It cuts both ways. Remember the McCain love fest er, barbecue? How many times per day do we hear the term “maverick” tossed around about a guy whose campaign is infested with lobbyists and voted with President Bush an average of 90% of the time?
<
p>And why does McCain continue to make erroneous statements about his alleged strong suit, foreign policy, and the media works to cover his tracks, but any “gaffe” Obama makes becomes wall-to-wall coverage?
p>Both candidates are well-liked by the media. It’s laughable that’ you’d come to a left-leaning site and complain about media bias in the Presidential campaign and use clips from Fox News as evidence of pro-Obama bias.
<
p>Obama does have advantages with media personalities and outlets, but you gotta try a harder than this, Eabo – especially when many of Obama’s advantages are negated by the media’s adoration of McCain.
tbladesays
Also interesting is that the campaign that accuses America of being a “nation of whiners” is constantly whining about how poor John McCain is so vilified in the media and he can never catch a break because of all this supposed bias. Boo hoo.
<
p>You can’t complain about whiners out of one side of your mouth and then use the other side of your mouth to whine.
johndsays
Life in the US is pretty darn good. We are still the envy of every nation in the world (just my opinion but I would be open to any suggestions of nations who don’t envy us).
<
p>The press has been trying so damn hard to report that we are in a recession but damn it, it just won’t happen. Nothing would make them happier than to report we are going down the toilet quickly. Maybe MA is an exception, but I constantly am monitoring things to see how they compare to the last “real” economic downturn. I go out to eat often, and still have to wait in long lines so people are eating out. Parking at the malls is as bad as it ever was. Matter of fact, it seems like people are spending money pretty much like they always do and prices on things are going up not down. Try to get a contractor and you’ll see they are all fairly booked and have not dropped their prices.
<
p>So I agree that we stop whining and endure the ups and downs that our economy has always paddled through.
christophersays
…signs of a downturn are all around us:
<
p>Gas prices through the roof.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Inflation up generally.
More and more foreclosures.
Unemployment up.
<
p>I also believe there is an objective definition of “recession” and that we are there. Isn’t it a certain number of quarters of negative growth or something like that? I would love for someone who knows better to add to this comment with some figures.
tbladesays
kbuschsays
A lot of conservatives — including one of our very brightest conservative contributors here — believe in Whiner Economic Theory. Right-wing pundits on television have been muttering about how Gramm was right. On his blog, Krugman nails it:
What you have to realize is that the faith of modern conservatives in tax cuts and deregulation is absolute, not susceptible to refutation by evidence. After all, if evidence mattered, they would have been shaken by the boom after Bill Clinton raised taxes; instead, they first denied the boom, then ascribed it to the lagged effects of Reagan’s tax cuts. (I tried to point out that if credit for the booming economy in 1999 went to the 1981 tax cut – that is, if current prosperity is the result of policy actions 18 years ago – then Ronald Reagan should have given credit for “morning in America” to Lyndon Baines Johnson. But somehow that argument didn’t fly.)
So what can conservatives say about our current economic troubles? There have been a few attempts to blame Bill Clinton – and Grover Norquist is saying that it’s all Nancy Pelosi’s fault. But mainly, the attitude Phil Gramm takes – an attitude shared by many on the right – is that we know that tax cuts work, so they must have worked. If Americans are unhappy with the state of the economy, the problem lies with public attitudes, not actual economic performance. Bunch of whiners! The alternative – that supply-side policies really failed – is literally unthinkable.
centralmassdadsays
“boom after Bush (the elder) raised taxes”
<
p>Would have been honest, and would make Krugman look like something other than a disseminator of spin.
kbuschsays
Even your proposed amendment doesn’t shine favorably on conservative orthodoxy.
centralmassdadsays
I’m generally not a fan of orthodoxy of any stripe when it comes to matters political.
jayboothsays
The boom didn’t start in earnest until Clinton had raised taxes on the top brackets as well. I’ll agree that “Bush the elder and Clinton” would’ve made him look more fair though.
centralmassdadsays
That’s fair enough.
