Democrats for Coverage


Orson Scott Card isn’t the only Democrat journalist furious with the flagrant pro-Obamitude of the media (his article is here). Now Kirsten Powers of the NY Post notes that Biden is getting a free pass from the press:

Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden as his running mate prompted a small wave of warnings about Biden's propensity for gaffes. But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors Sunday to "gird your loins" because a young president Obama will be tested by an international crisis just like young President John Kennedy was.

Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden's statements.

There were a few exceptions. On MSNBC's "Morning Joe," co-host Mika Brzezinski flipped incredulously through the papers, expressing shock at the lack of coverage of Biden's remarks. Guest Dan Rather admitted that if Palin had said it, the media would be going nuts.
I would add to Powers' remarks that Biden didn't get the kid-glove treatment from the media when he was running against Obama, back in the primaries. His comment about Obama being "articulate and bright and clean" was heavily covered at the time. During her campaign against Obama, Hillary Clinton also felt (unfamiliar) opposition from the press.

Will journalists be willing to hold an Obama administration accountable after they help elect him? Or will every economic failure and military snafu for the next eight years be blamed on George W. Bush?

Powers does not use language as strong or as Card, who addresses journalists directly on their complicity in shifting blame for the mortgage crisis from Congress to the President.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
Again, Card and Powers are Democrats. Apparently, though, they are Democrats second and citizens first, unlike much of the Fourth Estate.

Posted by Chops at October 23, 2008 9:04 AM
Comments
Comment #268011

And really, if this happened to a Democrat, wouldn’t it be decried as racism, horrible violence, redolent of Jim Crow, etc.

There’s no excuse for vigilante punishment of free speech… and there’s no excuse for covering one party’s excesses but not the other.

Posted by: Chops at October 23, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #268012

And yes, the data support Card and Powers’ observations.

Posted by: Chops at October 23, 2008 9:19 AM
Comment #268015

sure Chops… it’s that liberal press media. Blame the liberal press media for McCain’s flip-flopping downward spiral and Palin’s shopping sprees.

Oh.. yeah…Big Joe (the unplumber)Biden is getting all the facetime.

Posted by: john trevisani at October 23, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #268022

Wow, Card really gives it to them! His groupthink chip must be malfunctioning.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 23, 2008 10:15 AM
Comment #268026

How is it a huge gaffe for Biden to have said that a new President would be challenged? Lieberman said the same thing about both candidates back in June (though not with the colorful language).

What’s the gaffe? Is it just the archaic lingo?

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2008 10:24 AM
Comment #268032

“They’re going to test him, like the young John Kennedy…” Biden was equating perceived youth and inexperience with an invitation to conflict. That is the admission others will call a gaffe.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 23, 2008 10:46 AM
Comment #268035

I think I see why the media isn’t biting on this one - you’re really grasping at straws.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2008 10:56 AM
Comment #268038

Sounds like Biden’s comments are fair fodder for the McCain ticket to do what they can with it. Not sure how the media is supposed to beat Obama over the head with it.

Another point of view is how just about weekly there is documentation of unethical behavior from Palin and she is still standing as tall as ever.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Comment #268044

So I was poking around, looking for coverage and opinions regarding the election and stumbled on these two surveys. They focus on a couple of the biggest issues relating to college students (and others), the economic crisis and racial prejudice. I think that they’re fairly thorough and touch on very important aspects that the candidates will need to deal with. If you get a minute, fill them out so we can finally be heard!!

