Just another snapshot of American politics

[j2k4]

This isn't too far from the current reality...

How Dare They Ask Dems Tough Questions?

"Sen. Obama, you also oppose Bush tax cuts, and claim that they take money away from the Treasury. But President Kennedy signed across-the-board tax cuts in the 1960s and said, 'It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.' Was he wrong?"

I wrote that a few weeks before the Pennsylvania debate between Sens. Clinton and Obama. And ABC's Charlie Gibson, much to my surprise, asked Sen. Obama a similar question:

"You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, 'I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.' It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"

Obama at first accepted the premise of Gibson's question -- that capital gains tax cuts actually generate more tax revenue. Obama said he considered the tax hike a matter of "fairness" -- that the rich need to pay more. But then he promptly contradicted himself. The tax hike, said Obama, will actually raise enough revenue to pay for his social programs -- including the government takeover of health care -- and pay down the federal debt. Huh?

Gibson, as well as his co-host, George Stephanopoulos, caught flak from analysts and pundits for asking such a question, and for spending time on "trivial" matters like Obama's 20-year relationship with his racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American, conspiracy-believing pastor.

I agree. We need more substantive questions:

Sen. Clinton, at the risk of sounding sexist, why do carrot cakes taste sweet, but sweet cakes don't taste like carrots?

Sen. Obama, given your concern about America's "chasm" and "divide" about racism, please explain Flavor Flav.

Sen. Clinton, in your commercials, crises always occur at 3 a.m. Can you assure us that when you become president, you'll therefore sleep only during the day, and work only at night?

Sen. Obama, they say the only thing that continues to grow when we get older are our noses and ears. Do you ever wake up at 3 o'clock in the morning, look in the mirror and go, "Yikes!"?

Sen. Clinton, why does former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer have better taste in his mistresses than your husband?

Sen. Obama, black former general manager and coach Isiah Thomas was recently fired. During Thomas' two-year tenure, his team went 33-49 one season, and 23-59 the next -- a franchise record-tying number of losses. A Knicks employee sued for sexual harassment, with the organization reportedly settling the case for $11.5 million. What steps will you take to get Thomas' job back?

Sen. Clinton, in the event you and your husband return to the White House, would you make, to the American people, one solemn promise: all male interns?
Sen. Obama, singer Alicia Keys says the government invented gangsta rap. She said it causes black rappers to kill each other, thus preventing the emergence of another "great black leader" like Tupac Shakur. Does this make Reverends Jackson and Sharpton insecure about their status as "great black leaders," since the government allows them to remain alive?

Sen. Clinton, for her low-rated newscast, CBS' Katie Couric earns $15 million, more than her two network rivals. Since you support equal pay for equal work, should the Justice Department prosecute Couric?

Sen. Obama, whom do you consider angrier at America? Your former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, or your wife, Michelle?

Sen. Clinton, you said that you intend to return civility to the White House. Following that theme, what can you do as president to ensure that Britney Spears always wears panties?

Sen. Obama, Canada, the United States and Mexico are contiguous countries. Yet you insist that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, causes companies to ship jobs overseas. Will you, before the American people, tell us the grade you received in high school geography?

Sen. Clinton, you say that you intend to fight the war on terror differently than President George W. Bush. There is a rumor that you intend to tell Islamofascists that the 72 brown-eyed virgins all look like former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Is this true -- I mean about the rumor?

Sen. Obama, if a tree falls in a forest and lands on a black lumberjack, does Al Sharpton make a sound?

Feel free to use any or all, Charlie. Again, no charge.

[Skiz]

Spectacular Q and A! :glag:

[ilw]

wtf

[lynx]

This isn't too far from the current reality...Seems to me the opening premise is faulty.

[j2k4]

This isn't too far from the current reality...Seems to me the opening premise is faulty.

