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

2»

Comments

  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    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.

    No, I know there are papers and other outlets that lean right. The point is the majority lean left. Regardless, of your affiliation as a journalist, cover the damn story. If you lean left, dig up why the story is BS, but present facts. If you lean right, tell us more about it, presenting facts. Bottom line... do your f'ing job as a journalist. Don't just ignore it.

    There's a very large negative bias in the aggregate news towards Palin (even relative to someone like McCain) and anyone who is honest and objective would admit this would be on most news networks tonight if she was involved. Instead, it will be brushed under the rug.
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    saveuplife wrote:
    I'd love to see cnn or msnbc cover this.

    Do you really think they wouldnt cover this story? You've been drinking too much Palin koolaid.
  • josevolution
    josevolution Posts: 31,648
    ahhhhhh who gives a flying f'nnnnnn peanut .....if you have to justify your vote you are lost ....
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    saveuplife wrote:
    Accrording to the article,...

    ****McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the payment reimbursed Mrs. McCain for catering expenses she had covered in connection with an election night party.

    As to your point,...

    Settle. There's a reason for the post. And I never claimed it was a "big hudge scandle" and I didn't "paint it as such. I think it's most likely a dumb @ss move by Biden. Moreover, it does have potential to be a scandal.

    But, the POINT of this thread is that this would be all over every news network if it was Palin. It's not, so it gets buried and only reported by right-leaning press. That's the point.... and it's accurate. The point is journalists are not reporting stuff like this and that's bad for everyone.

    If there's more facts to be had on this... great. If this is BS... fine. Their job as journalists are to dig up the facts and report. They should be doing their job. This should be on cnn.com, but it's on drudgereport.com. It's not surprising drudge gets more viewers.

    I wasn't really trying to highlight the McCain part of it, 15k is not quite 2mil, anyway.

    And I suppose you're right. You weren't trying to paint it as a big huge scandal, rather it was implicit in the article's title. So I did misappropriate that to you.

    But by posting it the way you did, it seems to imply --and correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my inference--that everyone would have just blindly attacked Sarah Palin without reading the whole story. My question: do you feel Sarah Palin is getting too much coverage in the press--or rather, that the stories running about her are overstated?

    While the media does suck and should be doing a better job of reporting in a more "fair and balanced" manner, I can understand why they are running with a lot of these Sarah Palin stories. One, they are pertinent to the election. Two, McCain and Biden's records speak pretty squarely for themselves--we already know them. As for Obama, as much as Palin keeps asking "who is Barack Obama," it doesn't change the fact that most people already know. He's been campaigning for nearly two years. Three, the Republican party really is thrusting Palin into the spotlight. If she's getting too much attention for their liking, maybe they should look at their strategy. In fact, in my opinion, the reason she was selected as McCain's running mate is because she is provactive--she'll garner lots of attention.
  • Open
    Open Posts: 792
    Is Fox covering it? Surely you dont think they're left leaning?
  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    saveuplife wrote:
    There's a very large negative bias in the aggregate news towards Palin (even relative to someone like McCain) and anyone who is honest and objective would admit this would be on most news networks tonight if she was involved. Instead, it will be brushed under the rug.

    I don't think so. If she had already run for President, or like Joe Biden had been in the Senate since before the bicentennial, she wouldn't be receiving the same level of scrutiny as she has been these last few weeks. We'd already know more than six weeks worth of information about her before the Presidential election and wouldn't be digging for any story to tell us more.

    Just out of curiosity, and on a semi-unrelated note, we've been talking quite a bit about how shitty the American media is. What news sources do you frequent?
  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    Open wrote:
    Do you really think they wouldnt cover this story? You've been drinking too much Palin koolaid.

    In fairness, I haven't found any coverage from either of those sources on it. Then again, I couldn't find it on Fox News' website either.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    uhh ... that's like saying oj simpson gets a lot of bad coverage ... maybe it's because she deserves it!??? ... sheesh ...
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    No, I know there are papers and other outlets that lean right. The point is the majority lean left. Regardless, of your affiliation as a journalist, cover the damn story. If you lean left, dig up why the story is BS, but present facts. If you lean right, tell us more about it, presenting facts. Bottom line... do your f'ing job as a journalist. Don't just ignore it.

