Media Bias 2: The neverending saga [Archive]

trumptman

10-22-2007, 06:14 AM

Since this media bias continues to rear its head in instances Republican and Democratic (or third party as well) and in current events beyond Rush Limbaugh, I thought I would post about additional instances of bias in this thread.

NY Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/nationalspecial/21louisiana.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Bobby Jindal was elected as the first non-white governor since Reconstruction, first Indian-American governor and youngest governor of Louisiana. These would normally be seen as good things and they are, unless you are the New York Times reporting on this event.

The ascendancy of the Brown- and Oxford-educated Mr. Jindal, an unabashed policy wonk who has produced a stream of multipoint plans, is likely to be regarded as a racial breakthrough of sorts in this once-segregated state. Still, it is one with qualifiers attached.

Why are there qualifiers even though it is filled with firsts? Well because the NY Times doesn't like the the terms of the advancement. Jindal is a minority, but the wrong type of minority. He is a child of immigrants, but the wrong type of immigrants. He belongs to the wrong party and of course we can't say this but his is an evil Republican so it doesn't count since no Democrat had to help him rise up.

For one thing, he is by now a familiar figure in Louisiana, having made a strong run for the governorship in 2003, though losing to Ms. Blanco. Before that he had held a series of high-profile administrative jobs, including state health secretary at the age of 24, when he earned a reputation for efficiency — critics said cold-bloodedness — for slashing a bloated budget, cutting jobs and lowering reimbursements to doctors.

Why are we citing nameless critics from 12 years ago regarding the election of the man today? It is very simple, we get to use the associate Bobby Jindal with the word cool-blooded(ness). If the critics were right, would he be elected today without the need for a run-off, youngest elected governor ever (beating out that Bill Clinton guy no one has ever heard of and thus we won't mention that fact) while smashing through racial barriers?

Please do not concern yourself with such matters because we are the NY Times. Republican = coldblooded via unnamed 12 year old sources, enough said.

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

What stopped Jindal in 2003 wasn't Katherine Blanco running her campaign and receiving the majority of the vote. It wasn't the fact that historically the state has elected 40 Democratic governors and 9 Republicans. No it was the fact that the Klan didn't love Jindal.

Now that he is elected, well the Klan must LOVE Bobby Jindal. He is just like them except for the whole lack of Aryan blood, not being white bit. However as the NY Times, we can assure you that Bobby Jindal will act just like that deplorable David Duke and work for the interests of the Klansmen who now love him. The proof of this? Silly there is no proof, it is just fun to make all Republicans racists. George Bush doesn't like black people and neither does Bobby Jindal. He will probably seek to reform the government and civil service workers in it which is code for...lynch black people. Since Jindal isn't a white Southern Republican male (code for racist) we just have to point out that racists love him and he thus a racist by association.

Enjoy...
Nick

segovius

10-22-2007, 06:46 AM

This looks like a redundant thread to me...

Why is this not placed in the almost identical thread on exactly the same topic by the very same poster?

It's only a never-ending saga because Trumpt is now veering out of control in his obsession with this non-issue. It's clearly now an idée fixe which may well require the attention of a professional health care provider in a supportive environment - unfortunately that environment is not here....

Flounder

10-22-2007, 08:56 AM

That last quoted bit certainlydoes not suggest racists love Jindal. It suggests that the northern and eastern parishes of LA no longer have much support for people like David Duke.

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 09:11 AM

jimmac

10-22-2007, 09:54 AM

Maybe if we ignore him, he'll go away. :smokey:

I doubt it. He's desperate and the closer we get to the next election it will probably get worse. Maybe it might taper off once he realizes it's hopeless.

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 10:06 AM

I doubt it. He's desperate and the closer we get to the next election it will probably get worse. Maybe it might taper off once he realizes it's hopeless.

Maybe we should create a new sub-forum called "Ripping the Free Press a New Asshole-sider" or something...:lol:

trumptman

10-22-2007, 10:48 AM

That last quoted bit certainlydoes not suggest racists love Jindal. It suggests that the northern and eastern parishes of LA no longer have much support for people like David Duke.

It says he overcame the race base opposition. It does not state that anything about the parishes themselves have changed other than the decision to support him.

Nick

SDW2001

10-22-2007, 11:17 AM

Maybe we should create a new sub-forum called "Ripping the Free Press a New Asshole-sider" or something...:lol:

Or maybe we could have a forum where liberals can have other liberals agree with them and then use that agreement as ammunition in their arguments against conservatives. Oh wait.

Since this media bias continues to rear its head in instances Republican and Democratic (or third party as well) and in current events beyond Rush Limbaugh, I thought I would post about additional instances of bias in this thread.

NY Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/nationalspecial/21louisiana.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Bobby Jindal was elected as the first non-white governor since Reconstruction, first Indian-American governor and youngest governor of Louisiana. These would normally be seen as good things and they are, unless you are the New York Times reporting on this event.

Why are there qualifiers even though it is filled with firsts? Well because the NY Times doesn't like the the terms of the advancement. Jindal is a minority, but the wrong type of minority. He is a child of immigrants, but the wrong type of immigrants. He belongs to the wrong party and of course we can't say this but his is an evil Republican so it doesn't count since no Democrat had to help him rise up.

Why are we citing nameless critics from 12 years ago regarding the election of the man today? It is very simple, we get to use the associate Bobby Jindal with the word cool-blooded(ness). If the critics were right, would he be elected today without the need for a run-off, youngest elected governor ever (beating out that Bill Clinton guy no one has ever heard of and thus we won't mention that fact) while smashing through racial barriers?

Please do not concern yourself with such matters because we are the NY Times. Republican = coldblooded via unnamed 12 year old sources, enough said.

What stopped Jindal in 2003 wasn't Katherine Blanco running her campaign and receiving the majority of the vote. It wasn't the fact that historically the state has elected 40 Democratic governors and 9 Republicans. No it was the fact that the Klan didn't love Jindal.

Now that he is elected, well the Klan must LOVE Bobby Jindal. He is just like them except for the whole lack of Aryan blood, not being white bit. However as the NY Times, we can assure you that Bobby Jindal will act just like that deplorable David Duke and work for the interests of the Klansmen who now love him. The proof of this? Silly there is no proof, it is just fun to make all Republicans racists. George Bush doesn't like black people and neither does Bobby Jindal. He will probably seek to reform the government and civil service workers in it which is code for...lynch black people. Since Jindal isn't a white Southern Republican male (code for racist) we just have to point out that racists love him and he thus a racist by association.

Enjoy...
Nick

Excellent points. To me, this is the worst:

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

This is the worst because it's not even about him...it's about conservatives being racists in general. It's really a clever bias point, because they're complimenting him for breaking through a barrier while slamming conservatives at the same time. It's a little like saying that if Rudy Guiliani won the South Carolina primary he'd have overcome the Christian Bigots who oppose gay marriage because they're bigots doing their bigot dance in their bigot church.

segovius

10-22-2007, 11:34 AM

I think what we have here - and SDW and Trumpt are, I'm afraid, classic text-book examples - is a syndrome where no bias exists but where no divergence from their own views is tolerated.

The unfortunate facts are that there is no Liberal Bias in the US because there are no liberals. There are shades of Conservative, shades of reactionary and various interest groups who want their own agenda in place and who may oppose dyed in the wool hard core extremists like SDW but in the final analysis you could take the most 'left wing fanatic' from the US and transplant him/her almost anywhere on the face of the globe and they would odds on be somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

There are exceptions of course but none whatsoever in the media which is fully under control of the increasingly totalitarian cabal who exercise power and serves the sole purpose of being a conduit to either distract or program the sheep.

So why the constant foaming and frothing about 'bias'? Well, it's simple; any-one who disagrees with the hard-right is a leftie. Even if they are a fully paid up member of the Joseph Goebells Appreciation Society (and it seems many of the US right may well be).

It's a less funny and more dumbed-down version of the old Emo Philips gag:

"I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"
He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you catholic or protestant?"
He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?"
He said, "Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?"
He said, "Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off. "

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 11:41 AM

Why Bobby Jindal Is Bad: The comprehensive post. (http://www.jindalisbad.com/why-bobby-jindal-is-bad-the-comprehensive-post/)

Bobby Jindal is Bad for Louisiana for many reasons.

Questionable Campaign Contributions:

Bobby Jindal has collected campaign contributions from many questionable sources. During his first run for Congress he accepted funds from Halliburton’s PAC (Halliburton is a company that overcharged and double charged the U.S. for services). He has also accepted money from Tom Delay’s ARMPAC and people connected to the Jack Abramoff scandal. He has violated the spirit of campaign finance laws by accepting contributions from people and their varied corporations, a legal activity that basically allows the wealthy to circumvent campaign finance limitations. He accepts money from people seeking to put a landfill in our state. He criticizes other candidates for their involvement in video poker but accepts money from people involved in the video poker industry (including John Georges himself during his last campaign for Congress). How is he not a hypocrite?

Questionable votes:

Jindal has voted against the troops, against children, against a bill that would bring funding for us to fix our dead zone, against gasoline consumers, against voting rights for U.S. Citizens, and against Louisiana in support of Bush’s failed policies in Iraq.

And when Bobby Jindal is not voting against Louisiana, he just doesn’t vote!

Questionable Campaign tactics:

Bobby Jindal claimed to be against negative ads on the Jim Brown show (and on nola.com). However, the very next week he released the “clown” attack ad. He missed many debates in the campaign, what some pundits called political cowardice. He did not respect the intellectual property of Louisiana Universities. He stood by and allowed the Republican Party to tell incomplete stories about him. And he just blatantly lies.