http://www.campuscompare.com/survey/economic

http://www.campuscompare.com/survey/prejudice

Posted by: Bobby Blue at October 23, 2008 11:23 AM
Comment #268053

A little humor:
Palin has been riding Obama and Biden on Biden’s remarks that Obama will be tested by a generated crisis within six weeks of his election.
During her political rallies and interviews, she has outlined several “humorous” worst-case scenarios that would face Obama and Biden.
These are several worst-case scenarios should McCain and Palin get elected:
Scenario number one:
John McCain is medically incapacitated to serve and he can’t find Tina Fey to serve as interim president.
Scenario number two:
The teleprompter goes out while Palin addresses the Joint Chiefs of Staff on an international crisis.
Scenario number three:
Neiman-Marcus closes its Minnesota store.
Scenario number four:
McCain fails to find the Iraq/Pakistan border.
Scenario number five:
Katy Couric requests another one-on-one interview with Palin.
Scenario number six:
Queen Elizabeth comes to the White House for dinner and Chef Palin overcooks the stuffed moose.
Scenario number seven:
The date for the World Summit on the Global Economic Crisis conflicts with the “Iron Man” race in Alaska.
Scenario number eight:
The RNC goes through with its promise to donate Palin’s wardrobe and jewelry to charity.
Scenario number nine:
John McCain declares that the surge in Vietnam is working.
Scenario number ten:
In his first address to the nation, John McCain states that the “fundamentals of the economy are strong.”
Scenario number eleven:
John McCain wakes up and finds out that he is indeed George Bush.

Posted by: Steve Johnson at October 23, 2008 12:17 PM
Comment #268054

et al,
Can you respond to say some republicans are good and decent people and serve the good of the country?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 23, 2008 12:18 PM
Comment #268060

Weary Willie,
Of course. Obama keeps saying the same, with great eloquence. Here is part of a tremendous speech he gave on 10/22:

“At a defining moment like this, we don’t have the luxury of relying on the same political games, the same political tactics, that we’ve become accustomed to. This slash-and-burn politics that divides us from one another… which the challenges and crises we face right now, we can’t afford to divide this country. By race, by class, by region, by who we are, by what policies we support. Let me tell you something, because I know you’ve been hearing a lot of stuff lately. There are no real parts of the country and fake parts of the country. There are no pro-America parts of the country and anti-America parts of the country. We all love this country. No matter where we live. Or where we come from.”

What Chops and others want to see is GOP character smears reported as news. It’s not.

McCain used to have exceptionally tight relations with the media. This ended when his campaign went south, and he brought Karl Rove’s people in to rejuvenate his campaign in early July. By mid-July, the smears began, and it has been relentless ever since.

Palin has made it worse. She intentionally stays away from the media, and only participates in tightly scripted public appearances, unless it’s someone like Sean Hannity, or unless McCain is literally sitting by her side. She’s new, unfamiliar to the media, and prone to horrendous statements which suggest she doesn’t know what she’s doing.

On the other hand, the media can hardly avoid Biden. He’s constantly available, he’s friendly and gregarious, and he will talk and talk and talk, as Democrats are so painfully aware. He has been vetted, he’s been around a long long time, so generally speaking, what he says isn’t really news.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #268078

Orson Scott Card is a columnist whose real specialty is writing science fiction and fantasy Examples include Ender’s Game, its sequels, and the Alvin Maker Series.

While he is a Democrat, he has some rather Neo-Connish leanings, and in fact has had them for quite some time now. The use of him as some example of an outraged liberal is disingenous.

Biden occasionally makes gaffes, but he doesn’t complain that the media’s out to get him, and doesn’t wear ignorance as a badge of pride, or try and cover it up with a whole bunch of spin.

Biden’s point, additionally, is right: they will test the next president. People will test him. Biden’s firmly settled on the side of Obama facing that testing and passing. He misspoke, but behind that misspeaking was a solid point.

But Palin?

Palin is unwilling to be candid and truthful with the media. She hides behind walls of secrecy. Just why the hell do Republicans expect this surprise pick, who erupted on the scene with a bunch of dishonest claims about her credentials as a reformer, to not face a considerate grilling from the media?

And why, given all the hostility and bias-baiting she’s engaged in, badmouthing the press, running from it, essentially, do Republicans expect her to be given the benefit of the doubt. She seems to most people to be a badly unqualified person with dubious judgment and appeal beyond the right, which the McCain Campaign seems intent on portraying as something she’s not.

