« A third term for Mike? | Main | Isn't this redundant? »

Media bias or just plain indifference?

Back during the primaries, when Hillary Clinton related her exaggerated "sniper fire" account of a trip to Bosnia, it seemed like the media reported on little else for two solid weeks. Why then has this received so little attention in comparison? I was all ready to blame media bias. Media bias doesn't always have to be against Republicans, and I certainly this Hillary endured more than her share throughout her campaign.

But then my wife pointed out an alternative explanation: No one cares about Joe Biden. It's as if everyone has forgotten he's running. I think she has a point. Every day I read the latest poll numbers for McCain, Obama and Palin. Each day I see Op-Ed pieces passionately attacking or defending McCain, Obama and Palin. It really is almost as if there are three people running for national office and not four. Anyone else notice that?


Reagan made a lot of gaffes and kept repeating stories that were not true. The bottom line, though, is that people grew comfortable with Reagan. They grew to trust his judgment and his temperment and just factored in his propensity to tell a tale.

Biden makes nearly a gaffe a day and many of them, such as his asking a man in a wheelchair to stand up so all could see him, are laughable. It gets to the point where people say "Oh that's Biden."

I also think politicians make a mistake when they angrily defend their comments. That was Clinton's mistake last Spring, she and her husband were defending the Bosnia remarks, instead of quickly correcting and moving on.

What happens if Obama gets very sick and dies? Think about Biden being president. W and Palin will look like Shakespeare relived.

W and Palin might be far more Shakespearian, but I'm not sure that is a good thing.

I think your wife is right. I think pretty much everyone really does forget he's running.

And, Rachel, while Biden is far from smooth, he does seem pragmatic, and that (for me) would be a welcome change.

The fact remains that Biden is fully qualified to be president, while Palin is obviously not. Just the idea of having a (totally) illiterate theocrat (see Palin) in the WH is beyond scary. It is total insanity. And it speaks volumes about McCain's judgment.

Whoa there BW, you say "totally illiterate theocrat" as if that's a BAD thing.

T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, G. Washington, J. Adams and the rest of America's Founders fall into the category that today's extreme Left sees as "illiterate, theocrats."

After all, it's those guys who started the custom of beginning each legislativce session with a prayer to God, invoked God's name in almost every one of their documents and they supported things like the death penalty (only in various and terrible ways) for over a dozen crimes, which the extreme Left finds repugnant, even "illiterate," today.

Not surprisngly, I support BOTH those things (a more fearsome and terrible death penalty, for instance, a snake pit or an acid bath) and an expanded one (I'd support it for pedophiles, people convicted of treason, etc.)

You want your president to be an illiterate theocrat? Or you believe that Sarah Palin is NOT an illiterate theocrat?

In either case you need help. Seriously.

I think what JMK is saying is that Benjamin Franklin, creator of the PUBLIC LIBRARY system with an extensive personal library of his own, was illiterate.

He is also saying that four men who risked their lives to make sure that the United States was never a Theocracy, were in fact Theocrats.

In other words, JMK is monkey-dumb, and listens to Rush way too much.

"You want your president to be an illiterate theocrat? Or you believe that Sarah Palin is NOT an illiterate theocrat?" (BW)

I suppose what I'm objecting to is your inability to define your terms accurately.

Every one of America's Founders from Tom Jefferson and Ben Franklin to George Washington and John Adams would be defined as "Socially Conservative, economic Libertarians" by today's political standards.

Many of them would be somewhat to the Right (certainly far MORE Libertarian in their leanings than I am)...and YET, no one has ever made the argument that "That was an ideology for another, simpler and bygone age. Today we NEED a scienific, or "socially engineered" approach to both economics and public policy."

Now I would consider any such arguments as the one above, in favor of "a more scientific economic and public policy" to be so flawed as to truly be, not only hideously flawed and morally objectionable, but illiterate, in so far as they advocate an ill-conceived approach to those subjects.

Moreover, I don't see the involvement of the (what is it now, around 82% of the American public?) that is "somewhat religious," or "very religious" being involved in the political process a "bad thing," at all.

What seems both unfounded and unwise is the likes of folks like yourself thinking that all those religious people should be excluded or marginalized simply because you "feel" you don't like them.

What's worse is that you can't even give a reason why you fear/dislike religious people so much.

It's not simply because you're not religious.

Know why?

