quote:

Originally posted by GarColga:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JohnGalt:
Hey Obama didn't say that - newnick said "if Obama had used the phrase..."

No, but Senator Obama confused Iraq for Iran, apparently has no idea how many states are in the United States and knows absolutely nothing of history when it comes to past presidents' dealings with enemies of the United States.

My point is, since the media has generally chosen Obama to be their favorite candidate, they will not cover his gaffes and goofs in the same way they cover the gaffes and goofs of, in this case, Senator McCain. They play up McCain's mistakes and downplay (or completely fail to mention) Obama's mistakes.

I see: the media gave a lot of coverage to a story that could dent Obama's popularity in order to hide the fact that they don't cover stories that could dent Obama's popularity.

Actually, the Rev Wright story died a natural death, didn't it? He had his fifteen minutes of fame and people got fed up with him. The relevance of his views to Obama's fitness for office was always in question.

In contrast to the Wright affair, the media continue to ignore the the wingnuts of the religious right that McCain has been courting. When it comes to questioning the candidates' "spiritual guides", McCain has been given a pretty easy ride.

You didn't answer the question - have the mainstream media hinted that McCain has Alzheimer's? I don't think so.

You said of Obama's "47/57 states" slip that 'Had Senator McCain said such a thing, the media would run it over and over again followed by stories on Alzheimer's Disease in a not-too-subtle hint that McCain isn't in the same world as the rest of us'.

It turns out that your claim is easily tested - McCain did make such a slip, saying "President Putin of Germany". If you google it, you'll find a whole lot of blogs and fringe sites poking fun, but the mainstream media didn't run it over and over again followed by stories on Alzheimer's.

Your perception of an anti-McCain, pro-Obama bias in the mainstream media doesn't seem to be based on anything much more substantial than the tremors in Chris Matthews leg.

(Oh, and that Matthews quote in context...

'CHRIS MATTHEWS: I have to tell you, you know, it's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg. I mean, I don't have that too often.

OLBERMANN: Steady.

MATTHEWS: No, seriously. It's a dramatic event. He speaks about America in a way that has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with the feeling we have about our country. And that is an objective assessment. John McCain is a hero. I thought it was very appropriate that Barack Obama extended that fact...' newsbusters.org

It's a fact that McCain is a hero? Dear me, how unfair and biased.)

So far, over here, the only gaffe made by McCain which has been shown and noted here has been his slip over Sunni and Shia.

The Reverend Wright and Senator Obama's discomfort has had a lot of airtime.

Perhaps you'd be happier in Britain, JG. Our news coverage is plainly superior

On the other hand, Fox News (like the BBC) has barely mentioned the Shia and Sunni matter but spent a lot of time, rightly, on the Reverend.Fox News have just been reminding us of the '57 states' too ( '57'? Now there's a mistake: it was Mrs Kerry who was Heinz). Is anyone taking that Obama statement as a serious matter? Or do you, JG, think that the American electorate is even more stupid than the elite are supposed to imagine it?

Those various slips of the tongue are maybe good for a moment's kidding, but they obviously mean little.

McCain's Sunni/Shia gaffe, on the other hand, was maybe more significant because it symbolises how lost the US is in Iraq (I double-checked - that's Iraq with a 'q' ), unable to say clearly who it's fighting or for what purpose, tactically or strategically. Similarly McCain's saying that Hamas would welcome Obama as president was an attempt at a political low blow, and so evidence of losing (moral) bearings, worth a mention.

Some facts and figures on media coverage of Obama and McCain - Media Hold McCain, Obama to Different Standards

The CPMA looks like a place to find out, as objectively as possible, about media bias. Unfortunately, it seems at the moment they're concentrating (like everyone else) on the Obama/Clinton race. Is it possible that McCain is being ignored because the Democratic primaries are simply more interesting?

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:
Unfortunately, it seems at the moment they're concentrating (like everyone else) on the Obama/Clinton race. Is it possible that McCain is being ignored because the Democratic primaries are simply more interesting?

