How many votes will the media get for Obama this time?

[Coburn In 2012]

Chris matthews will spooge in his shorts again  "Oh barack I get such a thrill up my leg"


Hopefully the people will see through this crap the second time around.

[Beet]

The media is are generally not as powerful as they're often made out to be. From 2001 to 2005 or 06, they were biased towards the GOP. What eventually made them switch over to a Democratic bias from 2006 until the stimulus bill debate this February, was Bush's increasing unpopularity. They are favorable to Obama now, but just wait until the honeymoon ends. In the 2008 campaign, they were almost always biased towards whichever candidates were currently ahead. In other words, they're generally reactive. Reporters react to events and attempt to analyze and justify events retrospectively. The idea that a certain politician is currently winning or that a certain party is currently in the majority due simply to chance, rather than some grand narrative of truth, is not appealing from the standpoint of a media analyst. If they start to believe their own justifications, then they become biased.

Those looking to the media to unlock the key of future elections are looking in the wrong place. The wisest words in politics belong to the late Harold MacMillan. When asked what represented the greatest challenge for a statesman, MacMillan replied, "Events, my dear boy, events."

[pbrower2a]

The media is are generally not as powerful as they're often made out to be. From 2001 to 2005 or 06, they were biased towards the GOP. What eventually made them switch over to a Democratic bias from 2006 until the stimulus bill debate this February, was Bush's increasing unpopularity. They are favorable to Obama now, but just wait until the honeymoon ends. In the 2008 campaign, they were almost always biased towards whichever candidates were currently ahead. In other words, they're generally reactive. Reporters react to events and attempt to analyze and justify events retrospectively. The idea that a certain politician is currently winning or that a certain party is currently in the majority due simply to chance, rather than some grand narrative of truth, is not appealing from the standpoint of a media analyst. If they start to believe their own justifications, then they become biased.

Those looking to the media to unlock the key of future elections are looking in the wrong place. The wisest words in politics belong to the late Harold MacMillan. When asked what represented the greatest challenge for a statesman, MacMillan replied, "Events, my dear boy, events."

You've got it. The media might elevate a turkey on occasion but they can't rescue one. The politicians can manipulate media to an extent, but that goes only so far. The media jump on scandals, especially those involving the two subjects that most adults understand (sex and money).  They can easily explain adultery, salacious e-mails, and large quantities of cash that change hands or appear in a freezer. They can relate new unemployment (typically from highly-visible mass layoffs) and death tolls from wars.

They are more likely to catch adultery than deceit about military activities because the former is more easily related than the latter. Liberal journalists would have loved to have exposed deceit and shady dealings by Dubya (the shady dealings including his economic priorities that ultimately led to the  real estate/subprime lending meltdown) because such was more subtle than some politician like Mark Foley getting caught sending salacious e-mails to underage boys, William Jefferson being found with thousands of dollars of cash in a freezer, or Mark Sanford "disappearing" only to have gone to Argentina for (details presumed if not stated).   

Journalists aren't that different from the rest of us. They can fall for the bandwagon effect, and if the "tea party" protests became huge, then they would start reporting them as a major trend of dissent with Obama. They catch rhetorical folly only if it is so blatant as when it comes so obviously from someone like Sarah Palin (as when it appears in dependent and independent clauses in the same sentence).
   

[Vepres]

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was. 

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

[Mechaman]

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

lol.
Good point.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was. 

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

So, what you say is that if McCain, a 72-year old cancer survivor, chose a monkey for his running mate or a mentally unstable person, then the media should just sit back and report without comment.
Sorry but that's not my idea of the Fourth Estate. Palin showed quickly how unqualified she was and her refusal to give a press conference should raise red flags all over the place. To pretend otherwise was disingenuous and had nothing to do with journalistic integrity.

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

[Rob]

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

So, what you say is that if McCain, a 72-year old cancer survivor, chose a monkey for his running mate or a mentally unstable person, then the media should just sit back and report without comment.