Lack of Leadership:

Bobby Jindal was supposed to have all this clout, at least that is what his campaign and the media told everyone in 2004 and 2006. He was supposed to be going to washington with political capital to spend to get Louisiana what it needs.

The job of a Congressman is to work with other congressmen and use your clout to convince them to support the legislation that you also support.

Bobby Jindal has consistantly ignored this portion of his job. Look at the CAFTA vote. Instead of trying to convince people to vote against it, Bobby Jindal just sat in a corner and let the bill pass. Once the bill had enough votes to pass, jindal then cast his vote against CAFTA. So, instead of working against the bill, he sat and let the bill pass and then voted against it so he wouldn’t alienate louisiana industry that would be hurt by it.

And the same thing goes for this override vote. Instead of working to get his peers to support the legislation he claimed to support, he just sat back and did nothing.

If Bobby Jindal was a leader, he would lead others to vote with him. Bobby Jindal is obviously not a leader… and we need a leader to be our next governor.

Conclusion:

This should all be enough to tell you that Bobby Jindal is not the man he claims to be and that Louisiana would not be served well by electing him Governor. And how stupid are we as a state if we are going to elect someone governor who is a die hard Republican when the Federal Government will most likely be led by Democrats for most of our next governor’s term. Electing Bobby Jindal did not make sense in 2003 and it does not make sense now. If this post has not convinced you, then please read the rest of this blog and learn why as a choice for Governor, that Bobby Jindal is Bad.

Need more? (http://cenlamar.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/37-reasons-to-vote-against-bobby-jindal/)

1. Bobby Jindal has accepted thousands of dollars in donations from Rep. Tom DeLay and Rep. Jerry Lewis. Jindal accepted $5,000 from DeLay’s ARMPAC and $12,000 from PACs associated with Lewis.

2. Bobby Jindal has accepted $6,000 from Tony Rudy and the Chitimancha Tribe of Louisiana, both of whom were clients of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

3. In 2005, Bobby Jindal voted with President Bush 90% of the time and with the Republican Party 97% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly.

4. Rep. Roy Blunt, considered by C.R.E.W. to be one of the “most corrupt members of Congress,” gave Bobby Jindal nearly $6,000 through his political action committees (opensecrets.org).

5. In 2005, Bobby Jindal voted against the creation of a bipartisan ethics taskforce. (HR 213, Vote 106, April 14, 2005).

6. Bobby Jindal voted against HRS 5, Vote 5 on January 5, 2005, which would have closed the “revolving door” between lobbyists and lawmakers seeking private sector job deals based on their committee assignments.

7. Bobby Jindal refused to call for the resignation of disgraced Attorney General (and Rice graduate!) Alberto Gonzales.

8. Bobby Jindal voted to make 14 of the 16 “key provisions” of the USA Patriot Act “permanent.” (HR 3199, Vote 414, July 21, 2005).

9. Bobby Jindal voted against re-establishing FEMA as separate from the Department of Homeland Security (HR 2360, Vote 497, September 28, 2005), and Jindal skipped a crucial committee hearing on FEMA Hurricane Preparations in 2007.

10. On August 29, 2005, Bobby Jindal called FEMA’s coordination with the State “tremendous” during an interview on CNN.

11. Bobby Jindal skipped a critical vote that would have established an independent probe to investigate the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina (HRES 437, Vote 471, September 15, 2005).

12. Bobby Jindal voted against a $3 billion hurricane aid package for Louisiana (HR 1591, Vote 265, April 25, 2007).

13. Bobby Jindal opposed Emergency Appropriations for Louisiana hurricane recovery (HR 1591, Vote 186, March 23, 2007).

14. Bobby Jindal introduced legislation that would have allowed private insurers to create tax-free funds for claims related to a natural disaster (H.R. 164, March 27, 2007).

15. Bobby Jindal attempted to ban “certain people” from returning to public housing in New Orleans, even though his motion was simply a recapitulation of preexisting law.

16. Bobby Jindal quoted Martin Luther King, Jr in order to justify his opposition to affirmative action. In 2003, Jindal told The Times-Picayune, “I oppose set-asides and quotas. An insightful man got it right 40 years ago: people should not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Jindal also misused a Martin Luther King quotation in order to claim that those protesting in support of the Jena Six were “outside agitators.”

17. Bobby Jindal believes in teaching creationism and/or “intelligent design” in the classroom.

18. In September 2003, Bobby Jindal told The Times-Picayune that he was “100 percent pro-life with no exceptions.”

19. Bobby Jindal has attempted to take credit for Mary Landrieu’s bill that opened up 8 million square miles for exploration, giving Louisiana 37.5% of the tax revenue, despite the fact that Jindal had actually worked to defeat this bill.

20. Bobby Jindal voted against appropriating $14 billion for the research and development of alternative energy (HR 6, Vote 40, January 18, 2007).

21. Bobby Jindal supports Social Security privatization.

22. Bobby Jindal voted against allowing Medicare to negotiate on prescription drug prices (HR 4, Vote 23, January 12, 2007).

23. Bobby Jindal has continually voted in direct support of President Bush’s Iraqi War agenda, including votes against establishing benchmarks and votes opposing important oversight provisions.

24. Bobby Jindal opposed giving our nation’s National Guard access to TRICARE (HR 1815, Vote 221, May 25, 2005).

25. Bobby Jindal voted in favor of cutting $14 billion in student aid (HR 4241, Vote 601, November 18, 2005).

26. Bobby Jindal supports draining our public schools of resources and funding by offering vouchers and increasing incentives (and/or tax credits) for business-run, parochial, and charter schools.

27. Bobby Jindal voted to cut $70 billion in taxes for the wealthiest Americans (HR 4297, Vote 135, May 10, 2006).

28. Bobby Jindal voted to reduce Medicare funding by up to $20 billion (H CON RES 95, Vote 88, March 17, 2005).

29. Bobby Jindal is opposed to stem cell research.

30. Bobby Jindal voted against a bill that would have created harsher punishments for hate crimes (HR 3132, Vote 469, September 14, 2005).

31. As a Congressman, Bobby Jindal received nearly $200,000 from Big Oil, nearly $200,000 from Big Insurance, over $11,000 from Big Tobacco, and nearly $115,000 from Big Pharmaceutical companies.

32. Bobby Jindal campaign staffers have been accused of attempting to intimidate and blockade individuals attending campaign rallies, for fear that these individuals were Democrats.

33. Bobby Jindal received $50,000 in bundled donations from a Colorado-based company seeking a permit to build a controversial landfill near Baton Rouge.

34. Although Bobby Jindal is, independently, a multi-millionare, his campaign has received over $10 million in donations from big businesses, many of whom have (or are seeking) contracts and/or tax incentives from the State government.

35. Bobby Jindal has leveled false (potentially criminal) allegations against his opponents and has continually avoided qualifying his assertions of “corruption.”

36. Bobby Jindal’s multi-pointed “health care plan” fails to address the elderly or the physically disabled. Despite the fact that the elderly and the disabled account for the bulk of Louisiana Medicaid spending, Jindal supports Medicaid privatization (without any consideration for those most in need).

37. Bobby Jindal believes Louisiana should continue to adhere with the school accountability measures drawn up by President Bush’s failed No Child Left Behind Act.

The people have spoken! :lol::smokey:

BRussell

10-22-2007, 12:09 PM

Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?

http://www.copacetic-zine.com/pix/blog/grilledcheese.jpg

Flounder

10-22-2007, 12:15 PM

It does seems in these threads that bias is actually a code word for "not sufficiently deferential "

Flounder

10-22-2007, 12:17 PM

Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?

http://www.copacetic-zine.com/pix/blog/grilledcheese.jpg

From the toast's perspective, that bite is out of the right side. Stunningly blatant liberal bias!

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 12:44 PM

http://bioweb.usu.edu/taste/images/jesus%20toast.JPG

:err:

trumptman

10-22-2007, 12:49 PM

Why Bobby Jindal Is Bad: The comprehensive post.[/URL]

Need more?[/URL]

The people have spoken! :lol::smokey:

They have spoken and given Jindal the office despite the fact that the media probably took your list of talking points and chanted them endlessly.

Wow. This has become a kind of right-wing deconstructionism.

Do you guys see liberal bias in this too?

http://www.copacetic-zine.com/pix/blog/grilledcheese.jpg

Of course we don't see bias in that picture. However when the caption for the picture reads "Grilled cheese sandwich prepared for Bobby Jindal in 1982 by woman who voted for David Duke. Then yeah, we are going to note the bias.

It does seems in these threads that bias is actually a code word for "not sufficiently deferential "

Yes, clearly labeling someone a cold-blooded, qualified-non-breakthrough, who just happens to associated with racists is clearly just about forgetting their manners.

Nick

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 12:59 PM

Don't say I never gave you anything. You should get a few laughs...

The News on Your Face - News So Fake You'll Swear It Came From The Mainstream Media (http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/)

TNOYF offers conservative political satire. And fake news. And sometimes fake satire. At other times we provide satirical news. And fake political satire. Not to mention actual, real satire that is political in nature. And conservative. However, at no time do we offer Nutella.

http://www.thenoseonyourface.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/irbtherapist1.JPG

Islamic Rage Boy and his ferocious likeness are copyrighted by The Nose on Your Face. Use with permission, or be buried up to your neck in the Afghani desert.