Cause no one's any LESS religious than I am...and yet, I have no problem with religious people, despite most of those I know having huge disagreements/problems with me - over issues like abortion (I support 1st trimester abortion), the death penalty (I vigorously support it, while most religious people oppose it)....I revile that "I am my brother's keeper" crap and that "sanctity of life" BS (my own personal experiences tend to invalidate BOTH those positions), but I DO respect people who do earnestly disagree with me...and they (unlike folks like yourself) actually make arguments in favor of what they believe in.

You don't see religious protestors shouting down those they disagree with or seeking to silence those they don't like by going after their advertisers....but, ironically enough, you DO see a lot of extreme Leftists (and a few extreme Rightists) doing precisely that.

You know, when you think about it, that's actually almost humorously ironic, isn't it?

"In either case you need help. Seriously." (BW)

Why have you been moving toward the Barely Hanging approach in your exchanges?

Is it the frustration of being unable to defend your views or make affirmative arguments for what you claim to believe?

I KNOW that Barely is unable to make actual arguments....I used to believe you were curiously unwilling to do so, but your inability to make ANY cogent, fact-based arguments in favor of what you claim to believe has changed my mind.

Please, tell me I didn't give you too much credit.

“I think what JMK is saying is that Benjamin Franklin, creator of the PUBLIC LIBRARY system with an extensive personal library of his own, was illiterate.

“He is also saying that four men who risked their lives to make sure that the United States was never a Theocracy, were in fact Theocrats.” (Barely Hanging)

And with that, Barely proves himself every bit as dumb (unable to make cogent, coherent arguments) as I said he was.

Ben Franklin was every bit as bright as the likes of Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain and Sarah Palin...in fact, all are “lesser lights” in comparison to the GREAT Ben Franklin.

And all those Founders I mentioned were indeed “believers” who’d be slammed, no doubt by Left-wing anti-religious kooks today as “religious extremists,” for things like “insisting on a prayer before all legislative sessions,” etc.

In fact here are some spiritual quotes from all of them;

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

John Adams

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?”

T Jefferson

“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

T Jefferson

“The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”

B Franklin

“I must own I have so much faith in the general government of the world by Providence that I can hardly conceive a transaction of such momentous importance to the welfare of millions now existing, and to exist in the posterity of a great nation, should be suffered to pass without being in some degree influenced, guided, and governed by that omnipotent, omnipresent, and beneficent Ruler.”

B Franklin

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

J Adams

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”

J Adams

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817]

J Adams

AND two more from a more modern God-fearing man;

"Watch the stars, and from them learn. To the Master's honor all must turn, each in its track, without a sound, forever tracing Newton's ground."

A Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

A Einstein

Actually THOSE are some pretty great quotes all around!

How do you feel about Sarah, J. I've read the supposed bad interview with Couric. The only thing I can tell is that she's evasive and rambling, ie Biden in a skirt. And as long as they don't condemn Obama or Biden for their gaffes and runarounds, so why pick on (and that's what they are doing) Sarah?

I'm starting a race war, but does America want a First Black President so badly that we will ignore all of the bad signs?
The non existent executive power? Running a campaing IS NOT the same as running a city, state, or nation.
The lack of batting for his constituents?
The questionable connections?
The lack of leadership?
The verbal assassinate and suppression others who oppose or question him?
'Cause that's what I see.

I am sorry but if you can not see the (huge) difference in intelligence, knowledge, education and capabilities between Obama and Palin, you are blinded. If you can not see something that obvious yourself, no one can help you. Good luck.

"...if you can not see the (huge) difference in intelligence, knowledge, education and capabilities between Obama and Palin, you are blinded. If you can not see something that obvious yourself, no one can help you." (BW)

As a Conservative, this is the kind of thing that really makes me smile.

Hardcore Liberals like BW can't even be civil with fellow Liberals (and Rachel has often acknowledged that she tends to be more Liberal than not) and that's why there are far fewer converts to Liberalism than there are to Conservatism....and that's aside from the fact that yes, as people mature, have kids, buy houses, etc., they tend to become more Conservative.

The penchant far-Left people (from Mike Moore to Al Franken to Alec Baldwin to Randy Rhodes) have for alientating and annoying people is one of the biggest advantages Conservatism has.

Think about it. Even here, few Liberals will actually take the time to make real, affirmative arguments for what they believe in, they prefer instead to offer personal opinions as reasons and when challenged, immediately move from arguing a position into personal attack...(and I'm excluding Barely who really doesn't count among any ideology).

