Skewz is a place to read conservative and liberal stories selected by users.
Join the community and vote to
Join the community and vote to
reveal media bias!
Media Bias Chart
Media Bias Cloud
"Skew This" Bookmark
Tools/Widgets
Subscribe to RSS feed
Add to iGoogle
Skewz Podcast
Liberal
Conservative
On behalf of the media, I would like to say we are sorry. On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry. We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked. We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin ? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? We have asked mean questions like: How well did John McCain know her before he selected her? How well did his campaign vet her? And was she his first choice? Bad questions. Bad media. Bad. It is not our job to ask questions. Or it shouldn?t be. To hear from the pols at the Republican National Convention this week, our job is to endorse and support the decisions of the pols. Sarah Palin hit the nail o
![[A]](/images/thumbnails/politico.com.ico?1194557043 "source avatar")
Share
Permalink
Quick Read
)Inappropriate
83 Comments
"I can't get over the fact that a person can claim to have more experience, when they have never written a law one. Never sponsored one or pass one federal law!!!! That's what the federal government does LADY!!!"
The executive branch of the federal government (which includes the President) doesn't write laws. That's why governors are often considered more qualified to be President than senators.
But when your state rivals the entire population of San Bernardino California, can it really be said that you have the experience to run a nation's economy if and when the time comes?
Again, there are are other Republican Governors that would have fit the qualitifications of being more ready on day one. Let's not forget that Sarah is a puppet propped up the the Religious right!
And, I'm estatic to point out, she won't be able to make a substantial dent in the independent vote. This is where the road to the Whitehouse will be won. Another good point, and one I'm glad we're all overlooking, is the fact that there are millions voters (not being polled) that fit the Obama demographic right down to the tatoo.
No one is calling cell phones. And, we all know the demographic that can't live without the technology.
Dems win! It might be tight, but this is a whole new day and age. I study Gen-y, and the tide is in favor of Obama.
You may (or not) have some good points here. But they are beside my point which is that criticizing Palin for not having legislative experience for an exectutive poistion is silly. McCain may (or not) be a good president (on balance). But the only thing I can see that Obama is good at is telling different groups of people different things according to what he thinks they want to hear and getting himself elected. He's a great talker. That's about it. The ability to run successful political campaigns alone doesn't qualify him to be president. McCain can be critiized for his record, but at least he has a discrenable one. Obama's inexperience could make him a disaster as president. But, if that happens, his supporters will just blame Bush for leaving him too big a mess to clean up.
Eutychus, did you vote for Bush?
Sorry, this woman is basically Bush number 2. In outlook of the world etc. It's a massive bait and switch. By and large, the entire GOP base still loves Bush and his policies but they have to pretent to go along with this "change" thing with a candidate they don't really like to get elected. I'm sure most people in the GOP are hoping McCain kicks the bucket and that this lady comes to power who is much more in line with their view of the world. My god, she's never really ever left the country. She knows nothing about the broader world except that it is to be held in contempt. I can see her telling the Indian prime minister that he should eat a moose burger or else. I can see her telling the Indians and Pakistanis to "knock it off" if they get into a brawl...which would seem like the simple thing to do...and it would get wild cheers here. But it would be a disastrous move. China would line up behind Pakistan as India is becoming a greater regional rival. Indian would relign with the Russians and the mess would just get worse. God help McCain's heart!
Lefty:
Seriously,"basically Bush number 2" Lets see you make that case. When elected she will be, along with Ronald Reagan, the most conservative politician elected to a national ticket since Coolidge.
This article is spot-on. The media has not been unreasonable in questioning Palin at all. There is no buzz about her pregnant daughter, her "redneck" to-be-son-in-law, or the fact that they slick down their hair using spittle.
Let's try and refrain from using racial overtones on the forum.
Nice attack job on the Republican Party. Maybe Roger Simon forgot that the Media is supposed to be as unbiased as possible? Maybe Roger Simon is one of those liberals who call themselves moderate to make themselves look unbiased.
That's right, and they are doing there job. So, when Rev. Wright or patriotism is brought up, that should be out of bounds and should be considered media bias. Nice hit job on the Democratic party. The press has not even gone after Palin's wacky pastor who is far crazier sounding than Wright. They have not even touched it. Now, that's media bias.
You know what else they haven't touched?
The fact that Obama says that McCain supports his party 90% of the time, while ignoring the fact that Obama supports his party 97% of the time.
The fact that Obama's ad campaigns run the "McCain thinks that anyone making $5,000,000 or less a year..." statement, despite the fact that McCain was joking when he said it.