    There's a very large negative bias in the aggregate news towards Palin (even relative to someone like McCain) and anyone who is honest and objective would admit this would be on most news networks tonight if she was involved. Instead, it will be brushed under the rug.

    The majority lean left? Show me this irrefutable evidence. I took a look at the top 100 newspapers in circulation. Barring strictly local papers, which tend to illustrate the views of the people in the areas where they are produced, I'd like to see this sweeping stranglehold that the liberals have on print media. In the top 10 papers, mostly papers designed for a general and national audience I see liberal papers (NY Times, LA Times, D.C. Post) and I see conservative papers (Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, NY Post)...so, I'm wondering where this resolute power liberals have over print media is. And I must say, I find it hard to say that we live in a society where the media is run by and constantly perpetuates liberal stories and values when the number one news channel on television is Fox News, the man who owns by far more print and television media than any man is Rupert Murdoch, and I'm failing to see the monopoly you speak of, and if it was such an important problem to our country's journalistic integrity, why does it only seem to come up every four years when candidates are running for President? And let's not even brother mentioning talk radio, since that sure doesn't fit into the "media liberal bias" storyline at all.

    I agree with your statement above; reporters should get to the heart of the story no matter what side they land on. However, such proclamations go both ways, and I don't really see such condemnation coming from the right or the left regarding the 'splinters in their own eyes.' To conservatives, stories like the one in the original post are real stories that the "Mainstream Media" fails to report, but they don't say a word when the same conservative-leaning media channels and papers sweep stories contradicting their worldview under the table. I watch Fox News more than any other news station, and I've seen an awful lot about ACORN and Bill Ayers and surprisingly little about Palin's abuse of power problems she's been having over the past few days. Where's your condemnation of such practices, since you find it so abhorrent that the New York Times would "bury" stories? Even if one were to take your hypothesis that the media world is 99% unabashedly liberal (which I think I proved otherwise above), shoddy journalistic practices knows no ideology. When I can go on the D.C. Times or FoxNews' websites and see plenty about ACORN and Ayers and precious little about Sarah Palin's faults, it makes it difficult to listen to a lecture about the failures of the "liberal mainstream media." Nevertheless, I agree with your point in principle. I think it needs to be aimed at everyone.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    nothinghead wrote:
    I wasn't really trying to highlight the McCain part of it, 15k is not quite 2mil, anyway.

    And I suppose you're right. You weren't trying to paint it as a big huge scandal, rather it was implicit in the article's title. So I did misappropriate that to you.

    But by posting it the way you did, it seems to imply --and correct me if I'm wrong, this is just my inference--that everyone would have just blindly attacked Sarah Palin without reading the whole story. My question: do you feel Sarah Palin is getting too much coverage in the press--or rather, that the stories running about her are overstated? .

    I think Palin is getting too much coverage in the press AND the stories running about her are overstated, and typically negative.
    nothinghead wrote:
    While the media does suck and should be doing a better job of reporting in a more "fair and balanced" manner, I can understand why they are running with a lot of these Sarah Palin stories. One, they are pertinent to the election. Two, McCain and Biden's records speak pretty squarely for themselves--we already know them. As for Obama, as much as Palin keeps asking "who is Barack Obama," it doesn't change the fact that most people already know. He's been campaigning for nearly two years. Three, the Republican party really is thrusting Palin into the spotlight. If she's getting too much attention for their liking, maybe they should look at their strategy. In fact, in my opinion, the reason she was selected as McCain's running mate is because she is provactive--she'll garner lots of attention.

    To address these points...

    1. She is pertinent to the election. That said, so is Biden. This story attached should be getting coverage in most press outlets.

    2. Obama is running for President. She is running for VP. There is and always will be a difference. If you are going to scrutinize her record (which is pretty good btw atleast according to Newsweek--a liberal mag--in late-07, before her selection) then they should be scrutinizing Obama's more so. Biden, McCain, Obama and Palin should all have their records scrutinized. When something that comes up, and it's newsworthy, it should receive press. This, the attached, is an example that this is just not happening. But, you know it would be if it was Palin.

