Palin a Potential Disaster

[Daniel]

Dems say Palin is 'risky,' could be a disaster
Posted: 12:15 PM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney


Clyburn said the choice of Palin is risky.
(CNN) – A leading House Democrat said Thursday John McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is a "risky" move that could ultimately prove disastrous to the Republican prospects in November.

Meanwhile, a top Senate Democrat said the pick is a "Hail Mary pass" and a "roll of the dice," in what is the initial reactions from McCain's rival party.

Speaking on a South Carolina radio station, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn likened the choice of Palin to Walter Mondale's choice of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 and George H.W. Bush's pick of Dan Quayle in 1988. Both picks — relatively unknown political figures at the time — generated initial excitement but were ultimately deemed poor choices by many political observers.

"I think (her selection) would be something similar to Dan Quayle — Dan Quayle proved to be sort of an embarrassment as a campaigner, being thrust on a national stage like that could be very tough," Clyburn said. "Now Mondale tried to shake things up by going with Geraldine Ferraro, she proved to be a disaster as a running mate. And as a campaigner, she was absolutely awful."

"And so I just think that it is very risky for McCain to do this, but it may be all he has left," Clyburn also said.

In an issued statement, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Palin is significantly mismatched to Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden and said the prospect of her becoming president is "troubling."

"It is a real role of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election," Schumer said. "Certainly the choice of Palin puts to rest any argument about inexperience on the Democratic team and while Palin is a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling. I particularly look forward to the Biden-Palin debate in Missouri.”

The Obama campaign also told CNN Friday the choice of Palin takes the question of experience "off the table."

"Experience is being taken off the table considering you're putting someone within a heartbeat of the presidency with the thinnest foreign policy experience in history," spokesman Bill Burton said.

---

I honestly don't know enough about Palin to say for sure either way. I'll to wait and see how they present her before I really have a good comment.

[Parkbandit]

HOLY SHIT! REALLY? DEMOCRATS DON'T LIKE THE PICK!??

Sounds like McCain picked well.. the Republicans actually liked Biden as a pick.

[Daniel]

No shit right? Which is why I said I can't comment. How I am surprised that you think it's a solid pick...

[Kembal]

I dunno about her being a good pick, governing-wise. She knows zero about foriegn policy and outside of energy, what does she bring on the domestic policy side?

[Methais]

"It is a real role of the dice and shows how John McCain, Karl Rove et al realize what a strong position the Obama-Biden team and Democrats in general are in in this election," Schumer said.


.

[Mabus]

I dunno about her being a good pick, governing-wise. She knows zero about foriegn policy and outside of energy, what does she bring on the domestic policy side?
Make that "He knows zero about foreign policy" and you have Obama.

[ElanthianSiren]

It's a good pick, as they're hoping to win over the butthurt Hillary Clinton supporters who think she simply wasn't picked/considered because she has a vag. Also, if Biden is too vicious with her in the VP debate, it's going to look like he's picking on a poor woman with no foreign policy experience. Also a way to blunt Biden imo.

I'll be very interested in what she has to say.

[Parkbandit]

No shit right? Which is why I said I can't comment. How I am surprised that you think it's a solid pick...


So someone who rarely initiates a thread, you chose to just post this.. because you can't comment? Excellent insight. Really.

You're as dillusional as you are stupid. I dislike both candidates.. and unlike you, that view hasn't changed throughout this process.

I personally wanted Romney.. but as a VP pick goes, Palin is a far better selection than Biden.

[Parkbandit]

I dunno about her being a good pick, governing-wise. She knows zero about foriegn policy and outside of energy, what does she bring on the domestic policy side?


And the beautiful thing is.. she has more experience as Obama.. so if you don't believe she is capable of being a VP due to experience.. what does that say about you somehow thinking Obama is capable of being President?

It's issues like this that makes this pick really good.

[Keller]

Also a way to blunt Biden imo.

While I think what you said re mitigating Biden's ability destroy her in the debates (which he will) is true -- this just screams out for a photoshop of Biden with Method Man's blood-shot eyes.

[Parkbandit]

It's a good pick, as they're hoping to win over the butthurt Hillary Clinton supporters who think she simply wasn't picked/considered because she has a vag. Also, if Biden is too vicious with her in the VP debate, it's going to look like he's picking on a poor woman with no foreign policy experience. Also a way to blunt Biden imo.

I'll be very interested in what she has to say.

I wasn't impressed with her speech to be honest. Rather bland and uninspiring.

[Kembal]

Now that's just disingenuous, Mabus. Even if you disagree with his positions, Obama's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, spoken on foriegn policy matters, been on the Senate Foriegn Relations committee, and has worked on loose nukes legislation. (which is a major foriegn policy issue with Russia) You can't say he hasn't studied the issues. You can say you disagree with his conclusions.

Palin hasn't even said a word about any foriegn policy issue, ever.

[ElanthianSiren]

While I think what you said re mitigating Biden's ability destroy her in the debates (which he will) is true -- this just screams out for a photoshop of Biden with Method Man's blood-shot eyes.



Holding a hooka? With the caption D.A.R.E AMERICA?

[Parkbandit]

Now that's just disingenuous, Mabus. Even if you disagree with his positions, Obama's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, spoken on foriegn policy matters, been on the Senate Foriegn Relations committee, and has worked on loose nukes legislation. (which is a major foriegn policy issue with Russia) You can't say he hasn't studied the issues. You can say you disagree with his conclusions.

Palin hasn't even said a word about any foriegn policy issue, ever.

Palin has also been to Iraq.. There, now they have the same exact foreign policy credentials. Couple that with her 2 years of EXECUTIVE experience, I think she's just as qualified as Obama to be the President... if that is your benchmark.

[Gan]

Considering McCain's strength in foreign relations. I would say its not very important that she be strong in that area.

I'm hoping she compliments McCain's strengths well and makes up for his weaknesses. That is afterall the goal of picking a VP. Why else would Obama have chosen Biden?

Both choices make sense from the perspective of offsetting weaknesses and complimenting strengths of the primary candidates.

The race gets real now. Its going to be a fun election season.

[Kembal]

And the beautiful thing is.. she has more experience as Obama.. so if you don't believe she is capable of being a VP due to experience.. what does that say about you somehow thinking Obama is capable of being President?

It's issues like this that makes this pick really good.

She has more experience than Obama in what? Certainly not foriegn policy. Domestic policy...outside of energy issues (and in that, only dealing with Alaska), she's not known for anything. Her one signature policy achievement so far is getting the Alaskan legislature to agree to a Canadian company building a major natural gas pipeline in Alaska.

If you're arguing that she just has executive management experience in general, Obama's been running a presidential campaign for as long as she's been Alaska's governor. And by all accounts, his campaign has been extremely well-managed, and hell, it beat the Clintons.

Governance-wise, I don't see the value of her on the ticket. Of course, in terms of politics, her being on the ticket has potential game-changing value. But doesn't it say something about McCain that he picked a VP nominee for political value over governance?

[Keller]

I'm hoping she compliments McCain's strengths well and makes up for his weaknesses.

What does she bring to the table? Her good looks? Her inexperience? Her nod to the Christian-right?

[Kembal]

Palin has also been to Iraq.. There, now they have the same exact foreign policy credentials. Couple that with her 2 years of EXECUTIVE experience, I think she's just as qualified as Obama to be the President... if that is your benchmark.

You're being just as disingenuous as Mabus. Has she given a speech on foriegn policy, ever?

[Mabus]

Now that's just disingenuous, Mabus.
Not at all. Not only is foreign policy experience about equal, she even has more executive experience then Obama.


Even if you disagree with his positions, Obama's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, spoken on foriegn policy matters, been on the Senate Foriegn Relations committee, and has worked on loose nukes legislation. (which is a major foriegn policy issue with Russia)
Taking a quick pleasure trip to Kenya, going to school in Indonesia (when extremely young) and doing a photo-op world tour is not foreign policy experience.

You can't say he hasn't studied the issues. You can say you disagree with his conclusions.
I can say he hasn't studied the issues. Look at his initial statement on the Georgia/Russia conflict, for instance. Asking Georgia, an ally that did support the USA with troops when called, to show "restraint" as they were being overrun by Russian forces clearly shows he has not studied the major issues surrounding foreign policy matters.

Palin hasn't even said a word about any foriegn policy issue, ever.
Really? You know this how? Ever?

When she helped create, and gave out, the "Governor's North Star Awards for International Excellence" to reward businesses, schools and organizations that worked to increase foreign trade she certainly wasn't doing anything dealing with both domestic and foreign concerns, in your opinion then?

Alaskan businesses export to over 100 foreign countries. Governors often are involved in discussions and relationships with their state's foreign trading partners.

Has Obama ever ran anything, anything other then his campaigns? Any executive experience at all? Ever managed a 7/11?

Palin has more relevant experience then Obama in executive matters, and about the same (oir more) in actual foreign policy matters.

[Parkbandit]

She has more experience than Obama in what? Certainly not foriegn policy. Domestic policy...outside of energy issues (and in that, only dealing with Alaska), she's not known for anything. Her one signature policy achievement so far is getting the Alaskan legislature to agree to a Canadian company building a major natural gas pipeline in Alaska.

If you're arguing that she just has executive management experience in general, Obama's been running a presidential campaign for as long as she's been Alaska's governor. And by all accounts, his campaign has been extremely well-managed, and hell, it beat the Clintons.

Governance-wise, I don't see the value of her on the ticket. Of course, in terms of politics, her being on the ticket has potential game-changing value. But doesn't it say something about McCain that he picked a VP nominee for political value over governance?

What has Obama done again, in regards to foreign policy? Gave a speech? Visited Iraq? Let's be honest, that is nothing. Biden is the ticket's only foreign policy experience. Is it that necessary that the VP of McCain needs foreign policy experience? I don't think so, given that it's McCain's strong suit.

And do you really believe that Obama is somehow managing his own campaign? Last I checked, Obama had a campaign manager and a number of advisors and handlers. Managing a state is far more executive experience.

[Parkbandit]

You're being just as disingenuous as Mabus. Has she given a speech on foriegn policy, ever?


HOLY SHIT! Well, you never mentioned that giving a speech makes you a foreign policy expert.

Who's being disingenuous now?

[Kembal]

What has Obama done again, in regards to foreign policy? Gave a speech? Visited Iraq? Let's be honest, that is nothing. Biden is the ticket's only foreign policy experience. Is it that necessary that the VP of McCain needs foreign policy experience? I don't think so, given that it's McCain's strong suit.

And if McCain dies in office, then what? That's the problem with this pick...were McCain under the age of 70, I don't think her lack of foriegn policy experience would be that big of an issue.


And do you really believe that Obama is somehow managing his own campaign? Last I checked, Obama had a campaign manager and a number of advisors and handlers. Managing a state is far more executive experience.

And governors have the same. (chief of staff? hello?)

[Parkbandit]

I'm looking to see if Palin mentioned anything foreign in a speech for you Kembal.. then you will obviously agree she has all the needed foreign policy experience to take the Oath of Office as President in case anything happens to McCain.

[Kembal]

HOLY SHIT! Well, you never mentioned that giving a speech makes you a foreign policy expert.

Who's being disingenuous now?

You, on 2 counts. Considering I said that Palin hasn't said a word about foriegn policy in a previous post you quoted in this thread. And for you saying that I made the formulation "foriegn policy speech = foriegn policy expert", which I haven't.

[crb]

I dunno about her being a good pick, governing-wise. She knows zero about foriegn policy and outside of energy, what does she bring on the domestic policy side?
Ummm... why do you think she knows zero?

If Obama can gain foreign policy experience while not being directly involved in foreign policy decisions, so can Palin... and Palin isn't running for president.

Quite frankly this is just democrats being partisan. Our VP has about as much experience (or more, depending on which type of experience you value more) as their president, and that is rather sad.

[crb]

Now that's just disingenuous, Mabus. Even if you disagree with his positions, Obama's been to Iraq and Afghanistan, spoken on foriegn policy matters, been on the Senate Foriegn Relations committee, and has worked on loose nukes legislation. (which is a major foriegn policy issue with Russia) You can't say he hasn't studied the issues. You can say you disagree with his conclusions.

Palin hasn't even said a word about any foriegn policy issue, ever.
She has been to Iraq...

but you know... don't let facts get in your way..

[TheEschaton]

What executive experience does she have?

She was the mayor for 6 years......of a town of 8500 people.

And she has been gov'r for less than 2 years of Alaska, a state with less than 700,000 people.

It seems like a pretty big fucking stretch to say this somehow is equivalent to Barack Obama's experience in the IL state legislature and 4 years in the UNITED STATES SENATE.

[Mabus]

You, on 2 counts. Considering I said that Palin hasn't said a word about foriegn policy in a previous post you quoted in this thread. And for you saying that I made the formulation "foriegn policy speech = foriegn policy expert", which I haven't.
So when she gave the awards, for Alaska organizations working toward more foreign trade (like a school with a course in Japanese), and addressed the foreign trade aspects that were important to the future she didn't "say a word" about anything dealing with foreign policy?

[Gan]

What does she bring to the table? Her good looks? Her inexperience? Her nod to the Christian-right?
Emphasis on 'hoping'.

When I know more about her I can give you details. I'm sure we'll do about the same depth of research on who she is. So realistically I doubt I'd be able to tell you anything you already would not know at that given point in the future.

[Kembal]

I can say he hasn't studied the issues. Look at his initial statement on the Georgia/Russia conflict, for instance. Asking Georgia, an ally that did support the USA with troops when called, to show "restraint" as they were being overrun by Russian forces clearly shows he has not studied the major issues surrounding foreign policy matters.

Considering that Bush and Rice said the exact same thing as their initial reaction, your argument makes no sense. Remember, Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia first.


When she helped create, and gave out, the "Governor's North Star Awards for International Excellence" to reward businesses, schools and organizations that worked to increase foreign trade she certainly wasn't doing anything dealing with both domestic and foreign concerns, in your opinion then?

Alaskan businesses export to over 100 foreign countries. Governors often are involved in discussions and relationships with their state's foreign trading partners.