How so? :whistling

[cullen7282]

In my personal opinion, rev. wright and questions like that are shit. Everyone knows already. I think what people were actually pissed about, me included, was at the last debate they spent the first hour to hour and a half hammering Obama about his pastor without asking one single question about any policy isssue. Not the war, not foreign relations, not taxes, nothing. That's stupid. I don't make a decision to vote or not to vote for a candidate on any personal issue, I look at their policy issues. After all, that's what we're "hiring" them for. This election is worse than a soap opera.

[devilsadvocate]

I agree with Cullen7282.

All this focus on non issues instead of real problems is an insult those that fought so we could have free elections.
The saying goes "Familiarity breeds contempt". It often appears that we take selecting the next "American Idol" more seriously than selecting a competent President.

[j2k4]

In my personal opinion, rev. wright and questions like that are shit. Everyone knows already. I think what people were actually pissed about, me included, was at the last debate they spent the first hour to hour and a half hammering Obama about his pastor without asking one single question about any policy isssue. Not the war, not foreign relations, not taxes, nothing. That's stupid. I don't make a decision to vote or not to vote for a candidate on any personal issue, I look at their policy issues. After all, that's what we're "hiring" them for. This election is worse than a soap opera.

Did you notice the legitimate question (that is to say, the kind you would prefer) which kicked off the column?

An excellent question, which drew a fumbling and incoherent response from Obama.

The point of the column is precisely that tough policy questions require answers that are on-point, and the major media, by-and-large, wishes not to ask such questions because of the resultant hardship to their favored candidate (in this case, Obama).

The column is making the case that, since difficult questions make candidates uncomfortable, and so are not to be asked, perhaps a default to the prurient might be favorable.

I believe Mr. Elder is attempting to demonstrate the absurdity of the situation by posing his own questions.

[devilsadvocate]

Well the republicans were whining about the questions they were being asked so Is this a party issue for you?

I have to be honest here, if any of the top 3 runners is getting a free ride with the media it has to be Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama Has been given wall to wall negative coverage because of people he has met in his life. Sen. McCains like for like connections are largely ignored and of the three if anyone can complain about having had every moment of their life analyzed for negative moments over the years it has to be Sen. Clinton.

[j2k4]

Well the republicans were whining about the questions they were being asked so Is this a party issue for you?

Not at all - could you describe for me the the situation (when, who, etc.) wherein the Republicans whined; I don't recall it precisely.


I have to be honest here, if any of the top 3 runners is getting a free ride with the media it has to be Sen. McCain.
Sen. Obama Has been given wall to wall negative coverage because of people he has met in his life. Sen. McCains like for like connections are largely ignored and of the three if anyone can complain about having had every moment of their life analyzed for negative moments over the years it has to be Sen. Clinton.

Your perception of McCain's having been given a "free pass" is owed to the fact he hasn't been subject to any serious media scrutiny (nor will he be until after the Democrat convention).

The show Hillary and Barack are staging is too entertaining just now to permit a different focus.

The media's only curiosity at this point is whether McCain might die of old age (the only point they've entertained, to date) before the convention.

The media will deal with McCain in due course, mark my words.

[devilsadvocate]

Just as an example, the complaints over the CNN debate. The complaint was that CNN's "liberal biased framing" was a deliberate attempt to portray them as gun toting, Bible thumping, gay bashing bigots.
The specifics are all over the Internet so I don't need to go deeper here. I suggest looking at right leaning sources if you wish to check for yourself.

I agree with you slightly about why the media isn't focused on McCain at this moment. We shall see in time if they do later, however it has long been an unspoken (to some degree) theory that McCains base is the press. I will add that this base has traditionally been the so called "liberal media" with the right leaning media not liking him much at all until he became the presumptive nominee. Now outlets like Fox are in love with him while the others just give him passes.

[j2k4]

Just as an example, the complaints over the CNN debate. The complaint was that CNN's "liberal biased framing" was a deliberate attempt to portray them as gun toting, Bible thumping, gay bashing bigots.
The specifics are all over the Internet so I don't need to go deeper here. I suggest looking at right leaning sources if you wish to check for yourself.

The difference being that, in the case of the Republicans, the candidate(s) made the complaint.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.

