This move is a mistake. We already heard the "without the media filter" refrain in the debate, which leads me to believe she doesn't know what a filter is. A filter is if you say or do a whole bunch of things, and the press doesn't leak all of it. E.g. when JFK had an affair, the media filter prevented most Americans from knowing about it until much later. The other common filter is we don't hear every word uttered by each candidate, because most of it doesn't pass the "news-worthiness" filter. But, here it is in her own words.
"The Sarah Palin in those interviews was a little bit annoyed," she said. "It's like, man, no matter what you say, you are going to get clobbered. If you choose to answer a question, you are going to get clobbered on the answer. If you choose to try to pivot and go to another subject that you believe that Americans want to hear about, you get clobbered for that too."
So, for the Robroy's out there...is she still spunky when she's whining?
Yeish, you Obama supports are mean with all the name-calling. Do you think McCain would resort to name-calling? Or would Palin rely on false ad-hominem attacks like that?
OK, all of you guys are funny. In other news, apparently freedom of the press is now a privilege, as opposed to a constitutional right:
"As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."
I'll add to your quote, that I find the people who most frequently decry press bias are most often the ones who do not actually know what media bias is. Further, Palin does not understand what media bias is, among the things she misunderstands.
Just to clear this up for people, bias is not when the press spends more time on one "side" of an issue than another. E.g. if there's an organization called "People for a Flat Earth", their position is so ludicrous that it is not biased for the media to ignore their position when discussing the spherical nature of the earth (in photographs from space for instance). In other words, if your deeply held beliefs are nuts (I won't get into what constitutes that), and the media appears to "disrespect" those beliefs, it means you are biased...not the media.
This is how you occasionally hear people exclaim that the only unbiased news is Fox. Not that other media is completely unbiased, but Fox is clearly biased in a manner that closely relates to the deeply held bias of a subset of our population. I will say, it's a savvy marketing move by Fox News, picking a dissatisfied group and giving them what they want, even if there is no journalistic integrity in the position...
So, here's some examples that run counter to what people normally associate as bias. If the media spends more time on Obama than McCain (June), it's probably not media bias if the difference is explained by Obama running a more newsworthy campaign. If the media gives equal time to global warming opponents as it does to proponents, that is media bias, as the evidence strongly favors one position over the other.
It's funny about Fox News, because I don't have a problem with editorializing news like they do. That's totally fine. What I have a problem with is them pretending like they're not editorializing and that they are some sort of great bastion of truth. That is what is dishonest.
News has everything to do with ratings and advertising dollars nowadays anyway. News agencies report on what will clear out the newsstands or get people to watch them on television.
Oh no. This will not go down well with McCain's old people block:
"John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs."
So...what happened to the ardent McCain backers on this thread? The ones who popped up in droves about 30 seconds after he selected Palin?
Did you guys go away because, like most of America, the Palin bloom is off the rose? Or is it because rather than McCain developing a commanding lead he is so far behind in the polls right now that even if racism shows up in the actual votes that wasn't there in the polls, that he might still lose handedly?
Anyone seeing the newest polls? It used to be that there were only a few "toss-up states", and that either candidate had about 170 electorial college votes as strong republican/democrat and another 70 or so as "lean".
Now, McCain has 158 strong republican votes, and just West Virginia as lean. Pennsylvania is leaning Obama's direction. Meanwhile, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina have gone from being Republican states to toss-ups. And of course, Ohio and Florida are toss-ups as well (though Obama does hold tenuous leads in those states).
Some of the other sites that collect polling information are showing Obama in the ~350 EV range right now, only two weeks after showing McCain in the 275 range (i.e. taking all the Bush states and winning). The nationwide polls are tracking O+4 to O+8, after being tied to M+3 a couple weeks ago.
Tonight's debate seems largely pointless. The questions are all from citizens and there's no followup or debate. So, 90 minutes of spewing off rehashed one-liners. Of course, this slightly favors McCain because he can lie through his teeth and Obama (or the moderator) can't do anything about it.
I know Rob was constantly talking about how if Obama lost there would be riots from them crazy black folk. What about riots from white people if he wins? Here's a couple of disturbing stories:
I've been saying this for months, but I've thought for a long time that it was going to get REAL ugly. I think with people being panicked about everything that it could get REAL REAL ugly.
Those are disgusting articles. I have to say, Wasilla politics is starting to look a lot like regular politics except:
1) Rather than avoiding your failures, you make up pathetic excuses for them.
2) You encourage hate speech.
Go McCain/Palin! You've really brought a maverick approach to this campaign.
I always thought political rallys were somewhat silly, because you're basically preaching to the choir. Getting people who are going to vote for your absolutely regardless of what you do or say, or what the other guy/gal does or says, does not win elections.