FAIL. Getting a foriegn company to invest in your state has no relevance to wartime foriegn policy matters. To argue otherwise is to be silly.

[crb]

What executive experience does she have?

She was the mayor for 6 years......of a town of 8500 people.

And she has been gov'r for less than 2 years of Alaska, a state with less than 700,000 people.

It seems like a pretty big fucking stretch to say this somehow is equivalent to Barack Obama's experience in the IL state legislature and 4 years in the UNITED STATES SENATE.
So the state legislature that he voted present in?

Or the senate where has had no accomplishments and has been running for president more or less since he was elected.

I think Palin has more than enough experience to be vice president. I think Obama has enough experience to be vice president. Biden and McCain have the experience for president. It is a shame the Democrats put their tickets together upsidedown.

[Mabus]

What executive experience does she have?
Why don't you answer that?

She was the mayor for 6 years......of a town of 8500 people.
And Obama was mayor of? What executive experience does he bring, at all?

And she has been gov'r for less than 2 years of Alaska, a state with less than 700,000 people.
The largest state of the 50. One of the harshest civilized environments on the planet. You plan for everything there. People that live in Alaska are thinking, working and planning people, or they don't last to long.

Which state was Obama governor of? That's right. He wasn't.

Thank you for bringing up that Palin has more executive experience then Obama. It is refreshing to see a loyal Democrat defend her.

[TheEschaton]

My point being that her executive experience is worth less than his legislative experience in terms of being ready for the executive experience of running the country. Why? Because of scale.

Had she been the mayor of, say, L.A., and then gov'r of CA for those same time periods, you'd have a valid point.

[crb]

The other thing, she isn't from illinois, or missouri, or iowa, or ohio.

She is from Alaska, that shares a border with both Canada and (maritime) Russia. There are international issues she deals with with both those countries as governor of Alaska.

[crb]

My point being that her executive experience is worth less than his legislative experience in terms of being ready for the executive experience of running the country. Why? Because of scale.

Had she been the mayor of, say, L.A., and then gov'r of CA for those same time periods, you'd have a valid point.
I would disagree because legislative experience is wholly different than executive experience... executives have to deal with topics that have a high pay grade... and some things are above a legislater's pay grade, as Obama has said.

[TheEschaton]

Because I'm sure the Russians and Canadians (in the Yukon Territories!) approach the Gov'r of AK when they have an international issue.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Have you ever worked in a legislature? Running a major political office, negotiating bills, actual legislating - that's just as hard, if not harder, than running the public administration of major cities. Running an organized, efficient campaign for President of the United States is even harder. It is definitely harder than running a town of 8500, and I'd say on par with running a state of less than 1 million people.

Edit: Not to mention the work of commissions and committees.

-TheE-

[crb]

Have you ever been a governor?

Obama will say things is above his pay grade, and pass the buck. He'll vote present rather than making a decision.

State size is also rather irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many people you have, your responsibilities are the same. Every state governor has the same rough responsibilities. The national guard, education, healthcare, welfare, roads, business, taxes, trade, revenue, regulation, etc etc. What does it matter how many people your decisions effect? Is 1 million people too small to be noteworthy? You're still making the decisions, not passing the buck, and running things.

[Mabus]

Have you ever worked in a legislature? Running a major political office, negotiating bills, actual legislating - that's just as hard, if not harder, than running the public administration of major cities.
Pure opinion.

Executive decisions are not handled by votes and committees. You seek advise, and make them yourself.

What executive governmental policy decisions has Obama or Biden ever made? let me help you with the answer: none, zero, nil, nada.

She has more executive experience then both men.

Perhaps you are just afraid of a woman being able to make decisions? Your liberal friends would be appalled!



Running an organized, efficient campaign for President of the United States is even harder. It is definitely harder than running a town of 8500, and I'd say on par with running a state of less than 1 million people.
Dream, dream dream dream Dream...

She ran against a former Democratic governor and the whole GOP establishment to become governor of her state. She had to answer the same chauvinistic-laced charges you are currently making. She won.

For Obama it was easy. Hire some people with money that is not your own, pay off the super-delegates with lobbyist and special interest money, pander to the base and then "change" your rhetoric, and play the race card. Gee, that was some hard campaign...


Edit: Not to mention the work of commissions and committees.
You mean Palin's work on committees, or Obama being given committee spots as a junior Senator?

[TheEschaton]

I don't think Obama thinks anything is "above the paygrade" of POTUS. And if you seriously think he'll have problems making executive decisions, I think you're an idiot.

Secondly, size of state does matter - when you have so much land and so little population, the problems of most high-density places, crime, poverty, etc, are far reduced. The budget is smaller, but so are the needs. You don't need as many social support systems, or gov't bureaucracies.

But yes, she has to keep the roads good. Too bad she said back in February that the infrastructure in AK was really poor and they had struggled to get it even up to par.

[Mabus]

I don't think Obama thinks anything is "above the paygrade" of POTUS. And if you seriously think he'll have problems making executive decisions, I think you're an idiot.
"Well, uh, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or, uh, a scientific perspective, uh, answering that question with specificity, uh, you know, is, is, uh, above my pay grade." - Sen. Barack Obama

(italics my own)

[TheEschaton]

LOL @ your idiocy, Mabus, as if I wasn't one of the biggest Hillary supporters on this board til the day she suspended her presidential campaign.

Her executive experience is irrelevant, imo. Like I said, if it was a bigger state, or even a large city, I'd say you have a point. But she's made all these great executive decisions!!!111oneone Like what? In her less than 2 years as AK gov'r, she's been known for exactly one thing - having a scandal related to the attempted firing of her ex-brother-in-law.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

That quote is in context of abortion, isn't it? He said he doesn't have the moral nor scientific authority to speak on moral and scientific aspects of abortion - what he said does not mean he could not make a decision about abortion.

Hell, John McCain said he doesn't know anything about the economy, if you want to play that fucking retarded game. The whole point is that they have scientists, or economists, to help them understand the issue, allowing them to make decisions.

You really are fucking obtuse.

[Mabus]

In her less than 2 years as AK gov'r, she's been known for exactly one thing - having a scandal related to the attempted firing of her ex-brother-in-law.
You need to read more sources then liberal rags, turn off MSDNC, and research a bit before posting.

She fought corruption, worked across the aisle to pass ethics legislation, cut spending and looked good doing it!

[Parkbandit]

You need to read more sources then liberal rags, turn off MSDNC, and research a bit before posting.

She fought corruption, worked across the aisle to pass ethics legislation, cut spending and looked good doing it!

Looking REAL good doing it. If she didn't have 5 kids.. I might be looking for nude photos of her on Google right now.

[Keller]

Looking REAL good doing it. If she didn't have 5 kids.. I might be looking for nude photos of her on Google right now.

Obama's got interns on that as we speak.

[Clove]

Well for starters, there's a world of difference between Ferraro and Palin, not the least of which is climate. McCain has neutralized some of the "historic" vote momentum by picking up a minority as his running mate, making any outcome of the race an historical first. Additionally I see much more benefit to having a running mate who is a governor with extremely high approval ratings, than a member of the House of Representatives.

She's a successful executive. She's young. She's not a member of Washington political machine and she's a moderate Republican. Unless she has some nasty skeletons her closet, I can't agree with the columnist and I don't see this pick as "potential disaster" at all. There may be better picks, but this isn't a bad one.

[CrystalTears]

She's a successful executive. She's young. She's not a member of Washington political machine and she's a moderate Republican. Unless she has some nasty skeletons her closet, I can't agree with the columnist and I don't see this pick as "potential disaster" at all. There may be better picks, but this isn't a bad one.
Unless she was sucking a lot of dick in college which she won't deny or claim. But then Biden might go fishing and pay someone to go off the bridge so that he can fail saving said person, and then Palin would look like a saint in comparison.

Amirite?!

[SHAFT]

She's kinda hot. If McCain wins she'll be the hottest VP ever.

[Clove]

How did I know there was a Contender reference coming?

[Clove]

She's kinda hot. If McCain wins she'll be the hottest VP ever.Well she did win Miss Alaska in '84, but you have to remember, Alaska is light on women.

[Clove]

Looking REAL good doing it. If she didn't have 5 kids.. I might be looking for nude photos of her on Google right now.I'm still looking for them. Airbrush FTW! Besides, I'm hoping to hit jackpot and find some scandalous pre-children picks.

[Keller]

Well she did win Miss Alaska in '84, but you have to remember, Alaska is light on women.

She was runner-up.

I don't know what to advise you. On the one hand you better edit before Mabus calls you a LIAR and DEMANDS an APOLOGY. On the other hand, you better not edit or else he'll criticize you for that.

You're pretty much fucked.

[Daniel]

Why don't you answer that?

And Obama was mayor of? What executive experience does he bring, at all?

The largest state of the 50. One of the harshest civilized environments on the planet. You plan for everything there. People that live in Alaska are thinking, working and planning people, or they don't last to long.

Which state was Obama governor of? That's right. He wasn't.

Thank you for bringing up that Palin has more executive experience then Obama. It is refreshing to see a loyal Democrat defend her.

Hahahahahahaha.

Man. I don't know if I should be sad because you actually believe this bullshit. Either this has turned into a whole fuchload of rofl.

[Kefka]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/29/begala.palin/index.html

(CNN) -- John McCain needs what Kinky Friedman calls "a checkup from the neck up."

In choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his running mate he is not thinking "outside the box," as some have said. More like out of his mind.

Palin a first-term governor of a state with more reindeer than people, will have to put on a few pounds just to be a lightweight. Her personal story is impressive: former fisherman, mother of five. But that hardly qualifies her to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain's age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.

[crb]

its amazing how quickly liberals act to talk up the chops and experience of a community organizer, but balk at a governor.

[Mabus]

its amazing how quickly liberals act to talk up the chops and experience of a community organizer, but balk at a governor.
QFT

[Warriorbird]

They both have 8 years of political experience. I don't see either as potentially greater unless you feel like her city council experience doesn't matter.

I don't think she's less experienced with Obama. I certainly don't think that you have any basis to argue that she's more experienced though... unless you're a moron.

[Parkbandit]

They both have 8 years of political experience. I don't see either as potentially greater unless you feel like her city council experience doesn't matter.

I don't think she's less experienced with Obama. I certainly don't think that you have any basis to argue that she's more experienced though... unless you're a moron.


She's running for VP.. Obama's running for President.

I see a distinct difference.

[Warriorbird]

Because you're a Republican.

:)

Reagan and Lincoln also had that magical 8 year figure.

McImPalin will have an interesting road of it. I think McCain would've done better with Ridge... but it feels like both of these VP choices are targetted to specific aspects of the base. I think both candidates could have done better.

[Kembal]

She's running for VP.. Obama's running for President.

I see a distinct difference.

...

Considering the primary job of the VP is to become the President should something happen to the President while in office, what exactly is the difference?

[Kefka]

She's running for VP.. Obama's running for President.

I see a distinct difference.

Obama picked Biden for experience and help run America.

McCain picked Palin to get upset Hillary voters.

There's a huge difference.

[crb]

There is a huge difference because the Dems have the experienced man on the bottom of the ticket, not the top.

Switch that Dem ticket around and a lot fewer people would have a problem with it.


... fuck even I last summer said I thought Obama would be a good VP candidate for the Dems... although that was before I knew much about him, but still, VP is fine for someone of his experience. And Palin's

[Warriorbird]

Provided McCain ceases his experience line of attack I think the pick is okay. It represents a nice little bow to the ClydeRs of the party.

I gave it a C when I got polled regarding it.

[Daniel]

Well,

I still don't really know shit about her but after reading a bit and seeing the responses here I'm going to agree that it's a huge gamble. A gamble that I wouldn't take as the pay out really isn't that good.

Unless Palin is fucking amazing, I don't see her pulling anybody in unless they are upset hillary supporters. Which I think is what the Republicans are going for here (among some other things which won't get alot of play). The problem with this is that there is an incredible potential for this to backfire.

The Order of the Traveling suit pants isn't going to take lightly to be talken down to and if the Democratic party is capable as portraying her as a token women devoid of substance, then I'd say they've automaticaly lost all of those votes they are trying to get.

If I'm a dem strategist, I'm already getting ready to lay into Palin as hard as possible. The best thing she can do is pull a draw out of a debate, which means she better fucking be a whip. Her "wilderness" experience in Alaska doesn't mean shit. I'm sorry.

[crb]

She'll have low expectations in the debate, and it will not be hard to beat them.

If the Democratic party tries to depict here as an airhead - I think they will end up hurting with women. No more sexism kthx.

[Daniel]

I'm not even talking about being an airhead. I'm talking about being grossly unprepared to be Vice President.

In fact, we'll she how things play but I can imagine feeling bad for her if things don't out like they can. I'm sure she's a smart woman, who appears to be on the up and up (Anti corruption etc), but if she gets pegged as a loser this early in the game when she doesn't have much of a chance...then well. That just sucks.

[Mabus]

I'm not even talking about being an airhead. I'm talking about being grossly unprepared to be Vice President.

While I agree that he is an "airhead" (all talk, no substance), Obama is running for President, though I agree that Obama is grossly unprepared to be Vice President. He has no executive experience.

You were taking about Obama, right?

[Daniel]

No. Not at all.

[Mabus]

No. Not at all.
Well, the lack of experience, being all talk and no substance and being unprepared for the office certainly fits Obama.

Just thought I would thank you for bringing those points to the discussion.

[Kembal]

Hmm, three things about her I've picked up in the last hour:

1. McCain's only met her once in his life, back in Feburary, and had one phone conversation with her since then until she met him on Thursday.
2. She's a creationist.
3. She backed Pat Buchanan's run for the presidency in 1999.

[Mabus]

1. McCain's only met her once in his life, back in Feburary, and had one phone conversation with her since then until she met him on Thursday.
No test for how many times a person needs to meet. If they believe she is helpful to the campaign, and brings something to the ticket, good choice.

It was a brave choice, in my view. McCain is back to being McCain.

Obama got to know Biden in the Senate.

Not really an issue.