You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.


I agree with you slightly about why the media isn't focused on McCain at this moment. We shall see in time if they do later, however it has long been an unspoken (to some degree) theory that McCains base is the press. I will add that this base has traditionally been the so called "liberal media" with the right leaning media not liking him much at all until he became the presumptive nominee. Now outlets like Fox are in love with him while the others just give him passes.

Unspoken?

Any media favor for McCain is because he's not conservative; the fact is, he's barely a Republican.

His status as a "maverick" is predicated on his long-standing flimsiness on basic conservative planks.

They love that he's swallowed the "global-warming is caused by man (read, the USA)" theory lock, stock, hook, line...well, you get my point.

BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

[devilsadvocate]

The difference being that, in the case of the Republicans, the candidate(s) made the complaint.

Wouldn't that make the Republicans worse? The actual candidates complaining about "tough questions"

Looking back at what I wrote I'm sure it says "the republicans were whining", but in response to your claims of a difference it wasn't just the candidates.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.
Maybe I'm experiencing a different media, but where and how so? If you mean some liberal talking head on certain channels then the same could be said of the conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows.


You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.

Why would you need to read blogs. I've seen you post articles from "conservatives" just go to the sources that carry them.



BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

No.

But feel free to list the roster of the so called liberal media "in it's entirety".

Actually don't even try, A scene about "precious bodily fluids" has sprung to mind imagining you compiling the list. ;)

[j2k4]

Wouldn't that make the Republicans worse? The actual candidates complaining about "tough questions"

I hate to hear any candidate complain about anything at all, relative to the treatment they get, but if you think the media taking up on behalf of a candidate doesn't reflect poorly on the candidate or the media, I don't quite know what to say.

Looking back at what I wrote I'm sure it says "the republicans were whining", but in response to your claims of a difference it wasn't just the candidates.

The Dems are being similarly defended, but by the media.

An important distinction.
Maybe I'm experiencing a different media, but where and how so? If you mean some liberal talking head on certain channels then the same could be said of the conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows.

Interesting that, while you give short shrift to claims of liberal media, you now refer to "some liberal talking head on certain channels" (plural), and "conservative talking heads on any of the fox shows" (singular, network-wise).

Liberal media vastly outnumber conservative media, as you are apparently aware, however subliminally.


You might be surprised that I do not read blogs at all.

Why would you need to read blogs. I've seen you post articles from "conservatives" just go to the sources that carry them.

Do you equate the opinion pieces of paid professional columnists (who have a monetary stake in the quality of their intellectual work-product) to bloggers?


BTW-

Could you take five seconds or so and list the roster of "right-wing media" in it's entirety?

No.

But feel free to list the roster of the so called liberal media "in it's entirety".


No trouble at all.

Outside Fox news, the Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and a good-sized chunk of talk radio, the major media in the US is completely and irrevocably liberal.

There you go. :whistling

[devilsadvocate]

@Blue insert#1

If you have any evidence that the candidates asked the media to do that for them you could have point. However you have not offered up any. Also the media did take up on behalf of the republicans.

@Blue insert#2

I said liberal talking heads on certain channels because there are only a few here and there. Those channels also have conservative talking heads.

I only singled out fox as an example because ALL fox shows are conservative talking heads, with token "weak liberals" that don't really counter anything. An entire channel, not just certain shows on the channel. I would add that it is an entire channel that seems dedicated to electing republicans.

@Blue insert#3

Liberal by what definition? That not every one of their hosts are conservatives?
So do you consider those you mentioned neutral/unbiased or biased in favor of conservatives?

[j2k4]

@Blue insert#1

If you have any evidence that the candidates asked the media to do that for them you could have point. However you have not offered up any. Also the media did take up on behalf of the republicans.

I never said any candidate "asked the media" to do anything for them; I said the liberal media has done it of their own accord for the Democrat candidates at different times, though much more, lately, for Obama.

This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.


I said liberal talking heads on certain channels because there are only a few here and there. Those channels also have conservative talking heads.

Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...


I only singled out fox as an example because ALL fox shows are conservative talking heads, with token "weak liberals" that don't really counter anything. An entire channel, not just certain shows on the channel. I would add that it is an entire channel that seems dedicated to electing republicans.

I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.



Liberal by what definition? That not every one of their hosts are conservatives?
So do you consider those you mentioned neutral/unbiased or biased in favor of conservatives?

Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...:whistling

[devilsadvocate]

I never said any candidate "asked the media" to do anything for them; I said the liberal media has done it of their own accord for the Democrat candidates at different times, though much more, lately, for Obama.

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.


This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.

With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.



Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...
Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?


I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough ...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.



BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.


Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...:whistling

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

[j2k4]

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.

This thread is getting messy.

Anyway, the fact the media weighs-in on behalf of the Dem candidates doesn't give you pause, doesn't leave you questioning the "why" of it?

That they dwell unendingly on Wright, et.al., but fail to pronounce, preferring instead to to empathize over the "unfairness" of it all?


This hasn't happened at all for McCain, i.e., it's fine to debate McCain's age (this would be ageism by any liberal definition; or maybe only Democrats can suffer thereby), but don't talk about Obama's middle name, his ears, his skin color, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, his liberal voting record, his association with the terrorist Ayers, or what might laughably be referred to as his policies.

With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

As I have alluded, the media is keeping it's powder dry re: McCain.

You'll hear more about Liddy and whomever else pops up in due course.

BTW-

Did you notice Hagee apologized, and that he did so without reference to "context" or any other such silliness?

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

I agree, to the extent it is true, but that is the way of the world these days.

As an alternative, however, would you prefer candidates to emerge as finished products from some sort machine, with only a printout of his/her ideological slate and a nice paint-job to differentiate them?

Baggage is a fact of life, and, in fact, airport security often identifies terrorists by rooting about in theirs.

Better safe than sorry, I say.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.

What daily changes are you referring to?


Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...


Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?

I was referring to your previous post, wherein you expressed your disbelief over the fact.



I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough

We have a difference of opinion, here.

I will settle for stating the liberal presence on whichever Fox show you choose is well in excess of the conservative presence on any other show on any other network.

...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.

Liberals who aren't liberals?

Like...oh, let's see...Mort Kondracke?

Or Alan Colmes?

(I will concede that Colmes is awfully weak.)



BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.

It matters that I am not a Republican, wouldn't you agree?

How do you define yourself, politically?

Please don't say moderate.


Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...:whistling

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

To me, bias carries the stigma of willful ignorance.

If you've paid any attention to my modus operandi, you've noticed I don't claim those I quote are anything but conservative (preference-wise); this, as opposed to others in the liberal press (journalism proper, if you will) who claim "mainstream" status.

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?

[devilsadvocate]

Well that would only be a bad reflection on the media, not the democratic candidates you say had nothing to do with it. How does it reflect badly on the candidates? My point is that complaining themselves is worse for the republican candidates.

This thread is getting messy.

Anyway, the fact the media weighs-in on behalf of the Dem candidates doesn't give you pause, doesn't leave you questioning the "why" of it?

As I said if you were talking about the media and your premise was correct then you may have had a point, but your point was that it reflects badly on the candidates and you have yet to say why when you openly say they had nothing to do with it. I believe in holding people responsible for their own actions, It appears you like to spread the blame.

That they dwell unendingly on Wright, et.al., but fail to pronounce, preferring instead to to empathize over the "unfairness" of it all?

Again I must be watching a different media because apart from a few rare "guests" All I've seen is the repeating of the "bad stuff"



With Obama, perhaps the media didn't get the memo that they are defending him because the subjects you mentioned have been wall to wall non stop coverage even on the outlets you claim are liberal. Can you seriously not be satisfied?
As we both agreed McCain has been getting an easy ride thus far so what defending are you suggesting he is missing out on? McCain has equal associations, Pastor Hagee and his close friendship with the man that spent a few years in jail for the Watergate break in and who suggested aiming at federal agent's heads because they wear body armor, G Gordon Liddy. Yet the media easy ride has been silent on this. So where is the liberal bias and championing of Obama?