AEC,
Senator McCain's argument is that he is the right person to bring change to Washington, but how well does that argument hold up when he has voted in favor of the same policies nine out of ten times?
Senator Obama's Democratic voting record does not provide a valid comparison: Democrats in Congress are (usually) voting against the Bush Administration. If the Senator had a low-to-0% Democratic voting record, that would be an argument against Senator Obama as an agent of change.
Senator Obama's $5 million statement has been outed, as seen in this FactCheck.org article. (bullet point #4)
Victor
Victor:
I have to take you to task on this one. First off, the fact that McCain votes with his party 90% of the time is neither news, damning or unusual. The same coulod be said for Obama voting 90%+ with his party. That is what they are expected to do. You are a member of a team and if you don't play ball with the team most of the time you will be very ineffective. Besides alot of your personal opinions can be expressed in as little as 10% non party voting. That 10% could be the most significant votes you make.
I would much rather see McCain and Obama vote 90% of the time with their parties than elect a so-called Republican like Norm Coleman R-MN who votes with his party 60% of the time except in the 2 years running up to re-election when all of a sudden he becomes a Reagan clone. I voted for Coleman to represent Conservative causes not curry favor at Georgetown cocktail parties. TRUTH BE KNOW IF COLEMAN HAD ACTED LIKE A REPUBLICAN WE WOULD BE DRILLING IN ANWR RIGHT NOW AND VICTOR WOULDN'T BE PAYING $4.00+ FOR GAS.
Victor:
The legislature (H&S) proposes ALL legislation. The executive either allows it to become law or vetoes it. Something GWB has done far to little of it. With the Dems in control of Congress nothing moves that the Dems don't want to move.
Why is this whole drilling for oil and I'll pay less for gas things still around? The increase in production would not have materially changed supply to influence price. If you want oil prices to drop then put pressure on Indian and China to reduce fuel subsidies. These economies are now entering recessive periods which is actually forcing oil prices down. I should now, I USED TO BE AN ENERGY TRADER.
I'll bet you a steak dinner on Nob Hill that when the US announces the start of off-shore drilling the price of crude drops.
By the way Lefty I have very expensive taste in wine.
Won't happen. Simple math tells us that. Rate of growth of demand is outstripping production. It's a structural problem that US drilling and output would not fix in the short term. Sorry. Look at how people are trading. When drilling in ANWR or offshore is mentioned as part of the GOP policy plank people suggest that's what led to a drop in crude oil futures. Wrong. Prices continue to drop before and after such pandering and the reason is slackening demand. That's the driver. Would you like me to put you in touch with some energy traders who live and die by their trades for you to ask them how this all works since you might be able to give them a tip they've been missing all their careers? I can surely set that up if you'd like.
Leftie:
Which is it.
"Rate of growth of demand is outstripping production"--LEFTIE
"the reason is slackening demand." --LEFTIE
Don't get into the monEy thing Marlowe: I'm still waiting to open up dialogue on the generation of wealth.
By the way: I have expensive taste in EVERYTHING.
Oh, in case you're wondering.--monEy is spelled correctly for today's thread.
Read Victor's analysis again: The Democratic ticket represents change from "business as usual". For Obama to vote less than 97% would be suspect to say the least. The proof of burden is on McCain to deviate from voting the same old party platforms (which he hasn't done). How then, can he be an agent of change-a maverick if he votes with bush 90% of the time?
I suggest you re-read my comment #25. I said it is not unusual for either of them to vote the way they did.
IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS I SUGGEST YOU ASK LINCOLN CHAFFEE HE WILL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT IN A WAY IAM SURE YOU'LL UNDERSTAND
I think you're a lot like McCain--you don't get it.
I sugges you check in with Victor on occasion--and make it a point to listen--he might be able to explain it again in a way I am sure you'll understand".
My biggest concern is the pentecostal Assembly of God church. If there were "legitimate" concerns of Black Liberation Theology then the same concerns hold here. Her view of the world is informed by this church which is incredibly partisan and seems focused on short-term thinking. The AIPAC pin she wears is a coded message saying I'm going to hasten the end-times. A conflict with Iran may be avoidable. If Iran were smart, the best move they could make is just start trading their oil in Euros which they have half-heartedly already started as a negotiation/leverage point. What does Iran want in the end. They want to trade openly with the US. For all the nuttiness they exhibit, they want to do business. We're not super interested because it could alienate our Sunni Arab allies who are very wary of Persian influence in the region. They have a right to be worried about the Persian generically. The Iranians are generally smart people and have more to offer than just oil. Iran's nuclear ambitions and move away from the NPT is a result of noting that the best way to keep the US from invading is to have the bomb.
