OT: Elections/Politics thread, part 4

[GTHobbes]

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

I'm still trying to decide. On the subject of taxes, I've got to favor McCain. Based upon just about everything else I'm reading, I've got to favor Obama.

[pk500]

My mind isn't changed because it's not made up!

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

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

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

I'm just here to have an argument:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k

[Jackdog]

Jack, did you even read the article? You should.

Actually...nevermind.

Sorta. I got through the first 5 pages and bailed. I almost didn't do that due to the cartoon of McCain on the first page,but I pressed on. The article did nothing to change my mind about voting for McCain. I worked with McCain for a little over a month and was with him when he visited Iraq in 05. I will never forget all the things he has done for the WWP. I will also never forget the pain I saw in his face when we visited wounded soldiers. I believe he will do what's right for our soldiers contrary to what the AFL-CIO claims. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ccain.html

For the record, I am a Libertarian and a social conservative. I voted for Michael Badnarik in 04. I would vote for Bob Barr if I thought for a second my party and this country was serious about giving a third party a fair chance. I voted party line in 04. I will never do that again unless I believe they are the best person to be President.

I am voting for McCain because I don't like Obama at all. I don't agree with his politics. I really don't agree with his stance on Iraq and I fear his ideas will be changed because of his inability to say no to lobbists,PAC's and special interest groups. I also believe he will expand the role goverment plays in our lives more than Bush already has.

I cannot stand the fact Obama has Franklin Raines as his economic adviser. IMO he should be in jail. I also can't stand the fact he has had connections with Sam Graham-Felsen,Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright,ect,ect,ect. He seems to surround himself consistently with questionable characters.

I have asked people that I respect what they see in Obama and why they are voting for him. The answers I got were interesting, but nobody gave me a real reason to overlook the things I mentioned above.

[RobVarak]

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

This is a fascinating and illuminating issue.

And there's more than just another one of his Present votes. And it wasn't a "poorly written bill."

I've been through all the primary sources that FactCheck cites on the matter. Interestingly, although they find that Obama has lied and then changed his story on this issue, they still give him a pass because his vote was a vote to protect abortion rights. Here's the full article, with my emphasis. Citations are available via the link.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... icide.html

Summary
Anti-abortion activists accuse Obama of "supporting infanticide," and the National Right to Life Committee says he's conducted a "four-year effort to cover up his full role in killing legislation to protect born-alive survivors of abortions." Obama says they're "lying."

At issue is Obama's opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman's legal right to abortion, but he says he would have been "fully in support" of a similar federal bill that President Bush had signed in 2002, because it contained protections for Roe v. Wade.

We find that, as the NRLC said in a recent statement, Obama voted in committee against the 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal act he says he would have supported. Both contained identical clauses saying that nothing in the bills could be construed to affect legal rights of an unborn fetus, according to an undisputed summary written immediately after the committee's 2003 mark-up session.

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama's 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believe a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."


Analysis
Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes attacked Barack Obama over this legislation during their 2004 race for the U.S. Senate, repeatedly accusing him of favoring "infanticide." Because of this, Keyes said, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." Nevertheless, 70 percent of Illinois voters did vote for Obama, but now the issue has bubbled up again.

The National Right to Life Committee released a statement Aug. 11 saying it had obtained proof that Obama was misrepresenting his 2003 vote by stating that the Illinois "born alive" bill that he voted against in committee lacked a provision, contained in the 2002 federal law, that foreclosed any effect on abortion rights. Obama, in an Aug. 16 interview, then said critics of his "born alive" stance were "not telling the truth" and "lying." On Aug. 18, the NRLC updated its white paper and continued to accuse Obama of dissembling.

As originally proposed, the 2003 state bill, SB 1082, sought to define the term "born-alive infant" as any infant, even one born as the result of an unsuccessful abortion, that shows vital signs separate from its mother. The bill would have established that infants thus defined were humans with legal rights. It never made it to the floor; it was voted down by the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired.

Earlier versions of the bill, in 2001 and 2002, had met with opposition from abortion-rights groups, which contended that they would be used to challenge Roe v. Wade. Because the bills accorded human rights to pre-viable fetuses (that is, fetuses that could not live outside the womb) as long as they showed some vital signs outside the mother, abortion-rights groups saw them as the thin edge of a wedge that could be used to pry apart legal rights to abortion. Obama stated this objection on the Senate floor in discussion of both bills.