The Press will etch through that kind of BS and trickery as a matter of instinct. This is what these people are supposed to do, it’s their job. Those who can’t stand up to that grilling really shouldn’t be put on that stage.

But you folks put her there. Folks joked about getting Obama a pillow in the primaries, but that seems to be what Republicans are seriously asking for from the press, despite all her past troubles.

Palin shouldn’t have seen the light of day until she was seasoned enough in politics beyond the frontiers of Alaska to weather the storm of publicity her rise would inevitably bring. If she had been brought in as a candidate, she might have done better, but instead, she showed up like Athena from Zeus’s skull, but without the wisdom or skills in a scrap.

What do the Republicans expect of folks? Biden’s been tested. People know him. He’s got a record to demonstrate his abilities. She’s got a bunch of talking points that became transparently false the moment she was tested. What justifies treating these two equally, if they don’t have equal qualifications? It’s a false equivalence.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #268082

What he clearly meant, if you were even pretending to look at it without partisanship, is that WHOMEVER becomes president will be tested by events early on in their administration.

It’s that simple. Why do you see the need to make it into more than it is, other than the fact that McCain/Palin is circling the drain?

As for Obama’s or any official’s complicity or blame for the current economic crisis, there’s more than enough blame to go around on all sides, especially for an executive branch which saw fit to wipe their collective backsides with the Constitution in the pursuit of an odious foreign policy but couldn’t seem to lift a finger to control the excesses of the past nearly 8 years and might have prevented what they now claim is our economy teetering on the brink.

Posted by: EJN at October 23, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #268087

I’d like to point out something to the Republicans: There’s a reasonable explanation for what Biden really meant: that any new president will be tested by their enemies. Bush was tested. So was Clinton. So was Kennedy. Biden’s point, at the end, was that Obama would rise to the challenge.

So, what’s the reasonable explanation for Sarah Palin being unclear on the duties of the Vice President? It’s not as if one needs a constitutional law degree to understand it, it’s pretty plainly written out in the constitution.

What’s the reasonable explanation for her across the board dishonesty on the subject of her achievements in office, besides it’s negative character?

What’s the reasonable explanation for the abyssmal ignorance she’s shown up to the national scene with, the concealment of her from the press. Even a group of people the press is hostile towards needs somebody who doesn’t run, or need to run, from the TV cameras to avoid making a gaffe. If she’s such a delicate flower that she can’t face the press, what’s she doing in politics?

Biden’s gaffe can be portrayed as a misunderstanding of a good point. Once it reaches that point, the press is not going to go further because there is no point. It’s beating a dead horse, something that only apologists for his opponents are going to persist in. The stench of decay coming from Buttercup hasn’t recently been a discouraging sign for Republicans looking to browbeat people with talking points

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #268088

EJN….”circling the drain”….gave me a great laugh. Thanks!

Posted by: janedoe at October 23, 2008 4:10 PM
Comment #268094

Stephen -

While OSC is an SF&F writer, it’s a mistake to use that as some kind of statement that denigrates whatever views he may hold. I don’t agree with his views in the article, but what he does for a living should have little if any bearing on his political views. The fact that I essentially wipe butts for a living (but there’s a wee bit more to it than that (pun not intended)) should not delineate my own level of political discussion, for just as no one knows the whole sum of OSC’s experience, no one knows the sum of mine, or yours.

BTW, Fannie and Freddie are in a way scapegoats, since from what I understand they are only responsible for 20% of the subprime mortgages. It seems to me that more of the blame should rest with the other 80%.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 23, 2008 4:28 PM
Comment #268101

I am always struck by the self-destructive tactic of castigating the media by political interests. The media is essential to political interest’s advancing their cause. How does bashing the media amount to anything other than a political cause shooting itself in the foot?

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 23, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #268102

Glenn Contrarian-
Oh, I don’t denigrate him for his work. He’s a brilliant writer.

Let me take apart the claims being made about him, though.

