McCain's VP

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi

The fact that you honestly believe that parents cannot control their children seriously scares me. The fact that you are not alone scares me more.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious--do you have children?

Similarly, when you were 17, did you do everything your parents wanted you to?

Honestly curious.

--Philistine

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious--do you have children?

Similarly, when you were 17, did you do everything your parents wanted you to?

Honestly curious.

--Philistine

Phil:

I have children - two of them. I can't control them, but I can give them the knowledge and capability to control themselves. 17 is certainly a tough age - and nature does create an often irresistible force. Telling them "just say no" clearly doesn't work. However, giving them the tools to say "no" or to deal with a "yes" (which I cannot control) responsibly is my duty as a parent.

Thats the problem I have with the "just say no" crowd that Palin is the titular head of. They simply withhold from their kids the tools to deal with rebellion responsibly. That's a judgment issue - and Ms. Palin has clearly not provided her daughter with the knowledge or ability to avoid being a child with a child.

I also say that this isn't off limits. It is a policy issue - an important one. If Ms. Palin was unemployed, rather than the governor of Arkansas, the same androids who are lavishing her praises would be calling her a welfare mom - and her kid something worse. If Bristol Palin was black and a teen with a child, the same androids who are lavishing her praises would condemn her, assert that she's going to be a baby factory on public assistance, and worse.

The hypocrisy in their positions is extreme. John Stewart points this out very powerfully in the clip that can be found at this link. Liberal media or not - Rove, O'Reilly, etc. said these things. Is it liberal media's fault that they're hypocrits?

[Shi no Tenshi]

I come from a family with 4 children. Single parent for most of it, twice divorced mother. 3 minority children(Native American). Town with drug problem. Popular children. None of us had sex in high school, none of us drank in high school.

Apparently that is an impossibility to most people. I also get the joy of working in a group home, and dealing with children who are not even mine, and teaching them how to properly deal with these situations. You know what's even harder than getting your children to mind? Getting an angry 15-17 year old who has no reason to listen to you to mind.

Just because most people can't figure out how to control their children, and seem to think they have to strong arm them and set all sorts of blatant barriers. You're right, I didn't do everything my mother wanted me to. However, I had a lot of respect for her, and trusted her judgment and the tools she gave me to use to make good judgment calls for myself, as CadetVet has said.

People don't like thinking they've failed at parenting; they think they did everything right, and can't see past that very easily. Sometimes they just don't know where they screwed up, but pride tends to block them from making themselves better. This prideful ignorance tends to be encouraged, because God forbid you try to make people better than they are.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

At this point, I'm assuming that you've put me on ignore, because I posted evidence to the contrary before you posted this, but sure. I'll give you another one.

Why would I put someone on ignore? Because I don't agree with their opinions, so I just shut them out? Hadn't even occurred to me...the fact that it occurs to you is certainly an insight into how you view reacting to thoughts different than your own. Sure, I totally disagree with you ideologically (and just plain logically), but to ignore would limit me to the echo chamber of only ideas I believe in, which is never a bad thing.

Unfortunately, I'm rather busy commanding about 150 Soldiers in Iraq right now, so my free time to read the comments by multiple posters taking issue with my statements, researching all of their biased links/statements, etc. takes a lot more time than I have on most days. We've already seen a couple links posted with liberal talking points about Palin's evil ways, which were very shortly identified as completely false, and I'm sure most of the other claims are the same too, hence the lack of media focus on them, so I'm not really concerned/motivated by many of those allegations. Not until they meet the evidence criteria to hit the major news outlets, where the bar for negative info on Palin/McCain is already set pretty low.

Which brings up the media bias issue again. It's more of a topic for a whole separate thread (as opposed to this one, focused on Palin), but the overwhelming evidence is that the media is liberally biased, and everyone admits it but the media and liberals. You can claim perception isn't reality all you want, but who determines what is extreme in terms of the political spectrum? Public opinion! The public determines what is mainstream and extreme, so if the public thinks the media is extreme and biased, how can you argue? People have been fooled/brainwashed? Polls are biased? Maybe, but in the end, the power to make the decision belongs to the people, and only the people. The liberals will post their articles saying it's not true, or that the media is actually conservatively biased, but it will never be believed or gain traction outside their party die-hards because it's patently ridiculous, and everyone else knows it.