However, Obama has said several times that he would have supported the federal version of the bill, which passed by unanimous consent and which President Bush signed into law Aug. 5, 2002, because it could not be used to challenge the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision granting a legal right to abortion. On Aug. 16, the candidate repeated that again to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He also prefaced his remarks with an attack on those who said he had misrepresented his position on the state bills, saying they were "lying."

CBN Correspondent David Brody: Real quick, the born alive infant protection act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main – they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported – which was to say – that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born – even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade.

Who's "Lying?"

NRLC objects. They point to evidence that SB 1082, the bill Obama voted against in committee, was amended to contain a "neutrality clause" that is identical to one contained in the federal law. (The Illinois government's legislative information Web site shows the proposed amendment, but doesn't give results for votes in committee. NRLC's documents show that the amendment was adopted.) Since he voted against the state bill, NRLC says, his claimed worry about Roe v. Wade is a smokescreen, intended to cover up his unconcern with the protection of infant lives.
In the NRLC white paper, Legislative Director Douglas Johnson writes that Obama "really did object to a bill merely because it defended the proposition, 'A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law.' And it is that reality that he now desperately wants to conceal from the eyes of the public."
NRLC posted documents – which are so far undisputed – showing that Amendment 001 was adopted in committee and added the following text: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this Section." That wording matches exactly the comparable provision in the federal law.

The documents NRLC put out are a "Senate Republican's staff analysis" and a handwritten roll call confirming that the amendment was adopted. We contacted Patty Schuh, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Republicans, who stated that both documents are genuine. We also contacted Brock Willeford, who was the staff aide whose name appears on the "staff analysis." He stated that he wrote the document immediately after the committee meeting and that he was in the room at the time of the votes. We asked Cindy Davidsmeyer, spokesperson for the Illinois Senate Democrats, about this. She declined to answer our questions but did not dispute Willeford's firsthand account.

A June 30 Obama campaign statement responding to similar claims by conservative commentator William J. Bennett says that SB 1082 did not contain the same language as the federal BAIPA.

Obama campaign statement, June 30: Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language. The Illinois legislation read, "A live child born as a result of an abortion shall be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate protection under the law." The Born Alive Infant Protections Act read, "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being 'born alive' as defined in this section." [SB 1082, Held in Health and Human Services, 3/13/03; Session Sine Die, 1/11/05; BAIPA, Public Law 107-207]

The statement was still on Obama's Web site as of this writing, Aug. 25, long after Obama had accused his detractors of "lying." But Obama's claim is wrong. In fact, by the time the HHS Committee voted on the bill, it did contain language identical to the federal act.


Same Words, Different Effect?

Obama’s campaign now has a different explanation for his vote against the 2003 Illinois bill. Even with the same wording as the federal law, the Obama camp says, the state bill would have a different effect than the BAIPA would have at the federal level. It's state law, not federal law, that actually regulates the practice of abortion. So a bill defining a pre-viable fetus born as the result of abortion as a human could directly affect the practice of abortion at the state level, but not at the federal level, the campaign argues.

And in fact, the 2005 version of the Illinois bill, which passed the Senate 52 to 0 (with four voting "present") after Obama had gone on to Washington, included an additional protective clause not included in the federal legislation: "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to affect existing federal or State law regarding abortion." Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor says that Obama would have voted for that bill if he had been in state office at the time.

But whether or not one accepts those arguments, it is not the reason Obama had been giving for his 2003 opposition. He told Brody that the federal bill "was not the bill that was presented at the state level." That's technically true; though the "neutrality clause" was identical in the federal and state bills, there were other minor wording differences elsewhere. But the Obama campaign statement says that "Illinois And Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Acts Did Not Include Exactly The Same Language." That's true for the earlier versions that Obama voted against. In the case of SB 1082, as it was amended just before being killed, it’s false.


A Matter of Definition

The documents from the NRLC support the group’s claims that Obama is misrepresenting the contents of SB 1082. But does this mean – as some, like anti-abortion crusader Jill Stanek, have claimed – that he supports infanticide?

In discussions of abortion rights, definitions are critically important. The main bills under discussion, SB 1082 and the federal BAIPA, are both definition bills. They are not about what can and should be done to babies; they are about how one defines "baby" in the first place. Those who believe that human life begins at conception or soon after can argue that even a fetus with no chance of surviving outside the womb is an "infant." We won't try to settle that one.