Yes, he’s a self-described Democrat, and some of his views are quite liberal. The claim is, though, that he’s a generic Democrat. He’s not. he’s been vocal in support of Bush’s foreign policy, even written a book called Empire relating to a future civil war with strong wingnut overtones in its portrayal of liberals.

Yes, he probably does some journalism, but not as a real professional who does this for a living. He makes his living writing fiction. He probably writes columns and stuff for the web on the side. I say this not to say that OSC isn’t entitled to his opinion, but to drive a stake through the BS that he’s just some reporter. No, he’s not, he’s a well-known Sci-Fi Author. Go to your bookstore or Library.

The basic argument is that Orson Scott Card is a generic reporter who’s challenging the industry in which he works as a professional. On the merits, that argument is false. This is a famous writer, who’s publically been a Bush supporter, continuing to push Neocon talking points about the war as he’s done for quite some time. He decided long ago to drink the McCain Kool-Aid.

Lee Jamison’s other article comes from the NY Post. The Opinion section. Of a Rupert Murdoch owned publication. Powers is also an Analyst for FOXNews.

So, there are things these people won’t tell us about the folks they’re holding up as open-minded realists.

As for GSE’s (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), they are scapegoats because they were not really all that aggressive in buying the kind of loans that started this whole mess within the subprime market.

I think it bears mentioning that the Subprime Market is not even mostly bad. What made its mortgages lethal to the economy is what was done to them in the private secondary market in order to clear their liabilities off the books.

And that has nothing to do with the supposed forcing of bad loans on anybody by Fannie and Freddie. They were never the market leaders, nor could they have been with the regulations that prevented them from taking up particularly weak loans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2008 5:05 PM
Comment #268103

Everything concerning Obama and Biden is portrayed as a misunderstanding by you guys and the media, and we are always told what “they really meant.” A luxury not afforded to McCain or Palin.

But I totally agree with you Stephen, Biden was trying to say Obama would rise to the challenge. Steel spine or something I think.

“the press is not going to go further because there is no point”

I agree here too, there is no point in trying to make it seem like Biden was saying we are going to be attacked when the Obama is first elected President. He was clearly saying Obama would rise to the challenge and was trying to score points by comparing him to Kennedy. But that does not mean there is no point at all. A fair and unbiased media would have asked him the same questions they would have asked McCain if he had said something like that:
Mr. Biden, other than picking you as a running mate, what has Obama actually done that would make you change your mind on this matter? What part of Obama’s past and record gives any indication that he is ready and able to handle such a dangerous event?
Would Mr.Biden be honest to himself and to us, and say “nothing?” Or would he continue to “browbeat” us with “talking points” as they do with this “change” rhetoric they expect everybody to believe without question or record of proof?

Posted by: kctim at October 23, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #268112

kctim-
Look, we have been told that we are communists, terrorists, anti-American, and just about everything else by those people. The comments that seem to need explaining are things where we know exactly what they mean, but can’t believe anybody would say that. Take Michelle Bachmann telling Chris Matthews that the press needs to investigate Congress for Un-Americanism. We don’t need a compass and a roadmap to know where she was heading; the subsequent spin isn’t about clarifying, but trying to retract, explain, and play the victim over the strong counter-reaction to the atrocious comment.

Or with that question about the VP’s duties, people go into gymnastics to cover for the fact that she flubbed something a school-age kid could learn by reading the actual document.

I think if Biden really thought he was on a losing ticket, or that Obama lacked a certain degree of competence, he wouldn’t risk the rest of his career by becoming a running mate.

Obama may not have the experience, but he has the kind of attitude that indicates that he learns from experience, and learns quickly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 23, 2008 6:02 PM
Comment #268120

Call Card a Democrat is like calling Joe Leiberman a Democrat before his party dis-owned him. The only issue that Card hold in common with Democrats is the issue of unrestrained, free-market capitalism. He goes against the party on every other issue including the war and civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Posted by: Michael Wong at October 23, 2008 7:12 PM
Comment #268123

Chops:

Valid points.