I do feel like McCain's approach, to radicalize Obama, will do no good. It will not help McCain win; moderate sensible people will not look at Barack Obama and think he's a terrorist and will not condone opponents who implicitly approve of people wanting to kill him. It certainly won't help post-election, regardless of who wins. If all McCain/Palin have left to offer is hate, is it too late to get someone else?
I must say that the radicalization is having an impact on McCain supporters. Several acquaintances have been bringing up Ayers, Wright, etc the last couple days.
It does strike me as funny that they're bringing up these things that were all brought up and I think explained pretty well during the primaries. And I think that McCain's ties to Keating are much more relevant since they involved the exact kind of banking problems that we're facing right now. I mean after all, Obama didn't spend several years going on vacation with Ayers to Mexico or try to push deregulation for any of Ayers' causes, did he?
By the way, I remember alot of talk about the records of the educational board that Obama and Ayers were on together were released about a month or two ago. Did anything come out of those? I would think that if there was any "there" there, that we would've already heard about it. Those records were open to alot of people and I find it hard to believe that all of the press is waiting for an October surprise on that.
I don't understand how you can fill a townhall with undecideds. Somehow they round up people who are interested enough in politics to attend and participate in a debate, but still can't make up their mind?
I always thought political rallys were somewhat silly, because you're basically preaching to the choir. Getting people who are going to vote for your absolutely regardless of what you do or say, or what the other guy/gal does or says, does not win elections.
This is not entirely true. Perhaps in the largest cities, you will only get the "choir" but in major sections of the country, people will come out to rallies just because it's the only chance they'll get to see a president live.
Imagine living in a city of about 20,000 in Iowa or Ohio or some other disputed state. In most months, the most exciting public event in your city is a high school football game. But now, a possible president might come in and give a speech. If you're on the fence, or even leaning towards one candidate you might turn out for the rally just to see what it's all about.
Due to the magic of anecdotal experience (so and so really gets our problems, because I saw him in person and he/she seemed to understand), such events do make a difference.
Of course, negative campaign ads seem to be more effective...which is just a sad statement on humanity I guess.
It's funny, I actually read a blog post link that someone sent me the other day about this. It was a guy who had a good friend who was conservative and the two of them always debated, etc. The liberal was going to the Obama rally and talked his friend into coming with him for fun. They were from Michigan.
His friend came and actually enjoyed himself quite alot. He said that he was surprised that after seeing him in person he had a much higher perception of him and actually thought that Obama has a much better grasp on regular mainstream Americans, but was still going to probably vote McCain.
Then two days later McCain announced that he was pulling out of Michigan. The guys' friend called him and said that he was voting for Obama now. His comment was that after going to the rally and seeing that Obama was fighting for Michigan's vote and now having a positive view of him made him think about it. Then once McCain pulled out, his comment was, "McCain isn't even willing to work for my vote anymore. Barack wants it and is working hard for it. I'm voting for him now."
Also rallies in local areas gives you a TON of free local press when you come to town.
Good story Chuck. That's a surprisingly drastic example, but I think it's telling enough. What's harmed McCain lately, is that he fell so far behind he is now in "saving face mode".
You know when your favorite football team is down 27-6, in the 4th quarter and they are stopped at the 20 yard line. It might be 4th and 5, but they absolutely need the touchdown, if they go for it they might look bad, but if kick a field goal they are essentially conceding the game.
Well, McCain is pulling out of contested states in an effort to keep the lead in state which were previously firmly republican. Maybe he doesn't have the cash to respond in every battleground state, but that's a loser move. Rather than try for the win, he's trying to scare voters in states currently leaning his way to stay there. I don't think it's going to work, but you never really know.
This debate is just plain tedious. And I'm getting really tired of McCain spouting lies on Obama's positions that anyone who even watched the last debate will recognize as lies. This election has devolved to a pathetic state.
I missed the last (second) debate except for the last half hour. I didn't hear / see anything that would be significant with respect to changing anybody's mind.
So, who won?
.
FWIW, I really dislike Palin's statement that Obama pals around with terrorists. She is pushing the "guilt by association" thing way beyond reasonable limits.
. Palin hits Obama for 'terrorist' connection
. Bill Ayers
. Who is Bill Ayers?
.
.
Didn't like this debate. I think Obama pulled out ahead and again, undecideds think so too from the early polls I've seen.
The answer time was too short, they were both constantly going over. McCain just came across as a jackass. "That one", "still don't know what the fine will be!!!" and I remember there was one other really lame joke in the beginning too. Still wouldn't look at Obama.
Yeah, the Ayers thing is just annoying. This has all been really well vetted during the primaries. Here's the Stephanopolous question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEajOYOE5Yw
The page on the RNC website showing all of his links to Ayers is not anything new.
