When a presidential campaign gets caught lying, it should be news
We talked yesterday about the new ad from the McCain campaign, which marked a new, dishonorable low in an already-embarrassing presidential campaign. The 30-second spot features one deceptive claim after another.
Reporters no doubt realize that the scurrilous ad is a work of fiction, but as Greg Sargent noted today, news outlets are simply unwilling to pass this information along to the public.
CNN has a piece here, The New York Times has one here, The Washington Post has write-ups here and here, and the Associated Press has one here.
The stories did dutifully note the Obama camp’s push-back against the ad. But not a single one of these reports told you that the ad is false.
McCain’s ad makes a stark assertion about the reason the trip was canceled: “Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.”
But there is no evidence whatsoever supporting this assertion. It’s false. That isn’t the reason the trip was canceled. Shouldn’t that be explicitly noted in stories about this?
Of course it should. It’s fine that the reporters sought out comment from the Obama campaign, but that’s the bare minimum. It creates a typical he-said/he-said story that pretends there are no objective truths at issue here. McCain launches an attack; Obama says the attack is false. Maybe reporters could help cut through the rhetoric and let voters know the truth?
Well, they could, except the truth has a liberal bias.
In case you missed it, here, once again, is the ad:
“Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan,” the ad’s announcer says. “He hadn’t been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops. And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras. John McCain is always there for our troops. McCain: Country first.” It concludes with the candidate’s voice: “I’m John McCain and I approve this message.”
There are eight sentences in this campaign commercial, and the only honest one was McCain approving of this message.
The claim about Senate hearings is wildly misleading. The attack about voting against funding the troops is ridiculous. The argument about Obama not spending time in Iraq is disingenuous. The notion that Obama would rather go to the gym than visit wounded troops is insane. The claim that Obama would only visit troops if he could bring cameras is an inflammatory, transparent lie. The notion that McCain is “always there for our troops” is demonstrably false.
I’m not trying to tell campaign reporters how to do their job. Actually, scratch that. I am trying to tell campaign reporters how to do their job.
The McCain campaign is airing an intentionally deceptive ad, hoping that a) voters won’t know the truth and can be easily misled; and b) the media won’t raise a fuss about the campaign lying to the public.
By refusing to do even the most basic level of fact checking, news outlets are encouraging the McCain campaign to engage in its most cynical and dishonorable tactics.
If the Democrats were to air an ad this deceptive, these same outlets would be all over it.
The media are Republican. Stop being surprised by this simple, obvious fact.
The press is no longer concerned about getting the story right, they are concerned about getting the story RIGHT NOW. They cherry pick the facts rather than letting it all out on the table to give more spin to the story.
Where”s Joe Friday when you need him!
Didn’t you know that they have to be fair and balanced? (When they bother to include the other side’s viewpoint at all.) That means presenting both sides of the story without any further information. They report, you decide–and don’t ask for silly things like the facts to do it with.
what did the media learn from the obama-clinton race? a close race means ratings. so they have to keep this one close, just like sports announcers have to insist one team can come back in a blow out lest people turn the channel and miss the late game commercials.
Steve, of course the media is encouraging this crap. In the USA, we don’t just report the news, we edit and make up the news in order to sensationalize it. (Thanks to Murdoch, you prick.)
This is why we’re better served by PBS and foreign news outlets, and the likes of your political blog.
The mainstream news is becoming ridiculous. Just look how Tom Brokaw shamed himself in the last two weeks. It’s sad watching him tank his personal legacy. How ironic, too… an elderly public figure of historic distinction, looking like a fool in their twilight years.
So here’s the question: Obama has tons of dough – why isn’t he launching his own attack ads? Why is he hanging back here? Is his campaign expecting McCain to run out of money or bullets? That’s not going to happen.
In this upcoming election, we have a choice between a young, charismatic, rational, thinking candidate OR… an elderly public figure of historic distinction, looking like a fool in their twilight years.
Thank you JC.
The media is desparate to make this a close race. There are billions of dollars of political ad revenue at stake. So, they don’t care whether the ads are true or false — as long as the checks don’t bounce.
Well, as I was watching the next this morning, they noted a Fox study (so take that into account) in which 60 percent of people thought the media was biased toward Obama.
This means:
1. The media is doing a perfect job of covering up McCain’s ignorance and flat-out lies on … well, pretty much everything;
2. They will double their efforts to do so in order to counteract this poll;
3. The American public doesn’t know the difference between coverage and bias, since while the media may cover Obama more (sorry, but going to Israel is a bit more newsworthy than getting a footlong all-beef Vienna at some sausage house), more than 70 percent of stories about Obama are negative.
