or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama - Page 7

post #241 of 268
Thread Starter 
Okay. It is time to reveal the next phase of media bias stupidity and how it will hurt those they love most instead of helping them.

Biden, huge guy, great pick who has the gravitas that is fully needed to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. He is incredibly smart and has massive foreign policy cred. This is now the media talking point which reflects their bias.

I'm not going to debate whether this is true or not, but I'm going to lay down the reality so the forehead slaps can be fully realized later.

Biden is a windbag from a small state. Delaware has exactly the same number of electoral votes as Alaska which means Biden has never been persuasive to win before a truly large crowd. The public and Democrats in particular have had the opportunity to elevate him a few times each time he has run for president. He has been a complete non-factor or withdrew due to embarassing revelations. We know that he graduated in the lower half of his law class and that he can be gotten to in terms of getting windy, getting accusatory and just outright going completely off message when you hit his buttons the right way.

Palin is of course completely ORDINARY. She was elected by eskimos and only won because their numbering system consists of one, two, many......(scarce resources no need for big numbers) and she made it to many. She has no experience. No one knows her. She is a hail mary pick. She reflects "desperation."

Here is the reality. Palin has done what is very hard to do and that is beat money, beat name recognition and beat incumbents. She isn't a lawyer. Her degree is in journalism and it is clear that she knows how to present herself and information in a manner that moves people past prejudices, past age vs experience and wins their approval quickly.

We don't have to debate the reality at all. It will be realized after the forehead smack. What is that forehead smack? It is the media screwing up the expectations game due to their biases game. It is what made the celebrity attack by McCain possible. It is what will make the VP nomination a Palin win just for holding her ground.

It has already been expressed here and will of course be expressed in the media. Biden is a giant. Palin is ordinary. Biden is brilliant and wise. Palin wears fur and won a beauty contest. Biden is seasoned and is ready for the national stage because a three delegate state has elected him for 36 years. Palin can't be a serious choice because her state is so small that it can't even keep a Walmart in business. Etc..Etc... Etc.

Build one up and tear one down, repeat and rinse.

Then somewhere down the line this is suddenly exposed. I suspect that Palin will actually do very well against Biden in the VP debate. No matter her background, and she has a brain and will be able to wrap it around the prep for that debate. I mean even Ape-boy Bush was able to hold his own against Kerry and Gore in the debates. (I mean sure his grades and intelligence scores ended up being higher but that wasn't what the media were saying.)

When you hold our own against a giant who is supposed to crush you, you win.

This will happen. Afterward the supporters of Obama in here and the media themselves will be slapping their head and keep wondering to themselves, why did we build him up so high that it was impossible to meet that expectation and thus he loses due to the letdown?

It is called bias. Stick it in an envelope. Seal it and mail it to yourself for proof. It will happen. It already is happening. The bias will create the expectation. The expectation will create the letdown. The media and left will slap themselves for being so biased they hurt their cause.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #242 of 268
You can keep convincing yourself this is true, but it doesn't make it reality

The dual assumptions that the media

1) is hopelessly biased in favor of Obama

2) So stupid about it they'll help McCain in the end

is really the pinacle I guess because it lets you beleive liberals are both

1) a pernicious influence trying to undermine society
2) Too stupid to pull it off.

Pretty spectacular really.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #243 of 268
The media is controversy-biased and eager to play expectations games.

The only way the Republicans can win is if expectations for them are lowered. Bush "won" some debates with Kerry because, although Kerry was clearly superior in intellect, expressiveness, and ideas; Bush didn't drool on himself and choke on his own tongue.

"Republicans: Not Quite As Retarded As We Thought" is actually a winning strategy for Republican candidates.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #244 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

although Kerry was clearly superior in intellect, expressiveness, and ideas...

Of course, Trumpt can make the argument that the Media completely built up that image of his being smarter than Bush. They certainly didn't get it from the college transcript he kept hiding (and they didn't really hound him for it.)

So the media built up expectations of Kerry that he couldn't meet. And so Bush won.

Trumpt may have a point.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #245 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Of course, Trumpt can make the argument that the Media completely built up that image of his being smarter than Bush. They certainly didn't get it from the college transcript he kept hiding (and they didn't really hound him for it.)

So the media built up expectations of Kerry that he couldn't meet. And so Bush won.

