Get Ready For an OBJECTIVE Debate... LOL

123578

Comments

  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    saveuplife wrote:
    They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.

    Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.

    at least the dude is doing press interviews instead of just doing photo shoots
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jwillmo wrote:
    I thought Obama was just showing how incredibly pandering that was. And I saw plenty of coverage about how ridiculous that part of the debate was. Maybe, just maybe, Obama was wearing it in honor of the actual fucking person, and not just to show everyone "look, I got a bracelet!" to get votes. (Yeah, I know he's probably pandering too, but this idea that McCain isn't is ridiculous). I will agree it was "defensive" though. But that's what it takes these days, you have to stoop to the other guy's level.

    When McCain tries to do the whole "soldiers agree with me more" bullshit, I wish Obama would bring up the fact soldiers give about twice as much to his campaign as McCain's.

    Come on man, here it is again.... Obama can do no wrong... and even when he does something somewhat negative, it's the other guys fault. lol

    McCain will win the military vote. Republicans always win the military vote. Remember Kerry/Rendell trying to suppress the military vote from abroad in 04?
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    I think it's very interesting to see Republicans every election cycle put themselves into the position of battered victim through the use of the media. We're seeing it now with Governor Palin, and how she is maligned unfairly while Biden skates by unscathed (the reason for this of course being that when it comes to policy Biden obviously knows what he's talking about and Palin has shown little ability to grasp any issue thus far, but I digress). My point is, I find it really hard to view the G.O.P. as being 'under siege' by the media elites and the liberal East and West coasts. Republicans have been in the White House for the last eight years. Republicans have been in control of Congress for sixteen of the last eighteen years. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to frame this as "you're fighting the Man!" Nobody's going to believe that.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    saveuplife wrote:
    They should "vet" Biden (AND OBAMA) too. I don't see that happening here in reality land. Binden is running for VP and is a heartbeat away, just like Palin. Yes, he's been in Washington, but who cares? He's running for a new much much more prominent position than Senator from Delaware (one of the smallest states in the U.S.)... he should be vetted just as hard by the media. There should be no free passes. And as I've said before, Biden is much more gaffe-prone than Palin.... his gaffes are just not covered on nightly news programs. Put simply, they just don't care about him or what he says. They care about Palin.

    Obama couldn't even remember the name on the bracelet. To you, he obviously can do no wrong.

    They haven't vetted Obama? Where were you 6-12 months ago? Every story was about reverend wright, him changing positions, michelle obama's "proud" comment, etc., etc., etc....

    And Biden has run for president before, and has been on the national stage. He isn't hidden from the press. Maybe if Palin would answer some questions once in a while, the media wouldn't be having this circle jerk on the couple dozen questions that she's been asked since being nominated for the second highest ranking position in our government.

    The whole thing is sort of in reverse of where the media was 6 months ago... Obama's press availability was being strictly controlled by his campaign and the media ran a bunch of crap stories about him. Meanwhile, McCain was making a bunch of gaffs, but his "straight talk" campaign had give the press pretty much total access to McCain. Now things are turned the other way.

    And Obama can do (and has done) wrong on numerous things... I just can't imagine a 10 second story about a bracelet or any of the countless other diversionary non-issue crap that is out there as being worth worrying about.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    I think it's very interesting to see Republicans every election cycle put themselves into the position of battered victim through the use of the media. We're seeing it now with Governor Palin, and how she is maligned unfairly while Biden skates by unscathed (the reason for this of course being that when it comes to policy Biden obviously knows what he's talking about and Palin has shown little ability to grasp any issue thus far, but I digress). My point is, I find it really hard to view the G.O.P. as being 'under siege' by the media elites and the liberal East and West coasts. Republicans have been in the White House for the last eight years. Republicans have been in control of Congress for sixteen of the last eighteen years. No matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to frame this as "you're fighting the Man!" Nobody's going to believe that.


    90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.

    Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    saveuplife wrote:
    90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.

    Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.

    o'reilly has shown he is not objective in his interviews ... can't do the job ... you're stretching ...
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that. If you sincerely believe that Palin is being treated equally to Biden,.... fine. We simply disagree.

    Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.

    I don't see what your first point has to do with my point, but fair enough. I was saying running against the Big Bad Liberal Media has been a Republican strategy for about thirty years. I'm telling you that no one is going to believe that the Republican ticket this year is going to be fighting the "elites" of Washington. The Republicans ARE the elites of Washington. They've been in total power for most of the past eight years. It's a bad strategy this year; all it will do is get some of the base riled up.

    Getting to your second point, Ifill has shown she is capable of being extremely fair and balanced; she moderated the 2004 VP debate, in which many people believe Cheney won and of course Bush/Cheney won in November. But I don't think she should be moderator, because it opens the process up to unneeded criticism and makes the moderator an issue.

    Now, that being said, McCain's camp and surrogates got outraged yesterday, saying how unfair it was and how they hadn't known that this was the case. Does anyone really believe that? As I said before, this book has been sold on Amazon for at least a few weeks and she has mentioned it in interviews for a few months. I found all this out yesterday morning in a forty-five second Google search. You're telling me that the Republican campaign to elect McCain as President, with thousands of employees and volunteers, didn't commit 45 seconds to researching the moderator of the most anticipated VP debate in recent memory? How stupid do they think we are? They're obviously working the refs, but at least come out and say you were working the refs.

    With your example of Bill O'Reilly, he never would have been moderator because concerns would have been raised that he had biases and they would have had to find a more nuanced moderator. If this was such a problem for McCain's camp and the conservative blogs, why wasn't this issue raised a week ago? Ifill has been preparing questions for weeks, so why wasn't the issue raised in time to get an unbiased moderator in there? Obviously, they didn't want an unbiased moderator; now, if Palin falls flat on her face, it's the moderator's fault and not hers.

    Tell me, saveuplife, if this was truly such a problem, why wasn't it raised when something could have been done about it?
  • jwillmo
    jwillmo Posts: 471
    saveuplife wrote:
    Come on man, here it is again.... Obama can do no wrong... and even when he does something somewhat negative, it's the other guys fault. lol

    McCain will win the military vote. Republicans always win the military vote. Remember Kerry/Rendell trying to suppress the military vote from abroad in 04?
    Where the hell did I say Obama can do no wrong? While I'm leaning towards Obama at this point, I don't exactly have Obama fever. I just think this particular point you tried to make was stupid. The point is, I don't think he did something "somewhat negative," but I did hate McCain's pandering bracelet speech. So in this case, Obama's the "other guy" and no, I don't think it's his fault that McCain did something I found "somewhat negative."

    If you brought up, say, Obama saying he would take public funding and then not once he realized he could make a shitload of cash by not doing it, then you have a point I can agree with. This bracelet nonsense, however, as well as this Ifill nonsense, is stupid and has nothing to do with who will be the better President/VP.

    And can we please have a moratoriam (sp?) on this LOL shit? Did you really "laugh out loud"? Really?
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    polaris wrote:
    o'reilly has shown he is not objective in his interviews ... can't do the job ... you're stretching ...

    Personal perceptions of someone else's objectivity can be subjective. So, one could say the same about a number of current moderators.

    It's just that you prefer that side of the aisle. I understand that... and I kinda agree that O'Reilly isn't the right person for the job... but I was trying to point out that if roles were reversed the Obama-supporters would be outraged.
  • jwillmo
    jwillmo Posts: 471
    saveuplife wrote:
    90% of those in the news business vote Democrat. I think people believe that.

    74% of all statistics are made up.

    Think about that.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    Tell me, saveuplife, if this was truly such a problem, why wasn't it raised when something could have been done about it?

    She said today that she did not tell the debate commission about the book. Therefore, what you said is not correct. It's very very realistic that the McCain camp did not know about this until this week.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    jwillmo wrote:
    And can we please have a moratoriam (sp?) on this LOL shit? Did you really "laugh out loud"? Really?


    I'd say I chuckled to myself. yes.
  • blackredyellow
    blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    saveuplife wrote:
    Getting back to the thread at hand.... how would you all feel if O'Reilly was moderating? Would it matter to you? I'm sensing it would.