:lol::D:rolleyes::smokey:

Flounder

10-22-2007, 01:16 PM

Yes, clearly labeling someone a cold-blooded, qualified-non-breakthrough, who just happens to associated with racists is clearly just about forgetting their manners.

Nick

What can I say? We interpret that last quoted bit completely differently. To me, to interpret the article as somehow suggesting he associated/associates himself with racists to get elected is without merit. I highly doubt either one of us is going to be persuaded.

46% of the people who voted voted for someone else. There are bound to be criticisms, and they are bound to be reported. Again, it seems like what you're really upset about is that the article wasn't purely a celebration of his election.

Jubelum

10-22-2007, 02:50 PM

It's Jindal's own fault. He got off the white, privileged, liberal plantation. He's askin' for it.
BTW.. I wonder who the democrat Bull Connor types voted for?

SDW2001

10-22-2007, 03:55 PM

Artman:

The people have spoken! :lol::smokey:

Well first, I'm not sure why you've assumed trumpt and I are pushing for the candidate. I am not a supporter or detractor of his at all, but that's just me. That said, reading over that list...there are some VERY weak and questionable points.

Taking money from...Halliburton? GASP!

Negative ads? Double gasp!

He's not a leader because he doesn't "get others to vote with him." That scumbag! Ooh...and he "refused" to call for the resignation of Alberto Gonzales. I mean, what was he thinking?!

hardeeharhar

10-22-2007, 04:03 PM

Wingers are taking post-modernism way too seriously, what with their complaining that things aren't hegemonic enough for the white christian male...

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 04:12 PM

Artman: ...

Bias in journalism, GASP! (http://foxattacks.com/blog/16628-bush-mere-knowledge-of-how-to-build-nuke-justifies-attack?play=1)

:rolleyes:

SDW2001

10-22-2007, 05:24 PM

Bias in journalism, GASP! (http://foxattacks.com/blog/16628-bush-mere-knowledge-of-how-to-build-nuke-justifies-attack?play=1)

:rolleyes:

A single conservative network amongst 400 liberal ones. GASP!

@_@ Artman

10-22-2007, 05:33 PM

A single conservative network amongst 400 liberal ones. GASP!

Single and network, two words that don't go together.

News Corporation

Television
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Television Stations
WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin
DBS & Cable
FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
# Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.
Film
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios
Newspapers
United States
New York Post
United Kingdom
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Australia
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Magazines
InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
Other
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media

SDW2001

10-22-2007, 06:04 PM

Single and network, two words that don't go together.

News Corporation

Television
Fox Broadcasting Company
Fox Television Stations
WNYW - New York City
WWOR - New York City
KTTV - Los Angeles
KCOP - Los Angeles
WFLD - Chicago
WPWR - Chicago
KMSP - Minneapolis
WFTC - Minneapolis
WTXF - Philadelphia
WFXT - Boston
WTTG - Washington D.C.
WDCA - Washington D.C.
KDFW - Dallas
KDFI - Dallas
WJBK - Detroit
KUTP - Phoenix
KSAZ - Phoenix
WUTB - Baltimore
WRBW - Orlando
WOFL - Orlando
WOGX - Ocala
WAGA - Atlanta
KRIV - Houston
KTXH - Houston
WJW - Cleveland
WTVT - Tampa
KDVR - Denver
KTVI - St. Louis
WITI - Milwaukee
WDAF - Kansas City
KSTU - Salt Lake City
WHBQ - Memphis
WGHP - Greensboro
WBRC - Birmingham
KTBC - Austin
DBS & Cable
FOXTEL
BSkyB
Star
DirecTV
Sky Italia
Fox News Channel
Fox Movie Channel
FX
FUEL
National Geographic Channel
SPEED Channel
# Fox Sports Net
FSN New England (50%)
FSN Ohio
FSN Florida
National Advertising Partners
Fox College Sports
Fox Soccer Channel
Stats, Inc.
Film
20th Century Fox
Fox Searchlight Pictures
Fox Television Studios
Blue Sky Studios
Newspapers
United States
New York Post
United Kingdom
News International
News of the World
The Sun
The Sunday Times
The Times
Australia
Daily Telegraph
Fiji Times
Gold Coast Bulletin
Herald Sun
Newsphotos
Newspix
Newstext
NT News
Post-Courier
Sunday Herald Sun
Sunday Mail
Sunday Tasmanian
Sunday Territorian
Sunday Times
The Advertiser
The Australian
The Courier-Mail
The Mercury
The Sunday Telegraph
Weekly Times
Magazines
InsideOut
donna hay
SmartSource
The Weekly Standard
TV Guide (partial)
Books
HarperMorrow Publishers
HarperMorrow
General Books Group
Access
Amistad
Caedmon
Avon
Ecco
Eos
Fourth Estate
HarperAudio
HarperBusiness
HarperCollins
Harper Design International
HarperEntertainment
HarperLargePrint
HarperResource
HarperSanFrancisco
HarperTorch
Perennial
PerfectBound
Quill
Rayo
ReganBooks
William Morrow
William Morrow Cookbooks
Children's Books Group
Avon
Greenwillow Books
Joanna Cotler Books
Eos
Laura Geringer Books
HarperAudio
HarperCollins Children's Books
HarperFestival
HarperTempest
Katherine Tegen Books
Trophy
Zondervan
HarperCollins UK
HarperCollins Canada
HarperCollins Australia
Other
Los Angeles Kings (NHL, 40% option)
Los Angeles Lakers (NBA, 9.8% option)
Staples Center (40% owned by Fox/Liberty)
News Interactive
Fox Sports Radio Network
Sky Radio Denmark
Sky Radio Germany
Broadsystem
Classic FM
Festival Records
Fox Interactive
IGN Entertainment
Mushroom Records
MySpace.com
National Rugby League
NDS
News Outdoor
Nursery World
Scout Media

Oh blah. I was talking about FNC.

Northgate

10-22-2007, 06:06 PM

ZING! :lol: :lol:

trumptman

10-22-2007, 06:53 PM

What can I say? We interpret that last quoted bit completely differently. To me, to interpret the article as somehow suggesting he associated/associates himself with racists to get elected is without merit. I highly doubt either one of us is going to be persuaded.

46% of the people who voted voted for someone else. There are bound to be criticisms, and they are bound to be reported. Again, it seems like what you're really upset about is that the article wasn't purely a celebration of his election.

I think there is a large difference between celebrating an election and bringing up an entirely different election where it is claimed a different candidate and this candidate claimed the same constituency.

David Duke ran for governor in 1991 when Bobby Jindal was 20 years old. What relevance does that have in 2007? Aside from having the same geographical location, there is nothing to suggest the support between the two was the same. Yet the article is referencing who it contends these parishes supported in 1991 in a breakthrough election in 2007. The only possibility is bias. There is no logical way to tie the two together.

^Flounder, I think merely mentioning the fact that some right-wing Republicans are racist drives the non-racist Republicans mad. The deference the thread starter appears to want here is to ignore the role racism plays in instances where it actually does play a role in elections. Like here.

Very simply, that's just not what the quoted paragraph says.

It refers to the voters in those districts who had earlier supported a racist candidate and who had not supported Jindal because of his race. It says the voters didn't love Jindal; not the Klan. Is that factually wrong? Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003? Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated? Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke? If you accept those premises as true, then yes, it appears that Bobby Jindal has overcome a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship. The "racial hurdle" refers to the history of conservatives in those districts refusing to elect a racial minority. Overcoming that hurdle is a good thing.

Here's the quote again:

The role racism plays in this election is asserted by the article writer and supported by absolutely nothing. It is hilarious that the first non-white governor elected since RECONSTRUCTION becomes a prism by which we can judge how racist Republicans are claimed to be.

What the paragraphs says is a claim that is supported in no form or fashion by any evidence presented by the author. He asserts it and since it fits his narrative, that is good enough. There are no exit polls.

I dispute the entire paragraph. Jindal lost to Blanco in 2003 by a margin of 53-48 percent. To suggest it would be impossible for him to pick up five more percent based off nothing more than the Blanco incompetence related to Katrina is completely plausible. It is also entirely plausible that he filled the void and nothing more. Blanco had held various elected offices since 1984 and had NEVER lost an election. It was expected she was going to run for reelection this time, but apparently decided not to when considering who was running and the weight of her bad performance would hold her support down.

Also what is meant by supported? The word suggests much more than what actually happened. David Duke managed to make it past the primary and received 39% of the vote statewide which was by the way, the most support he ever managed to garner. Since I've not seen anything to suggest the support of Duke was the same as Jindal in any fashion and the article provides no support for that contention. The events are 16 years apart for goodness sake. How can we presume the demographic, political party affiliation, or anything else is even the same between the two times?

It is a completely baseless claim and I will gladly dispute all of it. The author doesn't even give names of the claimed parishes.

Nick

trumptman

10-22-2007, 08:45 PM

Oh come on.

Let me get this straight. You don't have any evidence that the facts reported in that paragraph are incorrect, but you still dispute it on a factual basis? I mean, just come on. Either you can contradict those facts or you can't. The most you can muster in opposition are questions that the article already resolved in one way or another. No it doesn't go into much detail, but that's not a reason to disbelieve it. What contrary evidence do you have? None. Don't you see that as a problem?

The facts::

Oh come on?!? Are you insane?!?

Let me see if I get you what you say, the writer asserts it and thus it is a fact? Why is it a fact? Where is the proof?

