Can I get an AMEN?!

NeilJam

cincybearcat wrote:

Sarah was on top of the world...and what does the media do best???? Tear people down...this isn't a shock...

The media is doing what that should have been doing years ago, asking questions in an attempt to get at the truth. Republicans just whine about the media trying to "tear people down" when they start to uncover facts that are inconvenient for their party.

This whole liberal media bias is BS unless you're talking about MSNBC. Republicans have their own biased channel too called FOX News. CNN and the regular NBC network news seem unbiased.

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

The truth is the media builds people so far up, with unrealitics expectations that it makes it very easy for them to knock them back down...they do it all the time. It's what the people want after all...we want our heros, but then we want to make sure they feel our pain.

exactly, it's not the media ... that's the "effect" ... it's the public, which loves this, which is the "cause" ...

and beleive me, Obama took a ton of this for months and months, it just happened a year ago ....

cincybearcat

NeilJam wrote:

The media is doing what that should have been doing years ago, asking questions in an attempt to get at the truth. Republicans just whine about the media trying to "tear people down" when they start to uncover facts that are inconvenient for their party.

This whole liberal media bias is BS unless you're talking about MSNBC. Republicans have their own biased channel too called FOX News. CNN and the regular NBC network news seem unbiased.

Seem unbiased to you.

So, it's just republicans "whining" abotu the media tearing people down...you must have your head buried bwtween your legs...it's what they love to do, not just to republicans, but to everyone...

Obama, Palin, McCain, Hillary...just a few recent political examples...

Even more so with "celebrities".

cincybearcat

jimed14 wrote:

exactly, it's not the media ... that's the "effect" ... it's the public, which loves this, which is the "cause" ...

and beleive me, Obama took a ton of this for months and months, it just happened a year ago ....

Well, it is the media that does the work, no? We just sit back and watch it...bitching all the time.

And I already said that this occurred with Obama as well.

blackredyellow

jimed14 wrote:

exactly, it's not the media ... that's the "effect" ... it's the public, which loves this, which is the "cause" ...

and beleive me, Obama took a ton of this for months and months, it just happened a year ago ....

exactly... Obama had the media backlash too... it was just a while ago, and spread out over time.

With Palin, it was someone that the media know nothing about, and the timeframe is so compressed, that they are doing everything they can as soon as they can to show the bad side.

blackredyellow

cincybearcat wrote:

Well, it is the media that does the work, no? We just sit back and watch it...bitching all the time.

Unfortunately tearing down people is what the public seems to love, so the media keeps on doing it.

saveuplife

sweetpotato wrote:

Polls Show Palin Is Starting to Drag Down McCain
By Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos
Posted on September 19, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/99424/

No one can doubt that McCain's choice of Palin rejuvenated a listless, dying campaign. She excited the Theocon Right and brought them home, and being a fresh new face with an interesting bio, she captivated the nation's attention. Her initial numbers were sky high, and she packed them in for McCain. Suddenly, what had been a large Obama post-DNCC bounce turned on a dime, and Palin delivered a huge surge for her ticket.

Bloggers and tradmed reporters took a hard look at Sarah Palin and began raking her over the coals for myriad transgressions. She is a liar with theocratic tendencies, sports an intellect that makes Bush look like a Mensa member, and features an obvious fondness for Cheney-style abuses of power. And that's not even the worst of it.

But then the worriers began to question, "Why are we focusing on Palin? McCain is getting a pass! We're tilting at windmills, since she's too popular to damage!" We were told to stop talking altogether about Palin, as if ignoring her would remove the spell she had cast on America. This Andrew Sullivan post must've been emailed to me two dozen times by panicked worrywarts. A few bad polls, and people seemed to be losing their minds and sense.

But we continued to focus on Palin. Republicans were busy trying to build a positive narrative about Palin -- the "hockey mom" who was so folksy she could "field dress a moose" and had "said no to the Bridge to Nowhere and other government waste" and was overflowing with "small town values." McCain had shot up in the polls because of Palin. Common sense dictated it would be hard to knock him back down as long as she consolidated her popularity. So we set out to build the negative narratives about Palin. This is stuff straight out of Taking on the System. I have a whole chapter on it, in fact.

