OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[Jared]

I'm sensing a change in tone in the thread here, so a few reminders.

1) Please, let's cut down this stereotyping Republicans, Democrats, lefties, righties, etc. It's stupid, offends people (hey, I'm a R/D, and I'm not x/y, you *@!$^), and just makes for a crappy forum.

2) Not that this will be enforced, but whether someone links to something at World Net Daily or Rolling Stone, let's try to keep our criticism to the actual content of the article, and not the source. (This also goes for people as well; if your favorite forum righty/lefty posts something you disagree with, let's not go "of course, you'd post that, you fascist/commie scum.)

3) I'm going to have a forum DEFCON level in my sig, letting you know where I'm at moderation-wise; DEFCON 5 meaning all fine, DEFCON 1 meaning locks and bans are imminent. Now at DEFCON 3...keep it in mind when posting.

[wco81]

McCain married into his money, and his wife inherited it. They're not claiming special economic or financial acumen.

I heard McCain likes to gamble though.

[GTHobbes]

Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!

My favorite thing about repubs...when faced with the hard truth, ridicule! Works almost every time.

Rolling Stone actually has some very solid reporters who are only dedicated to politics and they usually have at least 20% of the magazine's bi-monthly content dedicated to articles on politics. They are more qualified that you think. You guys are just dismissing something because of it's more famous as a music magazine. The more successful magazines like RS and Playboy can afford to pay more and usually get quality articles because of it.

I agree, Jack.

Rob, I'm looking forward to reading the articles from the links you've posted. Not to ridicule, but to learn more about the candidate on the left who wants to raise my taxes. I'm still trying to decide who to vote for in November, and the Rolling Stone article provided me with some new (and in my opinion important) information on one of the candidates. Maybe the links you've provided will balance it out...but I won't pre-judge without reading.

[JackB1]

I heard McCain likes to gamble though.

That was obvious with his VP pick

[pk500]

Rolling Stone actually has some very solid reporters who are only dedicated to politics and they usually have at least 20% of the magazine's bi-monthly content dedicated to articles on politics. They are more qualified that you think. You guys are just dismissing something because of it's more famous as a music magazine. The more successful magazines like RS and Playboy can afford to pay more and usually get quality articles because of it.

This is a ridiculous comparison. Simply absurd.

Rolling Stone was formed as a counter-culture magazine formed by Jann Wenner in 1967. Let's add it all up:

Formed in San Francisco, the epicenter of the leftist counter-culture: CHECK
Formed in 1967, the zenith of the leftist counter-culture: CHECK
Formed by Jann Wenner, an unabashed liberal: CHECK

When it comes to politics, Rolling Stone is an unabashed organ of liberal causes. You'd need to be blind or illiterate to miss that. Just look at the list of presidential candidates who have agreed to be interviewed by Wenner in the last 20 years: Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama.

The Stone's employment of a staff of political writers means nothing. Just because they're talented doesn't mean that they're unbiased. George Will is talented. Paul Krugman is talented. Eleanor Clift is talented. Fred Barnes is talented. Are they unbiased? F*ck no.

Playboy is a much better barometer of objective political coverage because Hefner started the magazine to show naked women. He never had an overt political agenda like Wenner, who wanted the Stone to be the bible of the counter-culture. Hef didn't care if you were a Democrat, Republican or Communist -- he just wanted you to buy his magazine to see his nude broads.

If Hef does have an agenda, he and his editors sure do a good job of hiding it. Wenner and Co. certainly cannot say the same.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Thanks!!! For now on I'll look to Rolling Stone for advice on politics.

Don't forget the additional military aviation analysis that they toss in for free...

Wow an anti-McCain hit job in a major media publication? Stop the presses!

Wow, a Wall Street Journal op-ed says deregulation has nothing to do with the current financial mess. Stop the presses!

[RobVarak]

2) Not that this will be enforced, but whether someone links to something at World Net Daily or Rolling Stone, let's try to keep our criticism to the actual content of the article, and not the source. (This also goes for people as well; if your favorite forum righty/lefty posts something you disagree with, let's not go "of course, you'd post that, you fascist/commie scum.)

I think that some care should be taken to try to get beyond those types of sources on both sides. It's impossibly easy to go to National Review or Kos and find criticism of the "others." If you see something there, go one step further and find the primary source if there is one. You'll end up doing your own argument a great service.

Also, read between the lines a little bit. If an article tends to quote only one or two sources, or one or two categories of sources, you really have to question the motivation of the sources and the journalists. It's one thing if exculpatory or contradictory sources won't talk, but quite another if you don't see any effort on behalf of the journalist to incorporate such dissent.

[JackB1]

Sorry, PK...this election isn't about any of the guys you mentioned. I learned quite a few things about McCain from the article that I never knew before. Quite the "make-believe" maverick, indeed.

So, do you expect Rolling Stone to counter with a story about Obama's faults, or does he have none? And will the Stone write a piece comparing the legislation drafted by McCain to that drafted by Obama?

Of course not.