<
p>A pet peeve of mine is when Democrats attempt to heap all of the credit for the balanced budgets and wondrous economy of the 90s on Clinton, even though much of the budget balancing was due to President GHW Bush and Gingrich, or when Republicans attempt to heap all of the credit for the 80s military buildup on Reagan, when it began with Carter.
<
p>I guess partisan politicians are a pet peeve of mine. đŸ™‚
huhsays
Which is to say, I agree, I think. đŸ˜‰
<
p>Going to back to an earlier discussion, how do you feel about folks who are up in arms about Griswold, but have no issues with Scalia’s findings in Heller?
Possibly the McCain camp has gotten too used to media love and now feels spurned:
And then there’s the special treatment, given no other American politician, to allow McCain to make his case to the public. When Media Matters conducted a study of Sunday-morning network guest lists, it discovered that the most frequent invitee during the nine-year period of 1997-2005 was McCain, who had appeared 124 times–over 50 percent more than his closest competitor. What’s more, not only was he the most frequent guest, he was the most honored. McCain was accorded eighty-six solo interviews. The runner-up in this solo interview sweepstakes was former Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, with just forty-five. As Senate minority leader, Daschle was the highest-ranking official in his party; McCain, who was on the outs with the leadership of his party for much of this period, was the leader of nothing but himself. In fact, during the early period of Bush’s presidency, before — apparently — he decided that he wanted to be the Republican nominee for President in 2008, McCain often represented the Democratic position on questions about taxes and political reform.
Ah, that John McCain, so witty. Here’s a classic joke he told back in ’86:
<
p>
Did you hear the one about the woman who is attacked on the street by a gorilla, beaten senseless, raped repeatedly and left to die? When she finally regains consciousness and tries to speak, her doctor leans over to hear her sigh contently and to feebly ask, ‘Where is that marvelous ape?’
<
p> Click for larger .pdf.
<
p>LOL. That’s hilarious! God, I love a good rape joke.
<
p>It’s interesting that this didn’t get more media play. It must be that the media hates McCain so much that they don’t want the public to know how funny and charming the guy is. Google News shows a whopping 24 news stories about McCain’s rape joke (many from blogs). It’s also curious that this story doesn’t appear once on the Fox News website, but they go out of their way to categorize an Obama hand gesture as a “terrorist fist jab” (and the GOP wants to cry ‘bias!’ – ha).
<
p>Compare 24 to the 41 stories about Obama’s “57 states” claim, and a search for Obama+”57 states” yeilds 817 results on Fox News’ website. Imagine if someone dug up record of a Barack Obama rape joke? I’m sure Fox News would also bury that story and no news outlets would talk about that one, either. So, as you say, “yup, no media bias”. ROTFLMAO.
johndsays
The McCain campaign has denied that he ever delilvered the offensive gag.
<
p>Now I know campaigns sometimes lie (such as when the Obama camp denied an aide going to Canada to discuss the NAFTA treaty), the McCain camp says this story(like BO not having a birth certificate) is not true. Does anyone have proof of this 22 year old supposed event?
johnt001says
So all you are doing there is spreading the actual lie – made doubly bad by accusing the Obama campaign of lying about it.
<
p>
On Feb. 9 Austan Goolsbee, the senior economic adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, had a meeting with Georges Rioux, consul general for the Canadian government. The two men met in Chicago, where Rioux maintains a consular office for the states of Illinois, Missouri, and Wisconsin and where Goolsbee teaches economics at the University of Chicago. (Slate readers may also remember Goolsbee as a onetime “Dismal Science” columnist.) Afterward, Joseph DeMora, a consulate staff member, wrote an enthusiastic summary (see below and the following two pages) for Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson. In the memo, DeMora praised Goolsbee’s “intellectual prowess … approachability, curiosity and youthful enthusiasm” and alerted Wilson that the Obama brain-truster “appeared genuinely … impressed by the magnitude” of the economic relationship between the United States and Canada (see below).
