gadgetlady

I read an interesting commentary about liberals vs. conservatives that basically went along the lines of: when conservatives lose, the look at the reasons they lost and try to evaluate their message to see where it's flawed; when liberals lose, they blame it on lies and trickery, and never look at their message to see why it didn't convince. It's all a conspiracy theory; there couldn't possibly be something actually wrong with the message. Here's a fascinating article out of the UK as to why Obama is having trouble: Barack Obama the speechmaker is being rumbled | Gerard Baker - Times Online

Here's another shining example of media neutrality: John Roberts of CNN refers to the Democrat party as "we": CNN's Roberts Refers to Democrats as 'We' | NewsBusters.org

:smilielol5:Oh, JWRN, I love it when I get to use my favorite smiley!

Back to that lecture about how US politics works, huh? Legislative and executive branches . . . who passes laws . . . it's important to know this stuff.

LOL! I like Anderson, too. Not because he's hot, though (I only have eyes for dh).

I agree. He usually sounds like a parrot for the RNC talking points, and never ventures far off that path.

Cute! (Actually, he probably does)

How about another example of objectivity? I'm sure most of you have heard from the various news reports this week that Palin favors going to war with Russia Here are some of the headlines to demonstrate: SF Chronicle: Palin would support war with Russia Scotsman: Palin prepared for war with Russia on Georgia CTV: Palin leaves open option of war with Russia AFP: Palin does not rule out war with Russia and of course, from ABC's own website: EXCLUSIVE: GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY Want the real story? Here's a transcript of the interview, and what is in bold is what ABC edited out: GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia? PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help. But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members. We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today. GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade. PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries. And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to. It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries. His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen. Paints a very different picture when you hear everything that was said! For more of what ended up on the cutting room floor, go to ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview | NewsBusters.org.

Keith Olbermann is a pig. And I'm saying that objectively

I definitely have an opinion on things. I'm not hiding that and I never have. But I'm also willing to call a spade a spade. If there's something with the Republicans I disagree with, I will absolutely say it. And if I think they've misstepped or misstated facts, I will absolutely point it out. You may be right in claiming that I've only agreed with liberals once on this thread, saying the YouTube video was garbage, but the quantity of my agreement with liberals doesn't also quantify my objectivity. It only quantifies my agreement with liberals. In other words, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I've abandoned the ability to be objective.

Thank you, Nanook. I have a feeling people think Fox is so conservative because they're just used to liberal in general from the news, so a more balanced reporting is anathema.

I hate Bill O'Reilly. I think he's a pompous, arrogant ass. But that's just my opinion

I never said Fox didn't have conservative commentators -- it's the reporting in general that isn't biased. Having Sean Hannity as a commentator doesn't make Fox conservative (never mind the fact that his co-commentator, Alan Colmes, is liberal) any more than having Joe Scarborough make MSNBC conservative or having Glenn Beck makes CNN conservative. There is a difference between commentators and reporters. That's why MSNBC pulled Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann off of reporting -- because they were too biased for reporting. They weren't too biased for their own shows, as commentators, but they were too obviously biased for reporting. Based on that reasoning, then, Charles Gibson is conservative as well?

Didn't take too long for me to find it! LOL! From Hot Air Why can’t McCain e-mail? Boston Globe explained it in 2000; Update: So did Forbes posted at 7:15 pm on September 12, 2008 by Ed Morrissey Earlier today, Barack Obama’s campaign released an ad attacking John McCain for not knowing how to send an e-mail. Their crack research team apparently never heard of Google or Lexis-Nexis, but Jonah Goldberg does. He discovers why McCain doesn’t use a keyboard — his torturers made sure he couldn’t. The Boston Globe reported it eight years ago: McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball. After Vietnam, McCain had Ann Lawrence, a physical therapist, help him regain flexibility in his leg, which had been frozen in an extended position by a shattered knee. It was the only way he could hope to resume his career as a Navy flier, but Lawrence said the treatment, taken twice a week for six months, was excruciatingly painful. ”He endured it, he wouldn’t settle for less,” said Lawrence, who rejoiced with McCain when he passed the Navy physical. ”I have never seen such toughness and resolve.” Making fun of a war hero’s severe injuries — smooth move, Team O. Talk about computer illiteracy! Doesn’t anyone on the Obama campaign know what they’re doing? Didn’t it ever occur to them that a man who can’t raise his arms above his head might have a physical barrier to using a computer? If this is what happens when they takes the gloves off, maybe they should just keep them on in the future. Update (AP): I’m not sure how he’s accessing the ‘Net given his injuries, but he does appear to have some kind of access. From an NYT interview in July: Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly? Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes. (Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”) Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog. Q: But do you go on line for yourself? Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else. Maybe he’s able to move the mouse so he can access sites bookmarked for him? Update (Ed): Jonah Goldberg makes an excellent point in an update: Lord knows I think the chicken-hawk arguments are stupid. And I don’t think the fact that Obama never served in the military should count against him in and of itself. But how stupid is it for the Obama campaign to claim that McCain is unqualified to be president because he can’t grasp cyber-security issues based on the fact he has never sent an email when the McCain campaign can just as easily say Obama can’t understand first order national security issues because he’s never fired a rife, flown a plane, commanded men in battle, or faced an enemy? I mean which prepares someone to be commander in chief better, hitting “send” on AOL or fighting a war? In fact, didn’t Obama just make all of those arguments valid and fair? Update II: Ace notes that Forbes Magazine noted McCain’s disability in 2000, too: In certain ways, McCain was a natural Web candidate. Chairman of the Senate Telecommunications Subcommittee and regarded as the U.S. Senate’s savviest technologist, McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. “She’s a whiz on the keyboard, and I’m so laborious,” McCain admits. How difficult was this for a campaign to find before they ran an ad embarrassing themselves?