Trumpt may have a point.

Certainly Trumpt could make that argument, but to do so he'd have to cite a great number of "media" sources "building up" the image of Kerry's intellectual superiority. I notice the only "media" you cite is the dread, über-liberal NYT, making exactly the opposite point. Here they are doing it again.

Now I suppose you could "argue" that these NYT pieces were uncharacteristic, and that they expended far more column inches to stories of the "Kerry smart, Bush dumb" variety. But then you'd have to actually produce them, and what's the fun in that?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #246 of 268
Thread Starter 
Listen Adda. We don't have to debate the past. We can debate the present. I stuck my stake the in the sand. I've never been shy about that. We already see exactly what I am saying playing out here with the membership and the media.

Do you think I what I say will be right or wrong? Don't worry about Kerry. That is the past.

If Palin holds her own with Biden, will that still be a loss for Biden due to expectations?

Nothing more, nothing less than that is what I am asserting.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #247 of 268
Thread Starter 
Mark Penn has some pretty damning observations here.

Quote:
Mark Penn: Well, no, I think the people themselves saw unfair media coverage of Senator Clinton. I think if you go back, the polls reflected very clearly what "Saturday Night Live" crystallized in one of their mock debates about what was happening with the press.

I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.

And I think that that's a real problem growing out of this election. The media now, all of the media — not just Fox News, that was perceived as highly partisan — but all of the media is now being viewed as partisan in one way or another. And that is an unfortunate development.

CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?

Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."

What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #248 of 268
Quote:
If Palin holds her own with Biden, will that still be a loss for Biden due to expectations?

Yes.

Biden cannot "win" the debates and neither can Obama. McCain and Palin will "win" in the eyes of the media by showing up and speaking English.

That's how the expectations game works.

And then the people will vote for the lowest common denominator... again.

I think Obama will win, but it's disturbing to see that people enjoy the low expectations game and expect good leadership to result from it.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #249 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Mark Penn has some pretty damning observations here.

Ok, so what we have here is a single interview with a single individual.

But by all means, keep on posting other single individual damning observations from the likes of a former "disgruntled" HRC advisor.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #250 of 268
haha Mark Penn... fat slob who was paid millions of dollars to cost HRC the election against a guy named Hussein with his ridiculously shitty campaign tactics and his inability to understand that the primary states weren't winner-take-all.

Next "damning observations" from...
- Danforth J. Quayle
- That guy my co-worker knows who is "totally into" politics

proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #251 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We can debate the present. We already see exactly what I am saying playing out here with the membership and the media.

Do you think I what I say will be right or wrong?

If Palin holds her own with Biden, will that still be a loss for Biden due to expectations?

Nothing more, nothing less than that is what I am asserting.

We can debate the present?

"No, it is not the present."

"Au contraire, but it is the present."

"No, you are incorrect, because right now is the present."

"In what respect Charlie?"

PO membership != "the media"

p =1.0 that Palin will recite her memorized lines correctly.

Nothing more, and nothing less than that is what I am asserting.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #252 of 268
Thread Starter 
BTW, now that you've seen the Palin interview, you might want to read the rest of it since it had a bit of editing done to it.

I thought this section very interesting.

Quote:
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Whos right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, were talking about Israel, were talking about Ahmadinejads comment about Israel being the stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth, thats atrocious. Thats unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?


PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

GIBSON: But, Governor, weve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasnt done any good. It hasnt stemmed their nuclear program.

PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe theyre going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.

The formatting didnt come throught the copy/paste but most of this was cut and most interestingly, Gibson seems to be advocating the position that sanctions don't work. I don't know what your conclusions would be, but mine are that the editing appears to remove the language that calls on working with allies and using sanctions while it retains that language that calls for blowing things up. Give it a look.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #253 of 268
Quote:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. Im ready.
GIBSON: And you didnt say to yourself, Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?
PALIN: I didnt hesitate, no.
GIBSON: Didnt that take some hubris?
PALIN: I I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you cant blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that were on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you cant blink.
So I didnt blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.
GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and its about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and thats with the energy independence that Ive been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.
GIBSON: I know. Im just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. Its that important. Its that significant.
GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.
GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.
GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.
GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.
GIBSON: Im talking about somebody whos a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, weve got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebodys big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, theyve had opportunities to meet heads of state these last couple of weeks it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.

GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.
GIBSON: Lets start, because we are near Russia, lets start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said weve got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, were going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCains running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And weve got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep
GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. Thats why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, youre in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. Theyre very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.
GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: Theyre our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.
GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what theyre doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, Im giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that its in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. Weve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that its in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.
GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldnt we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, youre going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesnt have to lead to war and it doesnt have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, thats a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.
Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:
GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.
GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Whos right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, were talking about Israel, were talking about Ahmadinejads comment about Israel being the stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth, thats atrocious. Thats unacceptable.
GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.
GIBSON: But, Governor, weve threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasnt done any good. It hasnt stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe theyre going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.
GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I dont think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.
GIBSON: So if we wouldnt second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I dont think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.
GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where were able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because were a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush well, what do you what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and thats the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a presidents job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.
GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, were going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.
GIBSON: But, Governor, Im asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.
GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.

Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God. Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I dont know if that was my exact quote.
GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincolns words when he said first, he suggested never presume to know what Gods will is, and I would never presume to know Gods will or to speak Gods words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and thats a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on Gods side.
Thats what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. Its an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.
GIBSON: I take your point about Lincolns words, but you went on and said, There is a plan and it is Gods plan.
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand the grand plan.
GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I dont know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.

Here you go, IE has some advantages wrt preserving HTML tags.
BTW, if anyone has the full unedited transcript or a download link of the full unedited video that would be much appreciated, TIA.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #254 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Okay. It is time to reveal the next phase of media bias stupidity and how it will hurt those they love most instead of helping them.

Biden, huge guy, great pick who has the gravitas that is fully needed to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. He is incredibly smart and has massive foreign policy cred. This is now the media talking point which reflects their bias.

I'm not going to debate whether this is true or not, but I'm going to lay down the reality so the forehead slaps can be fully realized later.

Biden is a windbag from a small state. Delaware has exactly the same number of electoral votes as Alaska which means Biden has never been persuasive to win before a truly large crowd. The public and Democrats in particular have had the opportunity to elevate him a few times each time he has run for president. He has been a complete non-factor or withdrew due to embarassing revelations. We know that he graduated in the lower half of his law class and that he can be gotten to in terms of getting windy, getting accusatory and just outright going completely off message when you hit his buttons the right way.

I started to read this, not seeing who wrote it, and I thought,

"addabox has done it again!"*

"completely brilliant post!"

Then I realized it was completely serious.



*Of course addabox would never write in passive voice, so maybe that should have clued me in earlier.
post #255 of 268
Biden's tax return :

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...urns-revealed/


Quote:
Joe Biden's newly released tax returns appear to confirm what the Democratic VP candidate has long contended he is among the poorest U.S. senators currently serving.

At least half the nations senators are millionaires. But Biden and his wife Jill earned a relatively small $320,000 in 2006, paying about $66,000 in taxes. Over the last 10 years Biden and his wife earned just shy of $2.5 million an average income of roughly $245,000 per year.

Now let's talk about which dollar group McSame might be sympathetic to.


Also

Quote:
A McCain aide told CNN Friday the campaign would release Palin's documents, but on their "own timeframe."


That will be interesting.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #256 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

BTW, now that you've seen the Palin interview, you might want to read the rest of it since it had a bit of editing done to it.

I thought this section very interesting.



The formatting didnt come throught the copy/paste but most of this was cut and most interestingly, Gibson seems to be advocating the position that sanctions don't work. I don't know what your conclusions would be, but mine are that the editing appears to remove the language that calls on working with allies and using sanctions while it retains that language that calls for blowing things up. Give it a look.

When asked about the " Bush Doctrine" She was a deer in the headlights. No amount editing would change that fact.

She doesn't have the background to be VP. It's pretty clear Obama understands and is knowlegeble about these issues.



She's truly scary to be this close to the Whitehouse.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #257 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Biden's tax return :

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...urns-revealed/




Now let's talk about which dollar group McSame might be sympathetic to.


Also




That will be interesting.

Quote:
own timeframe

It the Palin's tax returns are not released before the November general election (if their tax returns are ever released) what would be the rational for doing so?

