Originally Posted By planodisney On Morning joe today, Chuck todd talked about a study just released, showing the Obama campaign has been more negative than the McCain campaign since the conventions. He then talked about a new add put out in hispanic markets intened to sway spanish speaking, un-informed voters by linking McCain to limbaugh on the immigration issue. The add takes Limbaughs comments out of contest and ties McCain to them. Todd talked about the fact that Limbaugh and McCain couldnt be farther apart on the imigration issue and that the add was dishonest. I bet we wont see stories all day long today about obama going negative and about this latest add. It is so hard for the Republican ticket to break through. The media keeps pushing whatever line the obama camp pushes forward.
Originally Posted By planodisney Could I have made more mistakes in that post? Man I wish we had an edit button.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It is so hard for the Republican ticket to break through.<< Good grief, you can't be serious. We've got Sarah Palin Watch 24/7 (if she sees her shadow, six more weeks of winter!). The Maverick wanted attention and he got it. Now that at last some of that attention is starting to unearth how dreadful a pick Sarah Palin really is, the post convention bounce becomes a dribble, we're back to "Darn that mainstream media!" More of McSame. Hell, there is a Republican in the White House. He can call a press conference anytime he'd like. How hard should it be for them to get attention? Oh, yeah. They're trying to distance themselves from that guy. Wonder why?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 ^^^^^^^^^^ same reason the Dems did it re:Clinton last election - he's a lame duck President - it just makes sense..not really hard to figure out
Originally Posted By planodisney Any comment on the topic, or just here to tote the democratic line? Palin was a very good pick, and I believe it will show in the end. She must do well in the debates. If she doesnt, then it will have been a poor choice. Also, she has undergone an all out attack from surrogates with a willing assist from the media the likes of which i haven't seen. It is a testament to her that she is still politically alive. I love the Mcsame comment. are you sure you wouldnt be more comfortable on the dailyKoss or huffington Post/ they will keep feeding your biased without facts getting in the way.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>same reason the Dems did it re:Clinton last election - he's a lame duck President - it just makes sense..not really hard to figure out<< Sorry vb, this explanation doesn't cut it and once more, the whole "they're all the same" thing doesn't fly. There's a huge, HUGE difference between "Clinton fatigue" - which probably occurred in part over the non-stop coverage of Monica Lewenski and the bogus impeachment trial - and the "Bush is the worst president EVER" attitude that's more and more prevalent. And plenty of people argue that one of Gore's key mistakes was not using Clinton more. He left office with a decent approval rating, after all. Bush? Not so much...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Any comment on the topic, or just here to tote the democratic line?<< I spoke directly to what you said in post 1. If you want to believe that the Republicans can't get a break, well, I can't help you. And after the appalling "sex ed to kindergarteners" and similar ads McCain "approved of", please spare me talk about how that darn Obama is now too negative.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Any comment on the topic, or just here to tote the democratic line?<< I think 2oony summed up the attitude quite well, actually. Whenever Republicans get good press coverage, like they did for about a week with Palin, it's because she's a great pick and the whole universe is in love with her. As soon as we dig a little deeper and find the man behind the curtain, then it's back to the conservative stand-by: blame the media. So now we're in a situation where the McCain camp used, with a straight face, mind you, the word "deferential" in referring to how Palin ought to be treated. She answered her first impromptu question *yesterday*. So it's pretty rich of the McCain camp and other Republicans to whine about attention. Further, do we really want to get into negative ads? There's a huge difference between quantity and substance. Obama may very well have more negative ads in the sense that he's critical of McCain. He does have more money and may be able to run more ads. But none of the ads have been universally criticized or reviled, like the sex-ed ad. In short, it seems like McCain feels nothing if he attempts to inflict great damage on someone, but then screams bloody murder if someone so much as steps on his toes. >>Palin was a very good pick, and I believe it will show in the end.<< More truthiness from the GOP. "I believe it, so it must be true!" Unfortunately, all evidence points to her being a disastrous pick. She turns off moderates, as recent polls have shown, the digger we deep, ,the more we find. She seems to have no problem openly and repeatedly lying about earmarks, the Bridge to Nowhere, and troopergate. It's so funny how willingly conservatives circle the wagons. Palin was a horrible pick. They want to win the election, right? So they, of all people, should be the ones most upset over her. And some more honest, old school conservatives are. There were multiple commentaries in op-ed columns this weekend from more traditional conservatives (read: not neo-con Jesus freaks) that blasted the Palin pick. But apparently in McSame's world, VPs are only for winning elections, not actually governing anything.