What we can say is that many other people – perhaps most – think of "infanticide" as the killing of an infant that would otherwise live. And there are already laws in Illinois, which Obama has said he supports, that protect these children even when they are born as the result of an abortion. Illinois compiled statute 720 ILCS 510/6 states that physicians performing abortions when the fetus is viable must use the procedure most likely to preserve the fetus' life; must be attended by another physician who can care for a born-alive infant; and must "exercise the same degree of professional skill, care and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as would be required of a physician providing immediate medical care to a child born alive in the course of a pregnancy termination which was not an abortion." Failure to do any of the above is considered a felony. NRLC calls this law "loophole-ridden."


On the Record


While we don't have a record of Obama's 2003 comments on SB 1082, he did express his objection to the 2001 and 2002 bills.

Obama, Senate floor, 2002: [A]dding a – an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. … I think it’s important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births.

Obama, Senate floor, 2001: Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a nine-month-old – child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

Obama's critics are free to speculate on his motives for voting against the bills, and postulate a lack of concern for babies' welfare. But his stated reasons for opposing "born-alive" bills have to do with preserving abortion rights, a position he is known to support and has never hidden.

That conclusion cracks me up. Let me paraphrase:

We know that Obama has lied about his on several occassions, and that his campaign and website have continued to lie in the face of documentary evidence which proves that they are lying. Nevertheless, because he supports abortion rights openly, and despite that pro-choice legislators supported identical bills nationwide and on the Federal level, his unwillingness to support a Born Alive Act makes everything a-ok.

But back to my original statement. I don't know whether Obama favors infanticide, but it's clear from the record that where protecting babies born alive during abortions is concerned, he prefers to err on the side of covering up a possible encroachment on Roe v. Wade rather than protecting the infant. And he lied about it....consistently...to keep that fact buried.

On the macro level, this is yet another example of Obama taking an extremist position, covering it up with centrist rhetoric and then attacking his critics as liars when they call him on it.

Maybe he wasn't in the legislature on the days that these issues were discussed?

[JRod]

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

There still is no evidence that the book is pro-Obama. Just becuase you write a book about black politicians doesn't mean it's going to be pro-Obama.

It may be more of a bio-book of black politicians.

I see no conflict of interest because she isn't doing a debate with Obama. And while watching Washington Week's convention coverage, she regularly dismissed herself in some of the town hall questions because she thought it was a conflict of interest.

We've come to a point in media where if you do anything on one side, any reporting, any journalism, then that removes you from being objective.

There's always going to be the human bias, we can't avoid that. But there is no evidence that Ifill can't be objective during the debate. And the form of the debate doesn't really lend itself to a large moderator presence. It will be the usual a few minutes for comment, then a minute or two rebuttle.

This is just conservatives in the media trying to find pre-debate reasons for Palin's failure should she fail.

[webdanzer]

There still is no evidence that the book is pro-Obama. Just becuase you write a book about black politicians doesn't mean it's going to be pro-Obama.

It may be more of a bio-book of black politicians.

I see no conflict of interest because she isn't doing a debate with Obama.

Jrod, her book is subtitled in the 'Age of Obama,' and scheduled to run after the election.

Don't you think there will be a difference in how the book is received if we are living in the age of "Obama, first black president," or "Obama, John Kerry 2009?"

[Jackdog]

There still is no evidence that the book is pro-Obama. Just becuase you write a book about black politicians doesn't mean it's going to be pro-Obama.

It may be more of a bio-book of black politicians.

I see no conflict of interest because she isn't doing a debate with Obama.

Jrod, her book is subtitled in the 'Age of Obama,' and scheduled to run after the election.

Don't you think there will be a difference in how the book is received if we are living in the age of "Obama, first black president," or "Obama, John Kerry 2009?"

A little more on the subject.

During a vice-presidential candidate debate she moderated in 2004 – when Democrat John Edwards attacked Republican Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton – the vice president said, "I can respond, Gwen, but it's going to take more than 30 seconds." "Well, that's all you've got," she told Cheney.

Ifill told the Associated Press Democrats were delighted with her answer, because they "thought I was being snippy to Cheney." She explained that wasn't her intent.