For the Canadians, a key point of concern was Obama’s sharp criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement. DeMora wrote Wilson that in the Chicago meeting, Goolsbee “candidly acknowledged the protectionist sentiment that has emerged, particularly in the Midwest, during the primary campaign” but reassured Rioux that Obama’s NAFTA-bashing “should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy plans.” Three weeks later, Canada’s CTV News reported that a “senior member” of Obama’s campaign had phoned Wilson personally to advise him to “not be worried about what Obama says about NAFTA.” The Obama campaign denied that story, which (if you believe DeMora’s account) was only slightly off the mark, and declined to elaborate. On March 3 the Associated Press released the DeMora memo, which by then had circulated widely within the Canadian government. Asked once again to comment, Obama said his campaign provided Canada no such reassurance while Goolsbee maintained that DeMora “misinterpreted” his comments. For its part, the Chicago consulate smoothed things over with a statement saying, “there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private.” It looks like President Obama may owe one to our friendly neighbors to the north.
p>If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, you should at least get your facts straight!
hoyapaulsays
I especially like the other witty joke he told during that ’86 campaign, which is noted in the last paragraph of the .pdf tblade linked to, when “he referred to the retirement community of Leisure World as ‘Seizure World'”.
<
p>Ah…we all get old, John.
centralmassdadsays
Republicans must complain about the media, is is just in their DNA, ever since the nattering nabobs of negativism. The media lost the war in Vietnam, and may someday be pinned with Iraq if we can’t call whatever happens a success.
<
p>Democrats, in turn, must contend that the liberal media must contort itself to be unnaturally hostile to Democrats in order to show how fair it is.
<
p>Eabo: Republicans have nominated a stiff, while Dems have finally nominated someone who understands the theater of it all. It is like the anti-1984. And still, your guy is right where more than one of the last few Republican presidents have been in late July. Quit yer whining.
johndsays
Republicans must complain about the media,
<
p>We will since it is true.
<
p>
The media lost the war in Vietnam, and may someday be pinned with Iraq if we can’t call whatever happens a success.
<
p>Coverage of the Tet offensive was a killer. Heaven forbid there is a victory in Iraq, then what would people complain about?
<
p>
Democrats, in turn, must contend that the liberal media must contort itself to be unnaturally hostile to Democrats in order to show how fair it is.
<
p>How can any sane person not see the profound bias in the media?
<
p>
Eabo: Republicans have nominated a stiff, while Dems have finally nominated someone who understands the theater of it all. It is like the anti-1984. And still, your guy is right where more than one of the last few Republican presidents have been in late July. Quit yer whining.
<
p>It is amazing that with all McCain’s baggage and all of the swooning over BO’s filled stadiums, the fund raising and hypnotizing orations, the race is almost a tie. I’ve read that Dukakis had a 19% point lead in the polls going into the Dem convention and Kerry was clearly ahead going into his convention which makes me wonder if the polls matter anyway at this point. I have $5 bet with my wife that McCain is going to pull it off (maybe Romney as VP will add some money and business clout to the team).
<
p>Maybe unemployment will go down if that happens from all the people moving to Canada.
pers-1765says
I don’t recall McCain complaining about the fawning coverage he received during the primary.
p>For nearly thirty years the mass media have been organs of propaganda for the right. On bended knees they stooped to kiss the ring of power, dutifully ratifying every lie and marginalizing the plain truth and those with the courage to speak it.
p>Whether your concern about this is sincere or just opportunism, I would be pleased to join with you in support of genuine reforms, provided these are broad and not just aimed at getting better coverage for your guy.
<
p>We could start by restoring the fairness doctrine to broadcast media–which would have the beneficial side-effect of leaching money out of politics.