I've presented plenty of contrary information. I noted the large disparity in both time and percentages between the Duke election and the Jindal win. How do you get that Jindal went from 48% support to 53% support via the 38% Duke managed to garner 16 years prior? It is about the most ridiculous assertion I could imagine. The article did not resolve any of my questions. It provides support for nothing. It gives no numbers or support of any kind. Where do you get off claiming as fact mere assertions by the writer. It is akin to claiming it is fact because he says so.

It doesn't go into much detail? It doesn't go into ANY detail. It doesn't name percentages, parishes, demographical groups won or lost, nothing. Find me the facts in that paragraph because there are none. It is nothing more than assertions that you grant fact status because it fits YOUR narrative as well.

It plays to your bias and you eat it up hook, line and sinker.

Do you dispute that voters in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana did not throw their support behind Jindal in 2003?

Which northern and eastern parishes? What percentage garnered constitutes support? How can we compare what is not named?

Do you dispute this lack of support was racially-motivated?

Do we have any information that shows anything at all about the support racially motivated or otherwise?

Do you dispute that voters in those districts once supported former Klan leader David Duke?

Which districts? They aren't even named. What constitutes support since the most Duke ever garnered was 38%? If Blanco or Jindal ever garnered more than 38% in those districts were they both supported by racists since it is a higher than what Duke got? Do we have anything that shows the exact same people voted for Duke and Jindal 16 years apart?

Nick

trumptman

10-22-2007, 10:10 PM

I'll grant you that given the lack of support (except for unnamed "analysts"), there's a case to be made about the veracity of the facts implied in the writer's assertions in that quoted paragraph. And as far as I know, you haven't denied that they are true; but merely disputed their veracity given the lack of support offered. So you're keeping an open mind here at least. However, I think you're wrong about why the David Duke point was offered, as I pointed out in my initial reply and here (in a different capacity).

I think you are giving me a bit too much credit. I'm just being polite about what are some completely unsubstantiated claims. The David Duke point was clearly to make Jindal a "sellout" minority. We all know that Republican minorities are not "true" representatives of their race due to the fact that... well Democrats say so. Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, they are just white people with black skin according to many leftists.

The point about David Duke was offered to show that voters in the district had at one time supported a racist candidate, which would suggest that candidates would find it difficult to win those districts if they belonged to a racial minority. I'm not sure what "supported" means either, and you're right to criticize the writer for vagueness. Nevertheless, if that's true, then it would seem to go towards Bobby Jindal's overcoming a significant racial hurdle to the Governorship.

I really don't think you've given enough thought to how long 16 years is a a timeframe. Did Bobby Jindal overcome racists or did the 2 year olds during the David Duke election simply become 18 year olds who could vote? Many definitions of generation are done at the 15 year mark now. Basically we are talking about an entirely different window of time and very different factors at play. Clinton wasn't even president yet as an example. There was not a single web page yet on the planet and the first internet connection was made that year. A little band named Nirvana had just signed their first recording contract. In 1991, a little animation studio called Pixar wouldn't release their first movie, Toy Story, for another four years. No one had heard of a rapper named Snoop Doggy Dog yet.

To put it bluntly, that is a hell of a long time. We can't even relate the two unless the writer wants to give us some context beyond geography.

Nick

franksargent

10-22-2007, 11:45 PM

I think there is a large difference between celebrating an election and bringing up an entirely different election where it is claimed a different candidate and this candidate claimed the same constituency.

David Duke ran for governor in 1991 when Bobby Jindal was 20 years old. What relevance does that have in 2007? Aside from having the same geographical location, there is nothing to suggest the support between the two was the same. Yet the article is referencing who it contends these parishes supported in 1991 in a breakthrough election in 2007. The only possibility is bias. There is no logical way to tie the two together.

The role racism plays in this election is asserted by the article writer and supported by absolutely nothing. It is hilarious that the first non-white governor elected since RECONSTRUCTION becomes a prism by which we can judge how racist Republicans are claimed to be.

What the paragraphs says is a claim that is supported in no form or fashion by any evidence presented by the author. He asserts it and since it fits his narrative, that is good enough. There are no exit polls.

I dispute the entire paragraph. Jindal lost to Blanco in 2003 by a margin of 53-48 percent. To suggest it would be impossible for him to pick up five more percent based off nothing more than the Blanco incompetence related to Katrina is completely plausible. It is also entirely plausible that he filled the void and nothing more. Blanco had held various elected offices since 1984 and had NEVER lost an election. It was expected she was going to run for reelection this time, but apparently decided not to when considering who was running and the weight of her bad performance would hold her support down.

Also what is meant by supported? The word suggests much more than what actually happened. David Duke managed to make it past the primary and received 39% of the vote statewide which was by the way, the most support he ever managed to garner. Since I've not seen anything to suggest the support of Duke was the same as Jindal in any fashion and the article provides no support for that contention. The events are 16 years apart for goodness sake. How can we presume the demographic, political party affiliation, or anything else is even the same between the two times?

It is a completely baseless claim and I will gladly dispute all of it. The author doesn't even give names of the claimed parishes.

Nick

Louisiana 2007 Election Results (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=10200710012919)
Louisiana 2003 Election Results (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=11150310012919)
Louisiana County Map (http://geology.com/state-map/maps/louisiana-county-map.gif)
Louisiana Road Map (showing major cities and counties) (http://www.louisiana-map.org/louisiana-road-map.gif)
Louisiana County Demographics (2000 census) (http://doa.louisiana.gov/census/2000/plcounty.htm)
Louisiana Voter Guide (http://www.louisianavoterguide.com/races.asp?RaceID=x&OfficeSought=Governor&District=)
Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans)
Orleans Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orleans_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
Saint Bernard Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Bernard_Parish#Demographics)
Jefferson Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
Saint Tammany Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Tammany_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
David Duke (still alive and kicking in Saint Tammany Parish) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke)

http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/hatemaps/5/hatestates/LA.gif

So basically it's about the "free white flight" starting in the 60's (civil rights movement plus building of the the Interstate system in the 50's and 60's (primarily), and the "forced black flight" from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005!

Talk about "upwardly mobile whites" versus "downwardly immobile blacks" now I'll leave it to you to do your own analysis, but it is quite clear as to cause and effect on this one!

Have a nice day. :D

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 08:45 AM

Louisiana 2007 Election Results (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=10200710012919)
Louisiana 2003 Election Results (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=11150310012919)
Louisiana County Map (http://geology.com/state-map/maps/louisiana-county-map.gif)
Louisiana Road Map (showing major cities and counties) (http://www.louisiana-map.org/louisiana-road-map.gif)
Louisiana County Demographics (2000 census) (http://doa.louisiana.gov/census/2000/plcounty.htm)
Louisiana Voter Guide (http://www.louisianavoterguide.com/races.asp?RaceID=x&OfficeSought=Governor&District=)
Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans)
Orleans Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orleans_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
Saint Bernard Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Bernard_Parish#Demographics)
Jefferson Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
Saint Tammany Parish Demographics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Tammany_Parish%2C_Louisiana#Demographics)
David Duke (still alive and kicking in Saint Tammany Parish) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke)

http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/hatemaps/5/hatestates/LA.gif

So basically it's about the "free white flight" starting in the 60's (civil rights movement plus building of the the Interstate system in the 50's and 60's (primarily), and the "forced black flight" from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005!

Talk about "upwardly mobile whites" versus "downwardly immobile blacks" now I'll leave it to you to do your own analysis, but it is quite clear as to cause and effect on this one!

Have a nice day. :D

Assuming ALL of that is correct, it's off topic. We're talking about how the media has portrayed Jindal's victory. Even if he won because of significant demographic changes, it's merely gratuitous for the media to make the point it did. It's basically name calling here. It's inappropriate.

franksargent

10-23-2007, 09:33 AM

Assuming ALL of that is correct, it's off topic. We're talking about how the media has portrayed Jindal's victory. Even if he won because of significant demographic changes, it's merely gratuitous for the media to make the point it did. It's basically name calling here. It's inappropriate.

It's all TRUE with respect to this sentence in that NYT's piece;

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

The "according to analysts" part is glossed over, because of the volume of information necessary to support that claim.

But what the NYT article failed to mention was the relative demographic lost from Orleans Parish, which WAS the major factor in Jindal's victory.

I can come back with a more formal analysis, if you wish, on a parish/precinct basis, using primarily census data, and the 2003/2007 election results. But my brief fact checking last night on the links I posted does show key percentage gains by Jindal in certain key areas that the NYT article mentions.

And that's me spending a FEW hours of fact checking and preliminary analyses (and knowing where to look helps a lot).

Compare that to experts on Louisiana demographics/history/elections who have spent years understanding trends and events. :\

At least I'm willing to spend some time in actual fact checking to determine if there is ANY validity to the aforementioned statement, and to no surprise to me it appears to be true. :\

trumptman

10-23-2007, 12:52 PM

It's all TRUE with respect to this sentence in that NYT's piece;

The "according to analysts" part is glossed over, because of the volume of information necessary to support that claim.

But what the NYT article failed to mention was the relative demographic lost from Orleans Parish, which WAS the major factor in Jindal's victory.

I can come back with a more formal analysis, if you wish, on a parish/precinct basis, using primarily census data, and the 2003/2007 election results. But my brief fact checking last night on the links I posted does show key percentage gains by Jindal in certain key areas that the NYT article mentions.

And that's me spending a FEW hours of fact checking and preliminary analyses (and knowing where to look helps a lot).