McCain's relationship with Keating is much more troublesome in what it says about how he views the economy.
And also Palin's relationship with the AIP. I said this before and I'll say it again. If Joe Biden's wife had been a member of the Communist Party he would've never been chosen as VP. The fact that he belonged to a Cessationist party I think is pretty disturbing and should be to anyone who isn't a total right wing nutjob.
Piling onto Chuck's earlier post, it's getting ugly at McCain campaign stops, but he doesn't seem to mind. What's starting to annoy me is the myopic view of these people.
"I'm mad, and I'm really mad," said one man who'd been called on to ask a question. "It's not the economy. It's the socialist taking over our country." McCain started to respond, and the man shot back sternly. "Let me finish please. When you have an Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the hooligans up there gonna run this country we've got to have our head examined. It's time that you two who are representing us, and we are mad."
So, let's do the math here. In the last 28 years, we've had a republican president for 20 of them. Congress was controlled by the republicans between...what 1994-2006? And these guys are tired of Obama running the country?!?!?!? Do these fools not realize that their guy is president right now????
Granted, this particular congress has been terrible, but they've also been placed in an odd position. Bush/Cheney have been seizing additional powers at an astonishing rate, and we are in two wars. Those were hardly typical situations in the last 200 years of USAs existence. I can only hope this kind of talk is the result of foolhardy optimism (like when you know your favorite sports team is a .500 squad at best, and they are playing the best team in the league, but you still imagine some desperate scenario where they will pull it off).
Comments
this pretty much sums it up.
This move is a mistake. We already heard the "without the media filter" refrain in the debate, which leads me to believe she doesn't know what a filter is. A filter is if you say or do a whole bunch of things, and the press doesn't leak all of it. E.g. when JFK had an affair, the media filter prevented most Americans from knowing about it until much later. The other common filter is we don't hear every word uttered by each candidate, because most of it doesn't pass the "news-worthiness" filter. But, here it is in her own words.
So, for the Robroy's out there...is she still spunky when she's whining?
Come now, don't you think a real nerd would have used symbolic logic rather than writing things out?
E.g.
Yeish, you Obama supports are mean with all the name-calling. Do you think McCain would resort to name-calling? Or would Palin rely on false ad-hominem attacks like that?
I don't care who you are, but that's a hilarious picture of Mrs Palin.
"As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we've really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance."
A quote from our fave Alaskan
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch ... lin-a.html?
Just to clear this up for people, bias is not when the press spends more time on one "side" of an issue than another. E.g. if there's an organization called "People for a Flat Earth", their position is so ludicrous that it is not biased for the media to ignore their position when discussing the spherical nature of the earth (in photographs from space for instance). In other words, if your deeply held beliefs are nuts (I won't get into what constitutes that), and the media appears to "disrespect" those beliefs, it means you are biased...not the media.
This is how you occasionally hear people exclaim that the only unbiased news is Fox. Not that other media is completely unbiased, but Fox is clearly biased in a manner that closely relates to the deeply held bias of a subset of our population. I will say, it's a savvy marketing move by Fox News, picking a dissatisfied group and giving them what they want, even if there is no journalistic integrity in the position...
So, here's some examples that run counter to what people normally associate as bias. If the media spends more time on Obama than McCain (June), it's probably not media bias if the difference is explained by Obama running a more newsworthy campaign. If the media gives equal time to global warming opponents as it does to proponents, that is media bias, as the evidence strongly favors one position over the other.
News has everything to do with ratings and advertising dollars nowadays anyway. News agencies report on what will clear out the newsstands or get people to watch them on television.
Wait, isn't that an oxymoron?
there's no "team" in maverick - but there is an "I" and a "me"!
"John McCain would pay for his health plan with major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid, a top aide said, in a move that independent analysts estimate could result in cuts of $1.3 trillion over 10 years to the government programs."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1223155 ... lenews_wsj
Did you guys go away because, like most of America, the Palin bloom is off the rose? Or is it because rather than McCain developing a commanding lead he is so far behind in the polls right now that even if racism shows up in the actual votes that wasn't there in the polls, that he might still lose handedly?
Anyone seeing the newest polls? It used to be that there were only a few "toss-up states", and that either candidate had about 170 electorial college votes as strong republican/democrat and another 70 or so as "lean".
Now, McCain has 158 strong republican votes, and just West Virginia as lean. Pennsylvania is leaning Obama's direction. Meanwhile, Nevada, Colorado, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina have gone from being Republican states to toss-ups. And of course, Ohio and Florida are toss-ups as well (though Obama does hold tenuous leads in those states).
Here's where I'm getting my numbers.