But she also was cited in complaints PBS Ombudsman Michael Getler said he received after Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin delivered her nomination acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minn., earlier this month.

Some viewers complained of a "dismissive" look by Ifill during her report on Palin's speech. According to Getler, some also said she wore a look of "disgust" while reporting on the Republican candidate.
PBS viewer Brian Meyers of Granby, Conn., said he was "appalled" by Ifill's commentary directly following Palin's convention speech.

"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zafLsAt ... geId=76645

[RobVarak]

I'm surprised that Biden and Hillary didn't put in for medals a la LBJ

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Durant (Ret.) issued the following statement on Joe Biden's apparently false accounts of near-misses on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq:
"Senator Biden claimed at a debate last year that he'd been 'shot at' while visiting Iraq. And he has claimed repeatedly, most recently last week, that his helicopter was 'forced down' in Afghanistan — leaving his audience with the impression that it was fire from the Taliban which had grounded the aircraft. Neither of these stories appears to be true, and Senator Biden has never accounted for the discrepancies.

"I've been on a helicopter that was 'forced down' by enemy fire, and I've been 'shot at.' Neither is easily confused with being caught in a snow storm or awakened by a loud bang in the night. Senator Biden has a responsibility to come clean on what actually happened, and explain why he would ever say such things to the American people. And with the Vice Presidential Debate coming up on Thursday, it is incumbent on the news media to ask Senator Biden the tough questions — as they have so far failed to do — and examine his responses closely for inconsistencies of the kind we've witnessed in recent months.

"The American people expect and deserve leaders who tell the truth about their record and their experiences, and a news media that holds all candidates — no matter their party — to the same standard."

I hope this doesn't hurt Biden's credibility...

[JRod]

There still is no evidence that the book is pro-Obama. Just becuase you write a book about black politicians doesn't mean it's going to be pro-Obama.

It may be more of a bio-book of black politicians.

I see no conflict of interest because she isn't doing a debate with Obama.

Jrod, her book is subtitled in the 'Age of Obama,' and scheduled to run after the election.

Don't you think there will be a difference in how the book is received if we are living in the age of "Obama, first black president," or "Obama, John Kerry 2009?"

I know what her book was titled. I even posted a synopsis from the publisher, which you clearly didn't read. It said that is was an overview of african-american politician after the civil rights movement.

Right now he's the leading african-american politican. He's one election away from becoming President. You can't write a book about him. And if you say she has a conflict of interest, what is the proof. Do you an early read of the book, that shows where she gushes over him for 300 pages. What if the book is nothing more than a biography or conversations with black politicians about their rise to elected office.

No one here has any proof what the book is about. All you have is a title which doesn't say what her perspective is. No one here has any proof of her bias if there is any.

JackDog,
Read my post on the last page. The article is misleading.

[GTHobbes]

Jack, did you even read the article? You should.

Actually...nevermind.

Sorta. I got through the first 5 pages and bailed. I almost didn't do that due to the cartoon of McCain on the first page,but I pressed on. The article did nothing to change my mind about voting for McCain. I worked with McCain for a little over a month and was with him when he visited Iraq in 05. I will never forget all the things he has done for the WWP. I will also never forget the pain I saw in his face when we visited wounded soldiers. I believe he will do what's right for our soldiers contrary to what the AFL-CIO claims. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ccain.html

For the record, I am a Libertarian and a social conservative. I voted for Michael Badnarik in 04. I would vote for Bob Barr if I thought for a second my party and this country was serious about giving a third party a fair chance. I voted party line in 04. I will never do that again unless I believe they are the best person to be President.

I am voting for McCain because I don't like Obama at all. I don't agree with his politics. I really don't agree with his stance on Iraq and I fear his ideas will be changed because of his inability to say no to lobbists,PAC's and special interest groups. I also believe he will expand the role goverment plays in our lives more than Bush already has.

I cannot stand the fact Obama has Franklin Raines as his economic adviser. IMO he should be in jail. I also can't stand the fact he has had connections with Sam Graham-Felsen,Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright,ect,ect,ect. He seems to surround himself consistently with questionable characters.

I have asked people that I respect what they see in Obama and why they are voting for him. The answers I got were interesting, but nobody gave me a real reason to overlook the things I mentioned above.

Thanks for responding, Jack...I respect your opinion and the reasons you've given for voting for McCain.