Compare that to experts on Louisiana demographics/history/elections who have spent years understanding trends and events. :\

At least I'm willing to spend some time in actual fact checking to determine if there is ANY validity to the aforementioned statement, and to no surprise to me it appears to be true. :\

Actually Frank you are alleging a couple things that could be true, but appear to be very different from what the article itself is alleging. First you are alleging demographic change within certain districts/parishes due to white flight. This would mean that the people who voted for a David Duke are less likely to live in those same areas 16 years later. Based off their alleged beliefs, they would have fled those areas or as you noted, they would have engaged in white flight.

The second thing you allege, and this is different from what the article notes as well, is that Jindal won because the people who would have voted against him, depopulated the area due to Katrina and thus he won a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

Both of those could be true and still wouldn't prove what the article alleged, although they do make some interesting thinking.

I think it possible based off a couple points to note the article allegation as wrong. First the age of the two elections makes it very unlikely the same people in the same districts/parishes voted for Duke and Jindal. Second, just the behavior of racists themselves makes it very unlikely. The claim in the past was that the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party due to the civil rights issue. (Even though the Republicans of the time voted for the same civil rights legislation in higher percentages than Democrats.)

So we know, at least according to those claims, that party loyalty does not ride above the loyalty to act like a racist. Within this governor's race, there was a rich, white Republican who switched parties in order to run against Jindal. The top two Democratic challenges were white males as well, and from what I have read at least one of them were rich enough to self-finance as well.

So even if we buy the newspaper contention, we have to believe that white racists would ignore three white males, two of them wealthy, one of them a Republican who had switched just for this election to run against Jindal, to vote for Jindal who is not of their race.

Sorry but if motivations are going to be claimed by certain people with regard to actions, they have to be consistent. If they are willing to move to avoid minorities (white flight) they aren't going to just go cast their vote for Jindal when they have clear alternatives that match their race.

Also we would have to believe, that in the people had not changed their behavior for 12 years, because Jindal ran the first time and lost in 2003. (Does that mean the racists were supporting Blanco instead since she won? I know Nagin endorsed Jindal over Blanco in 2003) Then a short four years later, we are to believe that they have now changed behaviors that they had followed for the previous 12 and perhaps up to 16 years, all to vote for Jindal.

That doesn't make much sense either.

Nick

Northgate

10-23-2007, 01:31 PM

Colin Powell, Condileeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, they are just white people with black skin according to many leftists.

I love it when Trumpt uses gross characterizations of "the left" and then rails against the same types of generalizations hurled at the right. There's an "H" word I'm thinking of....

Northgate

10-23-2007, 02:01 PM

trumptman

10-23-2007, 03:14 PM

You know Shawn, you've brought a good tone to this discussion and so I want you to know I'm not trying to accuse you attempting to avoid reasoning, but why would you give credence to unnamed, unsupported analysts who "believe" that people were uncomfortable? No numbers, no support of any kind. The people won't even go on record with these claims. Why give them any merit?

I went and found a link from Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1674122,00.html?imw=Y) reporting on this election win.

It states this but again provides no support.

Following his defeat in 2003, Jindal ran for and won the congressional seat in Louisiana's first district. Since then, the staunch conservative — who converted from Hinduism to Catholicism as a teenager — has traveled often to northern Louisiana, hitting up churches and pressing the flesh. The strategy appears to have worked, as Jindal handily won the areas he lost to Blanco four years ago and that heavily supported white supremacist David Duke's bid for the governorship in 1991.

So now I have gone digging for articles about when Blanco won because clearly, at least from the claims in this article she won these nothern areas. She was also a "first" in that she was the first woman elected to the governorship in the history of the state.

I've found two articles and not a single one references David Duke and 1991 in the historic Blanco win.

So I've decided we need to have a little fun here and open the search to more than me.

I'll donate to the charity or cause of your choice or to the choice of anyone who finds the following information as denoted below.

$25- Blanco won as the first woman, but it is qualified or incomplete in some or any fashion because of some variable related to her sex.
$25- Blanco won but a critic, sourced or unsourced is allowed to take a shot in the article at the winning candidate's character, for example calling her coldblooded or anything similarly related.
$50- If anyone can find any news article linking Blanco's win and the votes cast in it with negative votes in a prior election ala David Duke.

That is $100 total open to the charity or cause for whoever finds them. It is split up and different people can claim different items. It can be partially claimed or completely. Finding one doesn't disqualify the others, etc. but I will pay only one claim for each item.

Who wants to see trumptman give $100.00 to Emily's List, Barack for President, NOW or what have you... since the media is fair and unbiased, this should be relatively easy. Clearly they would have noted similar interest points from four years prior when Blanco won.

Nick

Outsider

10-23-2007, 03:18 PM

I love it when Trumpt uses gross characterizations of "the left" and then rails against the same types of generalizations hurled at the right. There's an "H" word I'm thinking of....

Hippo-crypt?

BRussell

10-23-2007, 04:18 PM

trumptman

10-23-2007, 04:38 PM

This AP article (http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=adfb7972a2de609dbebab 2c2591573e7) states that the only reason Blanco became governor was because of racist David Duke-types voting for her against Jindal. Nick you can give the $50 to Hillary's re-election campaign in 2012.

I wish I could go into a counterfactual world in which this article did not mention Louisiana's history of racial politics, and did not mention that Jindal was able to overcome that, and Nick posted a thread about how biased the media is for not mentioning those things.

The fact is, David Duke won the majority of the white vote in Louisiana 10 years earlier. I don't see how an article about his election could NOT mention that, and not mention that he was able to overcome that.

I meant it in the context of announcing her win, but I'll still take this. The vagueness was on my part.

It isn't a counterfactual world to note that no one will have mentioned this when she won. Perhaps it was announced later and buried on page A27 with regard to the study but on the day she won and carried those northern areas, I doubt there was an article linking her win and those racists when announcing her win.

Nick

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 04:51 PM

And that would be the same media that called Al Gore names like "serial liar" when it was demonstrably false. Right?

The point is that the media is out for themselves and ONLY themselves. This idea that they only stick it to conservatives is utterly absurd. They pick a narrative that they like and they stick to it. Period. Because they're certainly not doing my side any favors (Republicans are the "daddy" party and Democrats are the "mommy" party).

Uh, how was it "demonstrably false" again?

franksargent

10-23-2007, 05:09 PM

Actually Frank you are alleging a couple things that could be true, but appear to be very different from what the article itself is alleging. First you are alleging demographic change within certain districts/parishes due to white flight. This would mean that the people who voted for a David Duke are less likely to live in those same areas 16 years later. Based off their alleged beliefs, they would have fled those areas or as you noted, they would have engaged in white flight.

The second thing you allege, and this is different from what the article notes as well, is that Jindal won because the people who would have voted against him, depopulated the area due to Katrina and thus he won a bigger piece of a smaller pie.

Both of those could be true and still wouldn't prove what the article alleged, although they do make some interesting thinking.

I think it possible based off a couple points to note the article allegation as wrong. First the age of the two elections makes it very unlikely the same people in the same districts/parishes voted for Duke and Jindal. Second, just the behavior of racists themselves makes it very unlikely. The claim in the past was that the Dixiecrats moved to the Republican party due to the civil rights issue. (Even though the Republicans of the time voted for the same civil rights legislation in higher percentages than Democrats.)

So we know, at least according to those claims, that party loyalty does not ride above the loyalty to act like a racist. Within this governor's race, there was a rich, white Republican who switched parties in order to run against Jindal. The top two Democratic challenges were white males as well, and from what I have read at least one of them were rich enough to self-finance as well.

So even if we buy the newspaper contention, we have to believe that white racists would ignore three white males, two of them wealthy, one of them a Republican who had switched just for this election to run against Jindal, to vote for Jindal who is not of their race.

Sorry but if motivations are going to be claimed by certain people with regard to actions, they have to be consistent. If they are willing to move to avoid minorities (white flight) they aren't going to just go cast their vote for Jindal when they have clear alternatives that match their race.

Also we would have to believe, that in the people had not changed their behavior for 12 years, because Jindal ran the first time and lost in 2003. (Does that mean the racists were supporting Blanco instead since she won? I know Nagin endorsed Jindal over Blanco in 2003) Then a short four years later, we are to believe that they have now changed behaviors that they had followed for the previous 12 and perhaps up to 16 years, all to vote for Jindal.

That doesn't make much sense either.

Nick

You have to remember that this was a primary, if no one received a clear 50+ percent majority (which did happen in this case), a runoff would have occurred, as it did in 2003.

To do justice to the data at hand I would have to do absolute (change in votes) and relative (percent change in votes) deltas using Jindal's vote totals from the 2003 runoff as the baseline condition.

But I don't think I'll keep anyone interested in the actual statistical metrics, it's way too much information without actually writing a lengthy article.

As to the parishes I did mention, three of those were significantly affected by Hurricane Katrina (Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard (comparing vote totals from those three parishes between 2003 and 2007 shows a net loss of 97,159 total votes, while the total net loss statewide was 108,830 votes)). While, St. Tammany (David Duke's parish) saw an uptake of 1,891 total votes between 2003 and 2007.

Three parishes stand out in terms of "white flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight)" in that general area; Livingston, St. Tammany, and St. Bernard, population growth and demographics (~90 percent white), and surprise the building of the Interstate system, and double surprise, desegregation and the civil rights movement, clearly show what has happened here (and on a nationwide basis), what has happened over the past 60 years or so. :\

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 06:48 PM

You have to remember that this was a primary, if no one received a clear 50+ percent majority (which did happen in this case), a runoff would have occurred, as it did in 2003.

