posted
or more correctly, how about a rehash of why Dukakis defeated Biden, or maybe a huge indepth examination of why Biden's son and Biden's brother are under investigation? No? Hmmm, I wonder why?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it would not sell newspapers. People aren't going to get excited over a rehash of why Dukakis defeated Biden. People are going to get excited when somebody they've never heard of is nominated as the first female Republican candidate for president and it turns out she has multiple scandals going on, including a pregnant teenage daughter (particularly when the mother is trying to make the case that she represents "family values"). It may not be a good thing for American politics that this is what people pay the most attention to, but the media generally has a pretty good idea what people will go out and read about.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So no investigation of Biden's son and Biden's brother? Wouldn't that make a great story?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
no because merely being related doesn't make you an accomplice to anything.
Also dear god Palin seems worse and worse every day I started out "Huh, she seems alright, unexpected by alright" to now "dear god she'll destroy everything"
IP: Logged |
posted
DK, What makes you say they aren't investigating it? The Washington Post did a story on it on August 24 ( link) the day after Obama announced he was the nominee.
The New York Times ran a story on it on August 25 link. The LA Times ran a story on it on August 27 and 28.
You should also note that Palin's daughters pregnancy was announced by the family, not the newspapers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MSM is Main Stream Media - meaning television stations, traditional newspapers, etc. None of these printed or televised rumors about Palin's daughter until after it was announced by the family. The rumors came from nontraditional media, such as bloggers - or threads on Hatrack...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Cactus Jack: Right, because the MSM was busy running with outrageous rumors from the DailyKOS.
Give me a link to any place in the MSM that ran rumors about Palin's daughter prior to the families announcement.
As I pointed out before, three purportedly liberal main stream newspapers (Washington Post, NY Times and LA Times) were running stories on Biden's family members financial scandals within as little as 24 hours after Obama announced he was the VP choice. So show me one mainstream news outlet that said anything about Palin's daughters problems prior to when the family announced it.
If you are going to count rumors reported on liberal blogs, then they need to be compared to rumors that Obama is actually a muslim terrorist and other lies being spread by wight wing wackos. And I might note that those links have been made by people like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who are much closer to being in the MSM than the DailyKOS.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: DK, What makes you say they aren't investigating it? The Washington Post did a story on it on August 24 ( link) the day after Obama announced he was the nominee.
The New York Times ran a story on it on August 25 link. The LA Times ran a story on it on August 27 and 28.
Front page news for the Times? Post? Major TV networks? Nope. Buried in the back. Has the Times covered that scandal the same way they are covering Palin's daughter's pregnancy? Being pregnant is more of a story than being indicted for fraud?
Palin's daughter's pregnancy and the associated smear campaign was already launched by liberal blogs before the family announced it. I suspect you knew that though DailyKos
posted
DK, That clip was first broadcast after the McCain campaign made the announcement. CNN admits they were investigating the scandalous rumors that were being spread on the internet when they received word that announcement was going to be made. That isn't the same as reporting unfounded rumors. You are going to have to try harder because this doesn't back your claim.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
The rumors that Palin's 5th child was actually her grandchild started with a youtube video.
This video was linked to by the DailyKOS.
Then, Andrew Sullivan pickedupthe baton. Sullivan is actually the bridge point, in that he's a blogger, but a blogger who blogs for a MSM website (The Atlantic magazine), and it was when he started talking about it, that other MSM news outlets started feeling justified in "getting it out there."
So we had 2 cases of the "New Media" branches of the MSM carrying the story.
And of course by then, the MSM started asking questions about it at the press conferences with the campaign advisers. While the blog posts themselves were hard to justify as news, a comment by a campaign rep about the rumors was not hard to justify at all. So while the public had not yet associated the story with MSM, it was MSM reporters who were asking questions about it and investigating the story, so the MSM had already become involved in the story from the campaign's perspective.
By Sunday night, DailyKOS had already decided they were wrong. But by their "unanswered questions," it's clear they were actually moving further away from the truth, not closer.
But yeah, as far as I can tell, there aren't any MSM stories through old media outlets during that time frame over the weekend. All the MSM old media reporting of the "rumors" were in articles about the official announcement on Monday.
This is exactly what happened as near as I can figure it.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: If only the press could have done this much work this fast when Obama first started to run. Those liberal blogs, especially DailyKos are doing a tremendous amount of work uncovering or completely making up dirt about Palin. Too bad they were so silent on Obama and Biden.