Is the release of a VP candidate's tax returns a matter of public federal law or is it totally voluntary?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #258 of 268
Thread Starter 
Source

Quote:
Bill from Ahwatukee Musings passed this along to me, from a Hillary Clinton forum, of all places. I dont know anything about the writer, Nancy Kallitechnis, but she makes some interesting observations about the difference between Charlie Gibsons interview with Obama, when he became the presumptive nominee, and his talk with Gov. Palin:

Even the camera angle was designed to be prejudiced against Palin. She is filmed from the side and slightly with her back to the camera. In contrast, the film crew placed the long shot camera facing Obama so at all times when he is speaking the camera looks him in the face rather than looking at his back.

Obama was asked much easier questions mostly about feelings about winning, breaking the glass ceiling and 2008 campaign decisions. In contrast, Palin was asked numerous specific policy and military strategy questions that required extensive knowledge about treaties, U.S. anti-terrorism strategy and world history. And Gibson misquoted Palin The following is a breakdown of the questions asked of the nominees:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to win?
How does your family feel about your winning breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitors [Clinton] speech?

Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job youre seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Arent you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

Theres no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards ObamaHe constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obamas ability to lead, all the more amazing considering that Palin was the only one with executive experience and the presidency is the highest level executive job in politics.

Keep it up media!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #259 of 268
People, by that point, knew who Obama was.

People have no freaking clue who Palin is, and McCain has disappeared...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #260 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Biden's tax return :

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...urns-revealed/




Now let's talk about which dollar group McSame might be sympathetic to.


Also




That will be interesting.

Wait...so his being one of the "poorest Senators" is a virtue now? And because McCain's wife has money, he will automatically screw the little guy? I can never understand how Democrats reason like this.

Also...what does this say about Biden's ability to manage money?



Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When asked about the " Bush Doctrine" She was a deer in the headlights. No amount editing would change that fact.

No she wasn't. She asked Gibson "in what respect, Charlie" because there is no single Bush doctrine.

Quote:
There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration -- and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

It means different things to different people. And while we're on the topic of Gibson, let's discuss how he took her out of context on praying for our leaders.

Quote:

She doesn't have the background to be VP. It's pretty clear Obama understands and is knowlegeble about these issues.

Why? And what in Obama's background makes you think he has an understanding or is knowledgeable? Moreover, even if you agree with his stated positions, what in his background makes you think that he'll actually DO what he proposes?

And what is the background to be VP? She's been the governor of a large, oil producing state. She's commanded the ANG, which is directly involved with the missile defense system.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news...e.aspx?id=2483

Quote:

She's truly scary to be this close to the Whitehouse.

What's truly scary is that you for some reason Obama has more relevant experience. He has had ZERO experience in running things, other than the Harvard Law Review. What's really scary is that the Obama Media has still not drilled him on his associations with people like Bill Ayers (Obama himself has said he had a "friendly relationship" with this man). What's scarier is that his experience as a community organizer is not questioned. What did he do? He worked with ACORN, one of the most radical groups in the U.S. ACORN is anti-capitalist, anti-business and pro-socialist.

The scariest of all? We're not allowed to know who Barack Obama is. When we ask, we're racists. We're practicing the "politics of old." We're GOP scare mongering. And this man might be elected President of the United States. Good lord.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #261 of 268
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

People, by that point, knew who Obama was.

People have no freaking clue who Palin is, and McCain has disappeared...

The point should be the exact opposite then. They should be asking Palin personable questions like Obama was asked if this is true. How are you going to find out who Palin is by asking about who should be a member of NATO? Can we still desire to know her views on that, sure, but the rationalization that we need to get to know her doesn't fit the tone of the questioning.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #262 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The point should be the exact opposite then. They should be asking Palin personable questions like Obama was asked if this is true. How are you going to find out who Palin is by asking about who should be a member of NATO? Can we still desire to know her views on that, sure, but the rationalization that we need to get to know her doesn't fit the tone of the questioning.


Maybe it's because they know Obama ( because of his background ) already has the answers to those questions.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #263 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wait...so his being one of the "poorest Senators" is a virtue now? And because McCain's wife has money, he will automatically screw the little guy? I can never understand how Democrats reason like this.

Also...what does this say about Biden's ability to manage money?







No she wasn't. She asked Gibson "in what respect, Charlie" because there is no single Bush doctrine.



It means different things to different people. And while we're on the topic of Gibson, let's discuss how he took her out of context on praying for our leaders.