That's why the Stone is a joke as a political entity. It is unabashedly pro-left, so its objectivity is non-existent. It's as far left as Fox News is as far right.

You don't trust Fox News, so why should you trust the Stone? Because it promotes your guy and shreds your foe?

Go team!

Take care,
PK

PK, you are right in that RS is slanted to the left and Fox News is slanted to the right. But that doesn't mean everything from either source is false.
I watch Fox News at lunch because it is on our cafeteria TV and I get a lot of good news from there.

Let's face it...there are very few 100% unbiased news sources these days and you have to take everything for what it's worth, but just flat out rejecting something without reading one word of it, makes little sense.
Even the National Inquirer has some truth in there from time to time

[RobVarak]

Wow, a Wall Street Journal op-ed says deregulation has nothing to do with the current financial mess. Stop the presses!

World of difference between an editorial and a work of investigative journalism. Well, at least there's supposed to be a world of difference.

[Brando70]

Wow, a Wall Street Journal op-ed says deregulation has nothing to do with the current financial mess. Stop the presses!

World of difference between an editorial and a work of investigative journalism. Well, at least there's supposed to be a world of difference.

I don't think Stanley Kurtz knows the difference.

[RobVarak]

I don't think Stanley Kurtz knows the difference.

Most of Kurtz's stuff is opinion. Lately he'd like to do some journalism apparently, but the Obamanista Brown Shirts For Truth aren't letting him do any research

[JackB1]

[quote="Jared"]I'm sensing a change in tone in the thread here, so a few reminders.

1) let's cut down this stereotyping Republicans, Democrats, lefties, righties, etc.

2) let's try to keep our criticism to the actual content of the article, and not the source.

Can we apply these rules also to our National Media?

[F308GTB]

Playboy is a much better barometer of objective political coverage because Hefner started the magazine to show naked women. He never had an overt political agenda like Wenner, who wanted the Stone to be the bible of the counter-culture. Hef didn't care if you were a Democrat, Republican or Communist -- he just wanted you to buy his magazine to see his nude broads.

If Hef does have an agenda, he and his editors sure do a good job of hiding it. Wenner and Co. certainly cannot say the same.

Paul, your claims regarding Playboy have no merit without pictures Who cares about the articles.

[Jared]

They've mostly stuck to mobilizing masses to drown out their critics and censoring them through coercion and threats of litigation. Can't wait to see how they handle things if they end up with the Justice Department at their disposal.

First two links are about Obama supporters calling WGN when they hosted David Freddoso, who wrote a hatchet job book against Obama. According to one of the articles you linked, it claims that Freddoso claims that "Obama favors infanticide" (false smear). Supporters call stations to express their displeasure with coverage, and Obama supporters are doing the same thing. They have the right to express themselves (via phone calls, boycotts; i.e. freedom of speech), just as WGN has the right to decide who they want to have on their airwaves.

Third link is to a press release by the "American Issues Project", funded by one of the Swift Boat people, who put out a Obama - Ayers ad that stretches the truth, even by the standards of people who push that comparison. An article on that topic that is not a press release from the group, is here:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12816.html

Don't know much about the fourth link, but both the third and fourth links are being addressed by the Obama campaign for violating campaign finance law.

Anyways, we saw that in 2004, Kerry sat on his hands while similar kinds of attacks occurred, and it hurt his campaign. In contrast, Obama is going to play hardball, and <b>legally</b> fighting back. What's wrong with that?

[Teal]

Just a quick question: How many minds have been changed due to these threads?

[Teal]

The McCain camp didn't know about Ifill's book:
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/oh-oh-6/

If she's so 'fair', she should see the incredible conflict of interest herself, and step aside. I'll bet a dime to a dollar she won't.

[Teal]

JRod:

So you want de-legitimize a simple factual story, because it comes from WND? Hell, I don't like WND any more than anyone else-it's a religious bunch of nut jobs-but is it, or is it not, a fact that Ifill is moderating the debate, and is it, or is it not, also a fact that she has a book about Obama coming out? If those are facts, I fail to see your point. If it were an opinion blog, spouting partisan opinion, that'd be understandable. But all that talk of yours about this holds no water in that regard.

[webdanzer]

What the hell?
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76645

Who the hell thought this was a reasonable idea?

I don't think the moderator is the person you need to be concerned about. She hasn't come off as biased to me in the past. But if she comes off as biased that will be a great way to spin the debate, so maybe it will be a blessing.

You're joking, right? This is a conflict of interest. I don't give a sh*t how unbiased Ifill appears: You cannot be seated as the moderator of a debate involving a party about whom you just wrote a book.

Take care,
PK

'The Age of Obama', huh? That seems a bit, uh,

[RobVarak]

They've mostly stuck to mobilizing masses to drown out their critics and censoring them through coercion and threats of litigation. Can't wait to see how they handle things if they end up with the Justice Department at their disposal.

First two links are about Obama supporters calling WGN when they hosted David Freddoso, who wrote a hatchet job book against Obama. According to one of the articles you linked, it claims that Freddoso claims that "Obama favors infanticide" (false smear).

