OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:00 pm

RobVarak wrote: CMPA doesn't do full studies of media bias until after election cycles, but given the overwhelming pro-Kerry bias that they found in '04 and recent donation records regarding media donations I think it's reasonable to assume that the mainstream media generally favors Obama.

That's really not my point anyway. Arguing about media bias is a moot point. Whether it exists now or not the perception that it does helps the GOP.

That's an interesting point. I guess running against the institution is so much in GOP's nature, they must be an outsider to feel comfortable.

I don't remember 2004 election that well, I was abroad for most of that year, but I vividly recall multiple election coverage gurus agree that it was the anti-Kerry bias in the media, that ultimately did him in.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:00 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:I've heard this before. POTUS rocks. Opensecrets.org people underlined that those are individual donations from persons employed at those companies. They've also indicated that these persons donate primarily to democrats. They also noted that the bulk of donations occured during better times and not so much recently. Since Obama is #1 in attracting donors from either party, I don't see how him attracting people who are already largely committed to Democratic Party as any kind of wrongdoing. Media has had this info for months, if it were to become a story it already would have been.

I don't think when the donations were made is really a viable defense.

Also, McCain can probably make an issue of PAC money rather than individual contributions. And it depends on who the individuals were. If it was Johnny Accountant, whatever. But contributions from the firms' executive or lobbying ranks could be ammunition, especially if those contributions can be linked to specific instances of support.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:25 pm

GOP has had a hard-on for Fannie and Freddie Mac for years. The execs at those companies have run them poorly but they've not been accused of any criminality.

Right now, the financial services industry as a whole is suspect. They engaged in reckless practices and now, the whole financial system is in a lot of trouble.

However, they have deep connections to Washington. Even the "maverick" is getting a lot of money from them:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contr ... cycle=2008

Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:36 pm

wco81 wrote: Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.

Are you that dense?

Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349

McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

McCain received 1/6th of what Obama did. Hello?!

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:37 pm

wco81 wrote: Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.

How did you arrive at that? According to this link Obama is way ahead.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:40 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:

I don't remember 2004 election that well, I was abroad for most of that year, but I vividly recall multiple election coverage gurus agree that it was the anti-Kerry bias in the media, that ultimately did him in.

This has come up in an earlier iteration of the thread, but it's definitely worth reviewing:

http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/04novdec.pdf

wco81 wrote

Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.

The political difference being that McCain isn't claiming that connection to industry and lobbyists is tantamount to corruption the way the Obama campaign is. Politicians all take money from special interests, but it takes a special arrogance and hypocrisy to take the sort of rhetorical position which Obama has embraced.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:40 pm

The Politics of Hope and Change:

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:41 pm

I think wco means industry as a whole, i.e. corporate donations, not just Freddie and Fannie.

He posted a different link...helpful in its own right as it contains the top Nader donors. Surely a better list of companies to steer clear of has never been published

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:43 pm

Teal wrote:
wco81 wrote: Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.
Are you that dense?

Obama, Barack S IL D $126,349 $6,000 $120,349

McCain, John S AZ R $21,550 $0 $21,550

McCain received 1/6th of what Obama did. Hello?!

Easy there, tiger.

JackB1 · Post by **JackB1** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:45 pm

JackDog wrote:
Slumberland wrote: omg plz stfu
Jack. I'm gonna give you some pearls here man. I know in my heart your not a bigot. I really believe your a good man. But brother your zeal over this election has driven you to post some very intolerant remarks regarding gender,age and faith. No bullshit. Clam down and think before you post.

