Just to keep things focused.
I find it interesting that whereas Obama picked a running mate who complemented the shortcomings in his slate–someone with a good deal of experience in foreign relations, for instance–McCain chose someone who will appeal to disenfranchised voting bases from both sides: to women who will see an opportunity to put a female a heartbeat from the presidency (and with a president of McCain’s years, that takes on a serious reality) after Hillary’s campaign ended in flames, and to the conservative base who will embrace a bottom half of the ticket who is apparently somewhere to the right of John Wayne.
The easy answer, of course, is that women won’t support her because she’s anti-abortion. Except there happen to be plenty of women who are likewise anti-abortion–yes, even Democrats–and therefore won’t find that a turnoff.
Frankly, I think Palin was a nervy choice that could reap serious benefits. And the timing of the announcement knocked all the post-convention attention away from Obama and onto McCain, which will now build as they roll into the GOP convention.
Personally, I find the notion of an anti-abortion, pro-drilling, pro-creationism, anti-animal protection vice president to be nothing short of terrifying. Then again, anyone that the extreme right embraces is by definition terrifying.
PAD
• 
“The world is more impressed by the power of our example, than by the example of our power.”
It’s a good line but it kind of reminds me of something the Sphinx from Mystery Men would say:
“To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn.”
“He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions.”
“When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you.”
“In America you watch TV, in Russia TV watches you.”
Ok the last one was Yakov Smirnoff but it still works.
Jerome: B.S. Absolute B.S. And not in all in touch with reality. At the very least, Republican candidates have to put up with at least AS MUCH crap as Democrats.
Actually, no, that’s been proven wrong. There was a study done recently looking at media coverage of Obama and McCain. Obama received more coverage, but a much higher percentage of Obama’s coverage was negative than McCain’s coverage. So someone actually measured the crap and Obama was getting a lot more.
Think about it, what issue has gotten McCain as much bad press as the Reverend Wright video? Even McCain’s houses comment hasn’t gotten as much air time as Obama’s flag pin.
Again those of the rightwing claim there is a “liberal” media. It’s been proven many times that this is not so. Most of the people who own the media are rightwingers.
Those who continue to insist that the press is liberal have otherwise lost all their arguments…or their sanity.
Again those of the rightwing claim there is a “liberal” media. It’s been proven many times that this is not so.
Sources? That’s a bold statement. One would first have to define “liberal” “media” “bias” “proven” and a few other subjective terms.
Most of the people who own the media are rightwingers.
Again, sources? And that may not be all that significant, unless you can convincingly argue that When Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice it suddenly changed its political bent.
Those who continue to insist that the press is liberal have otherwise lost all their arguments…or their sanity.
Ad hominem arguments are not a terribly convincing way to demonstrate facts and should only be used as a last resort when you have nothing else.
Jason,
While I suspect you’re right, can you find a cite for the study you’re referencing about the coverage of Obama vs. the coverage of McCain? I’d like to see how it was conducted.
It literally boggles my mind (literally. My mind is actually boggled) that the republican convention is now the most watched in history.
It boggles my mind as well.
Which is why I like the theory that was put forth that more Dems were willing to watch McCain’s speech than Republicans were willing to watch Obama’s. I just can’t see all these Republicans who came out of the woodwork for Palin, after shuddering over the thought of McCain as president, would then decide to watch McCain after all.
Of course, if you present this theory to any less-than-reasonable right-winger (as I did), you’ll get instant knee-jerk reactions about how it’s “the worst theory ever”. Nah, no hyperbole there. 😉
Here you go. It’s from the The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,712999.story
Which is why I like the theory that was put forth that more Dems were willing to watch McCain’s speech than Republicans were willing to watch Obama’s. I just can’t see all these Republicans who came out of the woodwork for Palin, after shuddering over the thought of McCain as president, would then decide to watch McCain after all.
Of course, if you present this theory to any less-than-reasonable right-winger (as I did), you’ll get instant knee-jerk reactions about how it’s “the worst theory ever”. Nah, no hyperbole there. 😉
And that would only be knee jek but stupid as well. Who should you WANT to watch the conventions? The people who are already going to vote for your candidate? What good does that do?
A smart person, if they were offered the opportunity to ensure that the only people who would watch their party’s convention would be opponents, should JUMP at that chance. Some of them may flip. Obama has less support from Democrats than McCain has from republicans–if McCain can get a good chunk of the 20% of identified Democrats who are not willing to say they will vote for Obama it could mean the election.
