Vice-President Picks

Remove all ads!

I believe you are mistaken. The McCain campaign released a press statement to the media. The media reported it. The McCain campaign accused the media of attacking.

It was reported on a million times, because there are a million media outlets. Individual papers, magazines, tabloids and websites who compete to be current... they are lumped together into one conglomerate "Media" or "Liberal Media" however, that is not, really, the case.

It was a brilliant move by the McCain campaign.

 

By "liberal media," I meant those outlets that are decidely "liberal," having "liberal" commentators and pundits, just as the conservatives have their own outlets for their propaganda. I was not referring to the corporate, commercial media, which is just confused by the issues (or could not care less) and would not know a true liberal from a true conservative...sorry for the lack of clarity, Art.

 

Take it easy tough guy. Who said you were full of it? You made the shotgun wedding comment and I pointed out Obamas parentage. What exactly am I full of? Please elaborate.

As for the right condemning teen pregnancy, condemn is a strong word. Do we advocate marriage? Yes. Do we advocate married parents? Yes. Are we against abortion? Yes. We on the right view teen pregnancy is an unfortunate fact of life. The left typically defends it and views it as perfectly fine...until the Republican VP candidate's teen daughter is pregnant, then it's a problem.

They don't have to. They have the press to do it for them. If you want to claim that the press is fair, then explain this: John Edwards was running for President and actively having an affair while his wife has cancer. He may or may not have fathered a child with the other woman. Yet none of the media would report it. Do you think they would have given Mitt Romney the same pass? Please.

"a brilliant move by the McCain campaign". That's priceless. What were they going to do? Put a big coat on the girl every time she was in public? Send her of to live with her aunt in the country? Do you honestly believe that people would not have found out without the press release? Hilarious.

You guys can all say what you want. The media is attacking the pregnant daughter when they don't report on Edwards. When they don't broadcast the fact that Obama himself was conceived out of wedlock. No media bias? Are you rational?

I applaud Obama for saying that the daughter was off limits and referencing his own parentage. That was the first that I heard of this fact. If McCain had been conceived out of wedlock, do you think we wouldn't have heard of it until he brought it up? Stop, my sides are splitting...

 

Yes, clearly that's exactly what I was suggesting. Coat, aunt in the country, the whole thing. Yes. You are a credit to your bloodline.

I clearly did not suggest that the McCain campaign accusing the media of attacking, by reporting the very story that they broke.

Just to be clear, when the media is reporting on Edwards... is that an attack? Report? They attack Bristol Palin, and report on John Edwards?

Are we on the same page? Rational? Cool.

 

Exactly. It is reporting if it is the "Adult Candidate", it is attacking if it is the "Adult Candidate's child who is a minor". It really isn't that hard.


Biden- Did anyone see this. I may be wrong, but it sounds like Biden is implying Hillary should have gotten picked to be VP. Does the man have a brain in is head?

 

Snook - The answer to your question is yes. Biden may be right because it would have taken the "woman" factor out of the McCain pick. In fact, I will go a bit further and suggest that if Mac knew Hill was Obama's pick that it was unlikely he would have chosen Palin.

IMO, all that Jack is asking for, and I don't mean to speak for him, is fairness on the issue regarding Bristol. It is true that that portion of the media that is typically "liberal" is having a field day with the issue regarding her pregnancy. Some of it, certainly, is because the evangelicals did an aburpt about-face on the issue of teen pregnancy, but nevertherless, liberals are not supposed to be as judgmental on such issues as they have been regarding Bristol's pregnancy, or so we proudly proclaim...again, this is politics as usual....

AM's link has it right: The left needs to "focus" and not get caught up in needless distractions. It's the real issues that matter. Those for Obama need to decide if it is the issues that really matter and not the pointless media sideshows. If so, then we need to either live or die by those issues. It's not about just winning, but standing by those issues we believe in....

 

Wait, what? The left views teen pregnancy as perfectly fine? First I've heard of it, and I suspect I'm rather more in tune with the left than you are.

Your position may be exactly as you describe, but it's hardly universal; see O'Reilly.

 

I still don't get it.

Palin made a press announcement. The press reported on it.

When did they attack?

This is silly, you're trying to redefine reporting (or attack). The media also reported that Palin had a baby recently, and that the baby has down syndrome. Is that an attack?