I brought this very subject up yesterday, in this column, under “Plumbers Helper”. The immediate response from SD, and I would presume he emulates those on the left, was to begin a process of discrediting Card or any other left leaning reporter who spoke against “the most merciful BHO”. There is no one who they will not be thrown under the bus. BHO couldn’t just go visit his grandmother; he had to go on CBS and explain how he wasn’t there for his mother, but his love and care for his dying grandmother requires him to make an immediate trip to Hawaii. A few months ago, he threw this same grandmother under the bus by calling her a racist, because it was politically advantageous. If he is so concerned about his family, why is his half brother (George Hussein Obama) living on a dollar a month in Kenya?

Actually, what SD said was, “In recent years, he’s been something of a Bush supporter.” What about Dan Blather, or Kristin Powers, are they also one time democrats and now they are Bush supporters? The shame, and I believe Card points this out, is that there is no longer any honor among journalists. It’s pretty bad when at least three well-known journalists point this out.

Biden did not say a new president would be tested, he said BHO would be tested and that a year from now they would be way down in the polls, because of the way they handled not any test, but a specific test that will be placed upon BHO. Then he said, “you must trust us” and at that statement there ought to be a lot of people questioning what he is talking about.


Posted by: Oldguy at October 23, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #268125

Oldguy makes an excellent point; “Biden did not say a new president would be tested, he said BHO would be tested and that a year from now they would be way down in the polls, because of the way they handled not any test, but a specific test that will be placed upon BHO. Then he said, “you must trust us” and at that statement there ought to be a lot of people questioning what he is talking about”

I have no doubt that Mr. Biden was using his access to classified material to project a future event that, if handled by an Obama administration, would cause many Americans, including Obama supporters, to loose faith in his ability.

I am curious about Mr. Biden’s ascribing to Mr. Obama as one having a “spine of steel”. Really folks, where did such hyperbole come from…Biden’s rich imagination or some actual display of said spine?

And please, for all you Obama lovers, don’t burden us with his courageous efforts in winning the nomination. Compared to standing up to some of the bad guys in the world, his primary victory is minuscule. Defending a nation hardly compares to winning a political nomination.

Posted by: Jim M at October 23, 2008 8:19 PM
Comment #268126

Let me throw out a thought. It can be listed under the heading of media coverage.

Lee brought up a good point in his post about “The Union Label”. It deals with the “Employer Free Choice Act”. His post didn’t get much response, but while painting my barn today, I thought a lot about it.

I believe the market is responding to the possibility of a BHO presidency. Companies are cutting jobs by the thousands and the market is not responding to any of the stimulus packages. I believe there is a great fear of BHO becoming president and HR and NP controlling the congress.

Between unions being forced on companies and the promise of higher taxes, there is a great amount of fear in the market.

If the media was doing their job, they would be researching this instead of blaming the economy on Republicans.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 23, 2008 8:27 PM
Comment #268133

Oldguy,
The economy is reacting to Obama? That’s just silly. The economy has shed jobs every month this year. Every month, more jobs lost. Oil boomed, setting off inflation. Foreclosures mounted as mortgages reset. The resets peaked in March. A combination of outsourcing, a weak economy which could not stand an interest rate hike, artificially low rates, a negative savings rate-

Oh yeah. You may not have caught that. Earlier this year, the savings rate for Americans went negative for the first time since… guess what year… come on, guess! That’s right. 1929. Real wages have remained flat, or actually declined. The budget deficit has been high due GOP spending, tax cuts for the rich, and wars funded on the national credit card. Boy, was that stupid. Money down a rathole.

For the price of Iraq alone, we could have educated an entire generation through the university level at public schools, or provided national health care.

It took a LOT for the hole to get this deep. The crowning achievement of conservatism came when the financial sector, without oversight or regulation, developed a $62 trillion dollar market, and the market froze up. Nice.