Preaching to the converted is for the lazy.
Jason M. Bryant: Well, they certainly say they believe it. But they say it with a nod and a wink. They present their evidence, which has so many holes that it’s more hole than cloth, and they cry loudly that it is absolute proof. They take what little arguments they come up with on absolute faith, repeating them endlessly. They’ll talk about how the eye couldn’t possible form in evolutionary steps, but they’ll never read up on eyes and find that there are many know lesser evolved forms of eyes.
Luigi Novi: Jason, with this, you seem to be arguing that the lack of coherence which accompanies creationist arguments is somehow proof of consciousness on the part of those who advocate them. In fact, this is simply cognitive dissonance, and it accompanies ALL poorly argued ideas, including those presented in Internet forums like this one. When people fail to respond directly to counterarguments, deliberately ignore information that might disprove their ideas, and so forth, this is indeed one sign that I take that confirms that the person is wrong, or at least knows that they’re wrong, but the level of consciousness on which they know this is a matter of question. It’s tricky to conclude full consciousness, at least with all such people, and while I have no doubt that at least some people who engage in this behavior do so deliberately (as when, for example, someone deliberately edits another person’s quote selectively in order to distort its meaning—because this requires a conscious, deliberate, calculating act that cannot likely be called unconscious), I think it’s inaccurate to group all such people together by saying “they” say it with a nod and a wink. With such large groups of people, it’s not reasonable to say that a good number of them, or even most of them, do not really believe what they say they believe. What you’re essentially arguing is that they cannot because the idea, and the way it’s argued, is incoherent. But this assumes that people are coherent in the ideas they hold and the way they defend them. Largely, they’re not, especially when the ideas in question are false.
Jason M. Bryant: So they wrote the books anyway. That’s not science. They know it.
Luigi Novi: You’ll get no argument from me there, Jason. But the issue is not whether it’s science. The issue is one of consciousness, which is the point you made that I am responding to. Even if the Discovery Institute (which I’m pretty sure is the group you’re describing) can be said to be completely conscious of the falsity of their ideas, most creationists are not part of such organizations. They are certainly influenced by them, and rely on them to feed them the information they want to hear, but most of them are not on the front lines attempting to shore up the appearance of original research. Think about it: Have you never debated someone who could not name a reliable source from which they gleaned their info, because the idea in question is derived from urban legend, myth, or Internet rumor, and when pressed for a source, either fail to respond, or end up supplying a tabloid or propaganda group like the D.I. because they don’t know any better?
Most creationism probably stems from ignorance and cognitive dissonance. Not deliberate dishonesty.
Dennis: Okay, sure… and I am typing this with a “straight face:” I think one can always find some sort of instance of bias for almost anything, but overall the accusations of bias against FNC are very overblown. And come on, people know what they are getting when a person like Karl Rove is making political analysis comments. Duh… it’s going to have a conservative take/spin on it, just like when any given Democratic talking head guest analyzer gives their spin on things.
Luigi Novi: First of all, the bias Craig mentioned was not a reference to “spin”, but to hypocrisy, the multiple accounts of which by McCain, and supporters like Rove, is well-documented, as in the video like the one Craig linked to. The video, and others presented throughout this campaign, clearly show how McCain and his supporters have repeatedly criticized Obama and in general, the Democrats, for things that McCain, his campaign and the Republicans have themselves said, done or advocated, and how McCain and Palin are given a free pass for things that Democrats and others are criticized for. I know of no equivalent number of instances of double standards exhibited in this campaign by Democrats, or that they have a cable network that is so blatantly in their pocket as FOX News is. But if you could present such documentation, please do.
If by asserting that people know what they’re getting when they listen to someone like Rove, you’re implying that his words carry no weight with voters, then I’d point out that he got a President elected and re-elected, and would not be interviewed on FOX News if he was not thought to have credibility.
If one is not a “fan” of FOX News, it is because their activities as a source of propaganda is such a clearly established fact, one of which they are unashamed.
Jerome Maida: B.S. Absolute B.S. And not in all in touch with reality. At the very least, Republican candidates have to put up with at least AS MUCH crap as Democrats. I feel the media gives the Democrats a huge advantage, in that respect, but let’s assume that the “barrage of crap” is even. Consider: 1.) LBJ’s “daffodil” ad, which basically said if you voted for Goldwater, we’re all going to die in a nuclear war. Classy that. What do you think the reaction would be if McCain ran a similar ad against Obama. Ironically, it was the sainted Hillary Clinton that evoked slight memories of that ad with her “3AM phone call” one against Obama. But even she didn’t go as far as LBJ did.