Her teenage daughter gets hospitalized for what ever reason (just theorizing here), the press reports (the candidates daughter, who is a minor). Attack?

By your definition, it is. Simply reporting facts, about a candidates kid.

 

Bingo!

Thanks Chandos. That is exactly what I'm saying. We are on the same page, this is new!

Your next point is also well made. The Obama campaign (and the press) were caught off guard by the VP pick, and have allowed themselves to be distracted. Obamas pig and fish comment yesterday is a perfect example. It was a lame joke (despite his denials) and is really beneath him. He has taken the high road with much success and should have stayed on it. I've talked to more than one woman about that and what I am hearing is "He called her a pig!". Whether he meant to or not, that is how it is perceived. He (with the press) is driving women to the McCain ticket.

Irony alert. I'm not allowed to draw conclusions about the left, but you are about the right. Like it both ways?

Just because we disagree doesn't mean I'm some rube who just came in from the fields. I've been following politics since high school. 25+ years. I was psyched to turn 18 in 1984 so I could vote for Reagan. I am familiar with the left. I've live outside of DC, now I live outside of Boston. I am very familiar with the left. So I am saying: YES, the left is okay with unwed teen pregnancy. I'm not saying that they advocate it. But they are very comfortable with it. Not only unwed teen pregnancy, but unwed teen abortion.

Are you naive or willfully ignorant? They didn't report, they attacked. Did it really need to be "reported" on the front page of the New York Times? The Boston Globe? US magazine? Was it that relevant? The Edwards story didn't receive that honor. They sat on the Edwards story for over a year. It wasn't until the freaking National Enquirer caught him coming out of the hotel in the middle of the night that the mainstream press even considered talking about it. What? The Enquirer could figure out that he was having an affair but the New York Times couldn't?

Liberals considered the "swift boating" of Kerry to be an attack. The candidate for Presidents war (and post war) record are far more relevant than a candidates daughters pregnancy. Like to have it both ways?

Personally, I think it's great. "Reporting" on Bristol. The pig and the fish. It is all working against Obama. He's lost his lead and some of his luster. I'm not a McCain fan. Not at all. Too liberal. But to me, he's more palatable then Obama.

Will he win in the end? Maybe. He's still a formidable candidate. Not because he has a plan or any experience. He has star power. And in the USA, that seems to be important. It worked for Bill Clinton (though he brought more to table then Obama).

I bet he's wishing he picked Hillary now. Biden thinks it "might" have been a good idea. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/biden-hillary-a.html

 

It really seems strange to read this argument. It has always been a gentleman's agreement to keep minor children off-limits for any negative press. Nothing bad was ever said of Chelsea when she was a minor -- she became fair game at college, just as the Bush twins did. But I only remember positives said of Chelsea by the reputable portions of the media when she was still a minor. Perhaps I have a selective memory....

I agree with Jack -- the media is not doing Obama any favors here. Nor are his speech writers or a few select members of his staff. They should all follow Biden's lead here.

Any non-positive comment about a minor child is basically an attack. You just don't go there.

 

Willfully naive. What constitutes an attack? When a political campaign has a "press release," its, you see... released to the "press." Its crazy, I know. Then the press (wait for it...) releases the information, from the press release.

btw, I googled Bristol Palin and Time, here's the first two links that come up:

The press release: Sarah Palin to be hockey grandma. Its all coverage from the Palin press release.

the other is an op ed, in which the opening paragraph reads as follows:

Seriously, define attack, in the way you feel the press is doing so. Was reporting that her baby had down syndrome an attack?

Is reporting that she's being investigated for abuse of power an attack?

I'm assuming this isn't directed at me. I never mentioned Kerry or the swbvt guys.

 

I can accept that. You seem to be the only one here who buys your stance. What can I say? We must agree to disagree.

 

You know what's interesting? How well this thread has followed the GOP's strategy. We're not talking about issues. We're talking about 'narratives' and personalities and the liberal media and so on.

I bear some responsibility for that, true.

I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from putting words in my mouth.