2. She's a creationist.
That aligns her with Huckabee, Tancredo and Brownback, as well as with many religious conservatives.

To quote Huckabee when he was asked, "It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president, I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."

We could look at the religious beliefs dealing with Biden. He says he is a Catholic, but advocates abortion on demand.

Out of the two at least she follow a faith she believes in, while he says he follows a faith and breaks its tenets of respect for life.

3. She backed Pat Buchanan's run for the presidency in 1999.
A plus in my book. She shows a Libertarian streak that made me smile when I researched her today.

Biden, on the other hand, supported McCain for Kerry's VP slot. He even said he would love to serve together with McCain on a ticket.

Going to be an interesting couple of months.

[Kefka]

:lol:

Had to do it!

[crb]

I'm not even talking about being an airhead. I'm talking about being grossly unprepared to be Vice President.



portraying her as a token women devoid of substance,

Hmmm? Did I misunderstand.

[Daniel]

the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm sure she's smart. That doesn't mean she's ready for national or international politics.

[crb]

One could say the same for Obama.... actually... many people do.

The difference is, Palin is on the bottom of the ticket, Obama is on the top.

[Mabus]

2. She's a creationist.

I had to add to this, not just because I know how much some of you enjoy my posts, but because it actually nagged at me later today.

I often, nearly always, have to vote for people that live in a fantasy world.

If I would vote for Obama I would be voting for someone that states he firmly believes a human died during a Roman crucifixion, came back to life, and is saving everyone from their sins. He also followed Black Liberation Theology, which firmly holds that the "white man" is the oppressor as part of his "religious" belief system.

If I vote for McCain I get another believer in the "he died, came back, sand is saving us from our sins" person.

With Palin I get a "Yes, he died, came back, saved us all, and it is all only 6,000 years old and he created it!" person.

With Biden I get a "He not only died, came back, and is saving us all, but an infallible man sits on his throne in Rome. Though I do not follow this infallible person's beliefs."

I could just as soon vote for Kucinich and his UFO's (or call President Carter to talk about his UFO's). They hold the same place to me as the rest of these beliefs.

But as a voter, what should I do? Pick which "crazy ideas" are the least offensive to me? It all offends me equally.

I believe in the hard work that each human does. What you do is who you are to me, not the whacked out thoughts that might infest your mind from the current culture or your past upbringing.

If I didn't vote for any politician that held beliefs I find silly I would likely never vote at all.

[Kembal]

I had to add to this, not just because I know how much some of you enjoy my posts, but because it actually nagged at me later today.

I often, nearly always, have to vote for people that live in a fantasy world.

If I would vote for Obama I would be voting for someone that states he firmly believes a human died during a Roman crucifixion, came back to life, and is saving everyone from their sins. He also followed Black Liberation Theology, which firmly holds that the "white man" is the oppressor as part of his "religious" belief system.

If I vote for McCain I get another believer in the "he died, came back, sand is saving us from our sins" person.

With Palin I get a "Yes, he died, came back, saved us all, and it is all only 6,000 years old and he created it!" person.

With Biden I get a "He not only died, came back, and is saving us all, but an infallible man sits on his throne in Rome. Though I do not follow this infallible person's beliefs."

I could just as soon vote for Kucinich and his UFO's (or call President Carter to talk about his UFO's). They hold the same place to me as the rest of these beliefs.

But as a voter, what should I do? Pick which "crazy ideas" are the least offensive to me? It all offends me equally.

I believe in the hard work that each human does. What you do is who you are to me, not the whacked out thoughts that might infest your mind from the current culture or your past upbringing.

If I didn't vote for any politician that held beliefs I find silly I would likely never vote at all.

Except the other three's beliefs have no impact on public education, whereas Palin's belief in creationism and that it should be taught in public schools alongside evolution would have an impact.

There's a reason why James Dobson and the other evangelicals like this pick.

[Keller]

Mabus - did you read any Cone yet?

[Gan]

My point being that her executive experience is worth less than his legislative experience in terms of being ready for the executive experience of running the country. Why? Because of scale.

Had she been the mayor of, say, L.A., and then gov'r of CA for those same time periods, you'd have a valid point.

Like Guiliani? We all know how you supported Guiliani...

[Drew]

...

Considering the primary job of the VP is to become the President should something happen to the President while in office, what exactly is the difference?

The backup quarterback is usually a freshman or sophomore. How you can't see the difference between the Presidential candidate and the vice presidential is astounding.

[Kembal]

McCain is 72 and is a four time cancer survivor. His odds for dying in office are much higher than previous candidates. His "backup quarterback" better be a more experienced than a freshman.

[Keller]

McCain is 72 and is a four time cancer survivor. His odds for dying in office are much higher than previous candidates. His "backup quarterback" better be a more experienced than a freshman.

Your argument sucks.

They will just come back with "So you're saying Obama is a freshman -- good point!"

They wont quit until you show them that Obama IS much more experienced than Palin. And even then they'll ignore you.

[Kembal]

Your argument sucks.

They will just come back with "So you're saying Obama is a freshman -- good point!"

They wont quit until you show them that Obama IS much more experienced than Palin. And even then they'll ignore you.

You're right. I might as well forget it.

I expect they're going to regret this pick on Oct. 2. But not until then.

[Parkbandit]

You're right. I might as well forget it.

I expect they're going to regret this pick on Oct. 2. But not until then.


It's an argument you simply can't make. As WB said, to say she has more or less experience than Obama is stupid... they are equal. The DIFFERENCE IS: You have no problem with this lack of experience with Obama for President.. yet you have some weird stance on it for the VP.

Or are you still sticking to Obama having more foreign policy experience because he read a speech once that mentioned it?

[Kembal]

It's an argument you simply can't make. As WB said, to say she has more or less experience than Obama is stupid... they are equal. The DIFFERENCE IS: You have no problem with this lack of experience with Obama for President.. yet you have some weird stance on it for the VP.

It goes back to a simple premise: The electorate essentially vets the Presidential candidates. It decides on its own about the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. The VP candidates, however, are not vetted by the electorate to the same degree. It's up to the Presidential candidate to do that. He is substituting his judgment for the electorate's as to whether the VP candidate is qualified or not.

It just doesn't feel like McCain thought about this seriously. He just picked someone for the political value. Like I said before, this pick has potential game-changing value. As a person who follows politics, I recognize that and applaud that part. I can't think of any better way to step on Obama's convention bounce other than that. But as a citizen interested in good governance, I question McCain's judgment on this. He could have achieved almost the same political effect with Hutchinson or Snowe, and the experience question wouldn't even be an issue.

[Parkbandit]

It goes back to a simple premise: The electorate essentially vets the Presidential candidates. It decides on its own about the qualifications of the Presidential candidates. The VP candidates, however, are not vetted by the electorate to the same degree. It's up to the Presidential candidate to do that. He is substituting his judgment for the electorate's as to whether the VP candidate is qualified or not.

It just doesn't feel like McCain thought about this seriously. He just picked someone for the political value. Like I said before, this pick has potential game-changing value. As a person who follows politics, I recognize that and applaud that part. I can't think of any better way to step on Obama's convention bounce other than that. But as a citizen interested in good governance, I question McCain's judgment on this. He could have achieved almost the same political effect with Hutchinson or Snowe, and the experience question wouldn't even be an issue.

:rofl:

I think this was the perfect pick for McCain.. JUST for people like you. There's nothing better for me to see someone as dumb as you.. twisting in the wind claiming that Obama is somehow experienced enough to be President, but someone with equal experience isn't qualified to be VP.

It should be a fantastic election season, that's for sure.

[Keller]

Obama has more experience and MUCH better credentials.

Start with education and work your way through work experience. It's not even close.

[Daniel]

It's an argument you simply can't make. As WB said, to say she has more or less experience than Obama is stupid... they are equal. The DIFFERENCE IS: You have no problem with this lack of experience with Obama for President.. yet you have some weird stance on it for the VP.

Or are you still sticking to Obama having more foreign policy experience because he read a speech once that mentioned it?

You completely miss the point that lack of experience is the only credible argument against Obama.

You've effectively hamstrung yourself, as if you even think about talking about inexperience you've just opened yourself up to an entire shit storm.

[Tisket]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already and I don't feel like reading the entire thread but if I were a liberal I'd avoid comparing experience here and start comparing education. Both Obama and Palin have pretty thin resumes but as far as education? He kicks her ass. Shit, Michelle Obama has more education than Palin. And from better schools. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. And, although I believe Palin has a lot of things to recommend her, come on...it doesn't exactly take a brainiac to acquire an undergrad degree in journalism. I'm a McCain supporter and I think aspects of his choice are brilliant but the education aspect is problematic for me. Just sayin.

[crb]

Except the other three's beliefs have no impact on public education, whereas Palin's belief in creationism and that it should be taught in public schools alongside evolution would have an impact.

There's a reason why James Dobson and the other evangelicals like this pick.
Got a source where she says she wants it taught in public schools?

[crb]

McCain is 72 and is a four time cancer survivor. His odds for dying in office are much higher than previous candidates. His "backup quarterback" better be a more experienced than a freshman.
John is 72, in a long lived family, and skin cancer is the easiest to beat because... it grows on the skin and once you know you need regular checkups you get full body checks regularly to spot it early if it ever does come back.

Consider the rigors of campaigning for office, and how he is doing it. I probably couldn't do it, he has tons of energy. Don't categorize him like a typical 72 year old you may know.

Obama is a long time smoker and has done illicit drugs, he released a 1 page medical summary. McCain released a book. Obama is a fawn on foreign policy, and Biden has had multiple aneurysms which are way fucking scarier than skin cancer, what happens to Obama if Biden dies? Where does the experience go? Obama could have lung cancer, or heart problems from his drug use for all we know (unlikely, but hey, as unlikely as McCain suddenly dropping dead). So Biden dies from a sudden unforseen aneurysms (happens every day) and Obama appoints William Ayers to be vice president? Or maybe Jeremiah Wright? Or even the newbie governor of virginia, or Tony Rezko... am I being irrational? About as irrational as saying McCain will die on his inauguration day and we'll have President Palin with 0 experience.

[BriarFox]

Got a source where she says she wants it taught in public schools?

I frankly don't know whether she wants it taught there or not, but it's also irrelevant. The personal beliefs of executive officers influence things like Supreme Court justice decisions, and it'll be the Supreme Court that decides whether evolution or creationism, or both, ought to be taught in schools. Of course, I can't picture a Supreme Court stupid enough to allow creationism or to dictate it, but it's always possible.

[crb]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already and I don't feel like reading the entire thread but if I were a liberal I'd avoid comparing experience here and start comparing education. Both Obama and Palin have pretty thin resumes but as far as education? He kicks her ass. Shit, Michelle Obama has more education than Palin. And from better schools. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. And, although I believe Palin has a lot of things to recommend her, come on...it doesn't exactly take a brainiac to acquire an undergrad degree in journalism. I'm a McCain supporter and I think aspects of his choice are brilliant but the education aspect is problematic for me. Just sayin.
If democrats want to win in November they will not bring this up.

In Obama's bio on Thursday they played to his SUPPORTERS they completely left out college.

Starting to brag about "I went to Harvard, I am smarter" is the easiest way to give the presidency to John McCain.

[crb]

I frankly don't know whether she wants it taught there or not, but it's also irrelevant. The personal beliefs of executive officers influence things like Supreme Court justice decisions, and it'll be the Supreme Court that decides whether evolution or creationism, or both, ought to be taught in schools. Of course, I can't picture a Supreme Court stupid enough to allow creationism or to dictate it, but it's always possible.
Hypocrite.

Obama is personally prolife, so if you really believe that you would believe obama would pick prolife justices.

We had this whole argument, I said I thought Obama was lying about being prolife, all you liberals told me I was wrong and it was offensive to even suggest god, erm I mean obama, was lying.

So... there you go... if you think people can't differentiate between personal beliefs and what is good public policy, how do you feel about Obama being prolife?

So unless you have a source saying she wants to teach creationism in public schools, stop saying it. Saying shit like that is no different than people saying Obama is secretly muslim. Be better than that.

[BriarFox]

Hypocrite.

Obama is personally prolife, so if you really believe that you would believe obama would pick prolife justices.

The difference is that Obama's clear on the division between personal beliefs and political decisions - we have no proof that Palin is.

Here's a delightful Palin quote that makes one question everything about her, by the by:

"As recently as last month, Ms. Palin appeared to dismiss the importance of the vice presidency in an interview with Larry Kudlow of CNBC, who asked her about her prospects for the job.

'I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?' Ms. Palin told Mr. Kudlow. 'I’m used to being very productive and working real hard.'"

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30veep.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th)

[Drew]

Obama has more experience and MUCH better credentials.

Start with education and work your way through work experience. It's not even close.



Fair enough, Obama has more experience than the Vice Presidential candidate. Now let's compare him to the Presidential candidate.

[crb]

The difference is that Obama's clear on the division between personal beliefs and political decisions - we have no proof that Palin is.

Here's a delightful Palin quote that makes one question everything about her, by the by:

"As recently as last month, Ms. Palin appeared to dismiss the importance of the vice presidency in an interview with Larry Kudlow of CNBC, who asked her about her prospects for the job.

'I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me, what is it exactly that the V.P. does every day?' Ms. Palin told Mr. Kudlow. 'I’m used to being very productive and working real hard.'"

(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30veep.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th)
Do you have like no sense of humor? she was making a joke.

[Parkbandit]

You completely miss the point that lack of experience is the only credible argument against Obama.

You've effectively hamstrung yourself, as if you even think about talking about inexperience you've just opened yourself up to an entire shit storm.


Actually, I think it's just the opposite. I think this pick will help bring his inexperience to the forefront. If the liberal talking point is that she is unqualified because of her experience to be VP.. how the hell do you somehow believe that Obama, with equal experience (no executive experience though) is somehow qualified to be PRESIDENT.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already and I don't feel like reading the entire thread but if I were a liberal I'd avoid comparing experience here and start comparing education. Both Obama and Palin have pretty thin resumes but as far as education? He kicks her ass. Shit, Michelle Obama has more education than Palin. And from better schools. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. And, although I believe Palin has a lot of things to recommend her, come on...it doesn't exactly take a brainiac to acquire an undergrad degree in journalism. I'm a McCain supporter and I think aspects of his choice are brilliant but the education aspect is problematic for me. Just sayin.