To do justice to the data at hand I would have to do absolute (change in votes) and relative (percent change in votes) deltas using Jindal's vote totals from the 2003 runoff as the baseline condition.

But I don't think I'll keep anyone interested in the actual statistical metrics, it's way too much information without actually writing a lengthy article.

As to the parishes I did mention, three of those were significantly affected by Hurricane Katrina (Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard (comparing vote totals from those three parishes between 2003 and 2007 shows a net loss of 97,159 total votes, while the total net loss statewide was 108,830 votes)). While, St. Tammany (David Duke's parish) saw an uptake of 1,891 total votes between 2003 and 2007.

Three parishes stand out in terms of "white flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight)" in that general area; Livingston, St. Tammany, and St. Bernard, population growth and demographics (~90 percent white), and surprise the building of the Interstate system, and double surprise, desegregation and the civil rights movement, clearly show what has happened here (and on a nationwide basis), what has happened over the past 60 years or so. :\

I really think you're getting WAY too much into the technical details here, and thereby confusing the issue. You've made some arguments that the article is technically correct in its assertions. Even if we accept that (and I think there are contrary arguments anyway), the point is that the article is clearly making some implications that betray the author's political biases. The author is also gratuitously pointing out his perceptions of of conservatives being racists. What he's really saying is that the area has become more liberal. That is the key here. That kind of writing is not balanced.

franksargent

10-23-2007, 07:59 PM

I really think you're getting WAY too much into the technical details here, and thereby confusing the issue. You've made some arguments that the article is technically correct in its assertions. Even if we accept that (and I think there are contrary arguments anyway), the point is that the article is clearly making some implications that betray the author's political biases. The author is also gratuitously pointing out his perceptions of of conservatives being racists. What he's really saying is that the area has become more liberal. That is the key here. That kind of writing is not balanced.

JINDAL WINS (NO Times-Picayune) (http://www.nola.com/elections/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1192947726119780.xml&coll=1&thispage=4)

Jindal paid particular attention to north Louisiana, a conservative region that was widely viewed as critical to Blanco's victory four years ago. In a candidate forum in Shreveport earlier this month, Jindal said that he had visited the region 77 times since declaring his candidacy.

The time and attention Jindal paid to rural areas appeared to pay off, as Saturday's returns showed him making significant gains in parishes where he was viewed as underperforming in 2003.

For example, Jindal won 54 percent of the vote in Rapides Parish, versus 44 percent in the 2003 runoff. His 55 percent of the vote in Grant Parish was 15 points above his 2003 figures, whereas in Acadia Parish his score went from 43 percent in 2003 to 54 percent on Saturday.

Low black turnout may be factor (Baton Rouge Advocate) (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/elections/governor/10698301.html)

But Elliott Stonecipher, a Shreveport demographer and political analyst, said there were signs that white turnout was running well ahead of votes cast by blacks.

“African American turnout is going to be a good 10 points less than white turnout,” Stonecipher said shortly after Jindal claimed victory.

“It is playing out the way we have been saying for a week,” he said.

Less than normal black turnout, Ater noted, would hurt bids by Campbell, Boasso and Georges.

“Then the vote that Jindal receives becomes disproportionate,” Ater said.

Election day featured two key questions that were intertwined:

Would Jindal win the race for governor without a runoff?

Would black voters, who make up a huge part of the Democratic base, go to the polls, which experts said boosted chances for a runoff?

The vote Saturday marked the first chance to gauge the impact of population losses in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, many of whom were Democratic loyalists.

“It is clear that the demographics have changed and the heavy turnout that Democrats could rely on from the African American community has been diminished,” said Robert Hogan, associate professor of political science at LSU.

Jindal carries 60 parishes in landslide win (Baton Rouge Advocate) (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/elections/governor/10709521.html)

Jindal’s victory in 60 parishes was up from just 12 in the 2003 runoff when he lost to Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

The Republican drew one of every four of his total votes from just three parishes: East Baton Rouge, plus Jefferson and St. Tammany in the New Orleans area.

About 110,000 fewer voters cast ballots Saturday than the 2003 runoff for governor, said Greg Rigamer, a consultant who runs GCR & Associates, Inc. in New Orleans, which specializes in computerized tracking of elections.

Rigamer, who served as a consultant to Jindal this time after working for Blanco in 2003, calculated that nearly 60,000 of that vote drop took place in New Orleans, which used to be a treasure trove of support for Democratic contenders.

However, population losses since Hurricane Katrina have changed Louisiana’s political landscape. “It demonstrates that the demographics of this state have changed,” Hogan said.

However, Jindal carried Campbell’s home parish of Bossier by a margin of 3-1 over Campbell.

It was one of several signs of his turnaround in north Louisiana since lack of support in that region was said to have played a major role in Jindal’s 2003 runoff loss.

Analysts said Jindal’s lopsided win stemmed from his intense campaigning since 2003, Blanco’s relatively late exit from the race and the lack of any well-established Democrats willing to enter the fray.

“The anti-Jindal vote never solidified behind anybody,” former Secretary of State Al Ater said Sunday.

Today's word is prescient. :D

Here's another link (or two);

1991 LA governor's race (DD versus EE) (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=11169110012919)

LA census data (1900-1990) (http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/la190090.txt)

So instead of second guessing the NYT's albeit brief report on page Z666, about the LA governor's race, perhaps you SHOULD leave it to the editors and expert analysis from the people who live in LA (and which the NYT appears to have relied upon for their brief page Z666 report), TYVM! :)

Northgate

10-23-2007, 08:46 PM

Uh, how was it "demonstrably false" again?

Don't play coy. Come on!

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 09:03 PM

JINDAL WINS (NO Times-Picayune) (http://www.nola.com/elections/t-p/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1192947726119780.xml&coll=1&thispage=4)

Low black turnout may be factor (Baton Rouge Advocate) (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/elections/governor/10698301.html)

Jindal carries 60 parishes in landslide win (Baton Rouge Advocate) (http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/elections/governor/10709521.html)

Today's word is prescient. :D

Here's another link (or two);

1991 LA governor's race (DD versus EE) (http://www400.sos.louisiana.gov:8090/cgibin/?rqstyp=elcmp&rqsdta=11169110012919)

LA census data (1900-1990) (http://www.census.gov/population/cencounts/la190090.txt)

So instead of second guessing the NYT's albeit brief report on page Z666, about the LA governor's race, perhaps you SHOULD leave it to the editors and expert analysis from the people who live in LA (and which the NYT appears to have relied upon for their brief page Z666 report), TYVM! :)

You are missing the point in spectacular fashion.

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 09:14 PM

Don't play coy. Come on!

Try this. (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmExMjFlNzFmNWM5YWYwYzBiNWFmOTMzNmExOTkzZDU=)

Now I know it's NRO, but things like this pop up all over the place with Gore. Even if they are ALL unintentional, it shows Gore turns to deception frequently, even for minor points. No one in is right mind could believe he makes that many misstatements.

Also, I'll remind you that I think if the Dems are smart, they'd convince Gore to run as he's their best shot. I'm not attacking him, I'm just speaking the truth...something Gore has a lot of trouble doing, apparently.

franksargent

10-23-2007, 09:24 PM

You are missing the point in spectacular fashion.

That your POV is the BIASED POV!

You guys (whomever "you guys" are) scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, and scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, ..., ad infinitum! :rolleyes:

So, if your point is, that you don't have a point, I GET IT! :D

SDW2001

10-23-2007, 09:31 PM

That your POV is the BIASED POV!

You guys (whomever "you guys" are) scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, and scream "BIAS" and when you're called out, get all dodgy, chase your own tail, ad infinitum! :rolleyes:

So, if your point is, that you don't have a point, I GET IT! :D

There is no such thing as a biased POV. Bias creeps up when someone who is supposed to be impartial acts in a partisan or ideological way. Individuals acting as such can take any POV they wish. Therefore, the term "bias" does not apply to me or you or anyone here, unless we allow our POVs to interfere with our profession or in an area in which we are expected to act impartially.

In the case of the media, it's particularly bad, because they are supposed to act in the public interest. Dismissing media bias by saying "you guys see bias in everything" is not going to get you there, Frank. Otherwise, I could easily respond with the same the next time you bitch about Fox News. For all we know, it might be your POV that's "biased." So you can keep linking to election and census data for the last 100 years and it won't matter, because that's not the point. The fact that the author had to qualify the victory like that showed bias and showed he wished to make a political point in his article. That's the point.

franksargent

10-23-2007, 09:56 PM

There is no such thing as a biased POV. Bias creeps up when someone who is supposed to be impartial acts in a partisan or ideological way. Individuals acting as such can take any POV they wish. Therefore, the term "bias" does not apply to me or you or anyone here, unless we allow our POVs to interfere with our profession or in an area in which we are expected to act impartially.

In the case of the media, it's particularly bad, because they are supposed to act in the public interest. Dismissing media bias by saying "you guys see bias in everything" is not going to get you there, Frank. Otherwise, I could easily respond with the same the next time you bitch about Fox News. For all we know, it might be your POV that's "biased." So you can keep linking to election and census data for the last 100 years and it won't matter, because that's not the point. The fact that the author had to qualify the victory like that showed bias and showed he wished to make a political point in his article. That's the point.

A political point about a political election?

See what I mean about chasing your own tail?

The only way I arrive at unbiased judgments is to look at data as OBJECTIVELY as possible, given the limitations and SUBJECTIVITY of the human condition. :\

SDW2001

10-24-2007, 09:33 AM

A political point about a political election?

See what I mean about chasing your own tail?