As for Chelsea Clinton and Rush Limbaugh, there's a difference between his statements and many about Palin and her daughter. Limbaugh is not a reporter/journalist, he's an entertainer. When published, he's obviously in the "opinion" or "editorial" section....no one believes he is an unbiased source of information. Journalists, though, who claim objectivity, publish smears about Sarah Palin's daughter, child, etc. as "news" when there is no evidence to support any of it.

Her speech at the convention went over very well, and some of her shots at Obama were pretty damaging. I'm wondering how the public will react to Obama focusing most of his attention and effort on combating the GOP VP nominee? I could make McCain look irrelevant, which would be bad for him, or it could make Obama look much weaker/less qualified, as he's busy spending his time fighting the #2 on the GOP ticket. Should be interesting. That, and seeing how big the post GOP convention bounce is.

[CadetVet]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

but the overwhelming evidence is that the media is liberally biased, and everyone admits it but the media and liberals.

isn't this like saying "everyone who isn't with us is against us?" Last I checked, there were a lot of folks in this country (myself included) who thinks that the media's bias (in both the mainstream media and the dittoheads/Glen Beck/etc.) is overly conservative.

One fact is that republicans are far better at staying "on message" than democrats - but the problem is that they repeat it enough that they actually believe it. When you can put up clips from Karl Rove criticizing Jamie Lynn Spears for getting pregnant at 17, while a couple of weeks later talking about how wonderful it is that Bristol Palin is in a family way, you're dealing with some serious kool aid drinking (check out the John Stewart clip posted earlier). It doesn't matter whether Stewart is liberal or conservative - these are the same republican talking heads saying the exact opposite thing.

Listening to these folks (and it started with the Gingrich era) is like listening to Newspeak. When the chocolate ration is lowered, they talk about how it was raised, and everyone believes it.

[latenight]

Originally Posted by MyrddinsPrecint

His father was a top admiral in the beginning of his imprisonment--- after discovering that, they gave him good enough medical treatment to ensure his survival. When his father was promoted to US Commander of the entire theatre, they offered to let him go-- he wouldn't unless everyone in queue ahead of him was also let go.

He really was a prisoner, he really was tortured. He wasn't perfect (by his own admission), but he didn't take the easy way out when offered. Reasonably Heroic. Not quite as good a story as pulling orphans out of a burning building, but pretty up there.

Why it gives him leadership experience, I don't know. Heroic? Yup. Helpful in navigating the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites? Not as much.

He was eventually a commanding officer in the Navy, but I'm not the person to analyze how difficult the job was, or what kind of qualification it was....

I don't know if I would call it "good enough" medical care. Mccain himself has stated that he would have died had his cell mates not taken care of him.

Fred Thompson told the story a couple nights ago, as you can see at the end he also states the story doesn't make him qualified to be president, but does give an insight into Mccain's character. My personal opinion is both candiddates are impressive in their own ways and deserve respect. Both are impressive stories. Who should be president really depends on what you personally think is important in the next 4 years