I think that line of reasoning also plays well into McCain's pick. "She's not nearly as intelligent as I am.. I went to HARVARD for crying out loud. HARVARD!".. will play perfectly into the Obama is an elitist snob color McCain tries to paint him into.

I'm telling you.. unless there are some serious skeletons in her closet.. I think this pick was genius.

[BriarFox]

Do you have like no sense of humor? she was making a joke.

You wish. If she was joking, the only thing funny was the fact that she really has no idea what the VP's job involves.

[Keller]

Fair enough, Obama has more experience than the Vice Presidential candidate. Now let's compare him to the Presidential candidate.

I'm not the one claiming you need extensive experience to be the figure head/speech-giver for the USA.

I've never criticized McCain's lack of experience in certain fields because I am smart enough to recognize that Presidents don't make game-changing decisions (aside from wars / justices).

[Parkbandit]

You wish. If she was joking, the only thing funny was the fact that she really has no idea what the VP's job involves.

:rofl:

Send me an email, I'll paypal you $.25 to buy yourself a sense of humor.

Seriously, if you cannot tell from that one quote she was joking, get away from the computer and go experience life for a while.

[Clove]

She was runner-up.

I don't know what to advise you. On the one hand you better edit before Mabus calls you a LIAR and DEMANDS an APOLOGY. On the other hand, you better not edit or else he'll criticize you for that.

You're pretty much fucked.I was mistaken, thanks for correcting me. Of course, when you consider the average woman in politics, being a politician pretty enough to win runner-up in any state beauty pageant (even Alaska) is still damned impressive. McCain knows how to keep the cuties around.

[Apathy]

http://www.usmagazine.com/files/palin-miss-alaska-b.jpg

I can work with that.

[Parkbandit]

I don't know if it's been mentioned already and I don't feel like reading the entire thread but if I were a liberal I'd avoid comparing experience here and start comparing education. Both Obama and Palin have pretty thin resumes but as far as education? He kicks her ass. Shit, Michelle Obama has more education than Palin. And from better schools. Obama is a Harvard educated lawyer that taught constitutional law at the university level. Biden has his own list of degrees, including a doctorate in political science, if I remember right. And, although I believe Palin has a lot of things to recommend her, come on...it doesn't exactly take a brainiac to acquire an undergrad degree in journalism. I'm a McCain supporter and I think aspects of his choice are brilliant but the education aspect is problematic for me. Just sayin.

Also..

I know 2 people who graduated from Harvard Law.. one is an owner of a tree trimming business and doing very well. The other one worked as a legal assistant for a couple of years until she decided to open up her own 'knick knack' type store.. which promptly went out of business. She's currently unemployed.

I don't think where you went to school means how you will live the rest of your life.

And for those liberals out there that somehow claim that going to an Ivy School is somehow better than going to another school.. I present to you:

http://www.nypress.com/images/bush_george_w_headshot.jpg

The claim has been laid about Bush is that the school doesn't matter, since his father got him into it. I guess schooling only matters when you don't like the other ticket :)

[Daniel]

I'm pretty sure the dig was that he got in because of his father and did only somewhat well.

[Parkbandit]

I'm pretty sure the dig was that he got in because of his father and did only somewhat well.

Oh, I forgot the specific bullshit rhetoric. How well did Obama do in comparison?

[Daniel]

He was the first black person to be President of the Harvard law Review.

[BriarFox]

He was the first black person to be President of the Harvard law Review.

:rofl: Nice and succinct, Daniel.

[Parkbandit]

He was the first black person to be President of the Harvard law Review.

I didn't realize that being President denoted how highly your GPA was. Hell, I was President of my college dorm the 2nd year.. I must have gotten a 4.0.

[Daniel]

Yea. Those are absolutely comparable.

Before you look stupider I suggest you take a couple of seconds to pursue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review

[Parkbandit]

Yea. Those are absolutely comparable.

Before you look stupider I suggest you take a couple of seconds to pursue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Law_Review

I asked how Obama did in school.. not what positions he held. I seriously have no idea if he ranked among the top of his class or the bottom.

Again.. I think the fact that he graduated from Harvard Law means nothing more than Bush graduating from Yale.

[BriarFox]

I didn't realize that being President denoted how highly your GPA was. Hell, I was President of my college dorm the 2nd year.. I must have gotten a 4.0.

I think (and I'm going out on a limb here) that you mean to say, "I didn't realize that a high GPA qualified you to be president." But, then, maybe you prefer the incoherence of your last statement.

As for education, the more one has, the more qualified one is in general. Bush's education, whether he squandered it or not, helped qualify him for the presidency. Obama's blows Bush's out of the water, and can't even be mentioned in the same breath as Palin's.

[BriarFox]

I asked how Obama did in school.. not what positions he held. I seriously have no idea if he ranked among the top of his class or the bottom.

Again.. I think the fact that he graduated from Harvard Law means nothing more than Bush graduating from Yale.

Harvard Law compared to Yale is like Yale compared to Bumfuck U.

[Parkbandit]

I think (and I'm going out on a limb here) that you mean to say, "I didn't realize that a high GPA qualified you to be president." But, then, maybe you prefer the incoherence of your last statement.

As for education, the more one has, the more qualified one is in general. Bush's education, whether he squandered it or not, helped qualify him for the presidency. Obama's blows Bush's out of the water, and can't even be mentioned in the same breath as Palin's.

Disagree. Once you actually get out of school and reach the real world, you'll might realize this.

[Daniel]

I asked how Obama did in school.. not what positions he held. I seriously have no idea if he ranked among the top of his class or the bottom.

Again.. I think the fact that he graduated from Harvard Law means nothing more than Bush graduating from Yale.

FFS read the fucking link.


Selection

Using a competitive process that takes into account first-year grades, an editing exercise, and a written commentary on a court decision, The Harvard Law Review selects between 41 and 43 editors annually from the second-year Law School class, which numbers 560.

Two editors from each of first-year class's seven sections (fourteen in all) are selected half by their first year grades and half by their scores on the writing competition. Another twenty are selected solely on their scores on the writing competition. The other seven to nine are selected by a discretionary committee, either to fulfill the review's race-based affirmative action program, to select students who just missed the cut by either of the other two processes, or by some other criteria as the committee sees fit.



He was the PRESIDENT. I'm sure you can infer what that means.

[Parkbandit]

Harvard Law compared to Yale is like Yale compared to Bumfuck U.

Of course it is.

Please tell me that's you in your avatar.. it would make this post even more precious.

[BriarFox]

Disagree. Once you actually get out of school and reach the real world, you'll might realize this.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that your years of laboring in the coal mines of incompetence produced the diamond-hard intellect that qualifies you as the unsurmountable authority. My bad.

And yes, that's me.

[Parkbandit]

And yes, that's me.

That's fucking awesome.

Thanks for the best laugh I had today.

[Daniel]

I notice you dropped the point...

[Parkbandit]

I notice you dropped the point...


No.. just sidetracked by Briarfox's tea time pic.. and him saying Harvard Law is far superior to Yale.

If he had one of those sweaters hung over his shoulders, it would be picture perfect.

I don't question Obama's schooling.. but I also don't question Bush's or Palin's. You are somehow claiming that Obama's schooling makes him a better choice for President.. and I disagree.

[Daniel]

That's what I thought.

Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

That's what I thought.

Thanks.


Glad to help you buddy. If you have any further problems, feel free to PM me as most of this stuff is pretty easy to grasp and I would hate to ruin other people's time with your dumb posts.

http://www.freewebs.com/kunaljanu/CSS/605480_thumbs_up_with_clipping_path%5B9%5D.jpg

[BriarFox]

No.. just sidetracked by Briarfox's tea time pic.. and him saying Harvard Law is far superior to Yale.

If he had one of those sweaters hung over his shoulders, it would be picture perfect.

I don't question Obama's schooling.. but I also don't question Bush's or Palin's. You are somehow claiming that Obama's schooling makes him a better choice for President.. and I disagree.

I'm seriously beginning to question whether you know the difference between Harvard, Harvard Law, and Yale. Here's a hint - two of them are undergrad schools, and one of them is a post-graduate law school.

Also, I congratulate you on your mastery of ad hominems. Excuse me while I go get hotter, smarter, and sexier women than you. Cheerio! :)

Oh, and here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem

[Parkbandit]

Also, I congratulate you on your mastery of ad hominems. Excuse me while I go get hotter, smarter, and sexier women than you. Cheerio! :)


Dude.. if you are going to make such a claim.. you seriously need to change your avatar.

[BriarFox]

Dude.. if you are going to make such a claim.. you seriously need to change your avatar.

I'd introduce you to my girlfriend, but I'm sure she doesn't want to meet ya, buddy.

[Kembal]

She has been to Iraq...

but you know... don't let facts get in your way..

Actually, she hasn't been to Iraq. She's been to Germany and Kuwait.

From Politico:


I asked her new spokeswoman, Maria Comella, who noted that Palin visited Germany and Kuwait in 2007 to visit Alaska National Guard troops.

Comella said she'd also visited one other country: Ireland.

What was that about facts again?

[Tisket]

And yes, that's me.

But why? Except for egocentric individuals I don't understand why anyone would want to use their own picture as an avatar. Oh I get that you are pleased with your own appearance and all that but it's still lame.

edit: Daniel's avatar being the exception.

[BriarFox]

But why? Except for egocentric individuals I don't understand why anyone would want to use their own picture as an avatar. Oh I get that you are pleased with your own appearance and all that but it's still lame.

It has nothing to do with egocentrism. It's a response to the anonymity of the internet. If I'm going to say something, I'm going to show my face while I do it.

[TheEschaton]

Like Guiliani? We all know how you supported Guiliani...

My objection to Guiliani was never that he lacked experience, it was that he was a raging cuntwaffle.

[Keller]

I didn't realize that being President denoted how highly your GPA was. Hell, I was President of my college dorm the 2nd year.. I must have gotten a 4.0.

President of the law review generally has a top three gpa, phenominal writing skills, and extraordinary leadership.

[Keller]

Harvard Law compared to Yale is like Yale compared to Bumfuck U.

Huh?

Yale is far and away the best law school. Harvard isn't even second IMO.

[TheEschaton]

As a completely anecdotal story about Law Reviews:

the top 10% of our class, out of 270, graded onto law review. Of those people, I don't know anyone who had less than a 3.8 GPA. They made up the law review, plus a few write-ons.

At the end of my second year, a good friend of mine was elected Editor-in-Chief of the law review (equivalent to H-Law's President position). He, to this day, has a 4.0 gpa, and is literally the smartest person I've ever met. He could run circles around all of us on this board and do it between writing articles on private equity law.

And this is at BC, which is maybe a top 25 law school....in comparison to Harvard Law, which is consistently top 3.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

I think the comparison was Harvard Law to Yale undergrad.

-TheE-

[Tisket]

My contribution to this thread:

Todd Palin is hot.

/shuffles off to boos and soft fruit.

[BriarFox]

Huh?

Yale is far and away the best law school. Harvard isn't even second IMO.

That does look a bit confusing - I was talking about Harvard Law compared to Yale ugrad in terms of prestige.

[Keller]

That does look a bit confusing - I was talking about Harvard Law compared to Yale ugrad in terms of prestige.

That's definately true.

You'd be surprised at the number of Princeton/Yale/Harvard/Amhurst/etc undergrads who attended USC law because they couldn't get into (let alone get on law review, not to mention be the President of law review) a better school.

[Back]

As a long time Obama supporter take my opinion for what it is worth...

To me the pick was strategic but not substantive enough thus a very poor pick. It appears to me to be an attempt to undermine the achievements the Democratic party while trying cast the Republican party in a more progressive light in that shadow as well as to try and sway Hillary supporters.



To me it is as much a tactic as Republicans jumping the fence to vote for Hillary in close battle ground states. The only thing Hillary and Sara share in common is a vagina and only one of them wants control over their own womb. True Hillary supporters are not going to be fooled. And if there are women out there who only want to vote for another woman be it president or vice president that number will be a fraction.

Women aren’t dumb. Ok, guys, all cockery aside, you know it’s true. But which party honestly thinks they should not be in control of their own bodies? And what do you honestly think that amounts to? What role do you really see Sara Palin playing in a McCain administration.

My bet is it goes something like this: Ok, Sara, look good, then go out and give a speech about energy independence and how we need to drill for oil. Ok, Sara, look good and go clean up all that pesky Democratic legislation in Congress. Ok, Sara, look good and go give a talk on how abstinence is the best deterrent to abortion there is even though we want to abolish it. Just smile, look pretty, read the script and do what you’re told. Good girl.

It is a shame, IMO, that she is being pulled into such an important office for political strategy without having had the time to really climb up there on her own. She certainly showed signs of getting there on her own considering she got to Governor of AK on her own. And there are plenty of female Republican Senators, Representatives and Governors who have been doing that for years.



What the Democratic party has achieved this year is historical. First, their two most popular candidates were a white woman and a black man. That alone will not happen in the Republican party any time soon. In 2004 the line up was even more diverse with Amb. Carol Moseley Braun, a black woman, as a candidate.

The race was close but the Democratic party nominated a black man, on the eve of the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most profound speech. That dream he had has now been realized whether Obama wins or not. And I don’t think it’s just Democrats who recognize this. It’s Americans.

[Parkbandit]

I'd introduce you to my girlfriend, but I'm sure she doesn't want to meet ya, buddy.

I'm sure she would want you to trim that unibrow as well.

Just sayin.

[Tisket]

I'm telling you.. unless there are some serious skeletons in her closet..

I think the only thing that falls into that category would be what's being called "Troopergate". Pretty weak skeleton though. Seems to me the brother-in-law was a real piece of work that needed firing a long time ago.