    O'Reilly isn't a journalist, but an op-ed commentator. If it was someone like Brit Hume or Chris Wallace, I'd wouldn't be totally thrilled, but I'd be ok with it until at least AFTER the debate if I saw some bias.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    saveuplife wrote:
    Personal perceptions of someone else's objectivity can be subjective. So, one could say the same about a number of current moderators.

    It's just that you prefer that side of the aisle. I understand that... and I kinda agree that O'Reilly isn't the right person for the job... but I was trying to point out that if roles were reversed the Obama-supporters would be outraged.

    dude ... you could have given a plethora of conservative journalists for your example - but you chose the outrageous for a reason ... it's because you know no one would gripe if that person has shown they can do the job ...

    that is what it boils down to ... the reality is that if this was flipped and the moderator has shown they can do the job in the past - i would be writing the same thing ...
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    She said today that she did not tell the debate commission about the book. Therefore, what you said is not correct. It's very very realistic that the McCain camp did not know about this until this week.

    Forty-five seconds it took me. I don't know what to say if you're telling me a campaign of thousands of employees and volunteers didn't commit forty-five seconds of research to the VP moderator of this year. It's ludicrous to suggest they had no idea.

    You're saying that they can find some bill that Obama voted on at least eight years ago and turn it into a vote on comprehensive sex education for minors, and they didn't do a Google search on the moderator of this VP debate? All they would have needed was the first page!

    The facts just aren't with your position on this one, I don't believe.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    Forty-five seconds it took me. I don't know what to say if you're telling me a campaign of thousands of employees and volunteers didn't commit forty-five seconds of research to the VP moderator of this year. It's ludicrous to suggest they had no idea.

    You're saying that they can find some bill that Obama voted on at least eight years ago and turn it into a vote on comprehensive sex education for minors, and they didn't do a Google search on the moderator of this VP debate? All they would have needed was the first page!

    The facts just aren't with your position on this one, I don't believe.


    Once again, she didn't tell the debate commission.... they are her own words.
  • mammasan
    mammasan Posts: 5,656
    I don't think the objection to Gwen Ifill has anything to do with race. On the other hand I do believe this is a strategic move by the McCain/Palin Campaign to undermine the results of the VP debate should Palin perform poorly. You can't expect anyone to believe that the McCain campaign had no idea that Ifill was writing this book and it seems extremely odd that this would be made an issue the day before the debate. At that point it was too late to find a replacement to moderate the debate.

    While I believe that Gwen Ifill would be able to perform her duties as moderator and be as objective as possible I would prefer that see stepped aside, if only to make sure that their is no issue with the outcome. Unfortunately it is too late for that now and the results, if the debate goes favorably for Biden, will be scutinized and no matter how impartial gwen will be the GOp will use her book as an excuse for Palin's performance.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    Once again, she didn't tell the debate commission.... they are her own words.

    Never mind, there's no point to this. If you're not willing to answer the question, what's the point of debating it?

    Answer this question: do you honestly think it's realistic to believe that, assuming Ifill has publicized this book for months (which she has), the McCain campaign knew nothing about it? I really don't see how anyone could believe such a thing.
  • jwillmo
    jwillmo Posts: 471
    saveuplife wrote:
    I'd say I chuckled to myself. yes.
    Gee don't bother responding to the substanative part of my response.

    As for "She didn't tell the debate comission she was writing a book," so that's all it takes for the McCain camp to agree on a moderator? I guess that's how they picked Palin. She didn't tell them she was a moron, so they assumed she was qualified to be VP.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    jwillmo wrote:

    As for "She didn't tell the debate comission she was writing a book," so that's all it takes for the McCain camp to agree on a moderator? I guess that's how they picked Palin. She didn't tell them she was a moron, so they assumed she was qualified to be VP.

    It's nuts. As I keep saying, I find this information yesterday in under a minute, and it's not even my job to do so. McCain and Obama's camps have people whose job it is to vet moderators, surrogates and opponents. In politics, where everything is over-analyzed and nothing is left to chance, they missed this nugget that was out in the open? Please. It's working the refs; they made it a story so Ifill could not step aside, but it plays into their Big Bad Liberal Media storyline.

Categories