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 A lameduck president usually goes out with some of their lowest approval ratings - so they are almost never used in the next campaign - I'm sorry but the days ofbeing able to beat up Bush to attack anything that even resembles a GOP candidate are almost over . The Dem party will have to become more creative - the easy target has nothing to do with where we go after Jan 1...and really can accomplish little now with Congress being Dem controlled... the decision makes perfect sense - and is a lot more like every parties decision to do the same as long as I can remember than you likely would like to admit. What are the Dem pundits going to do when he leaves office - geez. And for what it's worth it's really no different than those on the other side of the fence that ripped on Clinton for every single thing he did the last few years of his admin - or do you forget that ? He was pretty much blamed for everything also - wasn't that long ago to forget.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm sorry but the days ofbeing able to beat up Bush to attack anything that even resembles a GOP candidate are almost over .<< I'm sorry, but they are not. Mr. Bush will leave office with any number of messes that we'll be dealing with for years to come. The New Mavericks running for office want us to just forget, there there, it will be all over soon. Hell, people on these boards yelp "Clinton did it!!!!" with such regularity I can set my watch by it. I agree, vbdad, that blaming the other guy does have a stale date, but we are no where near that with this president.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 and to be clear Palin was not my choice - it was Lieberman....in my world that was the correct choice. Almost a polar opposite from what was chosen, and I'm not happy about it. But I have to admit, while I surely wouldn't put myself in the Palin supporter camp - I find it hysterical that Obama supporters - who had the press all to themselves with Obamapalooza, are upset over the coverage she is getting.... sucks when the press only covers one person doesn't it? Even Babs $30,000 / head shindig for those 'common man' Democrats didn't get the coverage she wanted - someone needs to tell her she's not relevant any more -- IfSarahPalin would have had a hunting trip on the weekend,the press would have been all over that instead of the Hollywood to do -- which I find disturbing on many levels - but hysterical on others.. having their hand bit by the same papporazzi that makes them....
Originally Posted By planodisney How did they get good press coverage with palin? Tehy didn't. At all!!! The media savaged her for 10 days. She got alot of coverage, but not good. republicans have to break through the media bias, whil democrats usually have the wind at their backs. Anyone who can't at least admit a significant liberal media bias, IMO, has no credibility when talking other issues. It proves you can't be politically honest.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But I have to admit, while I surely wouldn't put myself in the Palin supporter camp - I find it hysterical that Obama supporters - who had the press all to themselves with Obamapalooza, are upset over the coverage she is getting....<< I'm not remotely upset about the coverage she gets. I wholeheartedly encourage it, because the more press she gets, the lower her numbers go. Conversely, when people learn about Obama and the fact he's not a Muslim terrorist, they actually like the guy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>and to be clear Palin was not my choice - it was Lieberman....in my world that was the correct choice. Almost a polar opposite from what was chosen, and I'm not happy about it.<< I agree with you 100%. Lieberman is the "Country First" pick -- Palin is the "Maybe I Can Trick Women While Placating The Religious Right" pick. And I'll let the "polar" pun go with only a warning .... this time. ; )
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy << Anyone who can't at least admit a significant liberal media bias >> I've always admitted a media bias -- biased towards the facts. FACT: Palin has no business to be VP. That the media picked up on this so quickly, has nothing to do with liberal or conservating. If you want make-believe news, not based on fact, watch Fox News.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<and to be clear Palin was not my choice - it was Lieberman....in my world that was the correct choice. Almost a polar opposite from what was chosen, and I'm not happy about it.>> There is no way in heck McCain could have won with Lieberman. The base would have deserted him in droves and there really aren't enough centrist Republicans/and or Democrats like you and me to get him elected. My choice (of course) would have been Pawlenty, who I think is far and away the best and brightest conservative out there. But I still don't know that he could have brought in the people that the hot little pit bull has. Although with Pawlenty the numbers would have grown steadily and you would not have seen the bounce we may see with Palin.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The base would have deserted him in droves<< I doubt it. They would have held their noses but voted for him just the same.
