^^i know plenty of conservatives who realized what a trainwreck the bush presidency was by 2004

8/19/2008 5:57:11 PM

conservative, moderate, or liberal...
the GWB presidency will be one for textbook study for the next hundred years.

how the worst President in U.S. history managed to hold power and secure a second term through cronyism and political corruption .

although to be fair, some blame will inevitably go to John Kerry for being such a dipshit pussy.

8/19/2008 6:37:38 PM

Obama's Edge in the Coverage Race
By Deborah Howell [Ombudsman]
August 17, 2008

Quote :

"Democrat Barack Obama has had about a 3 to 1 advantage over Republican John McCain in Post Page 1 stories since Obama became his party's presumptive nominee June 4. Obama has generated a lot of news by being the first African American nominee, and he is less well known than McCain -- and therefore there's more to report on. But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good."

Quote :

"This is not just a Post phenomenon. The Project for Excellence in Journalism has been monitoring campaign coverage at an assortment of large and medium-circulation newspapers, broadcast evening and morning news shows, five news Web sites, three major cable news networks, and public radio and other radio outlets. Its latest report, for the week of Aug. 4-10, shows that for the eighth time in nine weeks, Obama received significantly more coverage than McCain."

Quote :

"Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html

But, but, but. . . .

8/22/2008 2:11:44 AM

I'm sure the difference in coverage has nothing to do with the worthless campaign that McCain is running.

[Edited on August 22, 2008 at 6:50 AM. Reason : that was sarcasm, btw ]

8/22/2008 6:49:27 AM

Last I ckeched there wasn't a strong correlation with media coverage and polls.

And more coverage doesn't mean good coverage.

8/22/2008 9:49:10 AM

Quote :

"But the disparity is so wide that it doesn't look good."

Quote :

"Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, but readers deserve comparable coverage of the candidates."

--Deborah Howell, Washington Post ombudsman

8/22/2008 5:12:44 PM

I don't buy it...you can't turn on the fucking news without 'X' group will never go for Obama! The sky is falling for Obama! Why can't Obama put it away? Blah blah blah

Most of these expert reporters and pundits make tons of money. Wolf Blitzer makes at least $4-6 million. Even the lightweights make $500K -$1,00K. They are by nature Republicans when it comes to taxes. People vote their wallets. They don't want to downsize their several SUVs and BMWs just because Obama is elected. Least of all do they want to pay the 1.45% on their income over $250,000 for Medicare! That would be an extra $83,000 for Wolf to help pay for senior citizen health care.

Furthermore, McCain wants to lower the already extraordinarily low corporate income tax rates. Note that 2/3 of all US corporations according to the GAO pay no taxes. However, Wolf's boss, and Cramer and Gibson et all have to pay more than zero! So, they are no doubt getting pressure to be "extra fair and balanced." Believe me, they all know what the message should be. Obama will be bad for the economy.

8/24/2008 11:29:25 PM

^Wow. That last post blew me away. You wouldnt know McCain was even running if not for the rare soundbite he gets. Most of it was opinion so I cant really say youre wrong, but, such a small percentage of the population throws down on bmws and mega suvs -- many of the very educated vote democrat anyways.

But, (and more importantly) you clearly dont know much about corporate taxes. Here is an example:

Oh man, the american businesses have it so easy -- please. Obama wants to raise it even more. Thats a good way to jump start the economy. Add costs to businesses. You know what added costs do? One or several of the following: lower wages, less output, higher prices, less dividends, less employment, etc

In response to you GAO tax reference. That has been thoroughly blasted by tons of people. Dr Newmark (NCSU) had it up on his blog. It was a huge gaffe on their part. Here is the correct info:

Quote :

"However, the actual report (Table 1, page 23) reflects that, of the 1.26 million U.S. corporations with no 2005 tax liability, just 3,565 were large. That's 0.28%, or 89 times lower than the AP's figure. Oops!"

They had the wrong decimal place.

Anything else you want me to blast of yours? So far, youre 0 for 2 on the facts.

[Edited on August 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : link]

8/24/2008 11:37:46 PM

liberal FTW. i'm sorry, its time for a change

8/24/2008 11:41:54 PM

^^also, another snippet about the GAO tax report being horrifically inaccurate

Quote :

"Today, a red-faced New York Times issued this correction: An article on Wednesday about a Government Accountability Office study reporting on the percentage of corporations that paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005 gave an incorrect figure for the estimated tax liability of the 1.3 million companies covered by the study. It is not $875 billion. The correct amount cannot be calculated because it would be based on the companies paying the standard rate of 35 percent on their net income, a figure that is not available. (The incorrect figure of $875 billion was based on the companies paying the standard rate on their $2.5 trillion in gross sales.) Unbelievable. Even for the New York Times, absolutely unbelievable."