"On October 26, 1967, on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, a surface-to-air missile slammed into John's A-4 Skyhawk jet, blowing it out of the sky," Thompson said. "When John ejected, part of the plane hit him -- breaking his right knee, his left arm, his right arm in three places. An angry mob got to him. A rifle butt broke his shoulder. A bayonet pierced his ankle and his groin. They took him to the Hanoi Hilton, where he lapsed in and out of consciousness for days. He was offered medical care for his injuries if he would give up military information in return.
"John McCain said 'No.' After days of neglect, covered in grime, lying in his own waste in a filthy room, a doctor attempted to set John's right arm without success and without anesthesia. His other broken bones and injuries were not treated. John developed a high fever and dysentery. He weighed barely a hundred pounds. Expecting him to die, his captors placed him in a cell with two other POWs who also expected him to die. But with their help, John McCain fought on. He persevered.
"So then they put him in solitary confinement. For over two years. Isolation. Incredible heat beating on a tin roof. A light bulb in his cell burning 24 hours a day. Boarded-up cell windows blocking any breath of fresh air. The oppressive heat causing boils the size of baseballs under his arms. The outside world limited to what he could see through a crack in a door.
"We hear a lot of talk about hope these days. John McCain knows about hope. That's all he had. For propaganda purposes, his captors offered to let him go home. John McCain refused. He refused to leave ahead of men who'd been there longer. He refused to abandon his conscience and his honor, even for his freedom. He refused, even though his captors warned him, 'It will be very bad for you.' They were right. It was. The guards cracked ribs, broke teeth off at the gums. They cinched a rope around his arms and painfully drew back his shoulders. Over four days, every two to three hours, the beatings resumed. During one especially fierce beating, he fell, again breaking his arm.
"John was beaten for communicating with other prisoners. He was beaten for not communicating with so-called 'peace delegations.' He was beaten for not giving information during interrogations. When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the name of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers. Whenever John was returned to his cell -- walking if he could, dragged if he couldn't -- as he passed his fellow POWs, he would often call out to them. He'd smile, often give them a thumbs-up.
"For five-and-a-half years this went on. John McCain's bones may have been broken but his spirit never was. Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President. But it does reveal character...

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

We've already seen a couple links posted with liberal talking points about Palin's evil ways, which were very shortly identified as completely false, and I'm sure most of the other claims are the same too, hence the lack of media focus on them, so I'm not really concerned/motivated by many of those allegations.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

As others on this thread have demonstrated, there is hardly a dearth of negative factoids on Palin. You, on the other hand, have been conveniently ignoring the ones you can't refute, and concentrating on the ones which left-wingers have the honesty to admit were in error.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Not until they meet the evidence criteria to hit the major news outlets, where the bar for negative info on Palin/McCain is already set pretty low.

Major news outlets, you say? Sigh. And before you say, "Aha! The article admits Palin wasn't a member of the AIP!" I never asserted that she was, rather that she was closely associated with the AIP. Also, SP on the pledge of allegiance, SP on her support for abstinence-only sex ed to the exclusion of all else, SP tries to censor the public library, and of course let us not forget Troopergate. There. Some of the more sensational dings against Palin, major news outlets. Have fun.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Which brings up the media bias issue again. It's more of a topic for a whole separate thread (as opposed to this one, focused on Palin), but the overwhelming evidence is that the media is liberally biased, and everyone admits it but the media and liberals.

Oh funny! So that means, the "conservatives" (as always, I argue they are actually anything but conservative) argue that the media is biased against the conservatives, and all the conservatives know it. Huh. Anyway, I repeat that this unsubstantiated accusation of yours is an outrageous myth which the right wing has been systematically feeding the public for decades.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Her speech at the convention went over very well, and some of her shots at Obama were pretty damaging. I'm wondering how the public will react to Obama focusing most of his attention and effort on combating the GOP VP nominee? I could make McCain look irrelevant, which would be bad for him, or it could make Obama look much weaker/less qualified, as he's busy spending his time fighting the #2 on the GOP ticket. Should be interesting. That, and seeing how big the post GOP convention bounce is.

I will be interested in seeing how big the backlash is from "community organizers."

It wasn't that long ago that Bush the first gave a marvelous speech about a thousand points of light, calling upon community organizers (a term not yet commonly in use) to make our country a better place.

Doesn't the GOP expect local community organizers to be involved in voter registration and effective in getting people to to polls who otherwise might be unable to vote? And don't they have people on the ground canvassing for their candidates?

What a slap in the face.

And then I note that during her years of hands on experience as mayor (at $68,000 per year), she took a $4,000 per year pay cut and hired an administrator (one presume the administrator was paid more than $4,000 per year) to handle the daily operations.

But she got that sports complex built!

Too bad she left a community of 10,000 with a $22 Million debt and a lawsuit (seems there was some problem with title of the property where it was built).