    3. You are right McCain took one our state's governors and "thrust" her into the spotlight. See, I agree that she was relatively unknown to the general public. However, I don't agree that she didn't already have a prominent role in politics... arguably even more prominent than the role of Senator. But, that's not the point. I think going over her record is one thing, but to say she's unqualified is just naive. She was a f'ing Governor of a state and a mayor. Come on. It's not like she's been picked out of no where. That's the type of BS, that IMHO shows me the "leftist journalists" were out to hit her. The arguement is slanted at best. Obama was elected into office in late 2004. And I do not see an equal questioning of his "qualifications" to lead a country. The executive branch is not equal to the legislative branch. And I'm not saying a Senator can't or shouldn't be President... I'm simply saying a guy who's held a politcal seat for less than 4 years and is running for PRESIDENT should be receiving atleast as much scrutinizing over his record as a woman whos's held a poltically elected seat for over 10 years (yes, mayor is kinda weak, but it's true) and a govenorship for 2 years and who is running for VP is receiving ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION. It's really ridiculous.

    The bottom line is Obama has no record. But, the media should be highlighting this.... they just are not.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    nothinghead wrote:
    I don't think so. If she had already run for President, or like Joe Biden had been in the Senate since before the bicentennial, she wouldn't be receiving the same level of scrutiny as she has been these last few weeks. We'd already know more than six weeks worth of information about her before the Presidential election and wouldn't be digging for any story to tell us more.

    Just out of curiosity, and on a semi-unrelated note, we've been talking quite a bit about how shitty the American media is. What news sources do you frequent?

    cnn is my personal favorite. However, I do that because I hope to achieve some level of middle ground there. Fox is too right, msn too left.

    I like drudge because I believe he brings things to light that all of the above will brush under the rug.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:

    3. You are right McCain took one our state's governors and "thrust" her into the spotlight. See, I agree that she was relatively unknown to the general public. However, I don't agree that she didn't already have a prominent role in politics... arguably even more prominent than the role of Senator. But, that's not the point. I think going over her record is one thing, but to say she's unqualified is just naive. She was a f'ing Governor of a state and a mayor. Come on. It's not like she's been picked out of no where. That's the type of BS, that IMHO shows me the "leftist journalists" were out to hit her. The arguement is slanted at best. Obama was elected into office in late 2004. And I do not see an equal questioning of his "qualifications" to lead a country. The executive branch is not equal to the legislative branch. And I'm not saying a Senator can't or shouldn't be President... I'm simply saying a guy who's held a politcal seat for less than 4 years and is running for PRESIDENT should be receiving atleast as much scrutinizing over his record as a woman whos's held a poltically elected seat for over 10 years (yes, mayor is kinda weak, but it's true) and a govenorship for 2 years and who is running for VP is receiving ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION. It's really ridiculous.

    The bottom line is Obama has no record. But, the media should be highlighting this.... they just are not.

    There's several things I disagree with in this; one of them is indisputable. You say Obama was first elected to office in 2004. That's not true; he was first elected to office eight years before that, in 1996, and started working as a State Senator in Illinois in Jan. 97. So I don't know where that's coming from.

    Here's my problem with your stance on this, and at first it will seem contradictory to something I said before. You say that "the bottom line is that Obama has no record." Many people would state that is ridiculous, and I think it's impossible to have an opinion that does not hold up to facts. I could point you to legislation Obama has sponsored, co-sponsored and/or voted for in the U.S. Senate that includes reducing worldwide nuclear arms, aiding Hurricane Katrina victims, ethics reform, advancement of alternative energy sources, etc. And that's just in the U.S. Senate; we could go into the State Senate as well. Now, maybe you think that legislative record is lightweight; maybe you think it shows he has no spine. Maybe you don't agree with his positions. Those are all legitimate critiques of his legislative record, and they're great topics for discussion. But the "bottom line" you posted is not a bottom line at all. It's your subjective, conservative leaning analysis of what the bottom line is, just like I have an analysis coming from my point of view as an Obama supporter. There are significant, legitimate and important disagreements and debates to be had there but you can't claim absolute certitude on an issue where the facts dispute such certitude, and then criticize the media for not telling the truth about such a non-existent "bottom line." It doesn't seem to me that you're unhappy that some media outlets aren't reporting "the facts." You're unhappy that they are not reporting your subjective analysis of the facts.