At this point, I’m convinced that if Obama actually wins in November, it will be a freakin’ miracle. The media’s burying of McCain’s stupidity and cluelessness … the rightwing screechers blasting out countless emails … and the closet racists we all know are out there … all are some damn tough hurdles to clear over and over again.
Speaking of media giving voice to conservative propaganda, it seems this guy who shot up the church in Tennessee wrote in a suicide letter that he was motivated by his hatred for liberals. He was out of work, and apparently his unemployment was running out. I wonder where he could have gotten such crazy ideas?
sounds a bit like steve is dishing out his own media bias!
When a presidential campaign gets caught lying, it should be news
That would be in a world where the media doesn’t change around the answers in a videotaped interview.
IOW, not here. Not in the CorporateUSA, where news corporations are legally allowed to distort the news, and they are legally required to increase their profits.
Its pretty obvious that the truth hurts.Obama has not attacked because he cant.His fairt tale is almost over , than he can go and hang with Kerry,Kennedy and the rest of the liberal losers.
“Its pretty obvious that the truth hurts.Obama has not attacked because he cant.His fairt tale is almost over , than he can go and hang with Kerry,Kennedy and the rest of the liberal losers.”
Wow – what a devastating attack. Full of information to convince us that’s he a loser. If you’re going to try and attack, at least make an argument. Otherwise you’re just sad.
Looks like someone started the day by downing a full pot of stupid:
Can we get a wingnut to English translation, please? Anyone?
Let me tell you how effective the news is. There is a 1:13 minute video of Obama stumbling over his words. Read the comments on that video.
http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=omHUsRTYFAU
(video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omHUsRTYFAU )
This shows you how effective the Foxification of the news is. Read those comments and you’ll see how many right wing talking points there are.
Did you ever notice that trolls usually move around in pairs?
I wonder if that’s in the manual. Usually, they play off of each other.
Just an observation.
Did you ever notice that trolls usually move around in pairs?
One could be a sock puppet of the other. Or maybe the McCain hires them as a team.
And to follow up, every progressive site has trolls. But what is a troll?
Usually, a troll is considered someone who comes in and disrupts the discussion. One of the things I think we forget about is that often, trolls are people who are pressing propaganda.
Fox is propaganda (as McClellen stated in no uncertain terms). The Pentagon used propaganda to get its positive messages of war out there. Blogs are the new media.
Trolls are not only people with individual points of view. While some are, others are here to spread propaganda (I venture to guess that those are usually the ones you tolerate – they’re a little more refined at the art).
/end opinion
With your cherry picking of items it looks like you should go work for moveon.org or the Obama campaign. The Pentagon DID SAY HE COULD GO WITH ONLY MILITARY PHOTOGRAPHERS NO MEDIA OR CAMPAIGN STAFF. Linking to an article that doesn’t mention this FACT shows your bias; nice try though. And your support for not going to Iraq by linking to some 1-2 paragraph story that doesn’t bring up the point Obama hadn’t been there in almost 2 years is disigenuous also.
If you want to say the McCain add makes some dubious statements thats fine but trying to say they are all lies and linking to dubious sources for your justification just makes your credibility go in the tank for Obama.
OMG, a politician… lying? Who knew?! Quit kidding yourself that [insert your choice of candidate here] isn’t lying through his teeth all the time. Whoever you support, he’s not any better or any different than the other guy. He’s not. Really. Seriously. The entire political-philosophical culture of the country is corrupt to the core, on both sides of the aisle.
The media aren’t biased (as evidenced by the fact that the right thinks they’re biased left, and the left thinks they’re biased right), they’re just plain incompetent. “Objective truth”? What the hell is that, brother? Both the left and the right have spent decades denying that there’s any such thing. Modern journalism schools certainly deny there’s any such thing – all reporting is fraught with bias, from the sources, and of course the reporter themselves. It’s not their job to tell the truth, it’s their job to “create a narrative”. And still pundits like you are surprised by this? I laugh.
In this election, you have a choice between one socialist-bordering-on-communist pinhead (who happens to be pretty and likable) and another socialist-bordering-on-fascist pinhead (who happens to be old and irascible). They’re both idiots, and all the left and right can do is snipe at each other over their preference of idiot (while lying to themselves and each other that somehow their idiot isn’t like all the idiots who have come before…). About the only good thing that can be said about it is that at least there isn’t a blatantly obvious theocrat-wannabe this time. And don’t even get me started about the serious whack-jobs like Ron Paul and Bob Barr and Ralph Nader…
Good luck folks, you’re going to need it. Plus c’est change, plus c’est la meme chose.