Jack, I think I am going to take your advice, since my comments seem to get misunderstood more often than not. This election has made me crazy and I so badly want our country to stop heading down the drain. It's frustrating to watch what's been happening. We had the whole world on our side after 9/11 and we pissed it all away. To be honest, I don't think either candidate has the tools needed to turn this mess around. I am starting to give up hope in our system. Today's stock plunge was just another indicator of how bad things have become. Corruption is everywhere and capitalism has created a monster that is out of control.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:49 pm

JackB1 wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Slumberland wrote: omg plz stfu
Jack. I'm gonna give you some pearls here man. I know in my heart your not a bigot. I really believe your a good man. But brother your zeal over this election has driven you to post some very intolerant remarks regarding gender,age and faith. No bullshit. Clam down and think before you post.
Jack, I think I am going to take your advice, since my comments seem to get misunderstood more often than not. This election has made me crazy and I so badly want our country to stop heading down the drain. It's frustrating to watch what's been happening. We had the whole world on our side after 9/11 and we pissed it all away. To be honest, I don't think either candidate has the tools needed to turn this mess around. I am starting to give up hope in our system. Today's stock plunge was just another indicator of how bad things have become. Corruption is everywhere and capitalism has created a monster that is out of control.

LOL. Those are some big swings you are taking.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:50 pm

RobVarak wrote:
This has come up in an earlier iteration of the thread, but it's definitely worth reviewing:

http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/04novdec.pdf

Haha. So modest and diplomatic.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:54 pm

RobVarak wrote:
Teal wrote:http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/po ... 129150.htm

"PLEASE! PLEASE WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS! I WANT THE CREDIT!"
I'm obviously a deeply cynical person, more than willing to believe the worst about politicians of any party. If they can find any independent confirmation about the main points of that coumn, I would be stunned!

I'm just not going to buy something that enormous and heinous without a bit more of a factual foundation. Until then it's as much a pink elephant as the Reagan October Surprise fictions that are out there.

McCain campaign cautiously getting on board this one.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... RlMGJmM2M=

If true, this is fiery doom for Obama.

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:04 pm

RobVarak wrote: This has come up in an earlier iteration of the thread, but it's definitely worth reviewing:
http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/04novdec.pdf

I have a few problems with the way this report is obtained and the actual subjects it covers. Some would argue Bush should be subjected to more jokes, just based on his behaviour and speaking ability. Same goes for negative coverage. Don't forget this was an unpopular president running for re-election, so how much of it is negative and how much of it is restating public opinion? The main issue I have is, who gets to decide whether one particular piece is negative or positive?

That said, I wasn't here and can't really offer an opinion of my own, all I do know is that public's opinion of Kerry took a huge dive from between when I left in the spring of 04, and when I came back, right after the election.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:07 pm

JackB1 wrote:
Jack, I think I am going to take your advice, since my comments seem to get misunderstood more often than not. This election has made me crazy and I so badly want our country to stop heading down the drain. It's frustrating to watch what's been happening. We had the whole world on our side after 9/11 and we pissed it all away. To be honest, I don't think either candidate has the tools needed to turn this mess around. I am starting to give up hope in our system. Today's stock plunge was just another indicator of how bad things have become. Corruption is everywhere and capitalism has created a monster that is out of control.

I get your passion. I admire it. You give a $hit. That's more than I can say for a lot of Americans. But sometmes that passion doesn't translate well in your posts. Like I said man. I know your heart's in the right place and you mean well. Lucky for me I get PM's schooling me up on when to calm down and think it out a bit before I post. As a friend I am doing the same for you. Don't take offense,because none is intended.

Now with that being said,I am gonig to be waiting for your next post so I can rip into it.

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:12 pm

JackB1 wrote: Corruption is everywhere and capitalism has created a monster that is out of control.

What monster is that?

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:13 pm

RobVarak wrote:
MACTEPsporta wrote:

I don't remember 2004 election that well, I was abroad for most of that year, but I vividly recall multiple election coverage gurus agree that it was the anti-Kerry bias in the media, that ultimately did him in.
This has come up in an earlier iteration of the thread, but it's definitely worth reviewing:

http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/04novdec.pdf

wco81 wrote

Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.
The political difference being that McCain isn't claiming that connection to industry and lobbyists is tantamount to corruption the way the Obama campaign is. Politicians all take money from special interests, but it takes a special arrogance and hypocrisy to take the sort of rhetorical position which Obama has embraced.

A little research digs up that CMPA, the site you list, is not non-partisan but right leaning organization.