[Keller]

The pedigree of a JD from Harvard Law and a BA from Yale is astoundingly different. In general -- it's gonna take an extremely disciplined, intelligent, and hard working student to get in. A lot of the time with some wow factor on your resume, too. For a regular student like those that post on this board. Not one with special connections.

But Bush got his MBA from Harvard -- and that's not too shabby.

[Ashliana]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/30/polls-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-while-obama-expands-lead/

FOX News, of all sources, is reporting that Obama now has an 8-point lead over the McCain campaign, largely due to doubts over Palin.

[Back]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/30/polls-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-while-obama-expands-lead/

FOX News, of all sources, is reporting that Obama now has an 8-point lead over the McCain campaign, largely due to doubts over Palin.

Why are you such a cunt? Are you trying to be the Queen Cunt?

[BriarFox]

I'm sure she would want you to trim that unibrow as well.

Just sayin.

Er ... k. Moving on.

Wtf to Backlash.

[Tisket]

Don't you know by now to just skip over BL's posts? He's like white noise. Annoying until you start ignoring it. Pretty soon you won't notice his moronic "contributions" to threads at all.

[Paradii]

I am pretty sure backlash had a decent point in that last post. She did come off "cunty"


Even a broken clock is right twice a day though.

[Tisket]

She did come off "cunty"



Actually I thought her post was fairly innocuous. For her that is. And believe me, I like calling her names more than most here...

[Daniel]

I'm sure she would want you to trim that unibrow as well.

Just sayin.

Says the man too much of a pussy to post a picture of himself.

Just sayin

[Daniel]

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/08/30/polls-voters-doubt-palins-qualifications-while-obama-expands-lead/

FOX News, of all sources, is reporting that Obama now has an 8-point lead over the McCain campaign, largely due to doubts over Palin.

Here is what the Christian Science Monitor dug up from local Alaskan Media in regards to reactions:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/30/what-the-alaska-media-is-saying-about-sarah-palin/

My favorite:

She worked with liberal Democrats in the Legislature to pass a multi-billion-dollar tax increase on Alaska’s oil industry.

I can't wait to see the CRB justification for that.

[Kembal]

I think the only thing that falls into that category would be what's being called "Troopergate". Pretty weak skeleton though. Seems to me the brother-in-law was a real piece of work that needed firing a long time ago.

Bigger skeleton than you think. The ex-brother-in-law is a piece of work according to what the Palins clain. Whether that's true or not, no one knows, because it's a lot of he said, she said. And certainly the Palins have motivation to help her sister win the custody battle by trashing him.

That aside, the more important part of the story is that she fired the Public Safety commissioner because he refused to fire the brother-in-law. The commissioner says he was pressured multiple times to fire the brother-in-law at the governor's behest, and then when he kept refusing, he was fired. She denied pressuring him either directly or indirectly and said no contacts had been made, but there's a phone recording of an aide pressuring the commissioner, and the aide is directly stating that the governor wanted this done. Now she's changed her story and said that the aide did pressure him, but that he did it without letting her know.

And then the final kicker is that the replacement she hired had to resign in 2 weeks because it was found out he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment in 2005. She said she knew about the allegation but not about the reprimand. On top of that, she paid the guy $10k in severance.

The report about all of this will be coming out likely on Nov. 3. (the independent investigator's contract ends on Oct. 31.) She will be deposed in the investigation within the next month.

This is why I am stunned she made it past the vetting.

[Keller]

Bigger skeleton than you think. The ex-brother-in-law is a piece of work according to what the Palins clain. Whether that's true or not, no one knows, because it's a lot of he said, she said. And certainly the Palins have motivation to help her sister win the custody battle by trashing him.

That aside, the more important part of the story is that she fired the Public Safety commissioner because he refused to fire the brother-in-law. The commissioner says he was pressured multiple times to fire the brother-in-law at the governor's behest, and then when he kept refusing, he was fired. She denied pressuring him either directly or indirectly and said no contacts had been made, but there's a phone recording of an aide pressuring the commissioner, and the aide is directly stating that the governor wanted this done. Now she's changed her story and said that the aide did pressure him, but that he did it without letting her know.

And then the final kicker is that the replacement she hired had to resign in 2 weeks because it was found out he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment in 2005. She said she knew about the allegation but not about the reprimand. On top of that, she paid the guy $10k in severance.

The report about all of this will be coming out likely on Nov. 3. (the independent investigator's contract ends on Oct. 31.) She will be deposed in the investigation within the next month.

This is why I am stunned she made it past the vetting.

Source?

[Kembal]

Source?

I'll link to TPM's newest article, they've got all the links to the various Alaskan papers and TV stations that have done a majority of the reporting. They've also had a focus on Alaska as well because of Ted Stevens and Don Young, and so they've had some original reporting as well.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/palin_probe_could_mean_election.php

[crb]

Bigger skeleton than you think. The ex-brother-in-law is a piece of work according to what the Palins clain. Whether that's true or not, no one knows, because it's a lot of he said, she said. And certainly the Palins have motivation to help her sister win the custody battle by trashing him.

That aside, the more important part of the story is that she fired the Public Safety commissioner because he refused to fire the brother-in-law. The commissioner says he was pressured multiple times to fire the brother-in-law at the governor's behest, and then when he kept refusing, he was fired. She denied pressuring him either directly or indirectly and said no contacts had been made, but there's a phone recording of an aide pressuring the commissioner, and the aide is directly stating that the governor wanted this done. Now she's changed her story and said that the aide did pressure him, but that he did it without letting her know.

And then the final kicker is that the replacement she hired had to resign in 2 weeks because it was found out he had been reprimanded for sexual harassment in 2005. She said she knew about the allegation but not about the reprimand. On top of that, she paid the guy $10k in severance.

The report about all of this will be coming out likely on Nov. 3. (the independent investigator's contract ends on Oct. 31.) She will be deposed in the investigation within the next month.

This is why I am stunned she made it past the vetting.
You seem to have a problem confusing allegations with facts.

For instance... remember the allegations back in Febuary from the NYT that John Mccain had had an affair 8 years ago? Those weren't facts, they were allegations, and shown to not be true.

This is how the liberal media functions.

If it is a Republican in trouble they mention his or her party affiliation prominently, and they downplay that there are merely allegations. If it is a Democrat in trouble they often don't even mention the party affiliation at all, and are always sure to say there are merely ("merely") allegations.

I bet you 1 million silver this socalled "scandal" turns out to be nothing.

[Warriorbird]

'liberal media' is rather old hat. If anything they've gotten much more corporate dictated since the Rather stuff. Fox and countless other outlets continue on, unmitigated. Where do you think your links come from?

[crb]

Here is what the Christian Science Monitor dug up from local Alaskan Media in regards to reactions:

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/08/30/what-the-alaska-media-is-saying-about-sarah-palin/

My favorite:

She worked with liberal Democrats in the Legislature to pass a multi-billion-dollar tax increase on Alaska’s oil industry.

I can't wait to see the CRB justification for that.
I don't understand you.

In one post you'll say she is in the pocket of the oil industry, in another post you'll gloat over her doing a bipartisan oil company tax increase.

Don't be such a douche.

As for the tax increase, am I supposed to be offended? I know nothing about Alaskan state taxes, nothing. Only that they don't have a state income tax as I recall.

When people get their panties in a bunch over a company with a large gross revenue, being too stupid to realize that profits are merely a percentage of gross revenue and that you need to look at margin, not arbitary dollar amounts, and then want to institute a "windfall" profits tax on a 8% profit margin (which sucks compared to other industries) and use that tax to pay for a $1000 bribe to every "working" family", which would require something like a 300% tax to actually cover. Ya, I have a problem with that.

But for all I know there needed to be a tax increase in Alaska. I'm not going to do something ridiculously partisan and assume it was excessive just because it is a tax increase, I don't know enough about the issue. Not everyone is a partisan buffoon blindly following a party line.

[Daniel]

I don't understand you.

In one post you'll say she is in the pocket of the oil industry, in another post you'll gloat over her doing a bipartisan oil company tax increase.


Really? When did I say the former?

As for the rest of your post? Yea, that's about the level of hilarity I expected.

[crb]

'liberal media' is rather old hat. If anything they've gotten much more corporate dictated since the Rather stuff. Fox and countless other outlets continue on, unmitigated. Where do you think your links come from?
Fox isn't that biased, slightly center right, you just have a left baseline and so someone in the middle seems right to you.

MSNBC's News Alert Footer for the Palin announcement was "How many houses does she add to the campaign?"

That is biased.

In coverage of Kwame Kiltpatrick the AP story did not once list his party affiliation, in coverage of Ted Stevens it listed it in the fucking title and 11 or whatever times in the article.

That is biased.

Liberal media is alive and well, believe it.

[Daniel]

Fox isn't that biased, slightly center right, you just have a left baseline and so someone in the middle seems right to you.

.

hahahahahahahahaha

Yea. Absolutely.. I mean they don't say shit like..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&eurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/shocking-fox-ne.html

oooooh.

[Kembal]

You seem to have a problem confusing allegations with facts.

For instance... remember the allegations back in Febuary from the NYT that John Mccain had had an affair 8 years ago? Those weren't facts, they were allegations, and shown to not be true.

This is how the liberal media functions.

If it is a Republican in trouble they mention his or her party affiliation prominently, and they downplay that there are merely allegations. If it is a Democrat in trouble they often don't even mention the party affiliation at all, and are always sure to say there are merely ("merely") allegations.

I bet you 1 million silver this socalled "scandal" turns out to be nothing.

1. I'll take that bet.

2. Please point out anything in my post that's an allegation that I instead made it out to be fact.

[Khariz]

hahahahahahahahaha

Yea. Absolutely.. I mean they don't say shit like..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0&eurl=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/shocking-fox-ne.html

oooooh.

Yeah...because that was a Fox News person talking...

CRB is 100% correct. When the SPectrum looks like this:


(FAR LEFT)-(MSNBC)----------(NBC, ABC, CBS)-------------------(middle)(Foxnews)------------------(FAR RIGHT)

Fox news is going to seem "right". But in reality, it's not. Did you see the panoply of viewship polls that recently came out. On almost all of them Fox was like 34, 31, 29 - Conservative, LIberal, Independant, and MSNBC was like 86, 14, LIberal, Conservative.

GImme a fucking break. People can whine and think what they want, but the fact is, is that Fox is only "right" compared to what else is out there, and not ACTUALLY right on the spectrum.

[Warriorbird]

Dude. Roger Ailes has admitted that he takes it as far right as possible. You have talk radio 'news' on there.
The last real bastion of 'liberal media bias' went down with Rather. Now we've got corporate sissy media.
I won't deny liberal bias exists... but it sure as fuck isn't as overt as the Fox standard.

The amount of negative stories on McCain is miniscule... and it isn't for lack of material like the Kool-Aid drinkers believe. It's because 'insulting a war hero!' is bad for business.

If you don't believe that Fox isn't catering to the mind-dead portion of the community... well... you're less intelligent than I gave you credit for.

[Daniel]

Yeah...because that was a Fox News person talking...

CRB is 100% correct. When the SPectrum looks like this:


(FAR LEFT)-(MSNBC)----------(NBC, ABC, CBS)-------------------(middle)(Foxnews)------------------(FAR RIGHT)

Fox news is going to seem "right". But in reality, it's not. Did you see the panoply of viewship polls that recently came out. On almost all of them Fox was like 34, 31, 29 - Conservative, LIberal, Independant, and MSNBC was like 86, 14, LIberal, Conservative.

GImme a fucking break. People can whine and think what they want, but the fact is, is that Fox is only "right" compared to what else is out there, and not ACTUALLY right on the spectrum.

Right. That's not indicative of what's on Fox news all the time at all.

/italics

[Khariz]

Dude. Roger Ailes has admitted that he takes it as far right as possible. You have talk radio 'news' on there.

The last real bastion of 'liberal media bias' went down with Rather. Now we've got corporate sissy media.

Do I need to make that post again that explains the difference between editorial content and news? I think it's about time again.

You don't factor in Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity into the NEWS BROADCASTING, just as you don't factor in AL FRANKEN's commentary into news.

THe idiocy of people who claim that Fox News is right will never cease to amaze me. You have to toss logic and reason out the window to do it.

[Warriorbird]

Fox News voters went 93% for Bush. Next.

[Khariz]

Fox News voters went 93% for Bush. Next.

I'll need the source on that. Would like like my source for the unpartisan nature of fox news viewership? Because I can actually provide that.

[Khariz]

http://www.newshounds.us/PewResearchCableDemo081808.jpg

THis is a Pew Research Poll.

[Warriorbird]

Wall of text from Seth Ackerman on Fox.

"I challenge anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel."--Rupert Murdoch (Salon, 3/1/01)


Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of "liberal bias" in the media were part of "a strategy" (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."

But when Fox News Channel, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour cable network, debuted in 1996, a curious thing happened: Instead of denouncing it, conservative politicians and activists lavished praise on the network. "If it hadn't been for Fox, I don't know what I'd have done for the news," Trent Lott gushed after the Florida election recount (Washington Post, 2/5/01). George W. Bush extolled Fox News Channel anchor Tony Snow--a former speechwriter for Bush's father--and his "impressive transition to journalism" in a specially taped April 2001 tribute to Snow's Sunday-morning show on its five-year anniversary (Washington Post, 5/7/01). The right-wing Heritage Foundation had to warn its staffers not to watch so much Fox News on their computers, because it was causing the think tank's system to crash.

When it comes to Fox News Channel, conservatives don't feel the need to "work the ref." The ref is already on their side. Since its 1996 launch, Fox has become a central hub of the conservative movement's well-oiled media machine. Together with the GOP organization and its satellite think tanks and advocacy groups, this network of fiercely partisan outlets--such as the Washington Times, the Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative talk-radio shows like Rush Limbaugh's--forms a highly effective right-wing echo chamber where GOP-friendly news stories can be promoted, repeated and amplified. Fox knows how to play this game better than anyone.

