Political Analysts

cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
edited November 2006 in A Moving Train
Ok, thi shas been bothering me since Tueday night....

Watching CNN ...they have Paula Zhan and some guy at the monitors discussing close races...they get toVirginia. They show that a majority of guys are voting for Allen and the majority of women are voting for Webb. The analyst then says...the votes for Allen are because of 'Football' (his daddy)...and the votes for Webb were because of Iraq.

Effectively saying that guys are voting basd upon the football history of Allen while women were voting on the issue of Iraq.

How inappropriate, wrong, and insulting is that?

So, any other opinions of the political analysts? And not the ones that were hooked to a specific party, I'm talking about hte news station analysts.
hippiemom = goodness
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    I saw that on Tues. and cringed.

    Gender stereotyping is frustrating, huh? ;)
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    VictoryGin wrote:
    I saw that on Tues. and cringed.

    Gender stereotyping is frustrating, huh? ;)

    Yep...shouldn't you be shopping?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    Yep...shouldn't you be shopping?

    ha. I'm working at my corporate job. And I'm not even a secretary. I'm actually the *gasp* breadwinner (though hopefully for not that much longer as I'd like to return to the ivory towers of academia).

    Seriously though, I don't know if you can say, but do you think football was a part of it? I was slightly surprised to see the reasoning for women to be the war (although women usually are called out as the peace-loving ones). Usually it's more of the candidate's looks, ugh.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    VictoryGin wrote:
    ha. I'm working at my corporate job. And I'm not even a secretary. I'm actually the *gasp* breadwinner (though hopefully for not that much longer as I'd like to return to the ivory towers of academia).

    Seriously though, I don't know if you can say, but do you think football was a part of it? I was slightly surprised to see the reasoning for women to be the war (although women usually are called out as the peace-loving ones). Usually it's more of the candidate's looks, ugh.


    I think if football was a part of it...it was a very small part. You always have the weird fringe voters.

    I'll have to admit though...if a hot lady ran for president...I'd vote for her. It would make all those interuptions of my regularly scheduled TV programs worth it. ;)

    So...let me be the first to say it....Angelina Jolie/Jessica Alba ticket in '08!!!!!!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    I think if football was a part of it...it was a very small part. You always have the weird fringe voters.

    I'll have to admit though...if a hot lady ran for president...I'd vote for her. It would make all those interuptions of my regularly scheduled TV programs worth it. ;)

    So...let me be the first to say it....Angelina Jolie/Jessica Alba ticket in '08!!!!!!

    first, jessica alba is so not hot. and angelina is a bit liberal for you, no?
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    VictoryGin wrote:
    first, jessica alba is so not hot. and angelina is a bit liberal for you, no?


    First..yes she is.

    Second...she more than makes up for it. I'm not above putting my morals and beliefs aside for eye candy. ;)

    Anyhow...you'd think that a political analyst...a professional...would be able to give abit more insight, no?
    hippiemom = goodness
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    First..yes she is.

    Second...she more than makes up for it. I'm not above putting my morals and beliefs aside for eye candy. ;)

    Anyhow...you'd think that a political analyst...a professional...would be able to give abit more insight, no?

    we'll have to split the difference on your ticket.

    yeah they should be able to give more insight and not resort to weird generalizations. sadly that's nothing new though. hey maybe the mt should produce a news/commentary station? though we'd have to choose carefully.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    I'm not a huge fan of Angelina.
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    oh cincy, look what's on the liberal new york times. puke.

    A Historic Event for Women, Still Largely Covered by Men
    By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
    Nancy Pelosi was asked about her role in history on all three network news broadcasts last night, but Ms. Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman newly in line to become the first female speaker, opened up on the subject only when talking to the first female network anchor.

    Ms. Pelosi told Katie Couric of CBS that by breaking the “marble ceiling” on Capitol Hill she was sending a message to “all women.” And that was perhaps a tacit acknowledgment that on election night Ms. Couric stood out as the one anchor not wearing a necktie.

    On a night that crowned Ms. Pelosi as the highest-ranking woman in United States government and Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic front-runner for the 2008 presidential race, Tuesday night’s tableau of men talking to men all across prime time was oddly atavistic, a stag party circa 1962.

    On NBC, Brian Williams, Tim Russert and the emeritus anchor Tom Brokaw formed a triumvirate of pinstripes and percipience. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC were so cozy and old-school across their giant, doughnut-shaped desk that they only perfunctorily turned, via satellite, to the network’s veteran Congressional correspondent, Cokie Roberts.