[Brando70]

I'm surprised that Biden and Hillary didn't put in for medals a la LBJ

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Durant (Ret.) issued the following statement on Joe Biden's apparently false accounts of near-misses on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq:
"Senator Biden claimed at a debate last year that he'd been 'shot at' while visiting Iraq. And he has claimed repeatedly, most recently last week, that his helicopter was 'forced down' in Afghanistan — leaving his audience with the impression that it was fire from the Taliban which had grounded the aircraft. Neither of these stories appears to be true, and Senator Biden has never accounted for the discrepancies.

"I've been on a helicopter that was 'forced down' by enemy fire, and I've been 'shot at.' Neither is easily confused with being caught in a snow storm or awakened by a loud bang in the night. Senator Biden has a responsibility to come clean on what actually happened, and explain why he would ever say such things to the American people. And with the Vice Presidential Debate coming up on Thursday, it is incumbent on the news media to ask Senator Biden the tough questions — as they have so far failed to do — and examine his responses closely for inconsistencies of the kind we've witnessed in recent months.

"The American people expect and deserve leaders who tell the truth about their record and their experiences, and a news media that holds all candidates — no matter their party — to the same standard."

I hope this doesn't hurt Biden's credibility...

The "shot at" thing was definitely a whopper, but when I read his actual quote on Afghanistan, I don't think his point was to convey he was engaged in combat, but to say he was stuck in the mountains where Al Qaeda could run free. At no point did he say they were engaged by the enemy, and "forced down" does apply to having to land for weather. Not the greatest of word choices but not a lie.

[webdanzer]

I know what her book was titled. I even posted a synopsis from the publisher, which you clearly didn't read. It said that is was an overview of african-american politician after the civil rights movement.

Right now he's the leading african-american politican. He's one election away from becoming President. You can't write a book about him. And if you say she has a conflict of interest, what is the proof. Do you an early read of the book, that shows where she gushes over him for 300 pages. What if the book is nothing more than a biography or conversations with black politicians about their rise to elected office.

No one here has any proof what the book is about. All you have is a title which doesn't say what her perspective is. No one here has any proof of her bias if there is any.

Clearly, you assume, and you know what that leads to. I read what you wrote. You apparently also do not understand. It does not matter whether or or not Ms. Ifill's book is critical or complementary towards Obama. Again, since you did not answer the question, which book do you think sells more, one about 'the age of' (positively or negatively so) the first black president, or 'the age of' a failed candidate?

You would hope that a moderator would attempt to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, and in Ms Ifill's case, it would certainly behoove her for her book to be referencing Obama as the new president.

[Jared]

I cannot stand the fact Obama has Franklin Raines as his economic adviser. IMO he should be in jail. I also can't stand the fact he has had connections with Sam Graham-Felsen,Tony Rezko,Jeremiah Wright,ect,ect,ect. He seems to surround himself consistently with questionable characters.

Well, I've expressed my opinion on the questionable characters thing multiple times, so I won't do that again. However, it is absolutely not true that Franklin Raines is one of Obama's economic advisors.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ction.html

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/ob ... to-raines/

[webdanzer]

Forum moderation: DEFCON 3

This is cool. I hope we get avatar changes for heightened levels of danger. Maybe you can borrow Drudge's flashing light, or get some sort of MIDI sirens blaring...

[RobVarak]

Forum moderation: DEFCON 3

This is cool. I hope we get avatar changes for heightened levels of danger. Maybe you can borrow Drudge's flashing light, or get some sort of MIDI sirens blaring...

Odds are 100% that .gif ends up in Jack's sig LOL

[Brando70]

HOW ABOUT A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

[RobVarak]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... ction.html

http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/09/24/ob ... to-raines/

We did cover this earlier in the discussion of how even the Post admits that you can't rely on the Post

From the WaPo factcheck

By Raines's own account, he took a couple of calls from someone on the Obama campaign, and they had some general discussions about economic issues. I have asked both Raines and the Obama people for more details on these calls and will let you know if I receive a reply.

He's not an adviser. He's just a guy in Barry's rolodex.

[JackB1]

Forum moderation: DEFCON 3

This is cool. I hope we get avatar changes for heightened levels of danger. Maybe you can borrow Drudge's flashing light, or get some sort of MIDI sirens blaring...