Not just the pot calling the kettle black, but the pot calling the silverware black.
If there's so much coming up on Palin, it's in a large part because so many people hadn't even heard of her before this point.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down? What about her frightens them so much?--That she is conservative, a successful reformer, and a virtual Wonder Woman who has excelled at everything she has done? Why are they deploying armies of investigators to try to dig up any dirt on her, as if her amazingly successful career must be scandal-ridden?
No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down?
Cute.
And if no one said anything about her, you'd be here saying how perfect and spotlessly clean she is Ron.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The left wing bloggers and leftwing mainstream media seem to be very afraid of Gov. Palin. Why are they so desperate to tear her down? What about her frightens them so much?--That she is conservative, a successful reformer, and a virtual Wonder Woman who has excelled at everything she has done? Why are they deploying armies of investigators to try to dig up any dirt on her, as if her amazingly successful career must be scandal-ridden
It's all a mass conspiracy Ron. I thought you knew this.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afraid of Candidate Palin? Not really, though I have over estimated the electorate before.
Afraid of VP or even President Palin? You betcha. From her policy positions to the fact that she strikes me as being stubborn, reckless, and clueless, darn right I am afraid of what she would do in the White House.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Because out of the four folks running this fall (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), Sarah Palin is the one I'd choose to be president. McCain is old. If he makes it through his four years, it's unlikely he'll run again, and maybe Palin will. And then again, maybe McCain won't make it. Either way, it'll be a good thing.
She's a fiscal conservative. Okay, she's no Ron Paul, but she seems to have more common sense than the average run of Washington bozo.
Lisa's right in everything she said here. Sarah Palin goes a long way in helping me hold back the vomit in the polling booth.
Before, I was going to vote for Barr if California wasn't in play, and only vote for McLame if it was. Now I might vote for McLame in either case.
(Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
That is true and Gov. Palin will face more I am sure. However, I would have taken you more seriously if you had said *anything* about the sexism faced by Hillary Clinton at the hands of the people who you tend to agree with most of the time.
It is really easy to blame the MSM or the liberal media or whatever easy excuse you want to give, but it takes much more to actually face the problem and not go for the easy scapegoat. The other day on CNN, one of the spokeswomen for Sen. McCain said that much of the Sarah Palin stuff was coming up because of the liberal elite media from New York (forget that the inherent implication is that those media types were New York Jews) and it took Wolf Blitzer to point out that the Alaskan media had been all over these stories. I highly doubt that the Alaskan media is part of that northeast liberal elite media that McCain seems to love to scapegoat for his own failings. And all of it just means that people are going to hate each other even more, they will see the "injustice" of the liberal media and become more and more divided, and once again the culture wars will move to the forefront. Of course, that is when I bang my head on the wall and once again wonder about the sanity of American politics.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What on earth is appealing about the idea of having her in the White House? She is not a fiscal conservative - look at her record. She is a social conservative. Honestly, please explain it to me because I don't get it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No men have ever been asked if they would have time to tend to their kids while they were in office. Sexism lives.
Edwards got a lot of flack for continuing to run after his wife's cancer was revealed. And frankly I think men should be asked that question in similar situations.
The bloggers are doing the vetting job that McCain's people did not. But I would like to see the media drop the pregnancy issue and move on. I am far more interested in the flip-flops on pork and the Bridge to Nowhere, the creationism and book-banning, the heavy-handed way she governed, and her positions, if any, on the economy and foreign policy.
Right now the GOP move is to react angrily to the MSM feeding frenzy - even the part they make up - because that helps them a lot. They can draw together with a shared enemy and they can paint any and all questions concerning her abilities as sexist.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What about her makes you want to vote for McCain?
Because out of the four folks running this fall (Obama, Biden, McCain, Palin), Sarah Palin is the one I'd choose to be president. McCain is old. If he makes it through his four years, it's unlikely he'll run again, and maybe Palin will. And then again, maybe McCain won't make it. Either way, it'll be a good thing.
She's a fiscal conservative. Okay, she's no Ron Paul, but she seems to have more common sense than the average run of Washington bozo.
Lisa's right in everything she said here. Sarah Palin goes a long way in helping me hold back the vomit in the polling booth.
Before, I was going to vote for Barr if California wasn't in play, and only vote for McLame if it was. Now I might vote for McLame in either case.
(Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Why? Do you honestly believe that McCain (likely to die in office) or Palin could do anything good for the nation? Do they stand for anything of substance? They do not stand for fiscal responsibility, they do not stand for multilateral cooperation, they do not stand to help the middle and lower classes in their day to day struggles, and they do not stand for energy security for easily accessible mass transit.
Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
IP: Logged |
quote: And all of it just means that people are going to hate each other even more, they will see the "injustice" of the liberal media and become more and more divided, and once again the culture wars will move to the forefront.
That is, I believe, exactly why Andrew Sullivan has been hammering on the Palin questions as they come up. The farther the Republican Party moves into the win-at-all-costs, salt-the-earth-behind-you area, the more agitated he gets. I don't blame him.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But I would like to see the media drop the pregnancy issue and move on. I am far more interested in the flip-flops on pork and the Bridge to Nowhere, the creationism and book-banning, the heavy-handed way she governed, and her positions, if any, on the economy and foreign policy.
Right now the GOP move is to react angrily to the MSM feeding frenzy - even the part they make up - because that helps them a lot. They can draw together with a shared enemy and they can paint any and all questions concerning her abilities as sexist.
I've seen more Conservative Press striving hard to keep this Palin's Family Issue alive than I've seen liberal or moderate press delve into it. Sure its a nice bit of juicy gossip, but that's all.
I do believe she'll make a great movie someday--along the lines of Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith goes to Washington.
However, we shall have to see which is more closer to reality, that movie or the story that the Republicans are building about her....
there are already strong questions about how long she's been a Maverick. Her anti-ear mark stance has been attacked (as mayor she brought in a load of earmarks). Her previous connection with the Alaskan Independence Party is a fun discussion.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
I don't understand why it's basically assumed that members of certain demographics "must" want to vote certain ways, when individuals are so much more complicated than the groups they're lumped into.
For instance, I could vote for someone who was ignorant and distrustful about Mormonism if I thought they were the best choice for their job, and their job didn't involve unilaterally deciding what happened to the Mormons.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. I am asking what "different factors" would persuade a non social conservative who was iffy on Senator McCain to be excited about Gov. Palin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Amen.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
And again, amen.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
The daily show I saw made exactly this point (that we are not interchangeable) and I figured that was Blayne's point.
Yeah, I kind of want to know this, too. HOW does Palin shift undecideds towards McCain? Are those that are shifting more to the right of McCain? I mean specifically those who have said so here -- I can look at polls online and all that.
Personally, what is it about her?
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Palin has done a good job of getting a large number of people who were going to vote for McCain anyway (but who were not very enthusiastic about it in the first place) to come out and say oh man yeah I'm totally voting for that ticket *now* — she's rallied the theocrats, and the 'down wit da fed' style libertarians.
Great?
Unfortunately, it has caused undecideds and moderates to back away from McCain swiftly.
Obama's never posted numbers as high as what he's got now, and Palin's image is being flooded. In a week or so, if this sort of thing keeps up, it may be safe to say that if McCain wins, it will be despite Palin.
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I am never surprised when other types of americans get swayed into voting against their own interests, why not the gays?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: because she's female? *remembers latest Daily Show*
As I have said before, we are not all interchangable.
If the reason is because you are anti-Obama, why wouldn't you have voted for Senator McCain regardless? Why does Gov. Palin tip the balance?
The daily show I saw made exactly this point (that we are not interchangeable) and I figured that was Blayne's point.
Yeah, I kind of want to know this, too. HOW does Palin shift undecideds towards McCain? Are those that are shifting more to the right of McCain? I mean specifically those who have said so here -- I can look at polls online and all that.
Personally, what is it about her?
I don't think she's as much about shifting support from Obama to McCain, she's about getting people who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. Look at Pix and Lisa. They weren't going to go for Obama, but they were hesitant to vote for McCain. McCain is trying to get the people who were going to just stay home to the polls. I think this move signifies a certain amount of retreat from the political center. You don't choose someone like Palin to win the center, to choose her to bolster the Right and the disaffected anti-Obama crowd. She's there for the turnout game, not the fight for independents.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've actually heard very little on Palin's positions. All the news is tied up in her scandles.
But what I HAVE heard is that, Like The Obamanation and McLame, her stated position is that she's against equal marriage rights. However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees.
Stuff I like: Agressive in the war on terror Pro Gun Drill Drill Drill
Stuff I don't like: Pro-Life Anti Equal marriage rights.
If anyone else knows more about her positions I would love to hear them. Especially her positions on rolling back the size of the federal government and cutting taxes.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: However, she DID veto a bill that would have denied domestic partner bennies for alaska state employees.