Yet, at the same time, the network bristles at the slightest suggestion of a conservative tilt. In fact, wrapping itself in slogans like "Fair and balanced" and "We report, you decide," Fox argues precisely the opposite: Far from being a biased network, Fox argues, it is the only unbiased network. So far, Fox's strategy of aggressive denial has worked surprisingly well; faced with its unblinking refusal to admit any conservative tilt at all, some commentators have simply acquiesced to the network's own self-assessment. FAIR has decided to take a closer look.

"Coming next, drug addicted pregnant women no longer have anything to fear from the authorities thanks to the Supreme Court. Both sides on this in a moment."--Bill O'Reilly (O'Reilly Factor, 3/23/01)


Fox's founder and president, Roger Ailes, was for decades one of the savviest and most pugnacious Republican political operatives in Washington, a veteran of the Nixon and Reagan campaigns. Ailes is most famous for his role in crafting the elder Bush's media strategy in the bruising 1988 presidential race. With Ailes' help, Bush turned a double-digit deficit in the polls into a resounding win by targeting the GOP's base of white male voters in the South and West, using red-meat themes like Michael Dukakis' "card-carrying" membership in the ACLU, his laissez-faire attitude toward flag-burning, his alleged indifference to the pledge of allegiance--and, of course, paroled felon Willie Horton.

Described by fellow Bush aide Lee Atwater as having "two speeds--attack and destroy," Ailes once jocularly told a Time reporter (8/22/88): "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it." Later, as a producer for Rush Limbaugh's short-lived TV show, he was fond of calling Bill Clinton the "hippie president" and lashing out at "liberal bigots" (Washington Times, 5/11/93). It is these two sensibilities above all--right-wing talk radio and below-the-belt political campaigning--that Ailes brought with him to Fox, and his stamp is evident in all aspects of the network's programming.

Fox daytime anchor David Asman is formerly of the right-wing Wall Street Journal editorial page and the conservative Manhattan Institute. The host of Fox News Sunday is Tony Snow, a conservative columnist and former chief speechwriter for the first Bush administration. Eric Breindel, previously the editorial-page editor of the right-wing New York Post, was senior vice president of Fox's parent company, News Corporation, until his death in 1998; Fox News Channel's senior vice president is John Moody, a long-time journalist known for his staunch conservative views.

Fox's managing editor is Brit Hume, a veteran TV journalist and contributor to the conservative American Spectator and Weekly Standard magazines. Its top-rated talkshow is hosted by Bill O'Reilly, a columnist for the conservative WorldNetDaily.com and a registered Republican (that is, until a week before the Washington Post published an article revealing his party registration--12/13/00).

The abundance of conservatives and Republicans at Fox News Channel does not seem to be a coincidence. In 1996, Andrew Kirtzman, a respected New York City cable news reporter, was interviewed for a job with Fox and says that management wanted to know what his political affiliation was. "They were afraid I was a Democrat," he told the Village Voice (10/15/96). When Kirtzman refused to tell Fox his party ID, "all employment discussion ended," according to the Voice.

Catherine Crier, who was perceived as one of Fox's most prestigious and credible early hires, was an elected Republican judge before starting a career in journalism. (Crier has since moved on to Court TV.) Pundit Mara Liasson--who is touted as an on-air "liberal" by Fox executives--sits on the board of the conservative human-rights group Freedom House; New York magazine (11/17/97) cited a Fox insider as saying that Liasson assured president Roger Ailes before being hired that she was a Republican.

"Who would be the most likely to cheat at cards-- Bill Clinton or Al Gore?"--Fox News Channel/Opinion Dynamics poll (5/00)


The most obvious sign of Fox's slant is its heavily right-leaning punditry. Each episode of Special Report with Brit Hume, for example, features a three-person panel of pundits who chat about the day's political news at the end of the show. The most frequent panelist is Fred Barnes, the evangelical Christian supply-sider who edits the Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. He sits proudly on the rightward flank of the Republican party (and often scolds it for slouching leftwards).

The next most frequent guest is Mort Kondrake, who sits in the middle of the panel. Politically, Kondrake falls at the very rightward edge of the Democratic party-- if not beyond it. As he famously explained in a 1988 New Republic essay (8/29/88), he is a Democrat who is "disgusted with the Democratic Party" and whose main reason for not defecting to the Republicans is that they "have failed to be true to themselves as conservatives." (He was referring to Reagan's deficit spending.)

Rounding out the panel is its third-most-frequent pundit, Mara Liasson, who sits on the opposite side of the table from the conservative Barnes, implicitly identifying her as a liberal. But her liberalism consists of little more than being a woman who works for National Public Radio; she has proposed that "one of the roots of the problem with education today is feminism" (Talk of the Nation, 5/3/01); she declares that "Jesse Jackson gets away with a lot of things that other people don't" (Special Report, 6/21/00); she calls George W. Bush's reversal on carbon dioxide emissions "a small thing" (3/14/01), campaign finance reform "an issue that . . . only 200 people in America care about" (3/19/01) and slavery reparations "pretty much of a non-issue" (3/19/01).

Less frequent Special Report panelists include conservative Washington Times reporter Bill Sammon, centrist Fortune writer Jeff Birnbaum and NPR host Juan Williams. Williams, the only guest who could plausibly claim to be a liberal, was so outraged over attacks on his friend Clarence Thomas that he declared that "liberals have become monsters" (Washington Post, 10/10/91), denouncing the "so-called champions of fairness: liberal politicians, unions, civil rights groups and women's organizations." Indeed, Fox's crew of "liberal" pundits seems almost calculated to be either ineffective left-of-center advocates or conciliatory moderates. Ironically, perhaps the only Fox commentator who consistently presents a strong progressive perspective--that is, critical of corporate power and militarism, and sympathetic to progressive social movements--is FAIR founder Jeff Cohen, a weekly panelist on the weekend media show Fox News Watch.

Meanwhile, Barnes and Kondracke --the conservative Republican and conservative Democrat--make up the entire political spectrum on Fox's weekend political show, The Beltway Boys, where they are generally in agreement as they discuss the week's news.

Even Fox's "left-right" debate show, Hannity & Colmes--whose Crossfire-style format virtually imposes numerical equality between conservatives and "liberals"--can't shake the impression of resembling a Harlem Globetrotters game in which everyone knows which side is supposed to win.

On the right, co-host Sean Hannity is an effective and telegenic ideologue, a protégé of Newt Gingrich and a rising star of conservative talk radio who is perhaps more plugged into the GOP leadership than any media figure besides Rush Limbaugh (Hannity reportedly received "thunderous applause" when he spoke at a recent closed-door House Republican Conference meeting that is usually closed to the media--U.S. News & World Report, 5/7/01.)

On the left is Alan Colmes, a rather less telegenic former stand-up comic and radio host whose views are slightly left-of-center but who, as a personality, is completely off the radar screen of liberal politics. "I'm quite moderate," he told a reporter when asked to describe his politics (USA Today, 2/1/95). Hannity, a self-described "arch-conservative" (Electronic Media, 8/26/96), joined Fox when the network was started, and personally nominated Colmes to be his on-screen debating opponent (New York Times, 3/1/98). Before the selection was made, the show's working title was Hannity & Liberal to Be Determined--giving some idea of the relative weight each host carries, both on-screen and within the network. Fox sometimes sends a camera down to Hannity's radio studio during the network's daytime news programming, from which he holds forth on the news of the day. Needless to say, Colmes does not receive similar treatment.

"I think what's going on is the Democratic lawyers have flooded Florida. They are afraid of George W. Bush becoming president and instituting tort reform and their gravy train will be over. This is the trial association's full court press to make sure Bush does not win." --Fox News Channel anchor John Gibson (12/9/00)


Fox has had trouble at times hiding the partisanship of its main news personalities. In 1996, while already a Fox anchor, Tony Snow endorsed Bob Dole for president in the Republican National Committee magazine Rising Tide (New York, 11/17/97). A former speech-writer for the elder Bush, Snow often guest-hosts the Rush Limbaugh show and wrote an unabashedly conservative weekly newspaper column until Fox management recently pressured him to drop it to avoid the appearance of bias (Washington Post, 5/29/01).

At the 2000 Republican convention in Philadelphia, Snow--ostensibly present as a journalist covering a news event--jumped onstage to give a speech to the Republican Youth Caucus after organizers asked him to fill in for a speaker who couldn't make it. (He was later reprimanded by his bosses.) Trent Lott, whose speech directly followed Snow's, began with a cheer of "How about Tony Snow in 2008?" (New York Daily News 8/2/00; Federal News Service, 8/1/00).

Just three days earlier, near the GOP convention, Bill O'Reilly gave the keynote speech at David Horowitz's conservative "Restoration Weekend" event, where he was introduced by Republican congressmember Jack Quinn. Fox's Sean Hannity also spoke at the gathering, described by the Washington Times (6/30/00) as the "premiere political event for conservative thinkers." O'Reilly has had Horowitz on his show six times--to talk about everything from National Public Radio's "left" bias (12/20/00) to Hillary Clinton's "sense of entitlement" (6/22/00) to Horowitz's book on race relations, >Hating Whitey (10/4/99).

"There's a certain sameness to the news on the Big Three [networks] and CNN. . . . America is bad, corporations are bad, animal species should be protected, and every cop is a racist killer. That's where 'fair and balanced' [Fox's slogan] comes in. We don't think all corporations are bad, every forest should be saved, every government spending program is good. We're going to be more inquisitive."--John Moody, Fox News Channel's senior vice-president for news and editorial (Brill's Content, 10/99)


Some mainstream journalists have suggested that Fox's "straight news" is more or less balanced, however slanted its commentary might be. "A close monitoring of the channel over several weeks indicates that the news segments tend to be straightforward, with little hint of political subtext except for stories the news editors feel the 'mainstream' press has either downplayed or ignored," wrote Columbia Journalism Review's Neil Hickey (3-4/98). The fact that Fox's "chat consistently tilts to the conservative side," wrote the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz (2/5/01), "may cast an unwarranted cloud on the news reporting, which tends to be straightforward."

When a New York Times profile of Fox News ran with a headline calling it a "conservative cable channel" (9/18/00), the paper quickly corrected their "error" the following day, explaining that in "attributing a general political viewpoint to the network, the headline exceeded the facts in the article."

Putting aside the question of what genuine "balance" means, there are undoubtedly a few reporters in Fox's Washington bureau--such as White House correspondent Jim Angle--whose stories are more or less indistinguishable from those of their counterparts at the mainstream networks.

But an attentive viewer will notice that there are entire blocks of the network's programming schedule that are set aside for conservative stories. Fox's website offers a regular feature on "political correctness" entitled "Tongue-Tied: A Report From the Front Lines of the Culture Wars," whose logo is a scowling "PC Patrol" officer peering testily through a magnifying glass. It invites readers to write in and "keep us up on examples of PC excess you come across."

Recently the network debuted a weekly half-hour series--Only on Fox--devoted explicitly to right-wing stories. The concept of the show was explained by host Trace Gallagher in the premier episode (5/26/01):

Five years ago, Fox News Channel was launched on the idea that something was wrong with news media--that somehow, somewhere bias found its way into reporting. . . . And it's not just the way you tell a story that can get in the way of the truth. It's the stories you choose to tell. . . . Fox News Channel is committed to being fair and balanced in the coverage of the stories everybody is reporting--and to reporting stories you won't hear anywhere else. Stories you will see only on Fox.


Gallagher then introduced a series of stories about one conservative cause after another: from white firefighters suing Boston's fire department for discrimination, to sawmill workers endangered by Clinton-Gore environmental regulations (without comment from a single supporter of the rules), to property owners who feel threatened by an environmental agreement "signed by President Clinton in 1992." (The agreement was actually signed by George Bush the elder, who was president in 1992--though that didn't stop Fox from using news footage of a smiling Bill Clinton proudly signing an official document that was supposed to be, but wasn't, the environmental pact in question.)

Fox's news specials are equally slanted: Dangerous Places (3/25/01), a special about foreign policy hosted by Newt Gingrich; Heroes, an irregular series hosted by former Republican congressmember John Kasich; and The Real Reagan (11/25/99), a panel discussion on Ronald Reagan, hosted by Tony Snow, in which all six guests were Reagan friends and political aides. Vanishing Freedoms 2: Who Owns America (5/19/01) wandered off into militia-style paranoia, suggesting that the U.N. was "taking over" private property.

There is a formula to Fox's news agenda. "A lot of the people we have hired," Fox executive John Moody explained (Inside Media, 12/11/96) when the network was launched, "have come without the preconceptions of must-do news. There are stories we will sometimes forego in order to do stories we think are more significant. The biggest strength that we have is that Roger Ailes has allowed me to do that; to forego stores that would be 'duty' stories in order to focus on other things."

These "other" stories that Moody has in mind are what make up much of Fox's programming: An embarrassing story about Jesse Jackson's sex life. The latest political-correctness outrage on campus. A one-day mini-scandal about a Democratic senator. Much like talk radio, Fox picks up these tidbits from right-wing outlets like the Washington Times or the Drudge Report and runs with them.

To see how the formula works, consider the recent saga of right-wing activist David Horowitz and his "censored" anti-slavery reparations ad. When some college newspapers refused to carry the ad, and some campuses saw protests against it, the case instantly became a cause celebre on the right. It was the perfect story for Fox: The liberal academic establishment trampling on the free speech of a conservative who merely asked that his views be heard. Within less than a month, Horowitz was on nearly every major Fox show to discuss the issue. (See sidebar.)

Former CBS producer Don Dahler resigned from Fox after executive John Moody ordered him to change a story to play down statistics showing a lack of social progress among blacks. (Moody says the change was journalistically justified--New York, 11/17/97.) According to the Columbia Journalism Review (3-4/98), "several" former Fox employees "complained of 'management sticking their fingers' in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes." Said one: "I've worked at a lot of news organizations and never found that kind of manipulation."

Jed Duvall, a former veteran ABC reporter who left Fox after a year, told New York (11/17/97): "I'll never forget the morning that one producer came up to me, and, rubbing her hands like Uriah Heep, said, 'Let's have something on Whitewater today.' That sort of thing doesn't happen at a professional news organization." Indeed, Fox's signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.