But take heart! The US economy has performed significantly better under Democratic presidents. That’s just a fact.

There’s no doubt all of us are in for hard times for the next few years. Obama is part of the solution.

Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2008 10:25 PM
Comment #268135

There’s no doubt all of us are in for hard times for the next few years. Obama is part of the solution.

It was asked in the main post if we would continue to blame GW after the election for what ails us. Of course we will. It would be absurd to think that the misfortunes of his administrations misdeeds will automatically disappear once he does.

Posted by: RickIL at October 23, 2008 10:45 PM
Comment #268138

Right, an Obama President does not get rid of racism, an Obama President does not can blame the past, an Obama President can just about blame anything on the current President and the current Congress.

At what exact point does that become invalid? When is Bush, not to blame. And then when was Clinton not to blame. Or Carter. Or Reagan. I am anxious to see how Obama skirts blame. The candidate that ran against his own party as capable of reaching accross the party divide has become a partisan hack and will find it real hard to work with a Dem Congress.

If you would like to see a great example of the future. Visit Illinois where we have a Dem Gov and a Dem Congress … both of which have been good for nothing and we are poised to spend $80million on a constitutional convention. Blogo has attempt to institute many of the same policies we’ll see Obama do nationally (healthcare, higher taxes, rob from the rich and give to the poor, etc.) Check it out, you’ll see a clusterbunk of Dems fighting each other for the chance to be Governor in 2010 to fight each other again for the chance to be Governor.

I remember hearing Spike Lee on Obama, “See there you go, white people believe that once Obama is elected all racism disappear.”
We know it wont. Just like we know that an administration is forever linked to the issues from the prior administration and linked to the Congress they must deal with.

Posted by: Honest at October 23, 2008 11:12 PM
Comment #268140
It was asked in the main post if we would continue to blame GW after the election for what ails us. Of course we will. It would be absurd to think that the misfortunes of his administrations misdeeds will automatically disappear once he does.

If observing American politics teaches you nothing else, it should teach you that a percentage of the voting population large enough to swing elections is simply not rational. All they understand is what is happening now and who is in office—and that is who will get the credit or the blame. Did Jimmy Carter DESERVE all the blame he got for all of the economic and foreign policy problems during his administration? Some yes, but all? Although a Republican, I can acknowledge that he took the fall for a lot of things that were not his doing. By the same token, the first Bush took a bit hit for a recession near the end of his term, while Clinton got credit for an improved economy—although the recession was already over when Clinton took office.

During an Obama administration, Democrats would continue to blame George Bush for any and all of Obama’s problems. And undoubtedly THEY would believe their own rhetoric. What’s more, although sometimes they will be wrong, somtimes they will be RIGHT. But it won’t matter. By 2010, and definitely by 2012, people who aren’t hardcore Democrats just won’t be buying that anymore. Sorry, but that’s how things work. It’s the burden of holding power—something Democrats especially seem to have forgotten.

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 23, 2008 11:50 PM
Comment #268144

LO, Honest,
Let’s be fair to Bush. He can no longer be blamed when:

The stock market gets back to, oh, I don’t know, how about even with where it was when Clinton left: 10,700 on the DJIA
(currently @ 8,700)

The national deficit gets back to, let’s say, $5 trillion, about where it was when Clinton left.(currently over $10 trillion)

The budget deficit goes back to being a budget surplus
(projected 2009 deficit $700 billion and rising)

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over, and there is peace, like at the end of the Clinton administration
(The Iraqi government is demanding the US leave by the end of 2011, and even then the people are protesting for a faster withdrawal)

When- oh criminy, I don’t even want to talk about job creation. What a mess.

In other words, when the horrible situation brought about by Bush and the conservative GOP is remedied, and brought back to at least the point it was at in January 2001, before they made such a hash of things, then we can stop blaming Bush.

I think that’s perfectly fair.

Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2008 12:57 AM
Comment #268147

I think the terrorists are to blame for the economy, and I think that because of it they are winning the war. The quagmire or Iraq has decimated the muscle of this country. It is sad.

W. was shootin’ for for a war, and he got one.

Posted by: angrymob at October 24, 2008 1:46 AM
Comment #268156

The economic problems are world wide. If the “quagmire or Iraq has decimated the muscle of this country”, why is the world economy so bad? This includes China and Russia.

phx8

You are basing your premise of blame on Bush. Your premise is wrong, the economic problems can be laid at the feet of the dems in congress. I know you guys hate to hear this, but the problems we are having with the economy began with Freddie and Fannie. This problem was known years ago and anything to resolve the problem was blockedby the dems.

Mark my word, the market will continue to drop as long as it looks like BHO might win. If McCain bounces back, so will the market. Small business is terrifed of a BHO presidency.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 24, 2008 9:03 AM
Comment #268157

Stephen
So you also agree that Biden would browbeat us with the talking points you bring up, say the other side is worse and stuff, instead of answering the question honestly. Glad we agree.

“Obama may not have the experience, but he has the kind of attitude that indicates that he learns from experience, and learns quickly”

In your opinion Stephen and you are most certainly entitled to it, but there is nothing in Obama’s past or record to prove it is any more than opinion.

Biden said Obama will be tested with a major international event and that he will meet that challenge. A fair and unbiased press would have asked him what he has learned about Obama’s past and record that made him change his mind. An honest Biden would give us an answer, not avoid the answer and tell us the other side is worse.

Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2008 9:07 AM
Comment #268174


As an avid SiFi reader, I own and have read several of Card’s books. He is fairly good but, he doesn’t make my top ten list. I consider Card’s remarks about the media, especially in reguards to Obama, fairly accurate. So what! If Republicans think they are being subjected to unfair media coverage, they should try being a third party.

The two candidates, their parties and the media have all conspired against all other voices.

IMO, Biden was talking about a real event which is going to occure shortly after the election. The next president will have to convince NATO not to pull out of Afganistan, negotiate with the Taliban, ha ha, continue to conduct a one country war against the taliban, ala the USSR, or cut and run.

Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2008 12:12 PM
Comment #268187
Mark my word, the market will continue to drop as long as it looks like BHO might win. If McCain bounces back, so will the market. Small business is terrifed of a BHO presidency.

Old guy, is there any room in that Utopian world of yours? I’d love to find some of that good s**t you’ve been smokin’ !

Posted by: janedoe at October 24, 2008 1:09 PM
Comment #268191

janedoe,

I want some too! ;)

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 1:17 PM
Comment #268235

Media bias is a losing argument for Republicans and their support.

Essentially, it creates a culture of victimhood. Public not buying your politics? Media’s fault. Your politicians getting unpopular? Media’s fault. Losing the War? That too is the media’s fault. Looking bad on the economy? It’s the media’s fault.

It’s like that scene from the adaptation of the book A Civil Action that has Robert Duvall’s corporate lawyer objecting on anything and everything. It’s all about making and marketing the case.

Unfortunately, this notion of trying to game the media, or honestly trying to force the media to be favorable about everything has become a huge distraction and blindspot for the folks on the Right. It’s lead to this self-deceptive vicious cycle of self-assurance where Republicans keep on denying problems right to the point where they become blindingly obvious to everybody.

Which means Republicans fail to face crisises when they can actually do something besides damage control. And by the time they respond, irreversible problems have turned people against them.

My theory politics is that the image management is best done by properly managing the problems at issue in a real world fashion, and then using the image management to get away with doing the right thing. The Republicans have done it in reverse, and the result is that they convinced themselves they weren’t mistaken when they were, convinced themselves that the country is with them on the right when they’re not, convinced themselves that they can talk the voters out of their solidified opinions on the war when they’ve so far failed, and convinced themselves that a full-fledged swiftboat sliming will win the election when every poll on the subject says that it’s ineffective or worse.