As I have alluded, the media is keeping it's powder dry re: McCain.

You'll hear more about Liddy and whomever else pops up in due course.

BTW-

Did you notice Hagee apologized, and that he did so without reference to "context" or any other such silliness?

He apologized to one group, the catholics. You notice he has made no such apology to those that lost all in Katrina for example. I can only guess the focused apology may be politically motivated because those he apologized to would be part of the republican base and would therefore have been a problem for McCain. The Katrina victims wouldn't have been a political problem for McCain because they would be more likely democratic voters. If he made the same apology to the Katrina victims much of the republican base would not be happy, because to them saying God damns American over foreign policy is wrong but god damns America because of homosexuals is correct. The thing is, it is important to remember that it was Hagee saying those things, NOT McCain

Wright makes no such politically expedient apology. Perhaps because he feels he has nothing to apologize for, perhaps because he knows any apology would never be accepted, Who knows? The thing is, it is important to remember that it was Wright saying those things, NOT Obama


Obama and McCain are candidates, Wright and Hagee are not.

Personally I think it would do a disservice to the selection process if they did go after McCain in the same way, but I hate all this irrelevant guilt but association politics and think the media has done the country a disservice linking Obama to not only people he has met, but people who have met the people he met.

I agree, to the extent it is true, but that is the way of the world these days.

As an alternative, however, would you prefer candidates to emerge as finished products from some sort machine, with only a printout of his/her ideological slate and a nice paint-job to differentiate them?

Baggage is a fact of life, and, in fact, airport security often identifies terrorists by rooting about in theirs.

Better safe than sorry, I say.

For me McCain's daily changing stance on the issues make it hard to know for sure where he stands any more. That's where I think the media needs to hold candidates to the fire.

What daily changes are you referring to?

Apparently your preference in media has shielded you from this.


Ah, but I though there were no liberal talking heads...


Why would you think that when you assert that the media is liberal?

I was referring to your previous post, wherein you expressed your disbelief over the fact.

Disbelief in what? I was the one that used the term "liberal talking heads". Was that unclear?
There is some liberal bias, just as there is some conservative bias. In my opinion most are objective. You appear to categorize the objective ones in with the liberals because they don't have a conservative bias and only spout conservative viewpoints. Either with us or against us



I would submit that Fox is the only network offering ANY conservative content, and the reason the liberals in attendance there sound weak is due to their proximity to "right" argument.

Glenn Beck, ,Tucker carlson, Joe Scarborough

We have a difference of opinion, here.

I will settle for stating the liberal presence on whichever Fox show you choose is well in excess of the conservative presence on any other show on any other network.

...................................

And I call them weak liberals by the same type of argument you use to say McCain isn't a conservative and barely a republican.

Liberals who aren't liberals?

Like...oh, let's see...Mort Kondracke?

Or Alan Colmes?

(I will concede that Colmes is awfully weak.)



BTW-

I am most assuredly not a Republican; I am a Conservative.

How very nice for you, Not sure why it matters.

It matters that I am not a Republican, wouldn't you agree?

How do you define yourself, politically?

Please don't say moderate.

Same reply I gave to you stating your category, not sure why it matters. Other than the possibility that such a proclamation might indicate a closed mind.





Liberal by my definition, of course.

As to your last, common sense and logic are my personal guideposts...insofar as these qualities accrue more often to those who speak from the right, I imagine you can suss my opinion.

I do not like argument guided by any sort of bias, which should not be confused with preference.

Some things make more sense than others, and I have found more sense, more often, on the right.

You mentioned earlier that I occasionally reproduce an opinion piece here and there - you may take it (when I do this) that I am largely in agreement with what I re-publish, unless otherwise noted.

I find it curious that others don't do the same too often, nor do any demonstrate any ongoing affinity for the views of others, especially in light of the ideological torches they carry.