This is not a barracuda. This is a parasite.

[lindajdunn]

Originally Posted by latenight

Now, being a POW certainly doesn't qualify anyone to be President. But it does reveal character...

I admire his service and time as POW and yes, that says quite a bit about him. However, I think his neglect of his first family also says quite a bit about him. It's understandable that upon return from those years he would try to recapture lost time. His wife has changed (and not just from the auto accident) and he had changed. However, some of the women with whom he was allegeded to have had affairs were SUBORDINATES (and he was married at the time). He began his relationship with his current wife while still married. While he acknowledges his mistakes here, I think both sides of this coin need to be viewed.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

{snip}
Thats the problem I have with the "just say no" crowd that Palin is the titular head of. They simply withhold from their kids the tools to deal with rebellion responsibly.

I agree that an abstinence only policy is ineffective, and potentially dangerous.

That's a judgment issue - and Ms. Palin has clearly not provided her daughter with the knowledge or ability to avoid being a child with a child.

I don't know--why do you say that? Palin presumably didn't tell her daughter about birth control, but that's hardly uncommon. Obviously she had sex against her mother's wishes, why do you assume that Bristol and her boyfriend didn't use contraception, also against her mother's wishes? What if they used contraception entirely correctly, and it still failed? Wouldn't that actually reaffirm Palin's abstinence only position as the only effective method?

I also say that this isn't off limits. It is a policy issue - an important one.

Abstinence only education is certainly an important policy question. But the attacks don't really seem to me to be all that focused on anything other than--"Palin is very religious, thinks abstinence is the best policy and her 17 year-old daughter got pregnant--ha ha!" It's more "gotcha" then substantive.

{snip}
The hypocrisy in their positions is extreme. John Stewart points this out very powerfully in the clip that can be found at this link. Liberal media or not - Rove, O'Reilly, etc. said these things. Is it liberal media's fault that they're hypocrits?

I think the problem is that there is hypocrisy on both sides. Either both are in bounds or neither are--the problem is, both sides seem to want to pick and choose.

To me--the Bristol "situation" is effectively neutral. I think real charges of hypocrisy could have been made had she pressured or encouraged her to have an abortion. I think legitimate questions of her character could have been raised had she disowned her when she found out. Since there is no evidence the first happened, and the second hasn't, I don't think it really raises issues on her parenting.

I continue to think abstinence only education is wrong--but I don't think the fact that the teenaged daughter of one proponent of it got pregnant shows it is any more or less wrong.

--Philistine

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Major news outlets, you say? Sigh. And before you say, "Aha! The article admits Palin wasn't a member of the AIP!" I never asserted that she was, rather that she was closely associated with the AIP. Also, SP on the pledge of allegiance, SP on her support for abstinence-only sex ed to the exclusion of all else, SP tries to censor the public library, and of course let us not forget Troopergate. There. Some of the more sensational dings against Palin, major news outlets. Have fun.

Wow....just, wow. That's the worst, pseudo-legitimate dirt you can dig up on her, and you think you've scored points? Again, the AIP thing isn't a big deal to me (or most Americans). She wasn't a member, didn't advocate violent secession from the Union or anything crazy like that...big deal. It will go no where, because it's meaningless.

The "gotcha" moment on the Pledge of Allegiance is likewise not a big deal. Most Americans aren't going to know the details of when the pledge was created, or parts added, so they're not going to care. I was a little worried when I saw the initial link...I thought maybe it was something related to the AIP, and she was going to refuse to say it BECAUSE it wasn't around when the Founders were around or somesuch, but this? Meh. Just like the story about Biden confusing "Battalions" with "Brigades" in a recent speech wasn't blasted on every news channel...yeah, he should know from his time of the Defense Committee, but it could have been a simple slip of the tongue, and most Americans don't know the difference...they just know/care if Soldiers get deployed.