    The commentators that Fox News assembled to back up Brit Hume looked like a funereal barbershop quartet: William Kristol, Juan Williams, Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke. (Even at 6 the next morning, Fox reporters still seemed in denial: Steve Doocy, a “Fox and Friends” anchor, asked a guest what a Pelosi-led House would look like “if” she became speaker.)

    CNN’s Anderson Cooper did turn for help to Candy Crowley, who was sandwiched between John King and Marcus Mabry of Newsweek, but the panel behind them, CNN’s “brain trust” (William J. Bennett, J. C. Watts, James Carville and Paul Begala) looked like a police lineup on Mount Athos.

    Ms. Couric, whose evening newscast has fallen back to third place, did not do any better on election night. She wasn’t even the only anchor leading the network’s prime-time election coverage for the first time: Brian Williams at NBC and Mr. Gibson at ABC were also on new ground. Mr. Williams, who also made pronouncements on MSNBC, was all confidence and crisp command. (At one point on MSNBC he coined the word “corollarily” to make a transition.) Mr. Gibson seemed more relaxed, but also a little sleepy.

    Ms. Couric was less stately than her male rivals, deferring, a bit coyly, to the venerable Bob Schieffer, who served as interim anchor after Dan Rather resigned. And that less serious image was compounded yesterday after President Bush announced Donald H. Rumsfeld’s resignation as secretary of defense. After the news conference, all three anchors went on the air. Ms. Couric hurried off after a few minutes, whereas Mr. Williams and Mr. Gibson stayed on the story.

    Since taking over the anchor chair in September, Ms. Couric has tried to insert some of her morning-show informality to the evening news, and that was in evidence even on election night. As she had said she would on her chatty blog on CBSNews.com, Ms. Couric worked some obscure trivia into her election-night conversation with Mr. Schieffer, including the fact that Jon Tester, the Democratic Senate candidate from Montana, lost three fingers in a childhood meat-grinding accident. She also wove in a word that is naughty by network standards: when discussing the Virginia Senate race, she cited the Democratic challenger Jim Webb’s infamous description of the United States Naval Academy as “a horny woman’s dream.”

    But throughout the night, Ms. Couric looked confident. And perhaps more significantly, CBS showed the confidence to give other female correspondents high-profile positions: the political reporter Gloria Borger had top billing on the special, and so did Sharyl Attkisson. CBS’s panel of experts was evenly balanced: Mike McCurry spoke on behalf of Democratic strategists and Nicolle Wallace for the Republicans.

    The gender gap on election nights doesn’t match the rest of television news, where female reporters cover every field.

    It could be that men still dominate because election night is like the N.F.L.: it’s always two guys in the booth doing the play-by-play, while women cover the sidelines. Maybe it’s the women who avoid signing on to a lifetime of covering politics; the campaign trail is fattening and requires far too much math.

    More likely, the election night throwback to the days of Brylcreem and cigarette smoke comes from a confluence of overconfidence and insecurity.

    Women are now so well represented on television that executives no longer feel the need to prove their commitment to equality, particularly now that they feel pressure to disprove the common assumption that other news sources are equal to the networks. Viewers no longer turn to network election-night specials for instant results and off-the-cuff analysis; all that can be found at any time, more speedily, on cable and the Internet. Election night on the networks is increasingly a performance piece: for the hour or so of prime-time coverage, the networks project grandeur and authority, seeking to show that they still count for more than counting up precincts.

    To many, gravitas still comes in a necktie and cuff links. CBS is showing that sometimes pearl earrings and lipstick can also do the trick.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    zstillings wrote:
    I'm not a huge fan of Angelina.

    Your either with us or against us....you must liek Brad better. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    Your either with us or against us....you must liek Brad better. ;)

    i'd totally do angelina.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • callencallen Posts: 6,388
    VictoryGin wrote:
    i'd totally do angelina.

    I need to get off this computer now......just lost all ability to concentrate on work.
    10-18-2000 Houston, 04-06-2003 Houston, 6-25-2003 Toronto, 10-8-2004 Kissimmee, 9-4-2005 Calgary, 12-3-05 Sao Paulo, 7-2-2006 Denver, 7-22-06 Gorge, 7-23-2006 Gorge, 9-13-2006 Bern, 6-22-2008 DC, 6-24-2008 MSG, 6-25-2008 MSG
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Your either with us or against us....you must liek Brad better. ;)

    Sometimes he looks a little more feminine than her.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    zstillings wrote:
    Sometimes he looks a little more feminine than her.

    Ok Mr. Foley.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Uncle LeoUncle Leo Posts: 1,059
    Ok, thi shas been bothering me since Tueday night....

    Watching CNN ...they have Paula Zhan and some guy at the monitors discussing close races...they get toVirginia. They show that a majority of guys are voting for Allen and the majority of women are voting for Webb. The analyst then says...the votes for Allen are because of 'Football' (his daddy)...and the votes for Webb were because of Iraq.