Right. It's like with Ron Paul. Both of them have personal views that are anti-gay. But both of them have shown that they'll oppose anti-gay measures if they run counter to constitutional considerations. Ron Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Sarah Palin vetoed that bill.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know she's called Obama's windfall profits tax a good idea, and instituted something similar in Alaska. Other than that, I don't think she's really stated her positions on specific programs and taxes at the national level.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:She's there for the turnout game, not the fight for independents.
Evidently.
quote: among the critical undecideds, the Palin pick made only 6 percent more likely to vote for McCain; and it made 31 percent less likely to vote for him. 49 percent said it would have no impact, and 15 percent remained unsure. More to the point: among undecideds, 59 percent said Palin was unready to be president. Only 6 percent said she was. If the first criterion for any job is whether you're ready for it, this is a pretty major indictment of the first act of McCain's presidential leadership.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (Because no matter what, the Obamanation needs to be kept out of the White House.)
Amen.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy:
quote:I don't understand how one can be gay (or bisexual) and express interest in voting for someone as anti-gay as Palin seems to be.
I guess for some people, sexuality isn't the single all-consuming aspect of their identity, and their vote is informed by a variety of different factors.
And again, amen.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Palin's only pro is that she has the MILF factor going for her.
Oink. You're repulsive.
Whats wrong with thinking an older female attractive? Stop being butch.
IP: Logged |
posted
I get that. I get that she excites the social conservatives. I am curious about why someone who is not a social conservative - would be excited about her.
Dagonee, I agree. I think, though, that in this context, they are talking about wooing away disappointed supporters of Senator Clinton. Also "women's issues" has become shorthand for things like reproductive rights, equal pay, and healthcare. I agree that it is misleading shorthand.
edit to add: She vetoed the bill to provide benefits even though she supported it because she was advised that it would not stand a constitutional lawsuit.
quote: "It is the Governor's intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin's administration said. ... On Dec. 20, Palin signed a bill that calls for an advisory vote on whether there should be a constitutional amendment denying benefits to same-sex couples. The vote, set for a special election on April 3, will be nonbinding but is intended to help guide legislators, Palin has said.
posted
boots: likewise, why should pro-gay people be excited by an anti equal marriage rights candidate like The Obamanation?
When everyone running wants to keep you a second class citizen, it cancels out.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote: Agressive in the war on terror Pro Gun Drill Drill Drill
*sigh* when will people realize that the "war on terror" is inherently unwinnable with military means? Its a specops/opsfor/spook/police/interpol sort of thing not invade countries supporting terror sort of thing. Intelligence, counter intelligence, coordination between the Great Powers counter terrorism institutions all who have a personal stake in maintaining the status quo.
For as long as there is even ONE nutcase with some homebade blackpowder and a school bag the war on terror will continue and consume billions of dollars which could have spent elsewhere and done by pre-2001 means and police budgets.
The pro-gun argument is "meh" I personally support the right to collect historical firearms and working replicas (Mosin-Nagant, Luger pistol, maybe restore a working T-34 etc), rifles for hunting (animals not people), and up to maybe 2 registered hand guns for personal defence with a expirable license that requires upkeep and a yearly fee and semi regular small arms proficiency tests and constant record checkups.
The motto or perhaps slang of "drill drill drill" is retarded. We need additional nuclear power plants pronto. End of story ignore all the hippies who stand in the way THEY ARE WRONG AND RETARDED and don't have a single one of their facts straight.
What was it? 400 new plants could make the US 100 percent self sufficient on energy needs? And there's what? Enough uranium to last humanity 100,000 years?
IP: Logged |
posted
BB: The war on terror has been argued to death. Your dismissal of the other side doesn't win the argument.
I'd be VERY HAPPY if we'd build 400 nuclear plants. But, for the most part, the people who are keeping us from Drill Drill Drilling are the same people who shackled and continue to shackle the nuclear industry.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: As a *hypothesis* as to what gives, I may note that some people do not simply list out the issues and then dispassionately vote based on the degree of correlation.
As amusing as the Blayne/Lisa interaction is, we can't entirely throw out idea that a candidate's attractive personal appearance can affect the vote.
Similarly, there is the "who would I most like to have a beer with" factor or the "who is a maverick and less likely to be an establishment flunkie" factor.
Given a pool of non-single issue undecided voters, some of these (trivial?) factors may be able to tip the balance.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