Tonight's debate seems largely pointless. The questions are all from citizens and there's no followup or debate. So, 90 minutes of spewing off rehashed one-liners. Of course, this slightly favors McCain because he can lie through his teeth and Obama (or the moderator) can't do anything about it.
http://outtheotherear.wordpress.com/200 ... -go-south/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... view=print
I've been saying this for months, but I've thought for a long time that it was going to get REAL ugly. I think with people being panicked about everything that it could get REAL REAL ugly.
1) Rather than avoiding your failures, you make up pathetic excuses for them.
2) You encourage hate speech.
Go McCain/Palin! You've really brought a maverick approach to this campaign.
I do feel like McCain's approach, to radicalize Obama, will do no good. It will not help McCain win; moderate sensible people will not look at Barack Obama and think he's a terrorist and will not condone opponents who implicitly approve of people wanting to kill him. It certainly won't help post-election, regardless of who wins. If all McCain/Palin have left to offer is hate, is it too late to get someone else?
I must say that the radicalization is having an impact on McCain supporters. Several acquaintances have been bringing up Ayers, Wright, etc the last couple days.
By the way, I remember alot of talk about the records of the educational board that Obama and Ayers were on together were released about a month or two ago. Did anything come out of those? I would think that if there was any "there" there, that we would've already heard about it. Those records were open to alot of people and I find it hard to believe that all of the press is waiting for an October surprise on that.
This is not entirely true. Perhaps in the largest cities, you will only get the "choir" but in major sections of the country, people will come out to rallies just because it's the only chance they'll get to see a president live.
Imagine living in a city of about 20,000 in Iowa or Ohio or some other disputed state. In most months, the most exciting public event in your city is a high school football game. But now, a possible president might come in and give a speech. If you're on the fence, or even leaning towards one candidate you might turn out for the rally just to see what it's all about.
Due to the magic of anecdotal experience (so and so really gets our problems, because I saw him in person and he/she seemed to understand), such events do make a difference.
Of course, negative campaign ads seem to be more effective...which is just a sad statement on humanity I guess.
His friend came and actually enjoyed himself quite alot. He said that he was surprised that after seeing him in person he had a much higher perception of him and actually thought that Obama has a much better grasp on regular mainstream Americans, but was still going to probably vote McCain.
Then two days later McCain announced that he was pulling out of Michigan. The guys' friend called him and said that he was voting for Obama now. His comment was that after going to the rally and seeing that Obama was fighting for Michigan's vote and now having a positive view of him made him think about it. Then once McCain pulled out, his comment was, "McCain isn't even willing to work for my vote anymore. Barack wants it and is working hard for it. I'm voting for him now."
Also rallies in local areas gives you a TON of free local press when you come to town.
You know when your favorite football team is down 27-6, in the 4th quarter and they are stopped at the 20 yard line. It might be 4th and 5, but they absolutely need the touchdown, if they go for it they might look bad, but if kick a field goal they are essentially conceding the game.
Well, McCain is pulling out of contested states in an effort to keep the lead in state which were previously firmly republican. Maybe he doesn't have the cash to respond in every battleground state, but that's a loser move. Rather than try for the win, he's trying to scare voters in states currently leaning his way to stay there. I don't think it's going to work, but you never really know.
So, who won?
.
FWIW, I really dislike Palin's statement that Obama pals around with terrorists. She is pushing the "guilt by association" thing way beyond reasonable limits.
.
Palin hits Obama for 'terrorist' connection
.
Bill Ayers
.
Who is Bill Ayers?
.
.
The answer time was too short, they were both constantly going over. McCain just came across as a jackass. "That one", "still don't know what the fine will be!!!" and I remember there was one other really lame joke in the beginning too. Still wouldn't look at Obama.
Yeah, the Ayers thing is just annoying. This has all been really well vetted during the primaries. Here's the Stephanopolous question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEajOYOE5Yw
The page on the RNC website showing all of his links to Ayers is not anything new.
McCain's relationship with Keating is much more troublesome in what it says about how he views the economy.
And also Palin's relationship with the AIP. I said this before and I'll say it again. If Joe Biden's wife had been a member of the Communist Party he would've never been chosen as VP. The fact that he belonged to a Cessationist party I think is pretty disturbing and should be to anyone who isn't a total right wing nutjob.
So, let's do the math here. In the last 28 years, we've had a republican president for 20 of them. Congress was controlled by the republicans between...what 1994-2006? And these guys are tired of Obama running the country?!?!?!? Do these fools not realize that their guy is president right now????
Granted, this particular congress has been terrible, but they've also been placed in an odd position. Bush/Cheney have been seizing additional powers at an astonishing rate, and we are in two wars. Those were hardly typical situations in the last 200 years of USAs existence. I can only hope this kind of talk is the result of foolhardy optimism (like when you know your favorite sports team is a .500 squad at best, and they are playing the best team in the league, but you still imagine some desperate scenario where they will pull it off).