<
p>What do you say?
johndsays
Go Air America!!!!
johnt001says
The Fairness Doctrine said that if someone is attacked in the broadcast media, that the attacker must allow the person who was attacked a fair chance to reply – why is that BS?
It cuts both ways. Remember the McCain
love fester, barbecue? How many times per day do we hear the term “maverick” tossed around about a guy whose campaign is infested with lobbyists and voted with President Bush an average of 90% of the time?<
p>And why does McCain continue to make erroneous statements about his alleged strong suit, foreign policy, and the media works to cover his tracks, but any “gaffe” Obama makes becomes wall-to-wall coverage?
<
p>http://matthewyglesias.theatla…
<
p>
<
p>Via MSNBC.
<
p>Both candidates are well-liked by the media. It’s laughable that’ you’d come to a left-leaning site and complain about media bias in the Presidential campaign and use clips from Fox News as evidence of pro-Obama bias.
<
p>Obama does have advantages with media personalities and outlets, but you gotta try a harder than this, Eabo – especially when many of Obama’s advantages are negated by the media’s adoration of McCain.
Also interesting is that the campaign that accuses America of being a “nation of whiners” is constantly whining about how poor John McCain is so vilified in the media and he can never catch a break because of all this supposed bias. Boo hoo.
<
p>You can’t complain about whiners out of one side of your mouth and then use the other side of your mouth to whine.
Life in the US is pretty darn good. We are still the envy of every nation in the world (just my opinion but I would be open to any suggestions of nations who don’t envy us).
<
p>The press has been trying so damn hard to report that we are in a recession but damn it, it just won’t happen. Nothing would make them happier than to report we are going down the toilet quickly. Maybe MA is an exception, but I constantly am monitoring things to see how they compare to the last “real” economic downturn. I go out to eat often, and still have to wait in long lines so people are eating out. Parking at the malls is as bad as it ever was. Matter of fact, it seems like people are spending money pretty much like they always do and prices on things are going up not down. Try to get a contractor and you’ll see they are all fairly booked and have not dropped their prices.
<
p>So I agree that we stop whining and endure the ups and downs that our economy has always paddled through.
…signs of a downturn are all around us:
<
p>Gas prices through the roof.
Food prices skyrocketing.
Inflation up generally.
More and more foreclosures.
Unemployment up.
<
p>I also believe there is an objective definition of “recession” and that we are there. Isn’t it a certain number of quarters of negative growth or something like that? I would love for someone who knows better to add to this comment with some figures.
A lot of conservatives — including one of our very brightest conservative contributors here — believe in Whiner Economic Theory. Right-wing pundits on television have been muttering about how Gramm was right. On his blog, Krugman nails it:
“boom after Bush (the elder) raised taxes”
<
p>Would have been honest, and would make Krugman look like something other than a disseminator of spin.
Even your proposed amendment doesn’t shine favorably on conservative orthodoxy.
I’m generally not a fan of orthodoxy of any stripe when it comes to matters political.
The boom didn’t start in earnest until Clinton had raised taxes on the top brackets as well. I’ll agree that “Bush the elder and Clinton” would’ve made him look more fair though.
That’s fair enough.
<
p>A pet peeve of mine is when Democrats attempt to heap all of the credit for the balanced budgets and wondrous economy of the 90s on Clinton, even though much of the budget balancing was due to President GHW Bush and Gingrich, or when Republicans attempt to heap all of the credit for the 80s military buildup on Reagan, when it began with Carter.
<
p>I guess partisan politicians are a pet peeve of mine. đŸ™‚
Which is to say, I agree, I think. đŸ˜‰
<
p>Going to back to an earlier discussion, how do you feel about folks who are up in arms about Griswold, but have no issues with Scalia’s findings in Heller?
First article as I post is a bit of Whiner Economic Theory.
Possibly the McCain camp has gotten too used to media love and now feels spurned:
Source
Ah, that John McCain, so witty. Here’s a classic joke he told back in ’86:
<
p>
<
p>
Click for larger .pdf.