All I can say, when I see far-Left guys like BW assailing a level-headed, common-sense poster like Rachel, is, "I'm so glad their first impulse is to scold and attack, rather than to convince and convert."

I may not be the most charming, convincing fellow myself, but thankfully the bar is set so low due to exactly this kind of behavior, that I don't have to be.

>Hardcore Liberals like BW can't even be civil with fellow Liberals...

They're also not particularly adept at stating their case in a convincing way, which is why they have to go around talking about how "obvious" it is. ;-)

It wasn't always this way, Barry.

I remember back in College, there were a lot of far-Leftists who'd make very passionate affirmative arguments, even though they offered no pretense of having anything but disgust for the concept of freedom/individualism.

In fact, they'd deride "freedom," especially individual Liberty as "individualism" and argue that, "Sure, individualism works fine for ambitious, greedy people who put their desires over the needs of others, but it does nothing for "the poor," the less-educated," "the dis-affected" (I loved that one, it's a great amorphous term you can use for anyone or anything), "the young" and "the naive and less greedy and self-centered" among us".....in other words, "It doesn't work for anybody except the greediest among us."

I found those arguments revulting, BUT at least I knew where those who made them were coming from. So, you could at least respect that - their honesty.

Today, even the most extreme Leftists seem to have to express their respect for "individual liberty" and "the power of markets," before arguing in favor of "a French-styled system" - the one the French themselves just rejected in their last election!

There don't seem to be any more Leftists as brave as the likes of B. F. Skinner who wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity in the early 70s.

Skinner and his devotees saw nothing wrong with being brutally honest....that title pretty much sums up socialism/liberalism and the command economy perfectly - they're "beyond freedom and dignity" for the people.

Today there's no such honesty from the Left...I suppose they've learned that that's a sure loser for them.

What I can't understand is (1) their lack of outreach - instead of trying to lure those (especially blacks and women) who occasionally stray from the accepted Liberal orthodoxy, the tendancy now seems to be to bash them as "de facto white males" (I really don't get that)....and (2) their general lack of, ironically enough, what they claim to revile G W Bush for, a general lack of intellectual curiosity - people who've never read or heard any of Milton Friedman's works dismiss him out of hand, as they do ANY views that are "heresy" to the Liberal line.

Well, Conservatism can use all the breaks it can get right now, so I'm not at all unhappy about this.

"They're also not particularly adept at stating their case in a convincing way, which is why they have to go around talking about how "obvious" it is. ;-)

I could use a different word for "obvious" if that helps. How about "apparent"?

Thanks, Barry and J for defending me.

Well, I know you can defend yourself very well Rachel.

It's that I'm always surprised, though never disappointed by the venom so many on the far-Left heap on open-minded Moderates and more Centrist Liberals, as if scolding people will help convince them, rather than alienate them.

It is probably almost certainly one of the reasons there are far fewer converts to Liberalism than to Conservatism.

I find it weird how some conservatives have to keep telling everybody how much nicer they are than liberals. I know a lot of nice people: conservative, liberal, moderate. I really haven't seen a pattern where adherents of one political philosophy are nicer.

Of course, if one is rigid in their philosophy, then that person is often rigid in their manner. That, however, can go for both sides, in my view.

BW was condescending in his reply to Rachel. On the other hand, I don't much agree with Rachel's statements about Obama. I spent a good deal of time reading up on Obama, watching nearly every debate, prior to supporting him over Clinton. I think he has stood up for people, has shown leadership, has the right temperment, and has demonstrated a real grasp of the issues. I also have been following Biden for years and have appreciated his ideas regarding Iraq, despite his vote, while disagreeing with him on other issues such as the bankruptcy bill. Biden answered the same questions Couric gave to Palin with far more understanding, in my view. This morning, Palin was complaining to Carl Cameron on Fox that Couric didn't ask the questions that Palin wanted her to ask, but I felt they were reasonable questions and Couric gave her time to respond.

Frankly, though, I'm wary of getting into a discussion here. With the host of this blog, I feel I can honestly engage in dialogue, despite our differences. Others here, I've learned not to engage as they just like to go on without really listening. I have learned it is pointless engaging those people, whether they be from the right or the left.

"I find it weird how some conservatives have to keep telling everybody how much nicer they are than liberals." (PE)

Did Rachel or Barry say something about Conservatives being "nicer" PE?

Because I didn't see that, myself.

I KNOW I didn't say, nor even imply any such thing.