Oops couple typos in my last post. If anyone posting on this site has taken college writing courses you can judge the bias for yourself. Here’s a couple of basic hints:
1. The headline, first paragraph and last paragraph are what matters in a story. That is what will stick in the readers mind the rest is supporting filler. Notice the difference in tact on these key paragraphs when it comes to the different candidates.
2. Use and placement of nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs is not accidental. Connotation is a major component of injecting bias into articles. Negative connotation like shifting, flip flop, etc versus more positive connotation like changing, evolving etc have the same basic meanings but the connotation is key. Look at this at the different candidates in combination with the strategic first and last paragraphs.
I bet the “negative coverage” is based strictly on the story subject and doesn’t take into account the spin on the story. Make up your own mind but I’ve noticed many of the “negative” articles on Obama try to justify, explain, cover up etc. his actions or words so although the article is “negative” the bias is “positive.” Thats where it matters.
In my morning sampling of CNN and MSNBC, I saw CNN do this: show the ad, show McCain’s explanation of the charge on “This Week,” then follow up with a McCain spokesman’s explanation. Thus, all angles were covered. On MSNBC, Joey Scar tried gamely to sink his hooks in Obama with this thing, along with Pat Buchanon, undettered by facts offered by, among others, Andrea Mitchell’s reporting. Then, Obama’s veep comments on “Meet the Press” were played, leading Chuck Todd to conclude that a choice of Joe Biden at this point would be a monumental flip-flop for Obama. Now that’s perspective.
(…he said, dryly…)
I would expect more media outlets to be actually grilling Obama now. They have been called out on their favoritism and now need to actually appear more objective. A lot of independants/moderates have stated seeing pretty blatent media bias.
The left and right of course have their own bias when judging media bias but some of the criteria I mention above in business writing are ways to try to objectively judge bias without resorting to your personal intuitions or opinions to made the judgement call.
Which proves you have no clue about what journalism is supposed to do.
Having been it J-school (admittedly quite a long time ago), I can assure there was a time when truth was stressed as the most important thing — not stenography, not “narrative.” But truth.
For example, blaming Obama for high gas prices (as one ad in rotation suggests) is not truth. It’s a lie, and can be proven so by objective facts.
It’s not that hard to check claims made by candidates — especially not with the Internet — and tell people which claims are untrue. Our media, however, has decided doing that work is … well, work, and it’s much easier to get a quote from one side, then one from the other, publish it, and call it a day.
But that’s not journalism. Never has been, never will be.
You mean they are going to stop slanting nearly 75% of their stories in a negative light when it comes to Obama? You mean CBS will stop editing their interviews with McCain and no longer hide his incompetence? You mean they’ll stop with the “some say … ” bullshit and actually quote someone actually saying it instead?
Sweet!
On the contrary, I know exactly what journalism is supposed to do. I also know that it hasn’t done it in decades, and that students in modern (a word you conveniently omitted to take me to task, while admitting that you really have no clue what goes on in a modern journalism school) journalism students are actively taught to not even try to do.
Yes, blaming Obama for high gas prices is a lie. It is an objective fact that it is a lie. And for every one of those, you can find 100 more. And for every 100 of those, you can find 100 things that Obama has said that are also lies. You won’t hear about them either. Any of them. From either side. It’s not that journalists are lazy, it’s that they have no intention of being objective, even if they consider it remotely possible, which the vast majority of modern journalists do not. The typical modern journalist honestly believes that it is not his job to tell the truth, it’s his job to make the truth, with whatever appropriate spin his employer is paying him for.
There has not existed, and will not likely ever exist, in the near to medium term future, any media outlet that proffers objective “journalism”, by any objective definition of that word. But modern journalists (and pundits) don’t even believe in objective definitions for words. In the post Bill Clinton era, “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is”. You can rant on what journalism should be, but that’s not the reality on the ground today.
Since you have a journalism education, why not become a journalist, since you can obviously see that the field is lacking for competent practitioners. Get a job in the field, and see how long either yout pretense at objectivity, or your paycheck, lasts.
blah, while it is easy to baldly make the false equivalence that “Obama, too, has told 100 lies” it is a little harder to support it. care to provide some evidence of lies Obama has told, much less evidence that they are as numerous or consequential as those told by McCain? and if Republicans are bad, Democrats are just as bad, and nutjobs like Nader, Barr and Paul (three very different types) are all bad, I’m curious just who you think should be leading the country?
Cryos, first of all Steve has never claimed to be an unbiased reporter. This is a political blog. But your suggestion that those judging media bias are themselves biased misses the point: the most recent study showing coverage of Obama is more negative than coverage of McCain was conducted by a Republican. That kind of screws up your premise. And no offense, but you certainly haven’t presented any credentials to suggest why would should take your word over that of a professional researcher. It is easy to yell “bias!” but it seems to me like more of the anti-intellectual dumbing down of America — discount everyone’s credentials, decry the “elites,” and try and make everyone’s opinions equal, even those espoused by angry right-wing nutjobs writing from a computer in their mothers’ basements.