BTW, speaking of untrue things, I read somewhere today (I have yet to verify) that Obama's ad criticizing McCain for not using email in distorted -- he can't type (or do a number of other things, like comb his hair or even raise his arms above his shoulders) due to his injuries in Vietnam. Everything has a background story, huh?

No such animal. Everyone has an opinion and it infiltrates everything they say. The best we can do is identify their opinion so we can gauge their "facts" knowing what's behind it. BTW, that's the case for real life as well

I don't think it's your brain at all. I think he's just boring. Except for the part where he talked about "[his] Muslim faith" and George Stephanopolous corrected him LOL! I wonder if he hadn't been corrected if he would have realized the gaffe!

At the time he asked (after she had already been "in the running" for a while (which, despite reports you've heard to the contrary, she knew she was a possible pick for a long time), she may very well have not hesitated at all. She may already have been through the thought-process and made her decision. That being said, I will never understand the mentality of those who want to run for top office. I wouldn't accept the job of President or VP if it were handled to me on a silver platter. I wouldn't want that kind of responsibility. I think politicians who seek that kind of office are a different breed altogether and I don't think we "normal people" can understand them. I think I posted on this thread earlier but it may have been on another one: first rule of politics -- never answer a question directly. Second rule of politics: if you do answer directly, always be prepared to tell the other side why you answered the way you did, when you really agree with them. It sucks, but that's the way it is. If politicians just answered yes or no, they'd likely never be elected.

I don't watch Fox all the time; not hardly. I watch a variety of networks and read a variety of websites. But I most definitely notice a bias. I wish there were a conservative counterpart to the liberal networks. Fox has conservative commentators, but they're not the norm. In fact, I read a report a while back that Fox reporters were personally just as liberal as reporters from other networks. The difference is that they make an attempt to be fair. As to the interview, I haven't watched the whole thing, either. But the thing that pissed me off in what I did hear was the same question. When she answered she was ready, he accused her of "hubris". Yet if she had answered that she wasn't sure she was ready, he would have attacked her on that. There was no way for her to answer to his satisfaction. Either she's not ready or she's cocky because she is.

Not apples to oranges at all. Why shouldn't Obama answer tough questions just because it was prior to the nomination? And why hasn't he been asked them since? And I think you'll find the same lines of questioning to be true with any MSM personality. They are generally more hostile to Republicans than they are to Democrats.

momfive, although I agree with you politically, you should note that this is the Rants and Raves section of the board -- as it says above, "Enter at your own risk". You will find that many of us discuss political and social issues here. Dive on in -- the water's fine!

I agree, JWRN, but it fascinates me that their bias so blinds them that they can't see it. I think I'm fair-minded enough to admit when I see bias on the conservative side. It's sort-of like those blind studies where they ask people about "Candidate A" and "Candidate B", with specific beliefs and policies attributed to each one; people will choose one over the other, but when you attach a NAME to Candidates A and B, all of a sudden people reverse their opinions. I challenge anyone to cover the names of the candidates above and look objectively at the questions asked. There IS a difference, and a big one. Add to that the fact that it was the VP candidate that got the tough questions, and it just magnifies the bias.

Do you see a difference in the tone and issue-selection in the interviews? All biases aside, all hatred of one candidate or the other aside, all bitterness about modern politics or the media aside, do you see a difference?

Here are the current numbers in case anyone wants them: President Bush Job Approval RCP Average (average of several national polls) Approve 32.7 Disapprove 64.1 Spread -31.4 Congressional Job Approval RCP Average (average of several national polls) Approve 20.3 Disapprove 72.0 Spread -51.7 This is from RealClearPolitics - Opinion, News, Analysis, Videos and Polls (left column, towards the bottom) for dates 9/5 thru 9/11 It's interesting to me how everyone blames Bush for everything. It shows a general misunderstanding of politics. Bush is an executive; he doesn't make law. That's the job of the legislative branch, or the Democrat-run Congress (and Senate). My daughter, age 8, periodically asks me things like, "Why doesn't President Bush make ______ legal (or illegal)?", or, "If McCain is elected, will he make _____ legal (or illegal)?" (I'm specifically leaving the issue out because it isn't the point). I explain to her every time that the President isn't in charge of making the law, but it's difficult for her 8YO mind to grasp because it feels, from watching the news, that he's like a king -- in charge of everything, with the ability to make laws as he chooses. Apparently, many in adult America need to hear the same lecture.

You know, it's interesting when a factual presentation is characterized as "trying to pick a fight". Respond to the issues. Address the issues, don't attack the person presenting them. When you attack the person, your argument shows itself to be baseless.