The only way I arrive at unbiased judgments is to look at data as OBJECTIVELY as possible, given the limitations and SUBJECTIVITY of the human condition. :\

Being objective is one thing. That creates sound judgments. One can have a point of view and still be objective when looking at the facts.

As for the article. Unless it's an opinion piece, there should be no personal political points made in the news. And that's what he did. Now, defend that.

franksargent

10-24-2007, 10:25 AM

Being objective is one thing. That creates sound judgments. One can have a point of view and still be objective when looking at the facts.

As for the article. Unless it's an opinion piece, there should be no personal political points made in the news. And that's what he did. Now, defend that.

From your original post, the part that most "upset" your "bias" meter was;

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

I've provided 18 links and one graphic from The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)

http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/hatemaps/5/hate_map_totals07.gif

BRussell also provided a definitive link titled Study Suggests Bias, Ex-Duke Voters Defeated Jindal (http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=adfb7972a2de609dbebab 2c2591573e7) linking Jindal's loss in 2003 to David Duke type supporters.

So that's 20 links in support of those three words that I"ve highlighted above, I've have already done a preliminary analysis from the OBJECTIVE data which appears to fully support those three words highlighted above.

It is fairly obvious to me, that this election will appear in a future peer reviewed political science journal, similar to what happened in 2003. :D And I'd fully expect it to present most of the verbiage that I've already presented, but with a peer review and editorial process, and of course will be written by expert analysis's from that region with a fuller understanding of the local's politics and demographics and history. It will also be written in a much clearer format, than I could ever do.

So at this point I "could" do what others with much more experience in political science (but perhaps less expertise than myself in statistical analyses) will do anyway. I could do a complete detailed statistical analysis myself, here for you, clearly demonstrating those three words outlined above are factual and correct. That that entire sentence is factual and correct.

But, from past experience in these threads, I already know that that exercise is futile, it will fall on deaf ears as it were, to the thread population in general, but specifically to those individuals that already hold "certain" biases! :\ Hint, hint.

And all I have from your end is your POV that that statement is "biased." :lol:

Have a nice day. :)

@_@ Artman

10-24-2007, 11:17 AM

...The neverending saga... http://lcb.me.uk/losingit/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_sleepy.gif

SDW2001

10-24-2007, 03:43 PM

From your original post, the part that most "upset" your "bias" meter was;

I've provided 18 links and one graphic from The Southern Poverty Law Center Hate Map (http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp)

http://www.splcenter.org/images/dynamic/intel/hatemaps/5/hate_map_totals07.gif

BRussell also provided a definitive link titled Study Suggests Bias, Ex-Duke Voters Defeated Jindal (http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=adfb7972a2de609dbebab 2c2591573e7) linking Jindal's loss in 2003 to David Duke type supporters.

So that's 20 links in support of those three words that I"ve highlighted above, I've have already done a preliminary analysis from the OBJECTIVE data which appears to fully support those three words highlighted above.

It is fairly obvious to me, that this election will appear in a future peer reviewed political science journal, similar to what happened in 2003. :D And I'd fully expect it to present most of the verbiage that I've already presented, but with a peer review and editorial process, and of course will be written by expert analysis's from that region with a fuller understanding of the local's politics and demographics and history. It will also be written in a much clearer format, than I could ever do.

So at this point I "could" do what others with much more experience in political science (but perhaps less expertise than myself in statistical analyses) will do anyway. I could do a complete detailed statistical analysis myself, here for you, clearly demonstrating those three words outlined above are factual and correct. That that entire sentence is factual and correct.

But, from past experience in these threads, I already know that that exercise is futile, it will fall on deaf ears as it were, to the thread population in general, but specifically to those individuals that already hold "certain" biases! :\ Hint, hint.

And all I have from your end is your POV that that statement is "biased." :lol:

Have a nice day. :)

It amazing how you folks, who I assume are reasonably intelligent, can just continue to miss the point over and over and over. I'll just stop there, because you're not going to see it. You still think this is about supporting the claim in the article. It's not. Good bye.

franksargent

10-24-2007, 07:26 PM

It amazing how you folks, who I assume are reasonably intelligent, can just continue to miss the point over and over and over. I'll just stop there, because you're not going to see it. You still think this is about supporting the claim in the article. It's not. Good bye.

These four links are from the NYT, the first three are from the author of the NYT article that STARTED this thread claiming "bias" in the author's second article (BTW, the author WAS in LA during the election process);

An Improbable Favorite Emerges in Cajun Country (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/19louisiana.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/19/us/190louisiana.600.jpg
FRANKLINTON, La., Oct. 17

He lost to Ms. Blanco in 2003 largely in places like this, Washington Parish, a hardscrabble rural area 70 miles north of New Orleans, where voters openly expressed unease four years ago about opting for someone of Mr. Jindal’s race. In areas where the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke won in the 1991 governor’s race — here and in the deeply conservative parishes of north Louisiana — Mr. Jindal lost.

Indian-American Elected Louisiana’s Governor (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/nationalspecial/21louisiana.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/21/us/21louisiana.xlarge1.jpg
NEW ORLEANS, Oct. 20

Yet Mr. Jindal, with his decisive victory on Saturday, appears to have overcome a significant racial hurdle that blocked him in 2003, according to analysts: race-based opposition in the deeply conservative northern and eastern parishes of Louisiana that once supported the Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.

A Son of Immigrants Rises in a Southern State (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/us/22louisiana.html)

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/22/us/22louisiana.xlarge1.jpg
NEW ORLEANS, Oct. 21

During that (2003) campaign, Mr. Jindal attacked liberals in radio advertisements and talked up his connections to Mr. Bush. The so-called bubba vote was nonetheless against him that year and he lost to the current governor, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, who has chosen not to run again.

And finally a letter (Oct. 24) to the NYT editor;

An American Story (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/opinion/l24jindal.html)

... One piece of advice to Bobby: Go easy on conservatism. Ideology is a luxury of the upper class. But rebuild New Orleans. Care about the poor, the children, the elderly, the unemployed, blacks and Hispanics. ...

... (Rev.) Nehemiah Thompson

South Plainfield, N.J., Oct. 22, 2007

The writer is general secretary, National Association of Asian Indian Christians in the U.S.A.

Also, at least TRY to read (in there entirety) the three LA news articles (and these four NYT "biased hit" pieces) that I provided links too in a previous post (with respect to Hurricane Katrina and loss of black voters primarilary from Orleans Parish).

Now, what was your point again, perhaps that we should IGNORE history?

Today's word is Abstraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction).

Have a nice evening. :)

@_@ Artman

10-24-2007, 11:28 PM

http://www.photographycorner.com/forum/images/medals/ca-gold.gif

5000th post!*

*If you guys read 1/5th of them, I can die in peace.

http://www.cookiemadness.net/oreo%20chunk%20cookie%20for%20blog.jpg

And to Governor Jindal, good luck.

Yer gonna need it. :rolleyes:

midwinter

10-25-2007, 03:23 AM

Dear God. I hate to say it, but SDW is right.

franksargent

10-25-2007, 03:47 AM

Dear God. I hate to say it, but SDW is right.

Exactly! :D

Northgate

10-25-2007, 07:23 PM

And to Governor Jindal, good luck.

Yer gonna need it. :rolleyes:

I hate to say it. But I hope he grows eyes in the back of his head. He's gonna need them.

Duck!

@_@ Artman

10-25-2007, 09:02 PM

midwinter

10-25-2007, 11:02 PM

I've been generally impressed with him as a politician.

trumptman

10-25-2007, 11:08 PM

I'm sure she will be filling a sexual harassment claim just as the next election rolls around.

Nick

@_@ Artman

10-25-2007, 11:30 PM

Media Bizarro 3: Fox continues to ask: Did al Qaeda burn California? (http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Fox_hypes_Qaeda_plotted_fires_theory_1025.html)

"In a post-9/11 world, we have to consider all possibilities,"

"What a cost-effective means of terrorism,"

- Terror analyst Erick Stakelbeck

Not worth it's own topic, but thought I'd share the champions of unbiased news.

trumptman

10-26-2007, 10:58 AM

ABC reporter tries to pester Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger into a "gotcha," but he fends her off and is about 10 seconds away from ripping off her arm and beating her to death with it. (ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y838vto6los)

Got to hand it to Ahnold. This bitch reporter tries to get some Katrina moment and fails miserably. This is what I hate about the MSM.

In 1996 I attended the Republican Convention in San Diego. At these things you go to events all week long where you get to interact with your own and other state delegations. The entire California delegation had dinner together at, I think it was Sea World. Now to give you an example of the size of the media, there were two media people there for every state delegate. We come out of the dinner and the media are all asking one question, "Do you think Pete Wilson has been intentionally slighted because he is not speaking on X night." (I believe he was speaking opening night instead of nominating night.) They stuck the mic in your face and if you didn't agree with the pointed question, they simply moved on and asked the question of the next person. There were roughly 200 people at this dinner. I'd guess that 190+ had no problem with the Wilson placement. However they went through and found the ten who did and culled the quotes from two or three of them from which they did their reporting.

I say this because the Arnold thing is a pure version of that. She cites "sources" to keep alleging the information. He stops her and notes that she is using these unnamed sources to advance her own attack.

Nick

tonton

10-26-2007, 11:50 PM

I've been generally impressed with him as a politician.

I've never supported a Republican in my life, but I think Arnold has so far been one of the best governors California has had. Definitely not perfect, but considering the circumstances, he's done a hell of a job.