I fail to see any issue (at all) with the library article. That's a pretty common "themed" question that I've heard (and asked). General gist is, superior asks you to do something illegal/immoral/unethical, how do you react. You'll note no books were banned, and the librarian wasn't fired. Sure, she was asked to resign...as were several other department heads. Sounds like the previous mayor had his claws sunk in pretty deep in some areas, and she wanted to give them the opportunity to leave (and test their loyalty, the article says) before working for Palin. Some bureaucrats get the silly idea that they should run their departments like they want, instead of following the new boss's guidance, and that often results in people getting fired. Again, something pretty standard from I've seen.

As for troopergate...it's under investigation, and nothing will come of it. She fired a guy she had every right to fire. Was it for the reasons she's accused? Possibly. You'll never be able to prove it one way or the other. And I'd be pretty upset at my head of police if he thought a 5-day suspension was appropriate for a cop that issued death threats, was drunk on duty and tazered an 11 year old for fun.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Oh funny! So that means, the "conservatives" (as always, I argue they are actually anything but conservative) argue that the media is biased against the conservatives, and all the conservatives know it. Huh. Anyway, I repeat that this unsubstantiated accusation of yours is an outrageous myth which the right wing has been systematically feeding the public for decades.

Well, this shows a fairly strong public belief in media bias. Here is an old liberal media favorite...get some quotes from an "independent" or "former Republican" that is actually a well-known (and easily identified) rabid liberal. Another fun game to play is "Name That Party", as shown here. In this fun example, you have a corrupt politician getting nailed for his crimes. Oddly, you can read the entire article, but you'll never see what party he belongs to! Must have been an oversight. If the party IS mentioned, it's always buried pretty far down in the article, like this. Ohhh, I apologize...upon further review, that's a bad example, as it blurs the line between not mentioning his party (which it doesn't), but does throw out information on both parties to help confuse the issue (both Republicans and Democrats were upset). Look up a few Republicans accused of misdoings in the usual suspect liberal rags (New York Times, for example), and you'll note the "Republican" label is always present, right up top (Probably in the headline).

Yeah, no bias my butt. The public believes it, the journalists are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats/vote Democrats/donate to Democrats, examples of bias are everywhere....but it's all just a conservative boogie-man to distract voters from the REAL issues

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

I will be interested in seeing how big the backlash is from "community organizers."

It wasn't that long ago that Bush the first gave a marvelous speech about a thousand points of light, calling upon community organizers (a term not yet commonly in use) to make our country a better place.

Doesn't the GOP expect local community organizers to be involved in voter registration and effective in getting people to to polls who otherwise might be unable to vote? And don't they have people on the ground canvassing for their candidates?

What a slap in the face.

And then I note that during her years of hands on experience as mayor (at $68,000 per year), she took a $4,000 per year pay cut and hired an administrator (one presume the administrator was paid more than $4,000 per year) to handle the daily operations.

But she got that sports complex built!

Too bad she left a community of 10,000 with a $22 Million debt and a lawsuit (seems there was some problem with title of the property where it was built).

This is not a barracuda. This is a parasite.

Actually, the debt of her town is probably the most relevant and meaningful issue I've seen brought up. I'm curious to see what shakes out as more details become available. I suspect the debt is due to the construction of the sports arena, which was approved by the city in a vote....which is democracy in action. ANY city that wants to build something major (arena, convention center, museum) is going to have to go into debt to do it.....just like most Americans have to go into debt to buy a car/house. If the city was growing, and the need existed (or, expected revenue from events at the arena would turn an annual profit), there's no problem.

I'll be curious to see how hard Obama pushes the "community organizer" angle. I can see how some overly sensitive people might take great offense at her words, but really....Obama was trying to use that position as justification for his run for president, while belittling Palin's role as a town mayor. She's absolutely right in her statement...the mayor has major responsibilities and obligations for her position that a community organizer doesn't. They aren't even close. I think most people will realize the message she was driving at, and it won't be a major factor.

[Shi no Tenshi]

Factcheck.org

Read about her speech on it sometime. Or all of their speeches really.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

{snip}
As for troopergate...it's under investigation, and nothing will come of it. She fired a guy she had every right to fire. Was it for the reasons she's accused? Possibly.