It’s what keeps Republicans at the lower level making these nationally embarrassing attacks on Obama, and continuing the sort of alienating rhetoric and glee in attacking the left that has just saturated the conservative media.

And it’s what keeps Republicans believing that the way to win again is to concentrate and purify their conservatism, that voters merely punished them for breaking with their principles, instead of rejecting those principles.

It is a mental block, and the sooner that Republicans remove it and adjust to the realities of the image they’ve projected, and the realities of the results of their politics, the sooner they can get about to the important task of rethinking their party’s role in American politics for the rest of the twenty-first century.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2008 7:47 PM
Comment #268293

If you are buying enough airtime from the media, you obviously become a preferred client, since you help employ the people who work there.

Biden should cut out comparing BHO to JFK, who went to England where his father was ambassador, met everyone, did a tour of the continent on the eve of WW2, reporting what he saw back to his father in London, at the age that BHO was lounging around in Hawaii, drinking beer and smoking dope, while complaining about not getting a starting spot on the basketball team. Then JFK served in the navy, from Washington DC to the Pacific. Whole books have been written just about that part of his life, involving the real US Navy, not navel-gazing. After the war, he served in the USHOR, which BHO never did, for 6 years, before serving in the US Senate for 8 years, while suffering from a debilitating disease the whole time, which they couldn’t even help much at the Mayo clinic. Biden should have learned from Lloyd Bentsen 20 years ago, not to make comparisons to JFK.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 25, 2008 11:18 AM
Comment #268372

ohrealy-
I believe Bentsen told Quayle he knew Jack Kennedy, and that Quayle was no Jack Kennedy. Meanwhile, Obama enjoys the endorsements of those who knew Jack Kennedy, warts and all.

I think the bias argument is always a loser. McCain could have been as good as his word, and depended on small donation. He just wasn’t bold enough or trusting enough in his constituents to separate himself from the PAC and big donor culture, to the extent that Obama has.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2008 10:49 AM
Comment #268379

BHO has been reliant on the biggest movers and shakers acting on his behalf for his whole career. They found him, they affirmed him, and he has lived most of his life in the comfort of the institutions they created. The U of C is a Rockefeller foundation. I call this the Hyde Park Highland Park bunch, since many people who lived in the former, now live in the latter. The U of C hospitals have had some commercials about having a presence on the North Shore, which we don’t need. We have our own more numerous Universities and hospitals, and the southeast side would be dead without the U of C.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 26, 2008 11:55 AM
Comment #268435

ohrealy,

Which ‘biggest movers and shakers’ are you talkig about? Chicago’s Daley Machine has been dead for several years, and was never very good at advancing national figures in any case…is the DNC headquartered there? Have either of the Clintons been behind all this ‘biggest mover and shaker’ activity?

Oh, that’s right…I forgot about Ayers…you are concerned that the ‘biggest mover and shaker’ Ayers machine will create a President of the United States…

Oh, wait a minute…it’s the University of Chicago that owns this ‘biggest movers and shakers’ political machine…Yeah, they’ve been in the news quite a bit with all their ‘moving and shaking’…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 26, 2008 10:59 PM
Comment #268449

Orson Scott Card is my favorite author by far. He is incredible in the character development department.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at October 27, 2008 1:53 AM
Comment #268660

Voting Deadlines

Most of the states require an absentee ballot request to be made by October 24th. You can click on this link and request your absentee ballot.

www.StateDemocracy.org

Check your States Deadline Date at http://bostonnewsdesk.blogspot.com/2008/10/apply-for-absentee-ballot.html


Posted by: lilly at October 29, 2008 2:58 AM
Comment #269289

A few days ago, I posted a couple of groundbreaking surveys related to young voters and the issues that ACTUALLY influence their vote. The results were quite shocking so I thought you might be interested in checking them out:

http://www.campuscompare.com/survey/economic/

http://www.campuscompare.com/survey/prejudice/

Posted by: bobby at November 3, 2008 12:35 PM
Post a comment