Are you ashamed of the biased presidential coverage?

Fair enough. Do you think she was treated unfairly by Couric/Gibson?

 

I did not like the tone used by Gibson or Couric. I felt like nothing she had to say would be good enough for them.

But hey, we obviously agree to disagree. Let's just get this election over with please.

 

One of the reasons I think some conservatives are so frustrated this election is that the media has been more willing to call them on some of the outright falsehoods they're spreading. Obama wants to teach your kindergardners how to give blow jobs, for example. With the Bush Administration, it was usually "The President and his advisers say this, so let's see what the Democratic response is."

The media doesn't want to play along anymore because they're not afraid of being bullied with claims that "you're not patriotic." All of it started unraveling during Katrina when the administration was trying say everything was hunky dorey, and reporters who were actually on the ground, knee deep in water, had had enough of the lying. The country got to see what happens when you put an unqualified person in charge during a catastrophic event, and they didn't like it.

Barack Obama is not Jesus, but he's run a much, much better and more disciplined campaign than John McCain has. That, in the end, is the story of this election and that's who conservatives should blame, not the media. You made a devil's bargain with Bush eight years ago. You said that experience didn't matter, and that personality and leadership were the deciding factors. Bush could have more experienced people around him to help out with the complicated stuff. And he was going to unite us with "compassion" because the partisanship didn't work.

Well, in some ways, that has come home to roost. Anyone who balls up their fists in fury and is pissed off that the media hasn't been tougher on Barack Obama's lack of experience -- if they voted for Bush twice -- needs to look in the mirror and they'll understand who to really blame.

You said all that experience stuff didn't matter in 2000.

Now all the sudden, after eight years, you want to claim that it does?

 

Here's a question, with Bush's approval ratings in the tank, is it proper to present his presidency as anything short of a disaster?
It's been interesting hearing FOX personalities rail against the Obama campaign for criticizing FOX, while giving GOPers an open mike to rail against every other media outlet.

 

The one thing I'll say for Fox is that they are indeed different than the rest. Some of their coverage seems fair, some of it seems woefully biased. But it is certainly a different take, and I think that adds something to the discourse. Of course, the most dangerous thing anyone can do is only watch one cable news network; hour by hour they each have their ebbs and flows of quality and fairness.

 

Couldn't agree with this more.

Every time I hear someone describe CNN as a liberal mouthpiece I think of Lou Dobbs and laugh.

 

I voted for Bush in 2000 and '04. I took him over what the Democrats had to offer at the time. This time around, I feel McCain is a better choice than Obama because our country needs experience now more than ever and someone with a track record.

While I feel our country needs some change, I'm concerned about electing a man who is convinced that we need make radical change during our country's toughest economic stretch in 80 years.

Obama also keeps telling us we're not at fault for the poor economy. I disagree. We're all at fault in some way, from buying more overseas goods to purchasing a home we could not afford to driving less fuel-efficient vehicles to running up thousands of dollars in credit card debit.

I don't see how Obama can cut taxes, start a bunch of new programs, change our health care and tax system, keep the other promises he has made and erase the deficit. And that, in part, is why I'm not voting for him.

 

Glen, the way I look at it is party politics over the last 12-15 years. For all the rhetoric, spending by republicans has been phenomenally high while the only democratic president of that period actually reduced the debt and grew the economy.

If the GOP acted like it talked, I'd vote for them. But they do not. Like I expressed earlier, the current right-wing movement is full of rhetoric, but very reactionary with its actions. The Democrats are what they are. They continue their tradition of approaching it by boosting up the lower to middle class as a way of stimulating business from the low end up. At its best, the republicans do the same with their tax cut stimuli (which, o course, favored more wealthy people, but still gave extra pocket change to working folk). Republicans are caught in a death cycle the same as newspapers. Their traditional role as the watchdog for business has been compromised by this social populist movement they have taken on. Trying to satisfy both movements, they wind up being not fiscally sound at all.

 

And Keller, Bill.

But then, we don't have this problem if Fredo plays it straight with the American people . . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

(knew I could barely complete typing that last phrase with a straight face . . . )

 

Yeah but after Viet Nam not many would just accept the President's word on why we need to go to war.

What confirmed it for me and many others was the fact that "credible" papers like the NY Times were in agreement and even out front on the idea that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

Till this day The Times has been hamstrung by their stance. Once the war started and no WMD's were found The Times had no room left to criticize Bush on the war.

 

This guy is certainly embarrassed, and whatever you think about the argument, an interesting piece:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=6099188&page=1

 

A great read, although I'm sure the masses here will disagree.