"In the D.C. bureau [at ABC], we always had to worry what the lead story would be in the New York Times, and God forbid if we didn't have that story. Now we don't care if we have that story." Stories favored by the journalistic establishment, Kim Hume says, are "all mushy, like AIDS, or all silly, like Head Start. They want to give publicity to people they think are doing good." --New York magazine(11/17/97) quoting Kim Hume, Fox News Channel Washington bureau chief


One of the most partisan features on Fox is a daily segment on Special Report called "The Political Grapevine." Billed as "the most scintillating two minutes in television," the Grapevine is a kind of right-wing hot-sheet. It features Brit Hume at the anchor's desk reading off a series of gossipy items culled from other, often right-wing, news outlets.

The key to the Grapevine is its story selection, and there is nothing subtle about it. Almost every item carries an unmistakable partisan message: Democrats, environmentalists and Hollywood liberals are the perennial villains (or the butts of the joke), while Republicans are shown either as targets of unfair attacks or heroes who can do no wrong. Political correctness run amok, the "liberal bias" of the mainstream media and the chicanery of civil rights groups all figure prominently.

When Rep. Patrick Kennedy tussled with airport security (3/21/01), Democrat Pete Stark used intemperate language (4/18/01) and California Gov. Gray Davis uttered a string of curse words (4/18/01), it made it onto the Grapevine. When the Sacramento Bee ran a series on the shortcomings of the big environmental groups, its findings earned a mention on the Grapevine (4/21/01). When it emerged that Al Gore booster Ben Affleck didn't bother to vote in last year's election, you heard about it on the Grapevine (4/25/01).

Republicans are treated differently. "Since [New York's] Rudolph Giuliani became the mayor," one item cheered (4/24/01), "the streets are cleaner and safer, and tourism reigns supreme in Times Square." When George W. Bush ordered men to wear a coat and tie to enter the Oval Office, Grapevine (5/14/01) noted that "his father had a similar reverence for the office," while "President Clinton used to come into the Oval Office in running shorts . . . and sometimes he did not remain fully clothed while he was there."

The success of the Grapevine has apparently inspired a spin-off on Fox's Sunday morning show. Fox News Sunday anchor Tony Snow recently inaugurated "Below the Fold," a weekly roundup of "unheralded political stories" that is basically identical to Grapevine, including the conservative spin. When one Below the Fold item (4/15/01) mentioned that Barbra Streisand was reportedly thinking of starting up "a cable TV network devoted exclusively to Democratic viewpoints," Snow couldn't resist adding that the singer came up with the idea "apparently believing such a thing doesn't exist already."

Fox News Channel is "not a conservative network!" roars Fox News Channel chairman Ailes. "I absolutely, totally deny it. . . . The fact is that Rupert [Murdoch] and I and, by the way, the vast majority of the American people, believe that most of the news tilts to the left," he says. Fox's mission is "to provide a little more balance to the news" and "to go cover some stories that the mainstream media won't cover."--Brill's Content (10/99) quoting Roger Ailes


To hear the network's bigwigs tell it, it's not Fox that's being biased when it puts conservative fare on heavy rotation. It's the "liberal media" that are biased when they fail to do so. Fox's entire editorial philosophy revolves around the idea that the mainstream media have a liberal bias that Fox is obligated to rectify.

In interviews, Ailes and other Fox executives often expound this philosophy, sometimes with bizarre results. Ailes once told the New York Times (10/7/96) that he and Fox executive John Moody had both noticed a pattern in the weekly newsmagazines: They often cover religion, "but it's always a story that beats up on Jesus." "They call him a cult figure of his time, some kind of crazy fool," Ailes continued. "And it's as if they go out and try to find evidence to trash him." Moody added that two recent Time and Newsweek articles on Jesus "really bordered on the sacrilegious."

But the core of Fox's critique is the notion that the mainstream media just don't tell the conservative side of the story. This is the premise Fox executives start from when they defend their own network: If Fox appears conservative, they argue, it's only because the country has grown so accustomed to the left-leaning media that a truly balanced network seems to lean right. "The reason you may believe it tips to the right is you're stunned at seeing so many conservatives," Ailes once told a reporter (Washington Post, 2/5/01).

But Ailes and his colleagues have trouble backing up these claims with actual facts. He's fond of calling Bob Novak the only conservative on CNN--"that's the only guy they hired that was to the right!" (Charlie Rose, 5/22/01) --but he ignores Tucker Carlson, Kate O'Beirne and Mary Matalin (who recently left for the White House), not to mention past conservative stars such as Lynne Cheney, Mona Charen, John Sununu and, of course, Pat Buchanan, perhaps the most right-wing figure in national politics and an 18-year veteran of Crossfire (minus the occasional hiatus to run for president).

According to Bill O'Reilly, Fox "gives voice to people who can't get on other networks. When was the last time you saw pro-life people [on other networks] unless they shot somebody?" (Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/10/01). O'Reilly's question is easily answered; in the last three years, the National Right to Life Committee's spokespeople have appeared on CNN 21 times (compared with 16 appearances for their main counterpart, the National Abortion Rights Action League).

In a 1999 Washington Post profile (3/26/99), Ailes offered another example. He said he was particularly proud of a three-part series on education that Fox had recently aired, which reported that "many educators believe self-esteem teaching is harmful" to students. "The mainstream media will never cover that story," Ailes told the Post. "I've seen 10,000 stories on education and I've never seen one that didn't say the federal government needed to spend more money on education."

But just weeks prior to Ailes' interview, CNN's weekly Newsstand series (2/28/99) aired a glowing profile of an upstate New York business executive who had turned around a troubled inner-city elementary school "by bringing the lessons of the boardroom into the classroom." CNN's report came complete with soundbites from a conservative education advocate ("the unions are a major impediment to education reform") and lines from host Jeff Greenfield like, "Critics have said that for decades, the public education system has behaved like an entrenched monopoly with little or no incentive to improve its performance." The piece would have warmed the heart of any conservative education reformer.

The difference between the two networks is that while such conservative-friendly fare airs on CNN some of the time, Fox has oriented its whole network around it. Contrary to what Ailes and other right-wing media critics say, the agenda of CNN and its fellow mainstream outlets is not liberal or conservative, but staunchly centrist. The perspectives they value most are those of the bipartisan establishment middle, the same views that make up the mainstream corporate consensus that media publishers and executives are themselves a part of. It's politicians who stake out centrist, pro-business positions within their parties who win the adulation of the Washington press corps, like John McCain and Joe Lieberman during the 2000 campaign. Both parties are constantly urged by the media to "move to the center."

Defenders of Fox might argue that its brand of conservative-tilted programming fills a void, since it represents a form of ideologically hard-edged news seldom seen in the centrist media. But the same point could be made on the other side of the spectrum: Just as conservative stories don't always make it onto CNN, neither do stories that matter to the left. A left-wing version of Fox might run frequent updates on the Mumia Abu-Jamal case, the dangers of depleted uranium weapons or the benefits of single-payer health care. That would contrast sharply with CNN--but it wouldn't justify calling CNN "right-wing" or "conservative." Fox's "leftist" accusations are equally unfounded.

At about the same time that Fox was taking a deep interest in the David Horowitz ad controversy, the Boston Globe refused to run an ad criticizing the office supply company Staples for its use of non-recycled paper. Though the Globe is arguably a more important venue for debate than any number of college papers, the case was not reported by either Fox or CNN. Indeed, until a FAIR letter-writing campaign forced the Globe ombudsman to address the issue (6/11/01), only one publication in the Nexis news database reported it at all (Sacramento Bee, 4/12/01).

"The media are not disposed toward Republican presidents--any Republican president--and really never have been." --Brit Hume, Fox News Channel managing editor (Washington Post, 9/25/00)


Fox is sometimes forced to juggle two identities--Republican and conservative--that are not always the same. A recent example was the standoff over the downed American spy plane in China. Following appearances on Special Report by conservatives William Kristol (4/9/01) and Fred Barnes (4/11/01), who were critical of Bush for his unexpectedly conciliatory handling of the crisis, Fox (4/13/01) was quick to run a slew of letters from outraged Republican viewers accusing the pundits of trying to "undermine a president of their own party." They "never cut him a bit of slack," one viewer wrote. "Who needs Dan Rather when you have Mr. Kristol to bring down our president?"

Fox's sensitivity to Republican complaints came into the open during the 2000 presidential campaign when Tony Snow was the target of a barrage of criticism from posters to the far-right website FreeRepublic.com, who accused him of being too negative about the Bush campaign in his columns and on Fox News Channel.

Snow responded to the Freepers, as the site's conservative contributors call themselves, with a long and detailed apologia, highlighting every pro-Bush aspect of his work in excruciating detail. Discussing his syndicated conservative column, he wrote:

I have found over the years that the best way to be friendly to any politician is to be honest. Having said that, I've hardly been hostile to Bush in recent columns. Yes, I have criticized him this year, but no serious reader could possibly believe Gore has gotten the best of the exchange.

Just check out the two most recent columns. A piece on "specifics" notes that Gore offers virtually no specifics to voters and the few he mentions are nuts. There's plenty of grist there for Bush fans and the Bush campaign. The most recent defends Bush in the Adam Clymer affair.


In response to a writer who was irate at a video clip showing a Bush gaffe, Snow replied: "Yes, we carried a Bush gaffe at the end. It was funny, not damaging to the candidate."

And perhaps most tellingly, he described the strategy he had recently used on Fox News Sunday (9/10/00) to interview a pair of guests about the presidential campaign-- the first an aide to Bill Clinton, the second the Republican governor of Pennsylvania:

1) We opened with a tough interview of John Podesta, taking Clinton to task for a series of things (including hate crimes legislation) and asking some tough questions about Gore's energy and health-care policies.

2) Tom Ridge came next. We tried to get him to fire away at Clinton/Gore corruption. He wouldn't do it. We tried to get him to urge a more openly conservative campaign by Bush. He wouldn't do it. If you have complaints about such matters, I suggest you write the Bush campaign, not Fox News Channel.


In other words, Snow admits he was trying to put the Democratic guest on the defensive about Clinton--while goading the Republican into playing offense against Clinton. (The episode is a perfect example of Fox's notion of balance: attacking Democrats and liberals on substance while challenging Repub-licans and conservatives only on tactics.) In closing the memo, Snow wrote, "Parting thoughts: I made fun of the United Nations." He concluded: "I have a hard time finding anything in that lineup that Freepers would consider treasonous."

"Fair and balanced, as always."--Fox News slogan


Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.). In Great Britain, papers like the conservative Times of London and the left-leaning Guardian deliver consistently excellent coverage while making no secret of their respective points of view. There's nothing keeping American journalists from doing the same.

If anything, it is partly the disingenuous claim to objectivity that is corroding the integrity of the news business. American journalists claim to represent all political views with an open mind, yet in practice a narrow bipartisan centrism excludes dissenting points of view: No major newspaper editorial page opposed NAFTA; virtually all endorse U.S. airstrikes on Iraq; and single-payer health care proposals find almost no backers among them.

With the ascendance of Fox News Channel, we now have a national conservative TV network in addition to the established centrist outlets. But like the mainstream networks, Fox refuses to admit its political point of view. The result is a skewed center-to-right media spectrum made worse by the refusal to acknowledge any tilt at all.

Fox could potentially represent a valuable contribution to the journalistic mix if it admitted it had a conservative point of view, if it beefed up its hard news and investigative coverage (and cut back on the tabloid sensationalism), and if there were an openly left-leaning TV news channel capable of balancing both Fox's conservatism and CNN's centrism.

None of these three things appears likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

SIDEBAR: Toeing the Line on Special Report

For some, the free market is a religion. That seems true for Fox News reporter Brit Hume, who has made no secret of what he thinks about the idea of caps on wholesale electricity prices in California. Hume commented on Fox (5/29/01) that "no one with an economics degree that I know" would support price caps for California.

In fact, 10 prominent mainstream economists wrote a letter to George W. Bush endorsing the idea. "We are mindful of the potential dangers of applying a simple price cap," they wrote (New York Times, 5/30/01). "But California's electricity markets are not characterized by effective competition." The letter added that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's "failure to act now will have dire consequences for the state of California." Paul Krugman, one of the country's most prominent economists, had by that point written six columns in the New York Times calling for energy price caps.

But on Fox, laissez-faire orthodoxy was enforced. When Jeff Birnbaum, Washington bureau chief of Fortune magazine and a frequent guest on Special Report with Brit Hume, suggested (5/29/01) that price caps "might help the blackouts through this summer," this view was rejected by both of the other panelists, Morton Kondracke and Bill Kristol. Hume, acting as moderator, derided Birnbaum for his deviation: "Did you ever have any economics in college? . . . There are books . . . that could help you."

A day later (5/30/01), Birnbaum came on the show to deliver what can only be described as a recantation: "I consulted my Economics 101, and I made a mistake last night when I spoke," he said. "Price caps are definitely the wrong economic answer. It could lead to a spreading energy gap and problem beyond California's borders and a long-term energy problem that would clearly be a serious political and substantive problem for the Bush administration."

"No apology required," was Hume's response. But one got the definite impression that toeing the ideological line is required on Special Report.

--Peter Hart

SIDEBAR:An Obsession That Only Goes So Far

One of Fox News Channel's favorite recent stories involved a newspaper ad that claimed African-Americans benefited from slavery, and owed America for the favor. The ad's author, conservative activist David Horowitz, claimed to be a victim of censorship and "political correctness" because a number of college newspapers refused to publish his ad, which argued against the idea of slavery reparations. Fox saw this as a major issue: Horowitz and his ad were mentioned at least 21 times on the network between March 6 and April 3.

On Fox News Sunday (3/25/01), the network's Sunday-morning equivalent of Meet the Press, interviews with Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham and Sen. Joseph Lieberman were incongruously followed by a segment featuring a largely unknown reparations activist and David Horowitz, in a Crossfire-style debate about Horowitz's rejected ad.