It received seed money from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ic_Affairs

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:16 pm

FatPitcher wrote:
McCain campaign cautiously getting on board this one.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... RlMGJmM2M=

If true, this is fiery doom for Obama.

Eh. I don't know if I like that or not. One source in this day and age is little better than none. And given the gravity of the charge it'd be best if they waited.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:21 pm

RobVarak wrote:I think wco means industry as a whole, i.e. corporate donations, not just Freddie and Fannie.

He posted a different link...helpful in its own right as it contains the top Nader donors. Surely a better list of companies to steer clear of has never been published

Okay, I missed that. If that's what you were intending, wco...then you have my apologies, man.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:24 pm

JRod wrote:
A little research digs up that CMPA, the site you list, is not non-partisan but right leaning organization.

It received seed money from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ic_Affairs

Interesting, and thanks for the link. It's cited quite often by both sides of the aisle, so I never had cause to check its origins. I'll take a look at some of their other studies.

Edit: Looks like your source may not be any more objective LOL Here's the wikipedia take on the two organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for ... ic_Affairs

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:30 pm

The latest Obama gaffe, from 'Good Morning America':

Cuomo:Chris Cuomo says, "Now we see these new ads that come out calling McCain an old man."

OBAMA: Hold on, I didn't -- I didn't say that. What I said was -- I mean, let's be fair, Chris -- what I said was that John McCain is out of touch.

CUOMO: But the ad is a negative ad. You paint him as an old man, say you can't use a computer, he's never sent an e-mail, what does that all mean?

OBAMA: What it means is that we've got a twenty-first century economy and John McCain does not have a vision for how to move that forward.

CUOMO: So no apologies for that ad?

OBAMA: If we're going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily.

Whoops!

Not that I disagree, but I'm sure he'd rather have said something else...

MACTEPsporta · Post by **MACTEPsporta** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:35 pm

JRod wrote: A little research digs up that CMPA, the site you list, is not non-partisan but right leaning organization.

It received seed money from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ic_Affairs

It's funny you said that, I was just googling "CMPA donors" and that's exactly the site I was reading through.

As I said earlier, any survey in which a major decision has to be based on someone's judgement, not public opinion may be flawed. I think the best way to answer this question is a vast poll. When the number of people asked is large enough to overcome the bias, truth will prevail.

P.S. They said Fox was neutral. If that's not a sign, what is?

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:44 pm

RobVarak wrote:
JRod wrote:
A little research digs up that CMPA, the site you list, is not non-partisan but right leaning organization.

It received seed money from Pat Robertson and Pat Buchanan.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... ic_Affairs
Interesting, and thanks for the link. It's cited quite often by both sides of the aisle, so I never had cause to check its origins. I'll take a look at some of their other studies.

Edit: Looks like your source may not be any more objective LOL Here's the wikipedia take on the two organizations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceWatch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for ... ic_Affairs

Umm, I don't want to get into who's sources we quote. But the wikipedia page lists one sentence on who's criticizing the organization. One that's a little different from a site that shows it's getting money from the right. Which was confirmed wikipedia (as much as wikipedia can be called a source).

Not really the same.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:54 pm

RobVarak wrote:
FatPitcher wrote:
McCain campaign cautiously getting on board this one.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... RlMGJmM2M=

If true, this is fiery doom for Obama.
Eh. I don't know if I like that or not. One source in this day and age is little better than none. And given the gravity of the charge it'd be best if they waited.

Yep.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:45 pm

MACTEPsporta wrote:
wco81 wrote: Despite being out-fundraised over 2 to 1, McCain has gotten about the same amount of money from them.
How did you arrive at that? According to this link Obama is way ahead.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/secto ... cycle=2008

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
Barack Obama $24,860,257
John McCain $22,108,926
Ralph Nader $46,696
Bob Barr $19,396
Cynthia McKinney $3,450

Digital Sportspage

OT: 2008 Elections/Politics thread, Part 3

Who are you planning to vote for?