Agreed. These two statements...

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah.

... are not compatible.

[Coburn In 2012]

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was. 

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

So, what you say is that if McCain, a 72-year old cancer survivor, chose a monkey for his running mate or a mentally unstable person, 

Well the democRATs had a monkey AND a mentally unstable person on their ticket and the media got a massive hard on for them.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

[War on Want]

The single fact that the media covered Sarah Palin as if she was a serious candidate makes them pro-McCain in my book.
If they had a shred of intelectual and profesional honesty they ought to declare, in no uncertain terms, what a joke her presence on the ticket was. 

They didn't judge her, they were neutral. They would be biased if they treated her as a joke, just as they would be if they treated her as the second coming of Reagan.

Why didn't they treat Biden as a joke. When he said FDR went on TV in 1929 to ease people about the depression. And no, don't cite his record. There are long standing politicians who are jokes.

The fact is, she was governor of a state for two years. Enough experience for the Presidency? P0robably not. Enough to be taken seriously as a VP nominee? Yeah. Don't forget, Obama was a Senator really for only a year before he started campaigning.

So, what you say is that if McCain, a 72-year old cancer survivor, chose a monkey for his running mate or a mentally unstable person, 

Well the democRATs had a monkey AND a mentally unstable person on their ticket and the media got a massive hard on for them.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

...

[Holmes]

Sometimes I see posts by Coburn like that, and sometimes I see some that had actual thought in them... perhaps he's just forgetting to log back into his real account for the latter.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Sometimes I see posts by Coburn like that, and sometimes I see some that had actual thought in them... perhaps he's just forgetting to log back into his real account for the latter.

Maybe it's a side-effect of the double life he lives as a closeted gay man.
How come your gaydar didn't catch him?

[paul718]

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

[Scam of God]

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

I would have voted "NO" on all of them. Congratulations for selling out once again. I hope you got a high price for it.

[Landslide Lyndon]

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

The only bad decision I see is the Yes for the Iraq War, a transparenrtly political vote.

And you seem to be in the minority about his qualifications. His coleagues in the Senate, and the public at large, have a very different opinion. That's why his partition plan drew support even among Republicans.

I hope you didn't broke your hip.

[CJK]

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

The only bad decision I see is the Yes for the Iraq War, a transparenrtly political vote.

And you seem to be in the minority about his qualifications. His coleagues in the Senate, and the public at large, have a very different opinion. That's why his partition plan drew support even among Republicans.

I hope you didn't broke your hip.

Any so-called "expert" who thinks partition was a realistic solution wasn't living in the real world.

And who cares if his vote for the war was political, would that make it somehow better?

[paul718]

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

The only bad decision I see is the Yes for the Iraq War, a transparenrtly political vote.

$550 billion later...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you seem to be in the minority of thinking the Gulf War and the "surge" were mistakes.  You're entitled to your opinions and all, but I'd take the judgment by the public over that by his colleagues in the Senate.  That's 3 of the most important foreign policy votes of the last 20 years that your "foreign policy expert" has been on the wrong side of.

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

I would have voted "NO" on all of them. Congratulations for selling out once again. I hope you got a high price for it.

..says the so-called Libertarian who voted for the ticket of "spreading the wealth around" and "paying taxes = patriotism".

[Landslide Lyndon]

And your comparison with Biden is really hilarious. Biden was a well-known windbag. But nobody ever disputed the fact that he is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate.

You can't be serious.

A LOT of people thought he was far from intelligent, and questioned his foreign policy credentials.  Sure, he's been involved in foreign policy issues, how does that make him any kind of "expert"? 

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

George W. Bush was involved in business for how many years, and no one would hail him as a "leading expert in business."  Give me a break.  He committed more gaffes than Palin during the '08 campaign, and had less of an excuse for them.

I'm sorry, but you have to change your avatar.  You cannot possibly label yourself an "Independent" while defending Joe Biden and calling him an "expert on foreign policy". 

I just fell off my chair.