8/24/2008 11:58:25 PM

Quote :

"I'm sure the difference in coverage has nothing to do with the worthless campaign that McCain is running."

CNN's handy dandy interactive touch screen map pretty much said that if Obama loses Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida, then he has no chance

its Obama this and Obama that, yet they break down the electoral vote and all the hype doesn't really matter if he can't get clinton's supporters behind him

basically McCain's camp realizes they don't really have to do much of anything...at least at the moment

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason : and remember, the michigan and florida primaries were "disqualified" and clintonites are bitter]

8/25/2008 12:08:52 AM

Clinton supporters split over Biden as VP
Some back choice, others says it proves Obama 'doesn't stand for anything'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26369546/

State's Democrats struggle for unity
Clinton backers resolute as convention opens

Quote :

"DENVER -- Washington state's politically divided Democrats searched in vain for unity before Monday's opening of the Democratic National Convention, with some loyal supporters of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., vowing to cast roll call ballots for her even though backers of victorious Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., were prepared to honor the former first lady's unsuccessful bid to return to the White House as president."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/376326_conventionwash2.html

Morgan: Why Should Hillary Clinton Supporters Be Happy, Now?

Quote :

"From where many of them sit, the Democratic Party blew a perfectly good opportunity to nominate a moderate (instead of liberal), seasoned (instead of inexperienced) party leader (instead of Senate newcomer) with a long track record in international relations. Clinton's '3 a.m. call' commercial is still resounding in blogs and media reports because when Russia invaded Georgia, Obama at first issued an appeasement statement, then the next day did a 180-degree turn, pressuring Russia to withdraw quickly. Such flip-flops on war policy are unacceptable but typical of what the party should have expected from a newbie. They also help explain why Obama is now tied with McCain in daily presidential tracking polls, rather than winning by double digits. So instead of asking, 'Are you happy now?' I'd ask y'all to respond to the question: 'Why should we be?'"

http://tinyurl.com/556n43

And this one says it all:

http://www.partyunitymyass.com/

I hope this schism fucking erupts in Denver this week. I can't wait for the disunity to shows its hidden face.

8/25/2008 3:17:21 AM

[Edited on August 25, 2008 at 8:23 AM. Reason : .]

8/25/2008 8:20:16 AM

Bill Maher: Keith Olbermann And Chris Matthews Were Ready To Have Sex With Obama During Convention

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=270384

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vSphWQLGik

LOL!

You dumbfucks! Even Bill Maher--who's no right-winger--realizes that MSLSD is TOTALLY off the objectivity reservation.

And remember this classic swoon from Chris Matthews?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU

8/31/2008 9:11:02 PM

MSLSD is the most clever thing you can come up with?

But to respond, who cares? What the media says makes little difference to people who are smart enough to look at the real issues.

8/31/2008 10:12:25 PM

It would be fine if they would own up to the fact that they are biased towards the left, but they come off as being objective and indenpendent and its a load of shit.


Its been interesting to see the reaction from CNN today about Palin's daughter. They say that this is bringing up issues about "how well do we know her" and is she ready to be VP, yet they ignore questions about Obama's past and if he is ready to be President, which are justifiable arguments that should take place.

We already knew that MSNBC was a joke, but has it really come to the point that FOX News is now the most unbiased network?

9/1/2008 8:10:53 PM

i'm glad the media is liberalized.

now when i see how bad the economy is, i sit back and go "oh, ok, we should OK for about another few years"

b/c liberals keep us on our feet!

9/1/2008 8:16:18 PM

I wish instead of just blaming Bush, they would actually say what specifically Bush did wrong with the economy that Democrats will do right.


If they can...

9/1/2008 8:19:39 PM

^^^the media may be liberal, but you are off your rocker if you think obama is even in the same league as palin as far as unknown quantities.

Obama has been campaigning for about 2 years, has been on the national stage since 2004, has multiple books by him and others out, and dominated the news during a long primary season. In your judgement, you really think the two are comparable? The media has a lot of faults, but if you feel that you know as little about obama as you do palin, then that's a strictly personal problem.

9/1/2008 8:20:46 PM

i think obamas 2 years campaigning have more substance than palins 2 years as a governor in an executive role.

9/1/2008 8:23:34 PM

I'm not saying that I know less about Obama, I'm saying the way in which they are treated by the media is very different and unfair.