To me, this is one of the bigger knocks on Palin's charachter, if true. Not so much the action itself (though some of the timing of it does not reflect well on her), but the allged cover-up.

You'll never be able to prove it one way or the other. And I'd be pretty upset at my head of police if he thought a 5-day suspension was appropriate for a cop that issued death threats, was drunk on duty and tazered an 11 year old for fun.
{snip}

To be fair--Monegan, the guy Palin fired, was not even in office when the investigation and suspension of Wooten took place. The original suspension was 10 days, and a union grievance reduced it to 5. All before Palin became governor and brought Monegan on. Monegan has said (with some justification) that there was nothing he could do to change the discipline given the fact that it had already been decided on and through the process.

--Philistine

[fencerchica]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Wow....just, wow. That's the worst, pseudo-legitimate dirt you can dig up on her, and you think you've scored points?

Apparently you failed to spot my note that these were the most sensationalist items that have come up. I chose these because they were the best covered by the "major media outlets" you were clamoring to see.

You and I clearly have vastly differing standards for VP candidates. I'll leave it to the others on this thread to compare our arguments and come to their own conclusions.

One note I'll add though is that you're missing the significance of the pledge of allegiance episode to the people at whom it was directed: the Christian Right voting bloc (I should know how they think, I was raised by Christian fundamentalists in a house full of their literature). When you take this in conjunction with the practical ways in which she's worked to implement their agenda, it paints a cohesive and alarming picture. But I guess you're cool with being ruled by a pseudo-theocratic Big Brother. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Well, this shows a fairly strong public belief in media bias.

You are directing this debate around in circles. MP has already discused that public opinion does not a fact make. I have already made the accusation that the GOP has been engaged in a systematic PR campaign to portray themselves to the public as the victims of the "liberal media". Citing yet another poll doesn't address this, although I grant that it's interesting that the "liberal media" covered this poll result.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2008/09/dont-look-now-a.html

Oh good grief.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Another fun game to play is "Name That Party", as shown here. In this fun example, you have a corrupt politician getting nailed for his crimes. Oddly, you can read the entire article, but you'll never see what party he belongs to! Must have been an oversight. If the party IS mentioned, it's always buried pretty far down in the article, like this.

You're kidding. Kilpatrick is the poster child for corruption which is not of a nature connected to party politics. Hence he's described in terms of corruption rather than party affiliation because it's what's relevant. Would you find it confusing to read an article about Larry Craig that didn't reference his party affiliation? And you're trying to imply that the "lieburl media" is attempting to keep Kilpatrick's party affiliation some kind of secret? Please.

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Yeah, no bias my butt. The public believes it, the journalists are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats/vote Democrats/donate to Democrats, examples of bias are everywhere....but it's all just a conservative boogie-man to distract voters from the REAL issues

I challenge you to start reading http://mediamatters.org/ . Go ahead, make my day. Here's what we have on the front page today: "Tipping the scales: Cable news channels dedicate more coverage to RNC's scheduled programming during peak hours than to DNC's".

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Shi no Tenshi

Factcheck.org

Read about her speech on it sometime. Or all of their speeches really.

Never having heard of this site, thought it might be an interesting read. Certainly promotes itself as a neutral observer in things, but a cursory glance of topics and discussions shows this site is pretty much in the tank for Obama. Let's look at a few of the top articles, for example:

First: Bridge to Nowhere is a mixed bag...she promoted it during campaign when asked, then cut funding to it when given the opportunity. Statements saying she supported or killed it are both, technically, true.

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

This sounds like an editorial, not a fact check. The accusation wasn't that he didn't help push legislation through, it's that he didn't author a major law or reform...which this doesn't dispute. What kind of "fact check" is that? "Co-sponsor" is not "author".

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

Reading the details below, the site then admits, of course, that nothing Palin said was wrong, but Obama's position is more "nuanced" and deserves better explanation. What? If all of her statements were true, it shouldn't be listed as something false. Note the wording, too, of the lede above...Palin's statement was true, so they tie their perception of McCain's statements in to besmirch Palin's comments.