Anyway...:whistling

To me that reads that you consider them biased in favor of conservatives. (wouldn't a straight answer make you seem less evasive?) You Favor these sources yet do not like arguments guided by bias. Isn't preference a definition of bias?

To me, bias carries the stigma of willful ignorance.

If you've paid any attention to my modus operandi, you've noticed I don't claim those I quote are anything but conservative (preference-wise); this, as opposed to others in the liberal press (journalism proper, if you will) who claim "mainstream" status.

Perhaps others don't post articles and say "what he said" because they prefer to write what they think in their own words.

As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?
Mathews is quite non partisan, he's more excited by political tactics than party, He is disliked by the left and right equally.
Olbermann definitely doesn't like the republicans and I suspect he isn't keen on Bill Oreily.

From reading your statements on the media you come across as someone that has a predetermined opinion and looks for media that confirms it rather than challenges.

[j2k4]

I was sincerely put out at the prospect of stitching anew on this thread...until I found this-


As an aside, how would you characterize the partisanship of, say, Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann, and what would have to say (therefore) about MSNBC?
Mathews is quite non partisan, he's more excited by political tactics than party...

Words fail me.



From reading your statements on the media you come across as someone that has a predetermined opinion and looks for media that confirms it rather than challenges.

A few suppositions can be made here-

1. You are not quite as familiar with conservatives or conservatism as you think.

2. You are quite a bit younger than I am.

3. You are irrevocably and irretreivably liberal (though you have rather studiously avoided any sort of label).

4. Your study of media bias is not too serious.

5. You really don't have the slightest familiarity with me.

I have more, but...

Tell me how many of those are wrong.

BTW-

I'm installing my vLite concoction, so I will attend here when I can, as I have to use my laptop.

[devilsadvocate]

I was sincerely put out at the prospect of stitching anew on this thread...until I found this-



Words fail me.

Well from your biased point of view they would. I note you edited out the bit where I said he is disliked by the right and left. Perhaps there's my confirmation.



From reading your statements on the media you come across as someone that has a predetermined opinion and looks for media that confirms it rather than challenges.
If you read my words it clearly says From reading your statements (because that's all I have to go on) you come across. If you feel you have been misjudged make your case, I will read with an open mind.
I will help you out a little bit by saying that by just posting your views on this forum you are inviting argument and not looking for confirmation, but your own words suggest to the opposite being true in your choice of media

A few suppositions can be made here-

1. You are not quite as familiar with conservatives or conservatism as you think.
Perhaps you are not as familiar with liberals, liberalism or anything other than your claimed "conservatism" as you think.

2. You are quite a bit younger than I am.

I'm 52

3. You are irrevocably and irretreivably liberal (though you have rather studiously avoided any sort of label).

It's totally irrelevant to the thread. (but nice try)

But here's a bone.

I think Conservatives and liberals alike want government to run their lives, they just disagree on what part of their lives government should be running. I'm sure you will object to that but there it is.

4. Your study of media bias is not too serious.

Your study of media is not too objective

5. You really don't have the slightest familiarity with me.

Never claimed to have.
I have more, but...

Tell me how many of those are wrong.

BTW-

I'm installing my vLite concoction, so I will attend here when I can, as I have to use my laptop. I await your announcement of a solution in the software section

[j2k4]

Uh, let's see, here-

I'm sorry, if you regard Chris Matthews as a non-partisan, words still fail me.

I omitted your "he's hated by the right and the left" comment because it is irrelevant; any complaints from the left seem to have only to do with his having lately thrown over Hillary for Obama.

Do I have a "predetermined" opinion of the media (in all such incarnations as I consume)?

Yes...yes I do.

Didn't think I was being evasive about that.

I offer my apologies for my presumptions about you; I was feeling a bit peevish about having to step off to my other project, just then.

That was an overstep.

However, this thread having wandered into a discussion about media bias, I see more relevance than you as to your ideological leanings, and so will reach a conclusion of my own, absent any counter.

Would you care to expand on your statement about libs and cons common desire for selective government nannyism?