Luigi Novi: See previous answer. If you have to go back 44 years to the Daisy Ad to find a decent example, and the example you end up using is a President generally not thought of favorably, due to the Vietnam War, then the the idea that Republicans have to put up with “as much crap as Democrats” is hardly well-demonstrated.
As for Hilary Clinton, yeah, I agree that she ran a dirty campaign. That’s why I didn’t vote for her in the primaries.
Again, if you say that Republicans put up with “at least as much crap as the Democrats”, then can you provide documentation that shows this, given the video that Craig linked to?
Jerome Maida: BTW, isn’t it interesting that LBJ, the man who signed the Civil Rights Act and whose Great Society (initiatives) was the biggest expansion of the Welfare State since the New Deal wasn’t mentioned at the Democratic Convention? The man who arguably passed the most significant, voluminous and long-lasting liberal legislation in the past half-century was not mentioned at all. Why?
Luigi Novi: Because it wasn’t relevant to the campaign?
Jerome Maida: The emphasis on Bob Dole’s anger during a debate against his opponent, asking “Why do you lie about my record?” Why is it the media found it more newsworthy that Dole show some anger over perceived lies about him than his policies or even over whether he actually was being lied about?
2B.) By comparison, Bill Clinton getting angry during a DEMOCRATIC debate in which that rabid conservative Jerry Brown brought up some points about Hillary’s dealings and maneuverings, was seen as a sign that he was “passionate” about “defending” his wife. This would, of course, continue.
Luigi Novi: I don’t recall either of these offhand, but I do recall that the Republicans have engaged in this behavior towards their own, as with McCain’s temper being made an issue when he was running against George W. Bush in the primaries, and Democrats being targeted in this way, as when Howard Dean’s enthusiastic pep rally behavior in the 2004 election was called into question, even though he was just pumping up the crowd, who was just as enthused as he was, and certainly not shocked at his behavior.
All politicians are targeted in this way, so it’s hardly just Republicans, and hardly by the Democrats exclusively.
Jerome Maida: Does no one remember when Bush the Elder was looking over a supermarket scanner and the media narrative was that he was “amazed” and this event was a symbol of how “out-of-touch” he was with “ordinary Americans”? Yet now, a VP candidate who is more than familiar with those things – and cooks and cleans – and is truly “in touch” with the average American Democrats purportedly care about, well, she’s a scary, unqualified redneck. Why doesn’t the media sing her praises for being in touch? Can’t be because she’s a conservative woman who – gasp – is pro-life, can it?
Luigi Novi: Your argument implies that because Palin cannot be criticized for this one thing that a prior President two administrations ago was criticized for, that therefore, ipso facto, she cannot be criticized at all, for other things that have nothing to do with this. This makes no sense. Just because Politican A was criticized for Reason X, and Politican B cannot be criticized for Reason X, does not mean that she cannot be criticized for other reasons, like Reason Y, Reason Z, etc. Because Plain presumably knows what a supermarket checkout scanner is, means she cannot be criticized for wanting to ban books, for making anti-American remarks when a secessionist, for being pro-life, for being a creationist, for being against sex education in schools, for lacking experience, for denigrating community organizers, for accepting pork barrel federal earmarks, etc.? How do you figure this? What does one have to do with the other?
Being amazed at a supermarket checkout scanner indeed shows that it was probably a long time since Bush ever bought his own groceries (assuming he ever had). Palin, however, has not been called or criticized for being “in touch”, and I am unaware that anyone has criticized her for being a “redneck.” My only familiarity with the use of that word in this campaign was that the father of her daughter’s child called himself that. And the only instance of anyone touching upon her activities as a outdoorsperson (if this is pertinent) is a video I saw on MySpace criticizing her for hunting, which I thought was horseshit, since I eat meat myself, and have eaten meat derived from an animal killed by a relative.
Jerome Maida: What about Bush’s question early in the 2000 campaign about which world leaders he knew – and turned out not to know? When has Obama been ambushed in such a manner?
Luigi Novi: Being asked about foreign relations knowledge is not an “ambush”. It’s a legitimate question for a Presidential candidate, and for Bush, since he had zero foreign policy experience. As for Obama, he has held assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations, was Chairman of the Senate’s subcommittee on European Affairs, and as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa.