<
p>LOL. That’s hilarious! God, I love a good rape joke.
<
p>It’s interesting that this didn’t get more media play. It must be that the media hates McCain so much that they don’t want the public to know how funny and charming the guy is. Google News shows a whopping 24 news stories about McCain’s rape joke (many from blogs). It’s also curious that this story doesn’t appear once on the Fox News website, but they go out of their way to categorize an Obama hand gesture as a “terrorist fist jab” (and the GOP wants to cry ‘bias!’ – ha).
<
p>Compare 24 to the 41 stories about Obama’s “57 states” claim, and a search for Obama+”57 states” yeilds 817 results on Fox News’ website. Imagine if someone dug up record of a Barack Obama rape joke? I’m sure Fox News would also bury that story and no news outlets would talk about that one, either. So, as you say, “yup, no media bias”. ROTFLMAO.
The McCain campaign has denied that he ever delilvered the offensive gag.
<
p>Now I know campaigns sometimes lie (such as when the Obama camp denied an aide going to Canada to discuss the NAFTA treaty), the McCain camp says this story(like BO not having a birth certificate) is not true. Does anyone have proof of this 22 year old supposed event?
So all you are doing there is spreading the actual lie – made doubly bad by accusing the Obama campaign of lying about it.
<
p>
<
p>Source: http://www.slate.com/id/218575…
<
p>If you’re going to accuse someone of lying, you should at least get your facts straight!
I especially like the other witty joke he told during that ’86 campaign, which is noted in the last paragraph of the .pdf tblade linked to, when “he referred to the retirement community of Leisure World as ‘Seizure World'”.
<
p>Ah…we all get old, John.
Republicans must complain about the media, is is just in their DNA, ever since the nattering nabobs of negativism. The media lost the war in Vietnam, and may someday be pinned with Iraq if we can’t call whatever happens a success.
<
p>Democrats, in turn, must contend that the liberal media must contort itself to be unnaturally hostile to Democrats in order to show how fair it is.
<
p>Eabo: Republicans have nominated a stiff, while Dems have finally nominated someone who understands the theater of it all. It is like the anti-1984. And still, your guy is right where more than one of the last few Republican presidents have been in late July. Quit yer whining.
<
p>We will since it is true.
<
p>
<
p>Coverage of the Tet offensive was a killer. Heaven forbid there is a victory in Iraq, then what would people complain about?
<
p>
<
p>How can any sane person not see the profound bias in the media?
<
p>
<
p>It is amazing that with all McCain’s baggage and all of the swooning over BO’s filled stadiums, the fund raising and hypnotizing orations, the race is almost a tie. I’ve read that Dukakis had a 19% point lead in the polls going into the Dem convention and Kerry was clearly ahead going into his convention which makes me wonder if the polls matter anyway at this point. I have $5 bet with my wife that McCain is going to pull it off (maybe Romney as VP will add some money and business clout to the team).
<
p>Maybe unemployment will go down if that happens from all the people moving to Canada.
I don’t recall McCain complaining about the fawning coverage he received during the primary.
He should stop hiding from the media.
die by the sycophants.
<
p>For nearly thirty years the mass media have been organs of propaganda for the right. On bended knees they stooped to kiss the ring of power, dutifully ratifying every lie and marginalizing the plain truth and those with the courage to speak it.
<
p>Well, guess what. Power has shifted and the worm has turned.
<
p>Whether your concern about this is sincere or just opportunism, I would be pleased to join with you in support of genuine reforms, provided these are broad and not just aimed at getting better coverage for your guy.
<
p>We could start by restoring the fairness doctrine to broadcast media–which would have the beneficial side-effect of leaching money out of politics.
<
p>What do you say?
Go Air America!!!!
The Fairness Doctrine said that if someone is attacked in the broadcast media, that the attacker must allow the person who was attacked a fair chance to reply – why is that BS?