    P.S. Is it just me, or am I the only one who have heard these mainstream media outlets, including the liberal rags like MSNBC and Newsweek, bring up the argument in political circles about whether Obama has enough experience to be President? I mean, we've only gone through a Democratic primary campaign and a General Election campaign where it was a primary issue.
  • nothinghead
    nothinghead Posts: 270
    saveuplife wrote:
    I think Palin is getting too much coverage in the press AND the stories running about her are overstated, and typically negative.



    To address these points...

    1. She is pertinent to the election. That said, so is Biden. This story attached should be getting coverage in most press outlets.

    2. Obama is running for President. She is running for VP. There is and always will be a difference. If you are going to scrutinize her record (which is pretty good btw atleast according to Newsweek--a liberal mag--in late-07, before her selection) then they should be scrutinizing Obama's more so. Biden, McCain, Obama and Palin should all have their records scrutinized. When something that comes up, and it's newsworthy, it should receive press. This, the attached, is an example that this is just not happening. But, you know it would be if it was Palin.

    3. You are right McCain took one our state's governors and "thrust" her into the spotlight. See, I agree that she was relatively unknown to the general public. However, I don't agree that she didn't already have a prominent role in politics... arguably even more prominent than the role of Senator. But, that's not the point. I think going over her record is one thing, but to say she's unqualified is just naive. She was a f'ing Governor of a state and a mayor. Come on. It's not like she's been picked out of no where. That's the type of BS, that IMHO shows me the "leftist journalists" were out to hit her. The arguement is slanted at best. Obama was elected into office in late 2004. And I do not see an equal questioning of his "qualifications" to lead a country. The executive branch is not equal to the legislative branch. And I'm not saying a Senator can't or shouldn't be President... I'm simply saying a guy who's held a politcal seat for less than 4 years and is running for PRESIDENT should be receiving atleast as much scrutinizing over his record as a woman whos's held a poltically elected seat for over 10 years (yes, mayor is kinda weak, but it's true) and a govenorship for 2 years and who is running for VP is receiving ONE MONTH BEFORE AN ELECTION. It's really ridiculous.

    The bottom line is Obama has no record. But, the media should be highlighting this.... they just are not.

    1.) Yes, it should be reported more widespread. This isn't a shocking revelation of any kind, and I wouldn't expect to see it plastered on every headline, but it should be somewhere in some capacity. Seems like we agree here.

    2.) I think Obama's record has been scrutinized more so. In fact, Palin's record hasn't really been debated at all. Instead, we've been debating how crappy she does in interviews and doesn't know what newspapers she reads. Or we've talked about pictures of her shooting things from a helicopter, her pregnant daughter, how much she looks like Tina Fey, her secessionist husband, etc. "Troopergate"--god, i hate how the add 'gate' to the end of everything now--is that closest the media really has come to discussing her record as a politician.

    3.) Again, I think Obama's experience has been discussed at great length. It came up nearly twenty months ago when this campaign started, it continued through the DNC debates and his run against Hilary Clinton, and it has been discussed throughout the debates and every time McCain brings it up. That said, I don't think he's particularly qualified. I also don't think experience is a relative thing. "Well, she's more experienced than Obama," still doesn't make her qualified either. She was Mayor, great. Wasilla had 5,500 people when she was in charge. There are school districts with more students. She was Governor for two years. That's a step in the right direction. Alaska, if it were a city, would be like 15th in the United States by population. Yes, the duties are different, but it still doesn't make her anywhere near a well-qualified candidate. And even if we argue that it's still more qualification than being a Senator is, it didn't give her any exposure on a national level--my hypothesis as to why she's getting so much media coverage.

    I think we actually agree on more than we disagree here premise wise--we're just taking it to different conclusions.

    As for media sources, yeah, msnbc and foxnews are way to biased. CNN isn't bad. I find BBC's website, not the American one, kind of interesting too.
  • saveuplife
    saveuplife Posts: 1,173
    digster wrote:
    There's several things I disagree with in this; one of them is indisputable. You say Obama was first elected to office in 2004. That's not true; he was first elected to office eight years before that, in 1996, and started working as a State Senator in Illinois in Jan. 97. So I don't know where that's coming from.