9/1/2008 8:23:41 PM

Well, that's one way to come up for an excuse to whine about something -- set unrealistic expectations then act outraged when those expectations aren't met.

It's really unreasonable to expect the media not to focus on a newcomer, especially when dirt is coming up so easily. You are arguing for some fantasy land media where they won't try to dig up as much dirt as possible, and you have selective memory that's causing you to forget obama scandals such as meeting with canada, wright, guns and religion, and obama=muslim.


---

FWIW, i am actually kind of grateful that I can count on the evil media to dig up as much dirt as possible on all candidates -- better we find this shit out now than later. If all the dirt comes out and people are still content with their choices, that means there won't be buyer's remorse.

[Edited on September 1, 2008 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2008 8:35:32 PM

Here we go: If you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist.

If Obama Loses
Racism is the only reason McCain might beat him.
By Jacob Weisberg

Quote :

"If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin."

http://www.slate.com/id/2198397/

And on and on in-the-tank-for-Obama blather. Sweet Jesus.

9/2/2008 5:27:43 PM

amazing, on a similar note, i guess the Obama camp would want you to believe you should stop the world abort these kids so you can go on with your life. I love the comment Obama had about early pregnancy and abortion. He said he would teach them morals but he didn't want them "PUNISHED" by a child. What a fucking scum bag!

9/2/2008 5:29:46 PM

^ Yeah, that Obama comment was beyond the pale. I am pro-choice; however, many liberals often forget that keeping the baby is a choice, too.

9/2/2008 5:34:58 PM

Quote :

"He said he would teach them morals but he didn't want them "PUNISHED" by a child. What a fucking scum bag!"

Csharp strikes again. Sadly hooksaw agrees but that's dissapointing because at least he has a brain...pity he isn't using it.

THINK PEOPLE.

The context of the quote explains this, but it never gets mentioned because it's a convenient pro-life talking point snippet. Everyone save the people already trying to hate Obama knew what he was saying...

Having a baby at age 14 would be 'punishment' in that the punishment is what it does to your life, not the baby itself. Having a kid early like that would alter their life negatively for all the wrong reasons and they just aren't ready for one yet. He meant that he was in favor of sex education and birth control so his daughter would not become pregnant.

But you're spinning his comment into the idea that the baby itself manifests a punishment which is utterly ridiculous.

9/2/2008 5:43:54 PM

then put the damn baby up for an adoption!

it's comments like this from obama that makes a good %70 of america sick to the stomach and even makes college students like us realize what a scumbag he really is.

wow, the left is really coming unglued when it comes to anything decent. this is sickening.

9/10/2008 12:50:10 PM

Totally-in-the-tank MSLSD "anchor" Chris Matthews--obviously feeling something more running down his leg--says it's his job to help make the Obama presidency work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSHYOmsVqdc

Here's a trip with Matthews down Tingle Leg--for those who have forgotten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhnynk6XkkU

11/8/2008 4:56:04 AM

How bad was your headache on the 4th when you realized a black man would be your president?

11/8/2008 7:31:06 PM

^^the first vid is already gone

11/8/2008 8:04:23 PM

^^ I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with a person of color as president--I just don't agree with the vast majority of Obama's positions. Can you try to grasp this simple concept? But keep spewing forth your misrepresentations of me--I'm sure it's a lot of fun for you.

And since you obviously have nothing whatsoever to offer against the general charge of a liberal media and the latest specific example of liberal bias that I posted, I invite you to piss off. Attacking me is, of course, much more fun than addressing the issue at hand--it does nothing, however, to advance the dialogue here.

^ PS: No, it's not.

[Edited on November 10, 2008 at 7:43 AM. Reason : .]

11/10/2008 7:43:03 AM

Settle down Dalton. Way too early in the week to be getting worked up over nothing.

11/10/2008 7:59:30 AM

An Obama Tilt in Campaign Coverage
By Deborah Powell, Washington Post Ombudsman
Sunday, November 9, 2008; Page B06

Quote :

"The Post provided a lot of good campaign coverage, but readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts."

Quote :

"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years, his start in Chicago and his relationship with Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, who was convicted this year of influence-peddling in Chicago. The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."

Quote :

"One gaping hole in coverage involved Joe Biden, Obama's running mate. When Gov. Sarah Palin was nominated for vice president, reporters were booking the next flight to Alaska. Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. They are right; it was a serious omission."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html

And anybody who denies this is a far-left loon and should be dismissed as such.

11/11/2008 8:01:19 AM

hooksaw

if you don't like than YE CAN GTFO!

