Wow... I didn't know this...

I think this story is about biden....

I'm pretty sure the OP did this on purpose...

Thinking folks would rail on Palin, then s/he could play the old switch-a-roo...

That's too bad...at first I was really impressed; "wow, saveuplife's really taking it to the candidate he/she supports!" Alas, there's always another day and another scandal.

That being said, yes, that's pretty ridiculous, if true. We'll see if a source besides the Washington Times picks it up.

I do have to wonder sometimes....with such a pervasive, far-reaching and destructive Liberal Media Bias/Conspiracy, it really is quite something that Republicans have held the Presidency for eight years and was the majority party in Congress for 16 of the last 18 years. They're really quite something. With all this liberal bias everywhere, you'd think they'd never have a shot, but they persevere nonetheless.

Isn't this old news? When Obama selected Biden I remember reading a story about Joe doing favors for his lobbiest son.... is this the same story? I remember the conflict of interest comments almost verbatum.....

Come on man, I know you're trying to make a point--a potentially valid one--but at least post the rest of the story.

Washington Times wrote:

"While no Biden family members are being paid by the Obama-Biden campaign, one of Joe Biden´s greatest political strengths and secret weapon has always been his sister Valerie, starting with her role managing his David-versus-Goliath upset Senate victory in 1972," said Biden spokesman David Wade.

"Valerie is a well-known and highly regarded political operative in Democratic politics in Delaware and nationally, and her firm has worked on top races from Michigan to Texas. End of story," Mr. Wade said.

The News Journal

Mr. Biden is hardly alone among members of Congress whose campaigns hold close ties to family. FEC records also show that Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's political action committee, Straight Talk America, paid more than $15,000 in 2006 to his wife, Cindy.

There article is even longer and can be found at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/15/biden-routes-campaign-cash-to-family-their-firms/

This hardly seems like some big huge scandal and to paint it as such, at the moment, when no one has accused Senator Biden of wrong doing, is just dishonest.

saveuplife wrote:

"If" another source picks it up.... that's the point of the thread.

Well, that's the thing. I'm a liberal who thinks it would be foolish to say a paper like the New York Times doesn't have a liberal slant, somewhat in its' reporting and more overtly in its' editorials. The problem with this statement is that it assumes that papers like the New York Times have a 'liberal' slant whereas a paper like Washington Times "tells it like it is." Please...the Washington Times is as conservative as the NY Times is liberal, but conservatives don't see that because it appeals to their worldview. There's no bias, it's just the truth (and before you jump on my point, it's the same with many liberals; the NY Times is gospel while the D.C. Times is garbage). When it comes to bias, as with most other things in life, the splinter in the opposition's eye is much easier to see than the one in your own. So, when I said we'll see if a source besides the Washington Times confirms it, I'm acknowledging that the D.C. Times has skin in the game; it has a bias, a worldview that would lead them to harp on this and shuffle other things under the rug. There's no such thing is strict objectivity. Unless, of course, you feel that the Washington Times is unbiased whereas the NY Times are flaming liberal, in which case I think you'd need to remove the splinter from your own eye.

I think the Big Bad Liberal Media Conspiracy, although though true in aspects, has become a crutch for conservative base, something to rally about without ever addressing it adequately. And if there was this overriding conspiracy to help liberals win elections, why wouldn't it have an impact? According to most conservatives, including your original post, facts are being buried, stories are being manipulated. With such an overriding liberal media conspiracy, how would voters ever receive the facts they need to make an informed decision? By this token, the cards would be permanently stacked against the conservatives ever holding office. Considering the talk of the Liberal Media Bias seems to come up every four years (coincidentially, every time a presidential election comes around), I was simply noting that despite it being such a pervasive issue, it obviously hasn't hurt the conservatives at the voting booth. Makes me wonder if it's a real issue or a campaign slogan.

My problem with the mainstream media has less to do with bias, and more to do with gutlessness. Too many media types refuse to call a spade a spade and a lie a lie. Case in point; Obama's Spanish-language ad tying Limbaugh to McCain. I watched them have a McCain and Obama surrogate on, and they let each spin their crap, and then they pretty much left it at that without acknowledging that the facts were that the ad was bullshit. It goes both ways; they'll have a McCain/Obama surrogate argument about how Obama wants to raise middle-class taxes without the acknowledgement that McCain's side is wrong, and that Obama has proposed middle-class tax cuts. The job of reporters is to report the facts, not the two campaigns' versions of the facts. To do so is not a version of objectivity; that's hiding one's head in the sand to common sense, and it's denying voters the facts that they need. If the facts of the matter clearly illustrate that any given advertisement is a blatant lie, all viewpoints should be considered, but the media should be willing to take a stand, and they take no stands these days for fear of offending any candidate or being accused of bias of any stripe. So I'm probably the only one calling for more "bias" in the media, but this current half-assed, gutless method of journalism needs an overhaul.

To be fair, though, the democratization of the media through the use of the Internet has changed everything. I'm the first to admit that it's hard to prove anything anymore. For each article and statistic that accurately prove Obama's wrong, they'll be another article or statistic proving Obama wrong on the same subject somewhere on the World Wide Web; how do you find the truth with such a vast amount of information? So I don't envy the job reporters have, but they still should be doing a better job than they are.