So we focused heavily on Palin, and make no mistake, it's exactly that intense focus that has taken its toll on her numbers:

Approve Disapprove No Opinion


9/11: 52 35 13 +17
9/12: 51 37 12 +14
9/13: 49 40 11 +9
9/14: 47 42 11 +5
9/15: 47 43 10 +4
9/16: 45 44 11 +1
9/17: 44 45 11 -1
9/18: 42 46 11 -4

That's a shocking 21-point collapse in a single week. She went from being just about the most popular person on the top of the ticket, to the (lipstick wearing?) goat. And it's not just our Research 2000 polling showing this collapse.

In the three days after Palin joined Team McCain--Aug. 29-31--32 percent of voters told the pollsters at Diageo/Hotline that they had a favorable opinion of her; most (48 percent) didn't know enough to say [..] By Sept. 4, however, 43 percent of Diageo/Hotline respondents approved of Palin with only 25 percent disapproving--an 18-point split. Apparently, voters were liking what they were hearing. Four days later, Palin's approval rating had climbed to 47 percent (+17), and by Sept. 13 it had hit 52 percent. The gap at that point between her favorable and unfavorable numbers--22 percent--was larger than either McCain's (+20) or Obama's (+13).

But then a funny thing happened: Palin seems to have lost some of her luster. Since Sept. 13, Palin's unfavorables have climbed from 30 percent to 36 percent. Meanwhile, her favorables have slipped from 52 percent to 48 percent. That's a three-day net swing of -10 points, and it leaves her in the Sept. 15 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll tied for the smallest favorability split (+12)** of any of the Final Four. [UPDATE: The Sept. 17 Diageo/Hotline tracking poll shows Palin at 47 percent favorable and 37 percent unfavorable--an even narrower +10 split.] Over the course of a single weekend, in other words, Palin went from being the most popular White House hopeful to the least.

The trendline is indisputable (it was just picked up by CBS). And just as Palin's initial popularity bolstered McCain, her sudden faltering is now bringing him back down to earth. You might have even noticed that the latest round of McCain ads don't even feature her or refer to "McCain/Palin." It's back to just "McCain." She was starting to drag him down.

Palin will continue to excite and energize the wingnut base. She was designed for that purpose, and won't fail at that task. But her cratering popularity now hampers McCain's efforts to expand beyond that core base.

All of this is happening because we did not relent on Palin, blocking Republican efforts to paint her in a positive light. The results are speaking for themselves.


[size=-2]Markos Moulitsas is founder of the political blog Daily Kos and coauthor of "Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots, and the Rise of People-Powered Politics" (Chelsea Green Publishing). [/size]

© 2008 Daily Kos All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/99424/

Those who hate and dispise her will never understand why she matters in this race until election day. Moreover, I think the Democratic party still doesn't understand that the median voter doesn't matter as much in this day and age (look at Kerry/Bush for proof). Regardless of her current popularity amongst "all voters", she remains probably even more popular amongst Republicans. What she did was rally a base. That's the name of the game in politics. Currently, she's getting the base pissed (by the "liberal" media as they call it bashing one of their kind), so they'll show up to the polls. The media is doing that. They are pissing off the people who are behind her and they will continue to. Republicans are much better in the political game then Democrats, it's proven over and over (as Republicans keep winning even though they have much much less registered to their party) . I know, for certain, if John McCain wins it will because he chose her.

NeilJam

cincybearcat wrote:

Seem unbiased to you.

So, it's just republicans "whining" abotu the media tearing people down...you must have your head buried bwtween your legs...it's what they love to do, not just to republicans, but to everyone...

Obama, Palin, McCain, Hillary...just a few recent political examples...

Even more so with "celebrities".

I'm just referring to the "liberal media" description that gets tossed around. I only hear Republicans refer to media that way.