Jerome Maida: For that matter, why is it that Obama has admitted cocaine use, yet that is never brought up? Yet the media had a field day with Bush the Younger’s alleged use of cocaine?
Luigi Novi: The media has not had a field day with Bush’s use of cocaine. This point, along with his drinking, was briefly brought up in the 2000 campaign, and then dropped. I heard about Obama’s drug use in this campaign to about the same degree. Moreover, as Tim pointed out, Obama has been open about it. Bush, however, has refused to talk about his cocaine use.
Peter David: But look sideways at a wholly unqualified woman and conservatives cry foul
Jerome Maida: And what makes Obama, the head of the Democratic ticket, more qualified than Palin, who is #2 – or qualified at all?
Luigi Novi: The portion of the quote by Peter that you selected above is presented in a way that changes its contextual meaning. The full, contextual quote by Peter is:
Peter David: I just find it interesting that Democratic candidates are subjected to a relentless barrage of crap, and that’s somehow justified because…well, because it wins elections. But look sideways at a wholly unqualified woman and conservatives cry foul, even though–were she the Democratic VP candidate–she would be ripped to shreds by the very same GOP pundits who now feel any criticism of her is out of line.
Thus, Peter acknowledged that Obama was criticized for things like this, and was making the point that the ones who did so did not level the same criticism toward Palin. Your version of the quote makes it sound as if he was emphasizing Palin’s experience, to the exclusion of Obama’s, which it obviously did not.
Jerome Maida: And although Obama himself has been classy, his campaign has not. The constant reference to her as the mayor of a city of 9,000 people instead of the governor of Alaska is what prompted her “community leader” crack.
Luigi Novi: First of all, if the fact that her tenure as mayor is mentioned often does not mean that it is “constantly” mentioned, or “instead of” her tenure as governor. I’ve seen both her tenure as mayor and her work as governor have been mentioned often, and it is indeed a legitimate point, particularly since the Republicans have criticized Obama’s experience, even though he was a state senator, and later a senator, of a state whose capital alone dwarfs the entire state of Alaska in population by a factor of four. This is not classless, it’s valid criticism, both in itself, and as an illustration of the GOP’s hypocrisy. And in addition to the size of the town and the state, she has also been criticized for her activities in that regard, as I mentioned above (and later below).
Second, if Palin felt that Obama or any other critic made a comment that was inappropriate, then she could’ve shown principles by taking the high road by refuting it, or responding to it in a reasonable manner. Insulting all community organizers by saying that they have no “ actual responsibilities” was inexcusably insulting, and shows that she’s just plain dumb, and completely inept in responding to criticism. I mean, think about it: did it actually not occur to her, in all the time that she had to prepare her speech, that in making this comment, she was targeting millions of Americans who do good work, and not just Obama? Did she not care? If you really think that saying community organizers have no actual responsibilities is the appropriate response to “constantly be referred to as a small-town mayor”, then I’d say that your judgment is as questionable as hers, Jerome. Then again, at least you’re not asking to be the second most powerful person in the world, and a heartbeat away from the first.
Even Karl Rove admitted that Plain was picked for political reasons.
Jerome Maida: What has Obama ever run? What has he done that makes HIM qualified to be President in january by virtue of being elected and not in case his running mate dies?
Luigi Novi: Well…
At Harvard Law School
In his second year at Harvard, he was elected president of the Law Review, a full-time volunteer position functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review’s staff of 80 editors. He did this by convincing a crucial swing bloc of conservatives that he would protect their self-interests if they supported him, and with the same kind of long listening sessions he had used in the poor neighborhoods of South Side, Chicago.
As a community organizer and activist
He worked for three years from June 1985 to May 1988 as director of the Developing Communities Project (DCP), a church-based community organization, which originally comprised eight Catholic parishes in Greater Roseland, Obama helped the group, ally with black churches on the South Side of Chicago. During his three years as the DCP’s director, its staff grew from 1 to 13, and its annual budget grew from $70,000 to $400,000, with accomplishments including helping set up a job training program, a college preparatory tutoring program, and a tenants’ rights organization in Altgeld Gardens.
Obama directed Illinois Project Vote! from April to October 1992, a nonpartisan voter registration drive, which had a staff of 10 and 700 volunteers that registered 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered voters. Obama raised more money than any other state director had ever done, and was praised for enlisting a broad spectrum of organizations and people, including many who did not get along well with one another. He was noticed by Crain’s Chicago Business for this.