The only bad decision I see is the Yes for the Iraq War, a transparenrtly political vote.

$550 billion later...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And you seem to be in the minority of thinking the Gulf War and the "surge" were mistakes.  You're entitled to your opinions and all, but I'd take the judgment by the public over that by his colleagues in the Senate.  That's 3 of the most important foreign policy votes of the last 20 years that your "foreign policy expert" has been on the wrong side of.

"NO" on the Gulf War.
"YES" on the Iraq War.
"NO" on the surge.
Divide Iraq into 3 autonomous states. 

I would have voted "NO" on all of them. Congratulations for selling out once again. I hope you got a high price for it.

..says the so-called Libertarian who voted for the ticket of "spreading the wealth around" and "paying taxes = patriotism".

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

And I fail to see how saying that paying your taxes is patriotic, is somehow a gaffe. Unless of course you advocate tax evasion.

[Scam of God]

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

Oh, it is. But, you see, poseurs like paul don't care about principle, or about the historical development of that principle. Because paul comes from a clique that has none, a worthless little Trotskyist clique that infiltrated the Republican Party during the Cold War and warped its core tenants to reflect their undying belief in world revolution. His hypocrisy is simply an outgrowth of that.

[CJK]

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

Oh, it is. But, you see, poseurs like paul don't care about principle, or about the historical development of that principle. Because paul comes from a clique that has none, a worthless little Trotskyist clique that infiltrated the Republican Party during the Cold War and warped its core tenants to reflect their undying belief in world revolution. His hypocrisy is simply an outgrowth of that.

News flash: the GOP dropped its isolationist platform in 1941.

So getting back to the media, it seems clear that Biden is being respected largely based on the time he's been in the Senate and not on what he actually did. The fact that they glossed over his embarassing debate performance/voting record comfirms that. I wonder if they'll do the same thing in 2012. I mean, no matter who the Republicans nominate they won't have the "experience" of Joe Biden.

[pbrower2a]

Well the democRATs had a monkey AND a mentally unstable person on their ticket and the media got a massive hard on for them.  LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Soulless rhetoric devoid of rational content gets one on my iggy list. Never compare any human to any animal unless the comparison is flattering (as in "Mr. Jones is a real workhorse") without qualification. Any reference to a non-white person as a "monkey" is racist. You should know why by now. Your use of RAT is puerile in the context above (it could just as easily be used in  corpoRATe and bureaucRAT).

I'm not going to make any sexual allusions to your support for the Senator closest to fascism in his ideology. Your admiration for him says enough.  

 

[paul718]

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

There are anti-war Republicans, just like there are pro-war Democrats.  I am an anti-war Republican.  I was merely pointing out that, generally, Americans approved of the Gulf War, disapproved of the Iraq War, and approved of the surge.  If you can counter those points, then counter them.  I made those statements in order to refute your assertion that "nobody ever disputed the fact that [Joe Biden] is a very intelligent man and a leading expert on foreign policy in the Senate."

And I fail to see how saying that paying your taxes is patriotic, is somehow a gaffe. Unless of course you advocate tax evasion.

He said paying more taxes was patriotic (excuse me).  I guess you weren't paying attention to the news at that time.  But, yeah, it was a pretty big gaffe and he took a lot of heat for it. 

I thought the conservative position was to avoid foreign entaglements. But it seems now that the neocons and their admirers have become more Wilsonian than Wilson himself ever was.

Oh, it is. But, you see, poseurs like paul don't care about principle, or about the historical development of that principle. Because paul comes from a clique that has none, a worthless little Trotskyist clique that infiltrated the Republican Party during the Cold War and warped its core tenants to reflect their undying belief in world revolution. His hypocrisy is simply an outgrowth of that.

In my dealings with you I have not once expressed any pro-war sentiment.  You just made that up.  Just now.  Why did you make that up?  For someone who seems to take a lot of time in his long-winded posts, you have a knack for being easily caught posting blatant untruths.