In fact when he was runing and my family and friends were immediately saying how much of a joke it was, I said, "hey, he's obviously competent at managing his body and his cereer... maybe we should see what he can do". I'd rather have someone competent than another Bozo. Then when he hired Warren Buffett as an economic advisor, I was impressed. The way he dealt with the Gay marriage issue was also impressive, despite his Bushlike gaffe about "gay marriage between a man and a woman".

If he could run for the big P, I'd be ticking the R box over Hilary or Obama (but not Kucinich or Gore).

I'd like to see Trumpt or SDW make a claim like that about ANY Democrat. They can't. They're partisan.

SDW2001

10-27-2007, 10:46 AM

I've never supported a Republican in my life, but I think Arnold has so far been one of the best governors California has had. Definitely not perfect, but considering the circumstances, he's done a hell of a job.

In fact when he was runing and my family and friends were immediately saying how much of a joke it was, I said, "hey, he's obviously competent at managing his body and his cereer... maybe we should see what he can do". I'd rather have someone competent than another Bozo. Then when he hired Warren Buffett as an economic advisor, I was impressed. The way he dealt with the Gay marriage issue was also impressive, despite his Bushlike gaffe about "gay marriage between a man and a woman".

If he could run for the big P, I'd be ticking the R box over Hilary or Obama (but not Kucinich or Gore).

I'd like to see Trumpt or SDW make a claim like that about ANY Democrat. They can't. They're partisan.

I've voted for Dems before. I voted for Ed Rendell, for example (and I regret it, believe me). Now, are there any Dems running for President that I would vote for over one of the GOP candidates? No. But that's because of who they are and what they believe. I would actually love to see the Dems become the Dems of old, the pre-Carter Dems like Johnson, even Kennedy, Truman, et al. But who is running like that?

Hillary: A leftist pretending she's a centrist, a political chameleon driven by raw political ambition. She's practically a sociopath.

Obama: I don't think the man is actually that smart. He's certainly naive...look at his statements on Pakistan. And despite his soaring rhetoric and commanding speaking voice (which I actually don't care for either, but still), he hasn't proposed anything I tend to agree with. I hear about universal health care and tax the rich and end the war and what not.

Edwards: I can't stand him. He's Obama without the speaking voice, and more liberal. He's exceptionally weak on security issues.

Kucinich: He's a joke. A pacifist with with socialist tendencies. He's beyond anti-war...I think he might vote to surrender if Canada declared war on us. He's THAT nuts. His recent appearance on Syrian TV was straight up anti-American. He went on a foreign news program and declared that the war was started over lies and what not. Oh, and he looks like a leprechaun, have a mentioned that. We'd get attacked just for his pot of gold.

Biden: I think he's kinda nuts, really. That said, at least he's better on security issues. He's said some truly nut-job things though and I'm pretty sure he'd end up starting WWIII.

Anyone else is immaterial at this point. Compare those folks to Thompson, RG, Romney and McCain. Either one would do a better job than the above candidates. So it's really not about party to me for the most part.

midwinter

10-27-2007, 11:29 AM

I'm curious, SDW. In your noggin, what is the difference between "a leftist" and someone with "socialist tendencies"?

SDW2001

10-27-2007, 07:33 PM

I'm curious, SDW. In your noggin, what is the difference between "a leftist" and someone with "socialist tendencies"?

I don't know. I'm on drugs.

midwinter

10-27-2007, 08:07 PM

Well, I'm only going to accept that explanation for so long, you know.

SDW2001

10-27-2007, 08:24 PM

Well, I'm only going to accept that explanation for so long, you know.

What if I stay on drugs? Then you'd be discriminating against someone with a disability.

midwinter

10-27-2007, 08:26 PM

Considering I'm disabled, that'd make me a self-hater! Woot! It's a two-fer!

Northgate

10-27-2007, 08:55 PM

I'm sure she will be filling a sexual harassment claim just as the next election rolls around.

Nick

He's already in his second term. Or is this considered his official first term? I'm not sure.

Northgate

10-27-2007, 09:01 PM

Hillary: A leftist pretending she's a centrist, a political chameleon driven by raw political ambition. She's practically a sociopath.

Well, there you go, you've lost all credibility as a honest thinker right there.

I personally think Giuliani and Romeny are absolutely no different. They are EXACTLY the same species as Clinton. Unfortunately, that's what it takes these days to run for the presidency.

But in your world view Hillary is the only inflicted with this problem.

:no:

trumptman

10-28-2007, 06:53 PM

tonton

10-28-2007, 10:32 PM

First I didn't vote for Arnold. I voted for McClintock.
Of course you didn't. He's too far left for you. I didn't mean to imply you'd vote for any Republican no matter what... just that you'd never vote for a Democrat. And I guess I was wrong in SDW's case. Although evidently, Rendell was a big tax-cutter... no surprises there then.

Arnold has not done nearly a good enough job with the budget. His bigget claim to fame will be taking debt and turning it into bonds. It doesn't get rid of the debt, it reclassifies it.

I'm curious to know who you think has done a better job with the budget in the last 20 years...

The California budget crisis is astronomical. Although we haven't seen a cure yet, it's hard to say there haven't been improvements during Arnold's reign.

Tonton, I think what you fail to note is how easy or hard it is for a centrist to rise to a position whereby they could run for office in each party. You can consider voting for an Arnold for example because a pro-choice Republican can run for office within the party. Find me the blue-dog Democrats within the party today that are on MY ballot and I will vote for them. I've also voted for Diane Feinstein but don't know if I could today.
I'm impressed that you voted for Feinstein. And sorry that your views have changed since she first ran, because hers haven't. I guess had you been in Philly then you may have voted for Rendell as well... and I retract my claim. I was wrong.

trumptman

10-28-2007, 11:15 PM

Of course you didn't. He's too far left for you. I didn't mean to imply you'd vote for any Republican no matter what... just that you'd never vote for a Democrat. And I guess I was wrong in SDW's case. Although evidently, Rendell was a big tax-cutter... no surprises there then.

If by too far left you mean that I knew McClintock would actually address the budget deficit instead of papering it over, then I guess you would be right.

While not perfect, Pete Wilson did much better than either Arnold or Davis.

The California budget crisis is astronomical. Although we haven't seen a cure yet, it's hard to say there haven't been improvements during Arnold's reign.

I disagree. Arnold hasn't kept the budget from growing and hasn't stopped spending even during these best of times fiscally. Now the state is going to be (likely) heading into a severe downturn in terms of tax revenues and we will see how bad it really is now.

I'm impressed that you voted for Feinstein. And sorry that your views have changed since she first ran, because hers haven't. I guess had you been in Philly then you may have voted for Rendell as well... and I retract my claim. I was wrong.

Feinstein has changed during her tenure in Washington. She has also gone more leftward since Boxer was elected and since the margin on her wins has increased.

Nick

trumptman

10-28-2007, 11:45 PM

Yucky, but typical for the left. (http://www.asianweek.com/2007/10/26/uncle-bob-jindal-man-of-no-color/)

Nick

SDW2001

10-29-2007, 12:18 AM

Well, there you go, you've lost all credibility as a honest thinker right there.

I personally think Giuliani and Romeny are absolutely no different. They are EXACTLY the same species as Clinton. Unfortunately, that's what it takes these days to run for the presidency.

But in your world view Hillary is the only inflicted with this problem.

:no:

It has nothing to do with my world view. It's my assessment of her as person. I can't stand her personality. I think she's mean and despises non-feminist women, for one thing. There are many stories of how she verbally abused both Bill and the staff. She took more power than any first lady in history, and moved to NY just to run for Senate. Her actions in the Senate make it much worse. What has she accomplished? What bills has she proposed that have become law? She has changed her position on Iraq about 1,000 times. She's made many statement on the campaign trail that are indicative of actual socialism. "I want to take profits of the oil companies" and what not. So, I despise her politics and her personality and I think she is a person of little character.

Now as for the Romney and Guiliani: I don't think they're the same at all. Both have changed some of their positions, so you can criticize that. Then again, Romney freely admits his change of position on abortion and explains why he changed his mind. Do we want an environment where a politician can never change his or her mind...ever? Rudy is also exceptionally ambitious, but he has real executive experience to back him up. He's actually done things. Romney has experience too, and if nothing else is at least a man of deep faith. I think you pretty much get what you see with him. I don't see how you can compare them to Hillary...any valid criticism of them aside.

Of course you didn't. He's too far left for you. I didn't mean to imply you'd vote for any Republican no matter what... just that you'd never vote for a Democrat. And I guess I was wrong in SDW's case. Although evidently, Rendell was a big tax-cutter... no surprises there then.

He was a tax cutter in Philly. He ran as a fiscal conservative and said he'd address property taxes if elected. He's been a TERRIBLE governor. But Republicans nominated Lynn Swann last time, and he was a MORON. He actually said that if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, abortion automatically becomes illegal. But anyway...Rendell...yeah...not good.

I'm curious to know who you think has done a better job with the budget in the last 20 years...

The California budget crisis is astronomical. Although we haven't seen a cure yet, it's hard to say there haven't been improvements during Arnold's reign.

I'm impressed that you voted for Feinstein. And sorry that your views have changed since she first ran, because hers haven't. I guess had you been in Philly then you may have voted for Rendell as well... and I retract my claim. I was wrong.

I like Ahhnold, but I disagree with him on a few issues, namely Global Warming. CA is ina lot better financial shape than it was a few years ago, correct? As for Feinstein, I disagree with her on a lot of things, but she's not totally off her rocker from what I've seen.