Whatever. The point is that they aren’t editorially hostile to him.
I agree with you and take it one further – not so sure…ooops! read “ADD” not “AIDS” so never you mind. :smack: But as long as I started my point was that I think ADD is not a clear-cut diagnosis either…been involved in some real acrimonious disputes over that particular issue IRL.
Back on topic. Nice to have Lou Dobbs posting on the SDMB.
As opposed to their constant harping on Chappaquidick, I suppose?
Well, at least we won’t have any more of this nonsense from the Left about how Clinton was impeached for a blow job.
You apparently think this is the only thing they are going to drag up and try to use against McCain. I think it is merely the first.
Keep pitching shit and see what sticks.
I see that it has already been pointed out that you don’t have your facts straight.
Regards,
Shodan
As I said, Chappaquiddick was 40 years ago. You can’t compare eras like that. If Teddy were to run for President you would definitely hear about, though.
I don’t see how this follows from anything I’ve said, but Clinton was impeached for being Clinton. The blow job was just the excuse.
I don’t know who “they” is, but I predict that th coverage of McCain will be reverential and low key while the Democratic candidate faces a new manufactured scandal every day. That’s the way the MSM always works during presidential elections. Look at the last election. The election became about trying to discredit John Kerry’s Vietnam war medals while Bush’s innumerable crimes and misdemeanors (including fucking lying his way into an illegal war) were ignored.
That’s exactly what they’ve been doing to Obama on a daily basis. I notice that most of the media is dimissing the NYT McCain story, though,m so taht kind of blows a hole in your theory.
Do you think they’ll bring up Cindy McCain’s confessed drug addiction and theft? Do you think they’ll call attention to the fact that she and Mac were doing the nasty while he as still married to his first wife? If he was a Democrat they would. Those things would be daily talkers on the radio shows. Since he’s a Republican, we’ll hear nothing about it.
Not really. They endorsed him as the nominee. They aren’t editorially hostile to him. That’s the point that matters.
Nope. But it was vilified by the left as well - I think there were a lot of charges being made against the government there, but they tended to come from the political fringe on either side.
Among more mainstream people, there was criticism plenty, but it was a bit more restrained. And let’s be clear - I think no matter who you are, there are aspects of that operation fit to criticize.
After all, it isn’t a great operation when so many people, including women and children, wind up dead.
He’s talking about the ATF at Waco. I certainly recall some demonization of them during that episode.
Which war are we talking about, again?
I don’t remember anything from the left. The “jack-booted thugs” quote came fromm the president of the NRA. Is the NRA on the political fringe?
What can they do if a bunch of religious nuts decide to murder their own children and commit suicide? The one thing they could have done was listen to the advice of cult experts who were warning them that the BD’s would suicide if they didn’t back off a little bit – that they were unwittingly feeding into and confirming their endtimes delusions by surrounding the compound. They could have made a better decision (it’s hard to get law enforcement types to back down from an armed stand-off. They’re not wired that way, especially when some of their comrades are already down), but ultimately, the BD’s chose to end their own lives. That was no loss to humanity in itself, it was just too bad they decided to take their children with them.
The fact remains that these people who were doing their jobs (and who were probably law and order Republicans, for the most part) were villified as monstrous, murderous thugs out to oppress religious freedom. There are people even now who I would not call politically fringe-y who still buy into the mythology that the Branch Davidians were a bunch of innocent victims of faceless, government stormtroopers led by the demonic, Christian hating Janet Reno and who think the Davidians were heros for shooting at them and who think that those agents deserved to die.
Here’s one data point about “the media”. I watched NBC news last night, and they had two stories about the campaign as their lead:
-
Pride-gate from Ms. Obama, which they spent maybe 30-60 seconds on.
-
Lobbyist/Affair-gate from Senator McCain, which they spent maybe 3 minutes on.
Seems like McCain isn’t getting any special treatment, at least not by that new outlet.
The McCain thing was new, though, “Pridegate” was already (literally) yesterday’s news.
Also, McCain is an actual candidate, not a candidate’s spouse, and his story contains at least some implication of public impropriety (not the sex, the the letter). There obviously needs to be more to call it a scandal, but I think three minutes is about right.
The tone from all the shows I saw last night was pretty skeptical and measured, by the way, even from the “liberal” MSNBC. The opinion show hosts are not trumpeting this as particularly credible yet. I was actually glad to see that they didn’t just take the bait and run with it.
Actually, Mr. LaPierre has never been the president of the NRA. He has served for a while as its executive vice president and CEO.
It is also true that he apologized for this statement, and on another occasion where his rhetoric got a bit overheated, he was publicly taken to the woodshed by the NRAs elected president, Charlton Heston.
I won’t defend what he said - indeed, he won’t either. But we should at least get our facts straight here.
Directly from
to
You ever sprain anything flip-flopping like that?
This is, of course, in direct contradiction to the facts. See Bush National Guard documents, forgery of.
As opposed to the way they are lapping up the remarks from the Obama remark that triggered this thread? I don’t think so.
They already have. Read a fucking newspaper once in a while, m’kay?
No, the point that matters is that you are wrong on the facts.
Regards,
Shodan
I fail to see a flip flop. One case has no beraing on the other.
Cite that the media forged the documents? Cite that they were forged at all? That’s never actually been proven, you know.
That turned out to be pretty convenient for Bush anyway since it basically distracted attention away from the fact that every allegation about Bush was true.
The Fox News morons and the radio screamers sure are talking about it. The right wing media has never shown the slightest sense of hesitation or caution or perspective about something like this.
I haven’t seen it. Cite?
Only on a pedantic technicality and harping on it just evades the actual point that the NYT has been editorially friendly to McCain, which takes all the air out the suggestion that the story is politically motivated.
Given the reaction to her remark, I don’t blame her for not being proud of America.
Well I cetainly got the impression that fear of heavy-handed gun confiscation by the government was very widespread on the right.
His religion is irrelevant.
I think Michelle will make a perfect first lady. They’ll make a lovely first family…
That comment actually hurt Obama’s campaign a lot in the group of people already predisposed not to like him. It just reaffirmed in some people’s minds that we are electing a radical leftist black nationalist.
That and her comments about how he’s going to ‘fix our souls’, has disquieted many people.
Only if you’re deaf.
It didn’t hurt him with those people because they already hated him anyway. Not one person on earth was sincerely offended by what Michelle Obama said, there are just a few people hoping they might be able to perusade morons that it meant anything.