    Here's my problem with your stance on this, and at first it will seem contradictory to something I said before. You say that "the bottom line is that Obama has no record." Many people would state that is ridiculous, and I think it's impossible to have an opinion that does not hold up to facts. I could point you to legislation Obama has sponsored, co-sponsored and/or voted for in the U.S. Senate that includes reducing worldwide nuclear arms, aiding Hurricane Katrina victims, ethics reform, advancement of alternative energy sources, etc. And that's just in the U.S. Senate; we could go into the State Senate as well. Now, maybe you think that legislative record is lightweight; maybe you think it shows he has no spine. Maybe you don't agree with his positions. Those are all legitimate critiques of his legislative record, and they're great topics for discussion. But the "bottom line" you posted is not a bottom line at all. It's your subjective, conservative leaning analysis of what the bottom line is, just like I have an analysis coming from my point of view as an Obama supporter. There are significant, legitimate and important disagreements and debates to be had there but you can't claim absolute certitude on an issue where the facts dispute such certitude, and then criticize the media for not telling the truth about such a non-existent "bottom line." It doesn't seem to me that you're unhappy that some media outlets aren't reporting "the facts." You're unhappy that they are not reporting your subjective analysis of the facts.

    P.S. Is it just me, or am I the only one who have heard these mainstream media outlets, including the liberal rags like MSNBC and Newsweek, bring up the argument in political circles about whether Obama has enough experience to be President? I mean, we've only gone through a Democratic primary campaign and a General Election campaign where it was a primary issue.



    Actually, you are right to point out he was in state senate since 1997. But, you are avoiding my central point.... Palin is running for VP. She's held an executive level position since 96. Obama is running for President. He's held a legislative level position since 97. Palin is receiving more criticism in the weeks before the election. That's the point.

    Your reason, is basically we hashed that out already with Obama in the primary. That's 100% BS. It's not been hashed out in front of the largest audience and right before the election so all can see. It needs to be. He is running for PRESIDENT.

    As for his record, he voted "Present" as you know quite a few times in his State Senate role. IMHO State Senate is roughly the equivalent of small town mayor when running for President.... you certainly don't have federal records for either. So, let's throw that out for a second. As for his current job as U.S. Senator, he's voted roughly 1/2 the time. He's been running for President since he got the job. He most likely avoided any vote he was nervous about (WHICH ALL CANDIDATES DO, so I'm not singling him out). As you can see, as far as federal issues go, he has very little record to inspect... hence my point. Maybe an over simplification saying "no record". Maybe it's better to say "limited record".

    Which brings it back to the central tenant of the thread. Why is Palin running for VP getting more scrutinty than Obama running for Pres now, closing in on two months after her selection and less than a few weeks away from the Presidential election.

    I know you are voting Obama, not trying to change that.... just trying to get you to admit, it is a bit slighted.
  • digster
    digster Posts: 1,293
    saveuplife wrote:
    Actually, you are right to point out he was in state senate since 1997. But, you are avoiding my central point.... Palin is running for VP. She's held an executive level position since 96. Obama is running for President. He's held a legislative level position since 97. Palin is receiving more criticism in the weeks before the election. That's the point.

    Your reason, is basically we hashed that out already with Obama in the primary. That's 100% BS. It's not been hashed out in front of the largest audience and right before the election so all can see. It needs to be. He is running for PRESIDENT.

    As for his record, he voted "Present" as you know quite a few times in his State Senate role. IMHO State Senate is roughly the equivalent of small town mayor when running for President.... you certainly don't have federal records for either. So, let's throw that out for a second. As for his current job as U.S. Senator, he's voted roughly 1/2 the time. He's been running for President since he got the job. He most likely avoided any vote he was nervous about (WHICH ALL CANDIDATES DO, so I'm not singling him out). As you can see, as far as federal issues go, he has very little record to inspect... hence my point. Maybe an over simplification saying "no record". Maybe it's better to say "limited record".

