, is running only neck-and-neck against John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

 

If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.[/quote] (more at the link)

 

 

[mr_genius]

Anyone else surprised that the Democrats seem to be going after McCain for being a POW? I think they would be better off attacking the GOP on economic issues.

[WilliamTell]

Anyone else surprised that the Democrats seem to be going after McCain for being a POW? I think they would be better off attacking the GOP on economic issues.

 

 

They'd be better off attacking economic issues certainly. They're also attacking his multiple houses, I don't know how much of an effect that will have in a week or so though.

[mr_genius]

haha it's official. Biden is a new democrat god in the MSM. watching CNN right now laughing my ass off

[southsider2k5]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473

 

Biden endorses

a fusion ticket:

Kerry-McCain

By Mike Stuckey

MSNBC.com Politics Editor

updated 1:06 a.m. CT, Wed., March. 17, 2004

One of the presidential nominating season's most unusual ideas was proposed again Tuesday, this time by one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress, when Sen. Joseph Biden advocated a "unity" ticket of Democratic Sen. John Kerry and Republican Sen. John McCain.

 

Biden made his comments on MSNBC TV's "Hardball" when moderator Chris Matthews asked him: "Do you think McCain is seriously — and I mean this professionally — flirting with the idea of accepting a second place on the ticket with John Kerry, and creating a fusion ticket to run against the president?"

 

Replied Biden: "I think that this is time for unity in this country, and maybe it is time to have a guy like John McCain — a Republican — on the ticket with a guy he does like. They do get along. And they don't have fundamental disagreements on major policies."

 

The red and the blue

When asked by Matthews if he would support such a ticket, Biden said, "I would. Yeah, if John Kerry said that's who he wanted, and McCain — I'd encourage McCain to say yes. I doubt whether John would do it. I doubt whether John McCain would do it. But, you know, we need some unity here, man. The red states and the blue states — we've got to have something to coalesce around here."

 

The notion that a lifelong Republican like McCain would join the Democratic ticket is widely dismissed by many Washington observers, but McCain himself fanned the flames when he said last week on an ABC News show that he would "entertain" joining Kerry on the Democratic ticket.

 

 

"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday. "Obviously I would entertain it."

 

Trial balloon deflated

But the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, shot the idea down a short time later, saying that he had McCain's approval to firmly announce that "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004."

 

‘John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years. Obviously I would entertain it.’

 

 

— SEN. JOHN McCAIN

Arizona Republican

 

And despite his close relationship with Kerry, McCain himself had cast such an invitation as highly unlikely. "It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," he said.

 

Biden's endorsement of such a ticket Tuesday is likely to bring a fresh round of speculation in Washington. The Delaware Democrat is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and considered his own bid for the presidency this year.

 

Writing for MSNBC.com, NBC News analyst and Newsweek Senior Editor Howard Fineman pointed out that McCain and Bush have remained fairly bitter rivals since the 2000 campaign in which Bush beat McCain for the Republican nomination: "Truth be told, John McCain really can't stand George W. Bush, even if he agrees with him on a lot of things, especially Iraq."

 

In the primary campaign in 2000, Fineman wrote, "The good ol' boy supporters of the Bush team savaged McCain and his family, spreading vicious rumors about their character and racial makeup."

 

So despite remaining firmly in the GOP camp and even campaigning for the president, McCain isn't above tweaking Bush and his re-election team by pretending to consider a place on the Democratic ticket, Fineman explained.

[Cknolls]

MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign" [Greg Pollowitz]

 

So says Governor Ed Rendell:

 

Rendell, an ardent Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter during the primaries, now backs Obama in the general election. Brokaw and Rendell began debating campaign coverage, including the on-air comments by Lee Cowan, and when MSNBC came up, Rendell went after the cable network.

 

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said, who called their coverage "absolutely embarrassing."

 

Chris Matthews, Rendell said, "loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons.”

 

At that point, PBS's Judy Woodruff, who was moderating the moderators event, said: "Why don’t we let Governor Rendell sit down."

 

That was met with applause from the crowd of big-time media figures, which included Arianna Huffington, Gwen Ifill, Al Hunt, and Chuck Todd.

 

Woodruff allowed Brokaw to respond, and in defending the network, he said that Matthews and Keith Olbermann are "not the only voices" on MSNBC

 

 

Right, they have Shuster and Mitchell and Barnicle and Abrams.. Lol.

[Cknolls]

Let's be clear, Obama Has experience, it's just not Washington experience. What they fear is Barack Obama's Vision— a vision to empower people and to put people first again and they fear his power to inspire and ennoble men to have hope again — to believe again. They know that Barack offers real change (that means change from GOP domination and manipulation) and he offers forward thinking and progressive ideas and solutions to Really solve the current problems facing us today. One of Barrack's greatest assets is that he is unmired [sic] by the trappings of wealth and power that means big oil, as it is imperative that we find an alternative solution to oil, if the United States is to continue to be prosperous and to thrive. All of these attributes are which makes Barack a truly great leader of men, needed for these times! Some men are born for a holy mission, like the young King David who was made king over his older brothers. Their experience or annointing [sic] comes from God, such a man is Barack

 

 

 

Drink some Kool-Aid.