    Effectively saying that guys are voting basd upon the football history of Allen while women were voting on the issue of Iraq.

    How inappropriate, wrong, and insulting is that?

    So, any other opinions of the political analysts? And not the ones that were hooked to a specific party, I'm talking about hte news station analysts.

    Calling that "analysis" is a stretch at best.

    I watched CNN all evening--simply because I liked their bottom-of-the-screen tracker the best. I still feel that the media is conservative, no matter how much the media tells you that the media is liberal. However, they seemed to be cheering for the Democrats that night. Not so much with their people, (sure they had carville but they also had what's his name), but with the graphics--Dems need 11 seats to take house (bullshit. They needed 11 assuming they did not lose any of their own. At the time they were still like 60 from making it official.

    Then again, it may not have been cheering for the democrats as much as sensationalizing a big story.
    I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
  • miller8966miller8966 Posts: 1,450
    Ok, thi shas been bothering me since Tueday night....

    Watching CNN ...they have Paula Zhan and some guy at the monitors discussing close races...they get toVirginia. They show that a majority of guys are voting for Allen and the majority of women are voting for Webb. The analyst then says...the votes for Allen are because of 'Football' (his daddy)...and the votes for Webb were because of Iraq.

    Effectively saying that guys are voting basd upon the football history of Allen while women were voting on the issue of Iraq.

    How inappropriate, wrong, and insulting is that?

    So, any other opinions of the political analysts? And not the ones that were hooked to a specific party, I'm talking about hte news station analysts.

    lol thats funny cause i was watching that too and i remeber being like " what the fuck is this asshole talking about". Who the hell would vote for someone just because their father was an ex football coach for the Washington Redskins?
    America...the greatest Country in the world.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Ok Mr. Foley.

    That seemed to become the new electoral strategy of Democrats...outing all Republicans. Did they get to you?
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    That seemed to become the new electoral strategy of Democrats...outing all Republicans.
    Well, you know how it goes.

    If you hate something, don't you do it too.
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    Well, you know how it goes.

    If you hate something, don't you do it too.

    At least now I know who got to cincy. You're on the list now buddy.
  • RainDogRainDog Posts: 1,824
    zstillings wrote:
    At least now I know who got to cincy. You're on the list now buddy.
    Yeah, but I'm on the left. Even if I were gay, outing me wouldn't make a lick of difference.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    VictoryGin wrote:
    ha. I'm working at my corporate job. And I'm not even a secretary. I'm actually the *gasp* breadwinner (though hopefully for not that much longer as I'd like to return to the ivory towers of academia).

    Seriously though, I don't know if you can say, but do you think football was a part of it? I was slightly surprised to see the reasoning for women to be the war (although women usually are called out as the peace-loving ones). Usually it's more of the candidate's looks, ugh.

    you mean that's NOT how clinton beat bob dole?
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    RainDog wrote:
    Yeah, but I'm on the left. Even if I were gay, outing me wouldn't make a lick of difference.

    Wrong list you terrorist. ;)
  • VictoryGinVictoryGin Posts: 1,207
    you mean that's NOT how clinton beat bob dole?

    women historically lean democratic, even with the uglies.
    if you wanna be a friend of mine
    cross the river to the eastside
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    zstillings wrote:
    That seemed to become the new electoral strategy of Democrats...outing all Republicans. Did they get to you?

    Dude, you said Brad pitt was more feminine than Angelina Jolie...you 'outed' yourself. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Dude, you said Brad pitt was more feminine than Angelina Jolie...you 'outed' yourself. ;)

    She can really look like a man...moreso than her prissy husband does at times.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    zstillings wrote:
    She can really look like a man...moreso than her prissy husband does at times.

    I've seen no man with her curves...if I did, I might join your team. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    I've seen no man with her curves...if I did, I might join your team. ;)

    Her face. She does have something above her neck as hollow as it may be.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,446
    zstillings wrote:
    Her face. She does have something above her neck as hollow as it may be.

    Is that the thing behind those lips?

    ANyhow, don;t worry about it, I'll still respect you for your tremendous fiscally conservative leadership...I don't care what you do in your private life with whomever.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • floyd1975floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    Is that the thing behind those lips?

    ANyhow, don;t worry about it, I'll still respect you for your tremendous fiscally conservative leadership...I don't care what you do in your private life with whomever.

    At least we still have that. You seem to have come back now from the RainDog brainwashing.
  • polarispolaris Posts: 3,527
    its reading like the sequel to brokeback mtn here ... two conservatives on a message board ...
Sign In or Register to comment.