I don't know if Obama "favors" infanticide, but the record is clear: He chose to put his anti-abortion beliefs ahead of the protection of babies born as the result of attempted abortion.

Supporters call stations to express their displeasure with coverage, and Obama supporters are doing the same thing. They have the right to express themselves (via phone calls, boycotts; i.e. freedom of speech), just as WGN has the right to decide who they want to have on their airwaves.

Candidates have the right to say and do many things, that doesn't mean that the way they and their campaigns conduct themselves can't still be irresponsible. Organizing shout-down campaigns and then justifying them by invoking the First Amendment is cynical hypocrisy.

Holmes famously said that the best antidote for bad speech is good speech. Censorship campaigns such as those organized by the Obama campaign turn that on its head by polluting the marketplace of ideas with speech intended solely to drown out the opinions of another citizen.

That may sit just fine with you, but if it were my candidate I'd prefer that the campaign send a spokesman to rebut speech that I disagree with rather than incite a mob the way that Obama's has.

Anyways, we saw that in 2004, Kerry sat on his hands while similar kinds of attacks occurred, and it hurt his campaign. In contrast, Obama is going to play hardball, and <b>legally</b> fighting back. What's wrong with that?

Fighting back by threatening lawsuits to silence opposition and mobilizing the masses as censorship squads charged with drowning out opposition may not seem wrong to you, but I think others may disagree.

[RobVarak]

I don't think the moderator is the person you need to be concerned about. She hasn't come off as biased to me in the past. But if she comes off as biased that will be a great way to spin the debate, so maybe it will be a blessing.

You're joking, right? This is a conflict of interest. I don't give a sh*t how unbiased Ifill appears: You cannot be seated as the moderator of a debate involving a party about whom you just wrote a book.

Take care,
PK

'The Age of Obama', huh? That seems a bit, uh,

For the last two days on the stump he's said "If I become President," paused for the shouts of "When!" and then responded by grinning and saying, "I'm superstitous."

Clearly this grates on me more because I don't care for the guy, but I would think that it would seem a bit presumptuous to the undecided voter as well. Maybe not.

[pk500]

Playboy is a much better barometer of objective political coverage because Hefner started the magazine to show naked women. He never had an overt political agenda like Wenner, who wanted the Stone to be the bible of the counter-culture. Hef didn't care if you were a Democrat, Republican or Communist -- he just wanted you to buy his magazine to see his nude broads.

If Hef does have an agenda, he and his editors sure do a good job of hiding it. Wenner and Co. certainly cannot say the same.

Paul, your claims regarding Playboy have no merit without pictures Who cares about the articles.

LOL! That's a good one!

I graduated from Playboy long ago. Before the Internet, there was always Hustler -- more pink for your hard-earned green.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

The McCain camp didn't know about Ifill's book:
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/oh-oh-6/

If she's so 'fair', she should see the incredible conflict of interest herself, and step aside. I'll bet a dime to a dollar she won't.

Shocker that Van Susteren wrote the McCain campaign should have been told. Does anyone in the McCain campaign do any vetting, or must everything be placed on a platter for it?

I also love Van Susteren's legal analogies, as if to remind us that she was a tough lawyer before she became a TV star. This is politics, not a court room, Greta.

Take care,
PK

[Teal]

The McCain camp didn't know about Ifill's book:
http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2008/10/01/oh-oh-6/

If she's so 'fair', she should see the incredible conflict of interest herself, and step aside. I'll bet a dime to a dollar she won't.

Shocker that Van Susteren wrote the McCain campaign should have been told. Does anyone in the McCain campaign do any vetting, or must everything be placed on a platter for it?

I also love Van Susteren's ridiculous legal analogies, as if to remind us that she was a tough lawyer. This is politics, not a court room, Greta.

Take care,
PK

Yeah, I'm no Greta fan. Just put it out there for the facts.

[Jared]

I don't know if Obama "favors" infanticide, but the record is clear: He chose to put his anti-abortion beliefs ahead of the protection of babies born as the result of attempted abortion.

No. Just because he voted present for the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” doesn't mean what you said. It was a poorly written bill that had serious problems. For more commentary on it, see the following:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa ... _door.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/0 ... 16891.html

That may sit just fine with you, but if it were my candidate I'd prefer that the campaign send a spokesman to rebut speech that I disagree with rather than incite a mob the way that Obama's has.

"Incite a mob"? Doesn't that seem like a massive exaggeration? If you had an actual mob outside of WGN stopping the guest from entering the station, or disrupting proceedings (see the Brooks Brothers riot, ahem) I'm right there with you. But now phone calls = incited mob?

Fighting back by threatening lawsuits to silence opposition and mobilizing the masses as censorship squads charged with drowning out opposition may not seem wrong to you, but I think others may disagree.

Censorship squads? So phone calls + e-mails by citizens = censorship squad? And challenging a smear campaign because they may be violating campaign finance laws = silencing the opposition? That's a bit of exaggeration, don't you think?

[JackB1]

Just a quick question: How many minds have been changed due to these threads?

Probably zero, but that's not really the purpose.