Your neo-con buddies are getting the boot in January for 8 years of failed policies

11/11/2008 9:05:20 AM

^^are these really the points which you choose to bring up and regurgitate? You could have chosen much better examples but instead you found it better to choose examples that poorly address the situation at hand.

Quote :

"But Obama deserved tougher scrutiny than he got, especially of his undergraduate years"

Quote :

"The Post did nothing on Obama's acknowledged drug use as a teenager."

its undergrad for goodness sake. that deserves no scrutiny at all, especially since those years were good enough to get them into Harvard law. People make all sorts of associations and get involved in all sorts of acts when they're in undergrad and it really has no bearing on who they are as a person. this one uber hippie i knew from school comes to mind, for me. now every time i see him hes dressed up in some really dressy clothes and is dating someone who appears to be an ex sorostitute. his undergrad experience is the least of my concerns.

As for the drug use, he covered that in his book. Why should it matter? He smoked some pot and did a little blow, as have the two previous presidents before him. He had the balls to admit it openly and discuss it in his book and as far as I can tell there are many people who live very constructive lives who can relate to his experience. there is no need to address it further, and i suppose that is why it wasn't. not quite the bastion of liberal media conspiracy you make it out to be.

Quote :

"Some readers thought The Post went over Palin with a fine-tooth comb and neglected Biden. "

They neglected biden because he has been in the spot light for years and they know a substantial amount about his background and where he stands in office, however, they did not have the same luxury regarding sarah palin. there was the whole "who is she" "why her and not xyz" that was in the air and that is what they went to Alaska to find out. Once again not a part of some conspiracy, but rather a completely reasonable course of action.

11/11/2008 9:18:30 AM

^^ And what does that vomit have to do with my post or the thread topic?

^ And the howlers will howl.



[Edited on November 11, 2008 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

11/11/2008 9:20:50 AM

are you demented? what does it have to do with your post? i took what you wrote as evidence of a liberal media bias and pointed out how they were all reasonable courses of action and therefore do not necessarily act as examples for bias. is it that hard for you?

11/11/2008 9:23:19 AM

^ No, I'm not "demented"--that post was actually directed at HURL. In any event, the Post ombudsman and I and a lot of others disagree with you.

11/11/2008 9:28:17 AM

then support your assertions and address my statements. its not that hard. if you disagree and do so with substance then it should be easy to address.

11/11/2008 9:32:06 AM

Read the column.

11/11/2008 9:33:05 AM

i did read the column, and i also heard about this issue last night on Fox News. Why don't you go back to my post and read what i actually said. Actually i'll handle that for you since you seem to get lost easily.

Quote :

"^^are these really the points which you choose to bring up and regurgitate? You could have chosen much better examples but instead you found it better to choose examples that poorly address the situation at hand."

I actually said there were legitimate issues which could be addressed, but you chose the worst ones possible and i then took the time to explain why i did not find those issues to be pertinent. in reference to my response to you, can you explain to me why the issues that you placed in bold are important, and worth critique?

also, fwiw the article implies that they were negligent in their duties for both candidates and should have done more issue pieces on both of them and not just pay attention to the race itself.

11/11/2008 10:07:09 AM

So Keith Olbermann doesn't even vote; this dude is such a tool

Quote :

""I don't vote," Olbermann said, saying it is the only thing he can do to suggest journalistic objectivity. "It's a symbolic gesture.""

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/10/keith-olbermann-does-the_n_142749.html

11/11/2008 11:24:10 AM

11/12/2008 1:23:08 AM

when bush first ran for president, democrats scrutinized him for a DUI in college, possible cocain use in college, and said his downfall was too much partying in college.

obama, who admits to doing the same thing gets away with any media coverage whatsoever ... not everyone read this guys book, why did the media do it for bush and not obama

11/15/2008 1:50:51 PM

Quote :

" think obamas 2 years campaigning have more substance than palins 2 years as a governor in an executive role."

so, if I just campaign for an executive position in government, that automatically gives me more executive experience than a governor?

how ignorant a cool aid drinker you are

11/15/2008 2:01:43 PM

^^ respond

[Edited on November 15, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : im waiting, come on, give me a reason]

11/15/2008 3:24:27 PM

please, someone

11/15/2008 3:27:29 PM

^ the media talking about something is not "scrutinizing" it. The media talked about Obama's past when he first started running too.

11/15/2008 3:29:37 PM

theyve kept it going too, until now... why is bush's past ntl news and obama's is just a poor attempt at criticism

11/15/2008 3:32:04 PM

I can't remember the last time anyone talked about Bush's past coke usage or his DUI.

Do you get tired carrying that cross around?

11/15/2008 3:34:01 PM