What I have observed is that the vast majority of the Liberals I've encountered online rarely, if ever, take the time to make actual, well thought out and affirmative arguments for their positions, presuming apparently, that since "it makes sense to them," it must then be "obvious."

There is no actual "dialogue" absent BOTH people engaged in a discussion being willing to make such arguments.

A "discussion" is NOT merely an exchange of divergent and disagreeing opinions.

I've had actual discussions with GZ, but few others.

The closest I've come to an actual "discussion" with yourself, PE, was, I believe, over whether or not the USA and the USSR had an actual "alliance" in WWII, on the discussion boards linked to here.

History seems to say no, given that the USSR had (1) been at war with nazi Germany BEFORE the USA entered WW II, (2) did NOT declare war on America's PRIMARY enemy in that fight, Imperial Japan (they were the ONLY Axis Power to attack the U.S.) UNTIL one day AFTER America dropped the atom bomb on Japan and (3) had no/zero/none common interests, aside from the defeat of nazi Germany. You seemed to believe that temporarily fighting one common enemy was "an alliance."

In FACT, I think it's now safe to say that Stalin was, in every way, Hitler's "evil twin."

BOTH were avowed socialists, BOTH engaged in mass murder to take property (land and businesses) away from their rightful owners. The idea that one of those two differed substantially in either evil or intent is a mythology of the Left.

At any rate, I've seen most of the interviews done this election cycle and amazingly enough, I've NEVER seen either Biden, Obama, or McCain asked anything like, "Name three SC Decisions you disagree with and why," OR "Don't you think it takes real hubris to think you should be (fill in the office)."

If Rachel, or Barry or anyone else has, I'd be happy to hear that and to look up the YouTube clips of that exchange, as I'm sure the answers would be precious.

Ironically enough, perhaps the BEST interview Obama did was with Bill O'Reilly, who never sought to sandbag him the way some others tried to sandbag Palin...and given how O'Reilly went after Rep. Frank the other day (and RIGHTFULLY so, I might add), he's certainly capable of doing just that.

And as to BW, I guess you could say "BW was being condescending with Rachel," IF by "condescending" you mean "being an A-hole."

The political polarization is far more overt and obvious in the media than it's ever been. Olbermann is as much of a Liberal shill as Hannity is a Consergvative one, only Olby is even more unhinged and embarrassing (even Andrea Mitchell and Tom Brokaw have complained to parent company GE that "MSNBC is damaging the NBC brand"). There is almost no pretense of objectivity left anywhere in the media today.

Still, this perception, on the part of some of the Liberals around here that (as a for instance) my views are worthy of disdain, but my responding in kind is "mean-spirited" and "out of line" seems indefensible....at least no one's made an effective argument in that regard, AND I'd challenge ANYONE to find even a single instance where I initiated any personal attacks.....or, I'll confess, where I've failed to respond in kind.

Hey! That's my nature - when attacked, I NEVER re-consider things and wonder, "What did I say that angered this person," INSTEAD I tend to ponder, "What kind of nitwit is this, attacking me merely because I disagree?"

That may not be "nice", but I wouldn't go so far as to say, it's unwarranted either.

"There is no actual "dialogue" absent BOTH people engaged in a discussion being willing to make such arguments.

"A "discussion" is NOT merely an exchange of divergent and disagreeing opinions. (JMK)

As proof of this, virtually every time I've taken the time to make a full and reasoned argument in support of what I believe, I get ridiculous charges of "using too many words" from Liberals who CLAIM to disagree.

Charging eye strain is not a legitimate argument against a given viewpoint IMHO.

Still, I think that charge and the way it's been accepted by most of the Liberals around here validates my position that Liberals rarely, if ever take the time to make full, affirmative and reasoned arguments in favor of their views.

Don't think twice, it's all right.

Heh, good thing JMK and his gouge-your-eyes-out novel length Rush Rehash doesn't alienate people from his harebrained Corporatism, er, I mean Conservatism.

Time for desperate Grampy McCain and his sidekick Moose Jewel to pull out the old worn Repug Playbook and start Swiftboating with everything they've got left.

What a bunch of despicable lying losers.

Barely....I don't HAVE to convert you to Corporatism (the government-regulated economy) that we've HAD IN PLACE for almost 100 years...you've already endorsed it, "The "free market" has once again proven that it must be regulated."

Yup, the "government-REGULATED" economy IS "Corporatism."

Yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about.

Post a comment