If this web-site is of any account, it could get interesting at the Republican Convention...


http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/ronpaulgop.html

Obama has his own "senior moment"
Maybe this explains how they count votes in Illinois

Interesting link, Lighteningrodd.

But now I'm confused - Ron Paul isn't the Republican right's answer to McCain, is he? The article says Paul 'favors a drastically reduced federal government, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad'.

Bush is for none of those things, and neither is McCain. Ron Paul does make 'McSame' look like Bush III. McCain and Bush agree broadly on the economy, on judical appointments, on foreign policy...

I think one of my questions got lost in the exhilarating rush of this thread - what is it, exactly, that the Republican right don't like about McCain? Is he not theocratic enough? Not corporate-friendly enough?

Answering my own question, here (well, you guys have had nearly an hour): The Closet McCain

The right doesn't trust McCain on gay marriage, abortion, campaign finance reform and gun control, it seems. Are those issues relevant to choosing a president? They also don't trust McCain on immigration, but then they're not too happy with Bush on that, either - they maybe favour bumper-sticker solutions.

It seems also, more generally, that 'on the campaign trail, you could see him losing faith in conservative orthodoxy on issues like poverty, income inequality, health care, and global warming, spurred by encounters with humans in New Hampshire and elsewhere.'

McCain's too reasonable for the hard right?

The "hard right" also does not like that Mccain worked closely with those nasty Democrats Feingold and Kennedy, respectively, on campaign finance reform (successful) and immigration (unsuccessful). He is too bipartisan for the hard liners.

Also, for the hard liners, he has too strong of an environmental bent. He is against drilling in ANWAR and supports a green energy policy. I don't exactly know where this stands politically, but he has a history of supporting Native American causes, perhaps in part due to his location. He has a mixed rating from the United States Chamber of Commerce, indicating that he cannot be counted on for "pro business" legislation. He also has a mixed record with the National Education Association (often identified as "left") which, in reverse, also means he has probably ticked off some conservatives in the process.

I could mention other general issues on which his record is listed as "mixed" by ontheissues.org. Maybe he ticks evereybody off!

McCain on the issues

McCain Feingold was definitely a huge debacle. Of course we also have president Bush to blame as well. If he'd done his job, he had the opportunity to veto this bill & didn't. So now we're stuck with it. Hopefully someone with some sense will make an attempt to get it repealed.

John McCain has a tendency to sway back & forth on several controversial issues, depending on the audience he is talking to. Like I've said before, if I wanted to vote for a Democrat, I'd cross over & vote for one. I see this as an election where there is not a Republican running for President. No matter who gets elected this year, the Democrats win.

quote:

...an election where there is not a Republican running for President

Maybe there's a reason for that - GOP getting crushed in polls, key races.

The planets are aligned in a way they have not been since 1968, this time favoring the Democrats. The Republican Party, normally fairly right-reined, is in disarray.

I am surprised that McCain is running anywhere close to Obama in National Polls, especially given Obama's exposure during the Democratic race.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

...an election where there is not a Republican running for President

Maybe there's a reason for that - GOP getting crushed in polls, key races.

While the Politico article makes for some interesting reading, it really does not key in on why the Republican Party is in such shambles. Actually very few in the media really understand.

Many would point out to the war in Iraq being the cause. While the situation there certainly is not great, that in & of itself is not the reason.

The hard-core Republicans are very disgusted with elected officials in BOTH parties. I shall start with President Bush. Has he upheld principles endeared by the Republican Party??? I will say he has placed two excellent Justices on the Supreme Court, in John Roberts & Samuel Alito. But President Bush at times has gotten a little too cozy with Democrats such as former Sen. Tom Daschle's farm-aid bill, Sen. Ted Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind" education bill & the McCain Feingold bill that now corrupts campaign financing. Then there is the war in Iraq. While many such as myself still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq, there is no denying many things have been mishandled. It might have been more effective to have done a massive carpet bombing over the whole country from the beginning & be done with it. Also the National Debt having sky-rocketed, but Congress is also to blame for that as well. Nobody wants to sacrifice their earmarks & pork barrel projects.