Obama was a founding member of the board of directors of Public Allies, a non-profit, largely taxpayer-funded organization, from 1992-1993. He served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a philanthropic organization devoted to poverty relief and the promotion of social mobility, from 1993–2002, and served on the board of directors of The Joyce Foundation from 1994–2002. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995–2002, and as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995–1999. He also served on the board of directors of the Chicago Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center for Neighborhood Technology, and the Lugenia Burns Hope Center.
As a State Senator
As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for childcare.
When Democrats took control of the state Senate in the 2002 elections, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in January 2003.
During his tenure as a legislator, Obama earned a reputation as a pragmatist able to work with various sides of an issue. He led the passage of a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.
As a U.S. Senator
Obama holds assignments on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans’ Affairs, and he is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus. He is a chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs.
Obama took an active role in the Senate’s drive for improved border security and immigration reform, cosponsoring the “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” introduced by John McCain, and later adding three amendments to the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act”, which passed the Senate, but failed to gain majority support in the House. In September 2006, Obama supported a related bill, the Secure Fence Act, which Bush signed, calling it “an important step toward immigration reform.”
Obama successfully introduced two initiatives regarding reducing the threat from conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines, and greater transparency for organizations receiving federal funds. Obama was the primary sponsor of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act, which Bush signed.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, focusing on strategies to control the world’s supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction as a first defense against potential terrorist attacks, on warning Palestinians that Hamas must renounce its fundamental mission to eliminate Israel, and on condemning the influence of ethnic rivalries and corruption in Kenya.
Jerome Maida: Why is he considered ready by so many for the most powerful position in the world by those who feel Palin is not ready to be Vice-President?
Luigi Novi: She campaigned for pork barrel earmarks for an unneeded bridge in Alaska. She has been shown to have lied about opposing it. She’s embroiled in a corruption investigation. She demonstrated a lack of knowledge about the Pledge of Allegiance, believing it to have been written by or during the time of the Founding Fathers. A group that advocates seceding from the United States claims her as a former member, and for her part, she has made anti-American remarks, and welcomed members from that group and thanked them for the work they’ve done at the RNC. She denigrates the work of community organizers. Palin opposes sex education in schools. She’s a creationist. She’s a censor who tried to get books banned from a public library, and fired a librarian who would not comply. As Wasilla mayor, Palin fired the longtime local police chief, because, according to him, his stand on restricting concealed weapons upset the NRA. As governor, Palin fired a public safety commissioner because he refused to fire a state trooper who was the Governor’s brother-in-law and going through an ugly divorce with the Governor’s sister, to which she initially issued a blanket denial from which she later had to back down. She has not been open to reporters who wish to question her on things like her security credentials, because they’re supposedly not giving any “deference” to her.
Comparing the accomplishments and points of criticism of Obama to the accomplishments and points of criticisms of Palin makes it clear that he’s far more qualified than her.
Mark L: Not to mention the numerous fallacies in Michael Moore’s movies, but that would take a few paragraphs.
Luigi Novi: It would take up entire books and websites (and does). In any event, I’m on record by pointing out that Moore is a lying, hypocritical propagandist, as much as the FOX News pundits are. Aside from his humor, his work carries no credibility with me.
Jason M. Bryant: Here you go. It’s from the The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University…
Luigi Novi: That source says that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks. How does this bolster your theory that “Republican candidates have to put up with at least as much crap as Democrats”?
Luigi, I suppose there’s no way to know for sure.
It’s probably a mixture of both. Part of them knows what they’re doing, part of them is convinced that it’s legitimate. I feel like the part of them that knows what they’re doing is big enough to hold them responsible.
A doctor gets into medicine because he wants to cure disease, make a lot of money, or various other reasons. Sometimes they love the science for itself, but for a lot of them it’s a means to an end, so they want the science to be as accurate as possible.
Intelligent Design people just want to prove the religion that they had before they started talking about science. Perhaps they know they’re doing bad science and they willfully lie. Perhaps they’re so intent on their goal that they’re blind to counter evidence and their own lack of evidence. One is intent, the other is negligence, but either way they are responsible for it.
So either they’re lying to us or they’re lying to themselves. Since they’re forcing their lies on others, I don’t really care which it is. They’re still responsible for themselves.
Luigi Novi: That source says that ABC, NBC and CBS were tougher on Barack Obama than on John McCain in recent weeks. How does this bolster your theory that “Republican candidates have to put up with at least as much crap as Democrats”?
I didn’t say that, Jerome did.