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

They start with this quote

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

First, he said that “within hours” McCain had “established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he’ll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, ‘We’re all Georgians.’ ” McCain did release a strongly worded statement on the conflict on Aug. 8, the day reports of violence first surfaced, but he didn’t say, “We’re all Georgians” until four days later.

THAT is distorting the timeline, and worthy of "factchecking"? He responded immediately, as stated, and responded with the "We're all Georgians" line four days later...which could very well be what Giuliani meant by "Exactly the right time". Where's the problem here?

We continue with

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

Giuliani went on to criticize Obama, saying his “first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that ‘both sides’ should ‘show restraint.’ ” It’s true Obama’s initial statement said, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war,” and McCain called on Russia to “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.” It’s worth noting, however, that Obama’s words echoed those of White House press secretary Dana Perino, who said on Aug. 8, “we urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.”

So, again....everything said by Giuliani was actually correct, despite what the headline may have led you to believe. But hey, the Hope and Change candidate that wants to completely turn foreign policy away from Chimperor Bush/Haliburton managed to echo the policy position of the White House, while McCain once again broke ranks and did what he thought was right (and, of course, gets no credit here).

And it gets better

Originally Posted by factcheck.org

Giuliani then said Obama “changed his position and suggested that the U.N. Security Council could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action.” But Obama’s very first statement called for U.N. Security Council action – and so did McCain’s.

Obama, Aug. 8: …the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.

McCain, Aug. 8: The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course.

Again...Giuliani's statement is 100% accurate, but is "fact checked"? You'll note, too, that there is a marked difference between the statements. "Fully support a peaceful solution" and "call on Russia to reverse course" both convey different levels of seriousness, and what outcome is expected. Those are not similar positions.

I have to stop...I'm going to go over the character limit calling this website to task. It's garbage, really, with some window dressing and a neutral sounding title, but it's as biased and dishonest as any other partisan-hack site.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Apparently you failed to spot my note that these were the most sensationalist items that have come up. I chose these because they were the best covered by the "major media outlets" you were clamoring to see.

I did miss, as that was not the intent of my earlier statement. Makes me feel a little better about your sanity

Originally Posted by fencerchica

You and I clearly have vastly differing standards for VP candidates.

Let alone presidential ones.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

But I guess you're cool with being ruled by a pseudo-theocratic Big Brother. I'm not.

Regardless of who wins, this will not be a "pseudo-theocracy". If Obama wins, and gets a large margin of seats in Congress, though, we may very well see "Big Brother" in the form of draconian energy policy and centralized healthcare.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

You are directing this debate around in circles. MP has already discused that public opinion does not a fact make. I have already made the accusation that the GOP has been engaged in a systematic PR campaign to portray themselves to the public as the victims of the "liberal media". Citing yet another poll doesn't address this, although I grant that it's interesting that the "liberal media" covered this poll result.

I disagree. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll take solace in the fact that the majority of Americans agree with me, however.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

Oh good grief.

I must have missed something...this doesn't seem to refute the allegations and evidence presented in my original post?

Originally Posted by fencerchica

You're kidding. Kilpatrick is the poster child for corruption which is not of a nature connected to party politics. Hence he's described in terms of corruption rather than party affiliation because it's what's relevant. Would you find it confusing to read an article about Larry Craig that didn't reference his party affiliation? And you're trying to imply that the "lieburl media" is attempting to keep Kilpatrick's party affiliation some kind of secret? Please.

When it is as regular as clockwork, on cases regarding party affiliation or not....yes, I think it's done deliberately to reduce the subconscious affiliation of readers between the act and the party (or increase it, in the case of Republicans). Is there some other rational explanation? Chance seems like pretty long odds. As you invited me to check out media matters, I invite you to surf a few articles in major papers on corrupt politicians and give it an honest test.