Odds are 100% that .gif ends up in Jack's sig LOL

I "plagiarized" JackD's flag idea in honor of Joe Biden

[JackB1]

I'm still trying to decide. On the subject of taxes, I've got to favor McCain. Based upon just about everything else I'm reading, I've got to favor
Obama.

Unless you are are earning more than $250K per year, why would you favor McCain on taxes? Just wondering....

[JRod]

I know what her book was titled. I even posted a synopsis from the publisher, which you clearly didn't read. It said that is was an overview of african-american politician after the civil rights movement.

Right now he's the leading african-american politican. He's one election away from becoming President. You can't write a book about him. And if you say she has a conflict of interest, what is the proof. Do you an early read of the book, that shows where she gushes over him for 300 pages. What if the book is nothing more than a biography or conversations with black politicians about their rise to elected office.

No one here has any proof what the book is about. All you have is a title which doesn't say what her perspective is. No one here has any proof of her bias if there is any.

Clearly, you assume, and you know what that leads to. I read what you wrote. You apparently also do not understand. It does not matter whether or or not Ms. Ifill's book is critical or complementary towards Obama. Again, since you did not answer the question, which book do you think sells more, one about 'the age of' (positively or negatively so) the first black president, or 'the age of' a failed candidate?

You would hope that a moderator would attempt to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest, and in Ms Ifill's case, it would certainly behoove her for her book to be referencing Obama as the new president.

Well all I know is there is no evidence of a conflict of interest other than she's writing a book about Obama. We do not know what the book is about nor what slant it takes on Obama.

Also looking at one book and not her body of work, one could say she has a conflict of interest. I've been a fan of her work for a long time. I've bene a fan of PBS' work because they try to shoot right down the middle. The Frontline series are some of the best TV documentaries ever produced. The NewsHour, in study after study has continued to show no bias left or right. Washington Week while a little bit of gladhanding for reporter's airtime does not take a slant. It also does no put on pundits rather what some would deem journalists.

I would also think that any bias on her part would do more harm to her reputation and take her off future debates.

Context and a little common sense here is needed.

[wco81]

I'm still trying to decide. On the subject of taxes, I've got to favor McCain.

Why?

McCain gives more tax cuts to very high-wage earners.

For everyone else, Obama is at parity or actually offering more tax cuts.

But overall, McCain's plan adds $1.5 to $2 trillion more to the national debt.

[RobVarak]

Also looking at one book and not her body of work, one could say she has a conflict of interest. I've been a fan of her work for a long time. I've bene a fan of PBS' work because they try to shoot right down the middle. The Frontline series are some of the best TV documentaries ever produced. The NewsHour, in study after study has continued to show no bias left or right. Washington Week while a little bit of gladhanding for reporter's airtime does not take a slant. It also does no put on pundits rather what some would deem journalists.

Bias or not, she shouldn't have this gig.

I've been a huge Newshour fan for years, and I find her to be absolutely dreadful, a clear weak link. She was abonimable during the '04 debate as well.

[RobVarak]

I'm still trying to decide. On the subject of taxes, I've got to favor McCain.

Why?

McCain gives more tax cuts to very high-wage earners.

For everyone else, Obama is at parity or actually offering more tax cuts.

But overall, McCain's plan adds $1.5 to $2 trillion more to the national debt.

You and Jack both assume that he's taking the candidates' plans at face value.

[JRod]

Also looking at one book and not her body of work, one could say she has a conflict of interest. I've been a fan of her work for a long time. I've bene a fan of PBS' work because they try to shoot right down the middle. The Frontline series are some of the best TV documentaries ever produced. The NewsHour, in study after study has continued to show no bias left or right. Washington Week while a little bit of gladhanding for reporter's airtime does not take a slant. It also does no put on pundits rather what some would deem journalists.

Bias or not, she shouldn't have this gig.

I've been a huge Newshour fan for years, and I find her to be absolutely dreadful, a clear weak link. She was abonimable during the '04 debate as well.

If she has no bias then it shouldn't be a problem.

The only people complaining are pro-McCain folks. Is there are huge media outcry (not from some right-wing nut job news service) over this? If so provide evdence.

I bet it's one of those books that has Obama in it, but the publisher added Obama in the title to sell more. I have no idea.

Some of what you people complaign about is awefully petty.