On Special Report with Brit Hume, the Horowitz ad became the subject of at least nine "Grapevine" items in less than a month. The ad was also the subject of Hume's lead question to conservative columnist John Leo when he appeared for a one-on-one interview (3/23/01). Afterward, Hume put the Horowitz issue to the show's all-star panel of pundits; all three pundits agreed that campus liberals were squelching debate. Mara Liasson argued that reparations are "pretty much of a non-issue" and Horowitz's ad was not "nearly as bad as the kind of hate speech you hear about in other cases," while Mort Kondracke explained that "there's nothing racist in this."

On Hannity & Colmes (3/26/01), the issue was: "Has David Horowitz's freedom of speech become a victim of political correctness?" On The O'Reilly Factor (3/6/01), it was Horowitz and host Bill O'Reilly interrogating a reparations activist from Mobile, Alabama. ("That's my tax money!" O'Reilly exclaimed.) The Edge with Paula Zahn brought Horowitz on three times within a month to discuss the same subject.

But there was one twist to the Horowitz story that Fox couldn't be bothered to report. When Horowitz's ad was offered to the Daily Princetonian in April, the paper ran it--along with an editorial (4/4/01) describing its ideas as racist and promising to donate the ad's proceeds to the local chapter of the Urban League. Horowitz, the free-speech crusader, refused to pay his bill unless the paper's editors publicly apologized for their hurtful words: "Its slanders contribute to the atmosphere of intolerance and hate towards conservatives," a statement from his office read.

Suddenly Fox lost interest in the Horowitz case. After a month of running twice-weekly updates about college papers that were refusing the ad, Special Report with Brit Hume ignored the Princeton episode. None of the network's major shows transcribed in the Nexis database reported Horowitz's tiff with the paper. No editor from the Princetonian was invited on The O'Reilly Factor to debate whether or not Horowitz was being a hypocrite. When their favorite free-speech martyr suddenly looked like a censor, it was a story Fox just didn't want to pursue.

--Seth Ackerman

[Khariz]

Full article for above stats:

http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1353

[Warriorbird]

The 93% was for Kerry and that can be explained away to a tiny degree by Kerry sucking so badly. Here's more recent polling.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/news_you_watch_says_a_lot_about_how_you_ll_vote

An academic analysis of the 'Fox News' effect.

http://www.iies.su.se/~ekaplan/foxnews.pdf

[Khariz]

My response to wall of text:

You can cherry pick article/stories over time to present on opinion that they are slanted one or another with any channel. That wall of text also doesn't support your above claim.

Also, once again, people need to realize the difference from content that is SUPPOSED to be slanted one way or another because it is editorial content or news analysis, versus news reporting /news gathering.

You compare Keith Olberman vs Mike Wallace, not Dan Rather and Sean Hannity.

[Warriorbird]

Dude. Roger Ailes has flat out said he makes his station as conservative as possible.

Ultimately an academic look suggests that its existence only gives Republican .004 to .007 percentage points in edge in locales it is available though.

Nobody who's the slightest bit logical thinks that it is unbiased.

Another academic look suggests that none of the bias ultimately matters to folks (analyzing that previously mentioned study).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/business/media/18scene.html

[Khariz]

Dude. Roger Ailes has flat out said he makes his station as conservative as possible.

Ultimately an academic look suggests that its existence only gives Republican .004 to .007 percentage points in edge in locales it is available though.

Nobody who's the slightest bit logical think that it is unbiased.

Another academic look suggests that none of the bias ultimately matters to folks (analyzing that previously mentioned study).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/18/business/media/18scene.html

Look dude...I'm not saying that Fox News is NOT more conservative than the other news outlets. They certainly are. What I'm saying is, is that on the grand spectrum of politics, they aren't far right. They are Right only as juxtaposed against the others.

I found a video that certainly doesn't help my point, but it's funny nonetheless:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3059275&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

[Warriorbird]

This was the bit of Ackerman's take I liked the best.

Some have suggested that Fox's conservative point of view and its Republican leanings render the network inherently unworthy as a news outlet. FAIR believes that view is misguided. The United States is unusual, perhaps even unique, in having a journalistic culture so fiercely wedded to the elusive notion of "objective" news (an idea of relatively recent historical vintage even in the U.S.). In Great Britain, papers like the conservative Times of London and the left-leaning Guardian deliver consistently excellent coverage while making no secret of their respective points of view. There's nothing keeping American journalists from doing the same.

If anything, it is partly the disingenuous claim to objectivity that is corroding the integrity of the news business. American journalists claim to represent all political views with an open mind, yet in practice a narrow bipartisan centrism excludes dissenting points of view: No major newspaper editorial page opposed NAFTA; virtually all endorse U.S. airstrikes on Iraq; and single-payer health care proposals find almost no backers among them.

[Gan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00390/pp185x_390911a.jpg

:thumbsup:

[Solkern]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00390/pp185x_390911a.jpg

:thumbsup:

That is so fucking hot

[TheRoseLady]

I'm sure she would want you to trim that unibrow as well.

Just sayin.

Unibrow > nose hairs.

Just saying.

[Parkbandit]

Unibrow > nose hairs.

Just saying.


I TRIM MINE!

wtf.

[Gan]

I TRIM MINE!

wtf.

Its called manscaping.

Thank GOD I dont have to worry about backhair and the like.

[Keller]

Its called manscaping.

Thank GOD I dont have to worry about backhair and the like.

Since we're thoroughly off-topic -- there was a guy next to me at the IU football game yesterday who had a single tuft, as wide as his neckline, of chest hair peaking out of his t-shirt.

I felt bad for him. There is chest hair -- and there is fur. It looked like he hadn't yet shed his winter coat.

[Gan]

:rofl:

I'm taking alex to the pool in a little while. I'm sure we'll see the obligatory backhair father type figure swimming with the hairs trailing behind him as he swims.

[Methais]

http://www.angelzfunnyz.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/8/NASCAR_FUN_BACK_HAIR.JPG
http://www.collegeuniv.com/blog/TTWB/TTWB-RacingFans.jpg

[TheEschaton]

In coverage of Kwame Kiltpatrick the AP story did not once list his party affiliation, in coverage of Ted Stevens it listed it in the fucking title and 11 or whatever times in the article.

Seriously, your argument is that we shouldn't count Bill and Sean, but we should count Keith Olberman who hosts a show and isn't considered a news anchor?

What about the terrorist fist jab?

Michelle Obama hating her country?

The flag pin controversy?

The "terrorist outfit" picture?

The mentioning of Obama's middle name every other second as if A) this made him Muslim, and B) being Muslim was a bad thing.

IIRC, all these stories broke with Fox News anchors, either through their own wacky interpretations, or directly lifted from Drudge (IE, the photo one). The purpose of Bill and Sean isn't to say wacky things they make out of whole cloth, their purpose is to echo things already repeated as news, and whip people into hysteria due to its 'factual' and 'real threat.'

Edit: I chose that quote of yours because no self-respecting black man named Kwame would ever be a Republican, and thus the lack of designation wasn't necessary - whilst with white men, you need the distinction cause we have those too.

-TheE-

[Snapp]

http://www.angelzfunnyz.com/Portals/0/Gallery/Album/8/NASCAR_FUN_BACK_HAIR.JPG
http://www.collegeuniv.com/blog/TTWB/TTWB-RacingFans.jpg

Fucking sick.

[Methais]

Fucking sick.

That mullet is pretty terrible, yeah.

[crb]

Seriously, your argument is that we shouldn't count Bill and Sean, but we should count Keith Olberman who hosts a show and isn't considered a news anchor?

What about the terrorist fist jab?

Michelle Obama hating her country?

The flag pin controversy?

The "terrorist outfit" picture?

The mentioning of Obama's middle name every other second as if A) this made him Muslim, and B) being Muslim was a bad thing.

IIRC, all these stories broke with Fox News anchors, either through their own wacky interpretations, or directly lifted from Drudge (IE, the photo one). The purpose of Bill and Sean isn't to say wacky things they make out of whole cloth, their purpose is to echo things already repeated as news, and whip people into hysteria due to its 'factual' and 'real threat.'

Edit: I chose that quote of yours because no self-respecting black man named Kwame would ever be a Republican, and thus the lack of designation wasn't necessary - whilst with white men, you need the distinction cause we have those too.

-TheE-
Keith isn't the only liberal on MSNBC, he is merely the only one labeled as such. Lester Holt, Chris Matthews, etc are all liberals. And Keith is doing anchor type duties this election.

Fox has conservatives, yes. But... they're labeled, and they always have opposing viewpoints on too. Sometimes watching bill oreilly is like watching jerry springer the way he argues with his guests... but atleast he does indeed give the opposing side a chance to speak.

Then you have MSNBC's coverage of the last State of the Union and immediately after it was done, Lester Hold, the supposed anchor, gives his own version of the democratic response with a laundry list of things from the speech he says are "wrong" as if he is an expert on all policy.

If a station wants to host partisan programming, fine, but label it as such, and keep the news reporting, the anchor people, separate, and limited to only reporting.

Pundits can report too, but they're still pundits, not anchors.

[BriarFox]

Fox has conservatives, yes. But... they're labeled, and they always have opposing viewpoints on too. Sometimes watching bill oreilly is like watching jerry springer the way he argues with his guests... but atleast he does indeed give the opposing side a chance to speak.

One of the points of that wall of text was that the so-called "opposing viewpoints" on Fox are only liberal in the eyes of the staunch right, and that in some cases, they're strawmen.

[Warriorbird]

A chance to be insulted and cut off != a chance to speak. Hannity and Colmes is a fucking joke.

[Parkbandit]

Seriously, your argument is that we shouldn't count Bill and Sean, but we should count Keith Olberman who hosts a show and isn't considered a news anchor?

JUST this point..

Bill and Sean don't pretend to be "Journalists" and know they are political entertainers. Olbermann routinely puts himself into positions like being the MC of the Democratic Convention coverage and spewing his own liberal agenda like he did all week long. I thought he was masterbaiting under his desk when describing Michelle Obama's speech he was so excited.

Now.. if MSNBC puts Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to MC the Republican Convention, then perhaps there is a ray of hope they are not the MustSeeNationalBarackChannel.

[Parkbandit]

One of the points of that wall of text was that the so-called "opposing viewpoints" on Fox are only liberal in the eyes of the staunch right, and that in some cases, they're strawmen.

At least they offer an opposing viewpoint... which is far more than most of the 'newschannels' do.

[BriarFox]

At least they offer an opposing viewpoint... which is far more than most of the 'newschannels' do.

I don't agree. Their tactic is designed to make them appear "fair and balanced" while they're anything but. It's devious, and not at all praise-worthy.

[Furrowfoot]

JUST this point..

Bill and Sean don't pretend to be "Journalists" and know they are political entertainers. Olbermann routinely puts himself into positions like being the MC of the Democratic Convention coverage and spewing his own liberal agenda like he did all week long. I thought he was masterbaiting under his desk when describing Michelle Obama's speech he was so excited.

Now.. if MSNBC puts Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck to MC the Republican Convention, then perhaps there is a ray of hope they are not the MustSeeNationalBarackChannel.

Am I the only one that still thinks Keith Olberman looks weird without Dan Patrick sitting next to him? Hee.

[TheEschaton]

Bill and Sean don't pretend to be "Journalists" and know they are political entertainers

Since when? Bill tried to claim he was a Peabody award winning journalist until Al Franken had to out him on the fact that A) the show he worked on won it, not him, and B) that show was Inside Edition.

[Apathy]

Lets get this back on topic; that topic being how hot she is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bza63nnqiKA

I guarantee she was a Jovi chick too. Rawwwwwwwwr

[Kembal]

1. I'll take that bet.

2. Please point out anything in my post that's an allegation that I instead made it out to be fact.

Conveniently, crb ignored my reply to his post.

There's reports right now that McCain just sent a vetting team to Alaska, after the announcement. That'd be insane if so. I don't know how credible those reports are though.

[Parkbandit]

I don't agree. Their tactic is designed to make them appear "fair and balanced" while they're anything but. It's devious, and not at all praise-worthy.


I wouldn't expect you to agree.. I'm just stating a fact.

[Keller]

I'm just stating a fact.


:tool:

[crb]

Conveniently, crb ignored my reply to his post.

There's reports right now that McCain just sent a vetting team to Alaska, after the announcement. That'd be insane if so. I don't know how credible those reports are though.
What did I ignore now? I've been like... busy doing family things the last couple days, out of the house for 12 straight hours each day... so like... sorry I missed your post. I promise to try harder next time....

[Keller]

What did I ignore now? I've been like... busy doing family things the last couple days, out of the house for 12 straight hours each day... so like... sorry I missed your post. I promise to try harder next time....

Kinda like when I was working 14-16 hr days and you expected me to help you understand the income tax?

And you wonder why people think you're a smug asshole.

[Kembal]

Reposting:



Originally Posted by crb
You seem to have a problem confusing allegations with facts.

For instance... remember the allegations back in Febuary from the NYT that John Mccain had had an affair 8 years ago? Those weren't facts, they were allegations, and shown to not be true.

This is how the liberal media functions.

If it is a Republican in trouble they mention his or her party affiliation prominently, and they downplay that there are merely allegations. If it is a Democrat in trouble they often don't even mention the party affiliation at all, and are always sure to say there are merely ("merely") allegations.

I bet you 1 million silver this socalled "scandal" turns out to be nothing.


1. I'll take that bet.

2. Please point out anything in my post that's an allegation that I instead made it out to be fact.

[TheRoseLady]

At least they offer an opposing viewpoint... which is far more than most of the 'newschannels' do.

I never watch Fox and rarely CNN. I do watch MSNBC (surprise) and they not only have Pat Buchanan but also Mike Murphy. Both have no problem presenting the conservative view.

[Parkbandit]

I never watch Fox and rarely CNN. I do watch MSNBC (surprise) and they not only have Pat Buchanan but also Mike Murphy. Both have no problem presenting the conservative view.

Not really familiar with Murphy, but do either one of them play MC during political news events like the Convention?

[TheRoseLady]

Not really familiar with Murphy, but do either one of them play MC during political news events like the Convention?

Well the RNC hasn't really started yet, so I haven't been tuned in, not sure if they are going to put Buchanan into one of the main spots or not.