I know what you mean about the media also bringing down Democrats and celebrities, but I don't hear them say it is due to liberal bias.

meistereder

NeilJam wrote:

I'm just referring to the "liberal media" description that gets tossed around. I only hear Republicans refer to media that way.

I know what you mean about the media also bringing down Democrats and celebrities, but I don't hear them say it is due to liberal bias.

That term is thrown around because the majority of objective journalists happen to vote democrat. You can't turn off your common sense.

The question I have is how the media supposedly is tearing Palin down? By asking questions about her qualifications, I guess. By showing footage of her train wreck of an interview.

cincybearcat

NeilJam wrote:

I'm just referring to the "liberal media" description that gets tossed around. I only hear Republicans refer to media that way.

I know what you mean about the media also bringing down Democrats and celebrities, but I don't hear them say it is due to liberal bias.

You want the truth???? You can't handle the truth!!

No seriously, the truth is I mentioend the liberal biased media (with a winky) cause I knew i'd get a reaction. Of course, I still believe that the media does generally lean left and it shows up often in my opinion, but I think that is a small part of what happened with Palin.

next up...the media show Palin as the victim of this tearing down (that they themsleves did) and build her back up...but don;t worry folks....she'll relapse again and be torn down...where will it stand come early Nov???? Keep watching!

El_Kabong

meistereder wrote:

That term is thrown around because the majority of objective journalists happen to vote democrat. You can't turn off your common sense.

The question I have is how the media supposedly is tearing Palin down? By asking questions about her qualifications, I guess. By showing footage of her train wreck of an interview.

and yet the majority of owners and editors are conservative...at least according to the publication publisher & editor a few years ago

i can probably name as many conservative tv journlaists as liberal that are currently on

jimed14

cincybearcat wrote:

You want the truth???? You can't handle the truth!!

No seriously, the truth is I mentioend the liberal biased media (with a winky) cause I knew i'd get a reaction. Of course, I still believe that the media does generally lean left and it shows up often in my opinion, but I think that is a small part of what happened with Palin.

next up...the media show Palin as the victim of this tearing down (that they themsleves did) and build her back up...but don;t worry folks....she'll relapse again and be torn down...where will it stand come early Nov???? Keep watching!

You ahve to admit, she keeps spurning the media, that might be some of the "bias" you are talking about ... I mean, if she's too afraid the stand up and take questions or interviews, and talk to people, she's made her bed, she needs to lie in it.

edit - it's like the troopergate bullshit ... if she was in the right, suck it up and go talk to the investigators ... they voted 14 - 0 in Alaska to persue this investigation ... 3 - 2 in favor of the subpeonas (3 republicans) .... the longer they AVOID talking, the more conjecture and bullshit is said about it, about her ... same with the media, the more you hide, the worse it is.

sweetpotato

cubbieblue82 wrote:

... I think that women initially loved the idea of a woman in the white house, but once they saw what she stands for they have come back to there senses.

please don't insult all women by assuming that we jumped on the palin bandwagon! the minute word came of her selection, and it was clear what a lightweight she was, i knew it was a purely political move on mcdumbass' part and an insult to all women. the assumption must have gone something like this: "hmm, she has tits. THEY have tits. SHE has a vagina. THEY have vaginas. golly, she's a SHOE-IN!" :rolleyes: gimme a fucking break.

slightofjeff

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Palin "dragging down" the campaign.

If you mean their numbers aren't as high as they were a week or 10 days ago, well, that's true.

If you are insinuating that McCain would have been better off picking someone else as his running mate, that's asinine.

The only reason McCain now stands a chance in hell of winning this election is because the Republican base is now fervently supporting the ticket. The only reason the Republican base is fervently supporting the ticket is because of Sarah Palin.

If he picks Leiberman or Romney or someone of that ilk, Obama would currently be up double digits and this election would be over.

meistereder

slightofjeff wrote:

I suppose it depends on what you mean by Palin "dragging down" the campaign.

If you mean their numbers aren't as high as they were a week or 10 days ago, well, that's true.