Can’t tell the players without a scorecard around here.
Eh. Both our names start with ‘j’. I quoted him in my post. A little confusion here and there is bound to happen. Particularly when a thread is 3 million posts long and all our eyes start to bleed.
The human animal has an amazing capability to believe in ideas that are total nonsense, and there is one funny factor in that: sometimes, the more absurd the idea, the more obstinate its defenders are. They draw strength from it. It’s like, at some level, human beings feed from bûllšhìŧ.
God sent AIDS to kill the fággøŧš! (So, God must also truly hate African children that have never had sex) The Soviet Union is shining example of freedom! (With Gulags, purges, controlled media)
If people can believe in a supposedly loving God that burns sinners in hëll for eternity (not 10, 100, or 1000 years, but eternity), why not believe that God planted false evidence that the Earth is much older just for His own inescrutable reasons?
I’m perfectly willing to believe that they think God planted fake evidence of when the dinosaurs lived. But that’s a *religious* belief. Any time a question is answered with “God did it,” that is a religious belief.
Do they believe that they have *scientifically proven* that God did all that? That’s a much shakier belief. I think most of them either know that they don’t have the evidence to say that, or they know that they don’t understand science enough to say that they do. They’re just pushing it as science anyway because they’re convinced that if they act like they know what they’re talking about, eventually the science will catch up with their faith. That’s still a knowing deception.
Really, I’m making too big a deal of this. Even if someone honestly believes that Intelligent Design is science, she still shouldn’t be elected to office. If she wants it taught in schools, then she may not be lying, but she is incompetent.
At this point I feel compelled to point out that Palin has never actually tried to get legislation that would require I.D. to be taught in schools. She has appointed someone to a lower position who tried to get it into schools, but Palin herself hasn’t done pushed that issue yet. It could be that she respect others opinions too much to make it the law. It could be that she’s just been too focused on getting her new pipeline to fight that battle. We don’t know yet.
If only there was a way for someone to ask her about it.
Jason, I think the “mixture of both” theory is probably the most reasonable one, at least when talking of the group as a whole. As for the reet of your comments about the creationism issue, I agree.
Sorry about the misattribution, though.
May I suggest going by a name that is more unique in this country, like I do? 🙂
No problem. From now on, call me Miguel Sanchez!
Jerome, as for the infamous “liberal bias” in the media, if Obama’s confessed drug use hasn’t been pursued further, the same can be said of John McCain’s adultery.
Particularly, I’m of the oppinion that anything involving consensual sex is a non-issue when discussing someone’s suitability for political office, but I know many Conservatives disagree with me…
(And I can only imagine the sorts of things the Conservatives would be saying now if Barack Obama had discarded a disable wife to marry a younger, more beautiful one)
One double standard that I often see in American media is that while the radical right is heard and given respectability, the radical left is often relegated to the underground press. When mainstream American news programs discuss an issue with two guys representing right and left, they’ll usually get a radical right advocate AND a fairly mild, demi-centrist, left-wing guy.
In this way, they shift the whole political discourse to the right.
Jason M. Bryant: No problem. From now on, call me Miguel Sanchez!
Luigi Novi: LOL. Given that I grew up and live in a city whose population is mostly Latino (and that Latinos are the fastest growing ethnic group in the U.S.), I’m not sure this would be the best name!
Rene, I would hardly find the cover of Newsweek or Time to be the underground press. New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, Come on. be reasonable.
Pat, you’ve admitted to reviewing the right-generated hypocrisy documented in the Daily Show clip, but still allege an outrageous left-wing bias — without referring to analogous taste for blood on their part. Why can’t you move beyond the right-wing-news-speak of portraying a fixed republican-game as fair? Is your soul really worth the second house?
Pat, the New York Times and the others you mentioned have mostly liberal positions, but I don’t think they ever were a vehicle for the radical left.
Part of the effect of this shifting of the political discourse in the US is that the center-left is now seem as radical. But what I mean by the radical left are the guys that are truly radical, with positions are extreme as the radical right.
For instance, we often see guys in the radical right who explicitely defend a society that is founded on Christian values. Their opposite number, the radical socialists that are harshly hostile to religion and pro-atheism, are not often seen in American mainstream media. Instead, the left is represented by conciliatory guys that still see a place for religion in society, just not as the domineering force social conservatives would prefer.
The right has become more radical, while the left has shifted to the center, so as a whole, American society has shifted to the right. This is more obvious when you compare American media and politics to what you see in Europe or South America.