Why? And what in Obama's background makes you think he has an understanding or is knowledgeable? Moreover, even if you agree with his stated positions, what in his background makes you think that he'll actually DO what he proposes?

And what is the background to be VP? She's been the governor of a large, oil producing state. She's commanded the ANG, which is directly involved with the missile defense system.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news...e.aspx?id=2483



What's truly scary is that you for some reason Obama has more relevant experience. He has had ZERO experience in running things, other than the Harvard Law Review. What's really scary is that the Obama Media has still not drilled him on his associations with people like Bill Ayers (Obama himself has said he had a "friendly relationship" with this man). What's scarier is that his experience as a community organizer is not questioned. What did he do? He worked with ACORN, one of the most radical groups in the U.S. ACORN is anti-capitalist, anti-business and pro-socialist.

The scariest of all? We're not allowed to know who Barack Obama is. When we ask, we're racists. We're practicing the "politics of old." We're GOP scare mongering. And this man might be elected President of the United States. Good lord.

Quote:
And what is the background to be VP? She's been the governor of a large, oil producing state. She's commanded the ANG, which is directly involved with the missile defense system.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news...e.aspx?id=2483

And she's right up there next to russia to!



Quote:
[No she wasn't. She asked Gibson "in what respect, Charlie" because there is no single Bush doctrine.

Oh please! She really was a deer in the headlights! Everyone else seems to know what he was asking! And he had to ask it three friggin times!

She was heming and hawing because she didn't know. She had no idea.

Clueless.

That's why they ask those questions because of her background or lack thereof.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #264 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

When asked about the " Bush Doctrine" She was a deer in the headlights. No amount editing would change that fact.

She doesn't have the background to be VP. It's pretty clear Obama understands and is knowlegeble about these issues.

I suspect Obama would have flubbed that question. By no means is the term "Bush Doctrine" as well understood or even known as the "Powell Doctrine".
post #265 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Wait...so his being one of the "poorest Senators" is a virtue now?

Because he's not living a millionaire lifestyle? But one you and I would recognize?

Quote:
And because McCain's wife has money, he will automatically screw the little guy? I can never understand how Democrats reason like this.

Well, he certianly won't understand the little guy as well.

Quote:
Also...what does this say about Biden's ability to manage money?

Nothing much. Just that he's not raking it in.

Quote:
No she wasn't. She asked Gibson "in what respect, Charlie" because there is no single Bush doctrine.

No, it's because she had no clue what it was. Of course, neither did I and I'm far better versed than she is. But don't try to play that up as "which one".

Quote:
And what is the background to be VP? She's been the governor of a large, oil producing state. She's commanded the ANG, which is directly involved with the missile defense system.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news...e.aspx?id=2483

Please, she doesn't "command" the ANG in the military sense of the word (as in what a officer would do) and she probably knows zero about the missile defense system other than there's a base there and maybe had a VIP visit once. That's like claiming Bill Clinton is a military genius because he was POTUS. Or George Bush for that matter.
post #266 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea View Post

I suspect Obama would have flubbed that question. By no means is the term "Bush Doctrine" as well understood or even known as the "Powell Doctrine".

Don't confuse the issue with the facts. Even though after close to 10 years of arguing about Bush on AI, most of us wouldn't have picked up on what the "Bush Doctrine" was.

By the way, does 'shoot first, ask questions later' really qualify as a new Doctrine?

And don't bring Obama's lack of foreign policy experience into play here.
That card is only to be used with Conservatives.

And the Germans love him!
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #267 of 268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Don't confuse the issue with the facts. Even though after close to 10 years of arguing about Bush on AI, most of us wouldn't have picked up on what the "Bush Doctrine" was.

By the way, does 'shoot first, ask questions later' really qualify as a new Doctrine?

And don't bring Obama's lack of foreign policy experience into play here.
That card is only to be used with Conservatives.

And the Germans love him!

You really didn't know shoot first, ask questions later wasn't a Bush doctrine?

Why did you'all, not you Frank, go into Iraq?
Mushroom Cloud anyone?
post #268 of 268
Damn that Fox News. Can't they try harder to obscure being totally in the tank for Obama?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/09/15/kelly-bounds-taxes/
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dear Media, Try Harder to Obscure being Totally in the Tank for Obama