I challenge you to start reading http://mediamatters.org/ . Go ahead, make my day. Here's what we have on the front page today: "Tipping the scales: Cable news channels dedicate more coverage to RNC's scheduled programming during peak hours than to DNC's".[/quote]

I'll take some time to read it more in depth, but the front page is off to a bad start:

Originally Posted by MediaMatters Headline

Media uncritically repeat McCain claim that Obama "will raise" taxes

Originally Posted by MediaMatters Article

McCain’s own chief economic adviser has reportedly said the accusation is inaccurate or that Obama has in fact proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising them only on households earning more than $250,000 per year.

So...McCain claims Obama will raise taxes, media states it, and it's true?

or, as mentioned above:

Originally Posted by MediaMatters Headline

Media report Palin's claim that Obama has not "authored ... a single major law or reform" without noting laws he has passed

and

Originally Posted by MediaMatters Article

without noting that Obama has played key roles in the passage of reform legislation at both the federal and state levels, including a bill that McCain co-sponsored and thanked Obama for his work on.

So....he didn't author any bills.

[lindajdunn]

Obama HAS authored bills. As a grandmother, I'm concerned about buying toys for my grandchildren (one who is still at the toys>>mouth stage) and thus I have paid some attention to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1306

I didn't bother to look any further. This is simply one I knew about because... well... I had to go hunting for safe wooden blocks, etc. after news came out about lead paint from China. I have been buying carefully selected toys and have stopped buying anything where I cannot validate where and how it was manufactured.

On the plus side, my son had complained that there is insufficient space in the apartment for all the toys the kids already owned.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by lindajdunn

Obama HAS authored bills. As a grandmother, I'm concerned about buying toys for my grandchildren (one who is still at the toys>>mouth stage) and thus I have paid some attention to http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1306

That's an interesting site. This link (on the same site) lists all the legislation he has "sponsored". From a quick search, it appears that is the term used for the Senator who (staff, I'm sure) wrote the bill up and submitted it. Of course, the statements being made are that he hasn't sponsored any MAJOR bills, and looking down the list, it doesn't look like he has. I did say he hadn't written any, above, referring to the previous quotes, but technically I was incorrect, as he has sponsored several bills. None, it appears, have been signed into law (or gotten close), and again, nothing Earth shaking, but there are some.

Interestingly, searching Wikipedia for "senate bill sponsor" has a list of results with "List of Bills Sponsored by Barack Obama" as the top result. Don't know if that reflects amount of activity, someone at Wiki bumped it up to be at the top of the list, or what. Link is here.

It would appear the wiki link is for all of his time in the Senate, while the one I linked earlier is only for this Senate session, so he has had bills passed in the past, just not this session. His passed legislation so far consists of:

1. Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2005
2. To congratulate the Chicago White Sox on winning the 2005 World Series Championship.
3. Recognizing the historical significance of Juneteenth Independence Day and expressing the sense of the Senate that history should be regarded as a means for understanding the past and...
4. Designating July 13, 2006, as `National Summer Learning Day'.
5. A resolution celebrating the life of Bishop Gilbert Earl Patterson
6. A resolution designating July 12, 2007, as "National Summer Learning Day"

It's tough to tell...seems like the site might be outdated, and the "status" label on a couple seemed to be off, so there may be more. Either way...that's a record of successful legislation to be proud of

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by CadetVet

When you can put up clips from Karl Rove criticizing Jamie Lynn Spears for getting pregnant at 17, while a couple of weeks later talking about how wonderful it is that Bristol Palin is in a family way, you're dealing with some serious kool aid drinking (check out the John Stewart clip posted earlier). It doesn't matter whether Stewart is liberal or conservative - these are the same republican talking heads saying the exact opposite thing.

Well, not quite exactly.

Spears was at the time the star of a TV show very popular amongst impressionable teen girls. Palin was, and is, not anything like a role model for that demographic. The possible effects of the two teen pregnancies are very different in magnitude.

Originally Posted by fencerchica

You and I clearly have vastly differing standards for VP candidates

Yes, and apparently yours is as simple as "Democrat=good, Republican=bad"...

MP has already discused that public opinion does not a fact make.

So, then...the public opinion that says Obama will make a great President proves...?

And yet, that's how we elect our leaders. Pretty terrible system, no?