If you are insinuating that McCain would have been better off picking someone else as his running mate, that's asinine.

The only reason McCain now stands a chance in hell of winning this election is because the Republican base is now fervently supporting the ticket. The only reason the Republican base is fervently supporting the ticket is because of Sarah Palin.

If he picks Leiberman or Romney or someone of that ilk, Obama would currently be up double digits and this election would be over.

Wow, the tone from the right sure has shifted in a week. Last week it was all about how Obama had blown it and how Palin was the savior. I guess the honeymoon is over.

josevolution

jimed14 wrote:

and the republicans, like Chuck Hagel? Is he "media biased"?

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel said his party’s vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, lacks foreign policy experience and called it a “stretch” to say she’s qualified to be president.

“She doesn’t have any foreign policy credentials,” Hagel said in an interview published Thursday by the Omaha World-Herald. “You get a passport for the first time in your life last year? I mean, I don’t know what you can say. You can’t say anything.”

Could Palin lead the country if GOP presidential nominee John McCain could not?

“I think it’s a stretch to, in any way, to say that she’s got the experience to be president of the United States,” Hagel said.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/18/hagel-palin-does-not-have-foreign-policy-credentials/



edit ... I forgot this gem ...

Hagel took issue with that argument. “I think they ought to be just honest about it and stop the nonsense about, ‘I look out my window and I see Russia and so therefore I know something about Russia,”‘ he said. “That kind of thing is insulting to the American people.”

yeah no doubt those comments alone is the biggest red flag of them all, i agree with this post ,she is a mess and she refused to answer specific ?? during that town hall rally what a douche ...

polaris

slightofjeff wrote:

The only reason McCain now stands a chance in hell of winning this election is because the Republican base is now fervently supporting the ticket. The only reason the Republican base is fervently supporting the ticket is because of Sarah Palin.

i guess that says more about the base than the media ...

Anon

She was the new brand that got a lot of buzz and had great PR surrounding her launch.

Now, she will still have plenty of staunch defenders, including a lot of people who will defend her because they really have no choice, or because they can't stand the idea of admitting they were wrong.

And it may be too early to get excited about her apparent collapse, but I think it's really just a matter of the buzz dying down, which it always eventually does, and people starting to realize that the product sucks.

If her viability has really reached 14:30 on the proverbial 15-minute clock, it will help restore some of my tattered faith.

If not...well, I don't want to think about it just yet.

cubbieblue82

sweetpotato wrote:

please don't insult all women by assuming that we jumped on the palin bandwagon! the minute word came of her selection, and it was clear what a lightweight she was, i knew it was a purely political move on mcdumbass' part and an insult to all women. the assumption must have gone something like this: "hmm, she has tits. THEY have tits. SHE has a vagina. THEY have vaginas. golly, she's a SHOE-IN!" :rolleyes: gimme a fucking break.

Sorry if you thought I was talking about all women, I was not. So please try to calm down a little bit. :rolleyes:

Fact is that there was a huge shift in the percentage of women leaning towards McCain immediately following the announcement and convention. That is a FACT. Now that the general population is learning more about her, more women are again favoring Obama.

I really don't see how you could think what I said was offensive towards women. I stated that once they saw here opinions and personality, they have shifted back to Obama. Chill the fuck out please.

sweetpotato

saveuplife wrote:

Those who hate and dispise her ...

right off the bat you're making a wrong assumption. i don't "hate and despise her", nor do i think most people do. i disagree with everything she stands for, yes. but the main reason i don't think she should be a fart's distance away from being president is that SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED. she's barely qualified to be governor, according to many people in her own state. the fact that many more people- even those in her own party- are coming around to this realization isn't due to some ill-defined "hatred" or "liberal bias"- it's because she's a moron. and, call me nuts, but i think more americans than ever want a president and vice president to be a wee bit more on the ball than themselves. i think america is over the hard-on for having a drinking buddy in the white house. i think we're ready for someone who actually knows a thing or two.