    Which brings it back to the central tenant of the thread. Why is Palin running for VP getting more scrutinty than Obama running for Pres now, closing in on two months after her selection and less than a few weeks away from the Presidential election.

    I know you are voting Obama, not trying to change that.... just trying to get you to admit, it is a bit slighted.

    I'll go through this one by one, but I should say that we seem to agree on far more than we disagree upon. I think that any reasonable person, no matter what ideology they hold dear, can and should realize that it is vital for any reporter to report the truth. I think you didn't address the point I made that the problem is not liberalism, but gutlessness and an emphasis on sales (which I'll touch on again soon). However, I thought it was important to point out that since you were making such an important point about how she served over TEN YEARS in elected office (which was not actually ten years; she only served as the mayor of Wasilla until 2002, and didn't enter the governor's office until 2007) whereas Obama only served four years. I thought it was important to point out that those statistics are not, in fact, true. In fact, Obama has served far more time in office than Palin.

    That being said, I'm not here to debate Palin's government experience. Luckily for us, the Presidency or Vice Presidency is not limited to those with decades of governmental experience, or else we would have a limited selection of candidates. Besides considering that George W. Bush had more government experience than either Sarah Palin or Barack Obama I don't think government experience is necessarily the best way to judge a potential candidate. My feelings on her inadequacy for higher office stem from her seeming inability to grasp the complex issues facing our nation, not her government experience, or lack thereof.

    Once again, you don't address my primary criticism of your argument, is that you're not arguing for Obama's record itself to be scrutinized in the past few months before we vote, but your subjective analysis of that record. But I'll come back to that. I agree with you that the news organizations have not gone, vote by vote, through Obama's legislative record, or (according to you) lack thereof. They have not done that for McCain, either. Or Biden. Or Palin. I'd note that the critique of her legislative record in the mainstream media of Palin has pretty much been limited to her Bridge to Nowhere stance, which has been a central part of her campaign. Typically, networks don't seem to get big ratings when they comb through candidates' legislative records, and that is a significant criticism of them; they go for what sells (lipstick on pigs, etc.) as opposed to what's important. If that's the point you're making, I'm in complete agreement.

    However, it should be said that if they did commit to such an exhaustive legislative analysis of both candidates, they'd learn a few interesting things about McCain. For example, he has never voted in favor of tax credits for alternative energy innovators, and he voted against Iraq war funding just as Obama did. So, I agree with you that the candidates' records have not been exhaustively analyzed, but let's not pretend that it would be automatically detrimential to Obama.

    So let's get to the second half of your argument, about the critcisms of Obama. In regards to the 'present' votes, I wonder where you heard such information. Personally, I heard it from the mainstream media that you are saying are failing to cover Obama exhaustively. Additionally, I've heard that extensively as a 'talking point' so I wonder if you're using it as such. If you don't take Obama's word for it (that many of those were political votes in that he agreed with the core legislation but not pork legislation that was added) then that is your right and personal opinion. You're right; he has voted often (although, it should be said that the most absent senator in Congress currently is John McCain, and this has been consistent for at least the past ten years). I took issue with you regarding the 'bottom line' being that him having no record because it is not an 'over-simpflipication' of his record, but it is completely inaccurate. He does have a record. It's certainly nowhere near as exhaustive as McCain's, and if you think that having an exhaustive national record is a prerequisite to being President, then you should vote against the candidate who does not have an extensive national record (although, I should note you'd be voting against many Republican candidates of the past who had paltry or non-existent national legislative records, so you'd be repudiating their experience as well).

    I guess if you think Obama has not been vetted by the media for the past two years, I don't know how to change your mind. I've heard about his limited legislative record; I've heard about his "present" votes. I've heard about Wright, about Ayers, and about ACORN. I've heard about his abortion record, about his indecision regarding whether he personally would speak to Iran's president or not; I should say, I've heard about his 'flip-flopping' on the subject. Despite all this, you say he hasn't been vetted, you say he hasn't been analyzed. He's been running for two years, and his legislative history is public record; it has been analyzed. If you believe otherwise, I can't convince you. I just don't know how you could believe it when the facts state otherwise.

    That being said, this has probably been our most respectful debate thus far. I'm enjoying it.

Categories