 

I'm confused - and I'm not trying to be snarky, I just don't get something. Reporting on Sarah Palin's daughter being pregnant after the Palins themselves send out a press release to that effect - which is a fact - is an attack, but the SBVT - an independent 527 group held to no standards of fairness or accuracy who, while criticizing Kerry's service, happened to be lying their asses off to do it - is not an attack?

John McCain calling Hillary's proposals "putting lipstick on a pig" less than a year ago was just using a common turn of phrase to dismiss her ideas, but Obama calling McCain's proposals "putting lipstick on a pig" two days ago is calling Sarah Palin a pig, when he wasn't even talking about Sarah Palin?

The MSM not picking up on the National Enquirer's scoop about John Edwards means they're in the tank for the Dems, but the MSM ignoring the National Inquirer, a paper regularly sued for libel, the other 99.9% of the time when they just make stuff up means they should have been trusted this time?

And liberals have a double standard?

ArtE isn't the only one here who buys his stance, I think it's actually quite reasonable. I agree that Palin's family business shouldn't be discussed by either campaign, and the Obama campaign have made it clear that neither do they. But I fail to see how reporting on something newsworthy is an attack (sorry, but the Palins made this newsworthy by issuing a press release). Sensationalism, sure - but an attack implies taking sides, and I've seen the press do plenty babying to the McCain campaign for quite a while now. I have a feeling you don't see the same and thus I'm "willfuly ignorant" too, which makes this all futile I guess, but I honestly see a disconnect in interpretation of events.

I'm not going to argue who does or doesn't have a double standard, but it seems to me you don't think you have one.

EDIT: AMaster makes a great point. With that, I'm outta here...for a few weeks, at least. The idiocy of this entire campaign season is really starting to give me premature grey, and I need a break. And a stiff drink.

 

DR replied to everything I was going to say except this one bit:

Have you ever listened to Obama's stump speech that he has given approximately 4,973 times at this point? When he retells his life's story he says his parents weren't married (I don't think he ever used the exact phrase "out of wedlock" but that's a semantic point), and that his father walked out on them and moved back to Africa when Obama was 2. So he freely admits that not only weren't his parents married, but his father was a deadbeat. Seriously, he mentioned this every time he gives his stump speech, and I cannot understand how you can possibly not heard of it before now, unless you deliberately turn the channel every time you see Obama come on. He's made no secret of the fact that he was raised by a single mother, and later by his maternal grandparents after his mother's death, in a predominantly white midwest town where biracial people were extremely uncommon. How can you NOT have heard about this?

 

What words did I put in your mouth? You chastised me for speaking for the left, right before you spoke for the right.

And I love the part about this thread following the GOP strategy of focusing on personalities and narratives. That is beyond precious. Really. Do you read what you write? Obamas entire campaign is based on personality and narrative (see Aldeths bit about Obamas life story).

You guys are a hoot.

 

Obama's campaign is - imo, you probably disagree - trying harder to keep the focus on issues, especially those such as the economy, healthcare, etc where they feel stronger. Of course all parties will focus on narratives and personalities, this is very important as well and the GOP has been very skilled in using it; the Demorcratic party has had its fair moments as well.

 

Please don't leave on my account. I'm not going to be sticking around. The Alleys are the same as they ever were. I can spend a lot of time debating with you guys, but we have tremendously different views and neither side is likely to agree with the other.

I have a lot of respect for the passion that all of you bring to the discussion. You all seem to enjoy the debate and the time that you put into it. Have fun!

 

Attacks on candidates are always going to happen. Words of a candidate will always be spun by the opponent (anyone remember the 100 year war misquote?). Most people do not care that McCain used the "lipstick on a pig" quote -- nor do they care that Obama used the quote. One side spins, the other side claims foul -- it happens in every election and we all should expect it by now.

Shame on anyone who allows themselves to be distracted by those tactics.

I'll reiterate the issue of minor children. Minor children have always been off-limits. You can say positive things about children, you can report verbatum any releases from the family themselves that could be considered neutral or negative, but digging up and reporting anything remotely negative about a minor child is a huge mistake. The vast majority of the public simply does not find such actions acceptable.

Obama's campaign may not be saying anything about Bristol -- I said it before that Biden's comment was on-target and serious kudos to him -- but the press digging and reporting about a teenage pregnancy and putting Bristol in the spotlight is quite damaging to the Obama campaign.