Then there are the Republicans in both houses of Congress. In the '94 off-year elections, they took over with the concept of the "Contract with America". They campaigned strong & hard on it. Many voters such as myself was all for it. I personally was glad to see 40 years of the old Democrat politboro come to an end. What the Republicans were not prepared for was the fact the Democrats were regrouping and ready to fight back. The Democrats & their willing accomplices in the news media came back fighting with their rhetoric, spin & lies. The Republicans instead of standing on what got them elected, ends up caving in to the Democrat spin machine. The biggest mistake the Republicans have made is running away from President Bush due to the Iraq situation. They should have banded together & stood by him in unity. They should have seen & pointed out the fact, the Democrats were using Iraq as a political football. The fact the Democrats were using Iraq as leverage to gain back their power in Congress.

So in the '06 off year election we now have a Democrat Congress again. What do we have to show for it??? Skyrocketing energy prices, the potential for government take over of health care, higher taxes on the horizon and also more government intrusion in our lives.

So what are some of the issues in this election...actually nothing new from previous Presidential elections. Health care, the economy, climate change is more talked about than before. And of course how to handle the Iraq situation. The hard-core Republicans or Conservatives are squeezed out of the debates in this election due to who has been nominated on the Republican side. Many Republicans this year will not even bother to vote. Others such as myself will be looking real hard at 3rd party candidates. If there ever was an election we needed a viable alternative candidate to vote for, this is it.

quote:

...many such as myself still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq...

Why?

quote:

It might have been more effective to have done a massive carpet bombing over the whole country...

Are you serious?

It'd be hard to spread democracy if everybody was dead.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

...many such as myself still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq...

Why?

quote:

It might have been more effective to have done a massive carpet bombing over the whole country...

Are you serious?

Why??? Sure the U.S. could have done nothing. The United Nations protecting Saddam & covering up the "Oil-for Food" scandal & all. Just how many years was the debate suppose to be going on about WMD's before the question was really & truly resolved.

As for carpet bombing Iraq...Having read my previous posts for going on 6 years (longer if we count our time at Ask Jeeves), what do you think nnn??? Am I serious??? Or am I just "shooting my mouth off"

Now where did I see that comment before...

quote:

Sure the U.S. could have done nothing.

That doesn't tell us why it was necessary to invade Iraq. It was not a question of either invading or doing nothing. That's the logical fallacy known as a false dilemma.

The oil for food scandal was hardly justification for the invasion in the first place, and much worse and more dangerous corruption (not to mention the incalculable death and destruction) has happened as a result of the invasion.

The debate about Iraq's threatening arsenal of WMD could have burbled along quite safely for some time, as there wasn't one (not the case, for example, with the protracted negotiations over North Korea's WMD, which clearly exist along with delivery systems and a deranged leader in charge - why isn't it necessary to invade North Korea?).

Why do you still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq? Do you have a solid reason?

quote:

Having read my previous posts for going on 6 years (longer if we count our time at Ask Jeeves), what do you think nnn???

I take it you weren't serious.

quote:

Originally posted by newnickname:

quote:

Having read my previous posts for going on 6 years (longer if we count our time at Ask Jeeves), what do you think nnn???

I take it you weren't serious.

While it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings to do such a thing, I am realistic enough to know our leadership wouldn't do it...Now if Hillary was President, I think she would have the cajones to do it

You were serious? It wouldn't hurt your feelings to kill about thirty million people? And your justification for doing so; profit skimming and kickbacks in oil deals, a non-existent threat and a lame "why did I pick Combo 1 - well sure I could have starved instead" argument that wouldn't justify a choice in a fast food restaurant.

Seriously, why do you still feel it was necessary to invade Iraq? It's a war we're talking about - you ought to have a compelling reason for starting a war.