LEFTY:
I donate to an Israeli charity for the orphans of war. Does that make me eschatological.
Let me make a little friendly suggestion. Posts like #44 in which you cover at least ten unrelated topics make it extremely hard to respond unless I want to write a term paper. Once again, not trying to diss you but I would be a lot more willing to respond when there is one or two topics.
Hang on a second here. Digging up a senior thesis from 20+ years ago from Princeton is news? That's just looking for crap to go on.
Asserting without fact that a man is a Muslim is news? Asserting that a man attended a radical Muslim school without checking the facts is news? Hang on a second. When it comes to the right-wing media, they didn't just go out of bounds, they just made shit up. Now, you tell me; what's worse? Fox News went out of its way yesterday to put up a 7 Myths about Palin article when they never even issued corrections for the active out-of-their-way smeers on Obama. Oh, let's not forget the famous terroris-fist-jab. Now had that happened to a righty, the left-wing media meme would be in over drive. Our guy...he just took in stride.
So Victor, Obama is then just changing the political party of the President from Republican to Democrat? If that's the case, all he's offering is the same things as John Kerry- he's not Bush!
I thought that he was promising to change washington- not just who the President was. Maybe I was mistaken. But if I was, I don't see why Hillary or anybody else in the Democratic Party would've been any different of a choice.
I thought the change was to start erasing party lines, and stop giving into special interest groups. But I guess I hoped a little too much there.
From your original post:
"You know what else they (the media) haven't touched?"
"The fact that Obama says that McCain supports his party 90% of the time, while ignoring the fact that Obama supports his party 97% of the time."
My first point, in reply, is that Senator McCain is trying to portray himself as an agent of change, but that's not what his voting record shows. Agreeing with the Republican agenda nine times out of ten does not demonstrate the maverick political stance that many of us, myself included, admire about the Senator.
My second point is that Senator Obama's voting record would only be notable if he consistently voted against a Democratic agenda, which the record does not indicate. "The media" is not reporting on the Senator's 97% Democratic voting record because there's no story there - just a statistic.
Contrast Senator Obama with Senator Lieberman, or use Marlowe's example of Norm Coleman: both of these men profess one politicial stance, but their voting record may suggest another. That's a newsworthy story.
Lastly, Senator Obama's campaign has demonstrated their commitment to change, and specified what "change" means to them. Reducing income inequity, focusing tax relief on middle and lower income families, using more diplomacy on the international stage, seeking to build international consensus instead of going it alone... these are some of the examples of what an Obama administration would change.
I miss the point here.
Lefty:
Reporting on a POTUS candidates mentor (Rev. Wright) is news. Reporting and speculating about a 17 year old daughter,20 year old DUI's, paternity of the candidates children and rumors of affairs are not news. They are an attack.
Hang on a second here. Digging up a senior thesis from 20+ years ago from Princeton is news? That's just looking for crap to go on.
Asserting without fact that a man is a Muslim is news? Asserting that a man attended a radical Muslim school without checking the facts is news? Hang on a second. When it comes to the right-wing media, they didn't just go out of bounds, they just made shit up. Now, you tell me; what's worse? Fox News went out of its way yesterday to put up a 7 Myths about Palin article when they never even issued corrections for the active out-of-their-way smeers on Obama. Oh, let's not forget the famous terroris-fist-jab. Now had that happened to a righty, the left-wing media meme would be in over drive. Our guy...he just took in stride.
You're right: the media should be as unbiased as possible. "Interested outsiders" is a term I've heard to describe the ideal.
When they aren't, we have Skewz as a tool to point that out.
That being said, it's the article's point, expressed with the author's tongue firmly in cheek, that the act of asking questions is what the media is supposed to do. The media is not supposed to be an echo chamber for any one group's message: that's what public relations firms and press releases are for.
When the person you're questioning complains, that's often a sign that you're doing a good job as a reporter. Democrats complain, and loudly, when reporters investigate Senator Obama's background. Republicans complain equally loudly when reporters investigate Governor Palin's background. When both sides are complaining, that to me sounds like "the media" is doing its job pretty well. Not perfectly. But pretty well.
Look at last night's O'Reilly segment with Senator Obama: I may not agree with Bill O'Reilly's political positions, and I know he's had problems getting the facts right in the past, but the segment that aired last night was well done: respectful without being obsequious and aggressive without being confrontational.
Look at Campbell Brown's interview with Tucker Bounds: he tried to weasel his way out of a tough question, and she called him out in it.
Those are examples of good, unbiased journalism.
Victor-
I generally agree with you, but when you use the word "bloviating" you are editorializing with your question. That's where O'Reilly got it wrong. As an interviewer, he spent more time exp