No, I am not going to provide examples. Hit up any right-wing blog site… they’re just as good at finding Obama’s lies as you guys are at finding McCain’s. But of course, you won’t do that, because of your biases, all those right wing sites are just “wingnuts”, and nothing they say is the truth if it says something bad about Obama. Shall we talk about pretenses at objectivity again? The (politically active) populace at large are not the least bit interested in objectivity either, especially if being objective and honest about their own candidate of preference would be an unwelcome shock of cold water. People lie to themselves, and the media are only too happy to help them out with it. Each side has their own media sycophants, both in the mainstream, and the pundits. No one is out there telling the truth, about both sides, and frankly, not many of you, or your ideological opponents on the other side, would really want them to.
The truth of the matter is, if the media were being truly objective, 95%+ of the stories on both candidates would be “negative”. Just look at abysmally low congressional approval ratings… both candidates are excellent representatives of their respective factions in congress, and in the national polity at large. They both advocate (different) policies that if people actually bothered to think about the ultimate consequences of, can be clearly seen to be disasters (to pick two, Obama: Nationalized health care; McCain, continuing the Bush legacy of disastrous foreign policy). Neither faction has any right answers, but they’re more than happy to snipe at the other and tell their opponents how wrong their answers are. None of this gets us anywhere good, and it doesn’t matter which of these morons gets elected in November… the results will be bad for the country, while one faction cheers, and the other laments while offering no real alternatives. Either way. Doesn’t matter.
As for who should be leading the country, there is no one on the horizon I would consider competent for the job, for the same reason I mentioned above… the entire system is corrupt at its philosophical roots. There is the old saying that “you get exactly the politics you deserve”, and that’s certainly true at the moment. The entire mindset of politically active America is flawed at the root, and politicians of all stripes are merely reflections of that. Were the Founding Fathers alive today to see this, they’d be appalled at what’s become of what they tried to create. But you can’t change the politics without more fundamental change in the culture first, so I have no recommendations.
blah blah blah
speaking of untruths. . . it is verifiably, objectively false that Obama supports “nationalized health care.” Indeed the only Democratic candidate who even came close was Kucinich.
spin spin spin. Keep lying to yourselves. Evasion is easy. Honesty is not. 🙂 Don’t worry though, your opponents are just as good at it as you are, and if it’s any consolation, you’re likely to be the ones cheering come November, while the right laments without alternatives. Enjoy your fiddling whilst Rome burns.
I’m done here.
[/troll]
What a shame that we are finally finding out the media isn’t “liberal” after all. They haven’t been for years. McCain is a whiny, OLD white man who hasn’t had an original thought in decades. He keeps looking to the past. I thing it’s time to look toward the future. The media has had mcCain as a sweetheart for years…they love a Mavrick and he hasn’t had to justify or be honest and now he’s lying in ads and whining. Thank God we have a new face with a thoughtful, sincere candidate for our highest office. I think he is right to look foward with hope. Our once great nation can be so again. GO OBAMA, WE CAN DO IT.
My lord … the “both sides are horrible,” holier-than-thou, so-above-the-fray arrogance of blah is quite stunning.
Dude must be David Broder’s retarded son.
Group hug – everyone.
Zeitgeist notice I provided some criteria for making judgements and said make up your own mind. You conveniently missed that in my post.
“None of this gets us anywhere good, and it doesn’t matter which of these morons gets elected in November… the results will be bad for the country, while one faction cheers, and the other laments while offering no real alternatives. Either way. Doesn’t matter.”
That’s your contribution? That’s all you have to offer? If that’s really your core point of view, what on earth brought you to post on a political blog? Why bother reading about politics in the first place, let alone actually bothering to post? If you’re right, then you’re the only one here who actually understands just how futile this kind of conversation is…
::shakes head in wonder and confusion::
Can’t handle the truth? Hurts don’t it?
Did you ever notice that trolls usually move around in pairs? — Ms Joanne, @17
In threes, actually. In that, they follow the old (commie-times) Polish “prescription” of police patrolling the streets in threes: one can read, one can write and the third is needed because you can’t trust those damned intellectuals.
Though louie, @13, is forgiven *a lot* for his excellent Freudian slip:
His fairt tale […]
which gave me the first belly laugh of the day. Telescoping “fairy” and “fart” into a single word is pure genius. I wonder if Obama’s fairy fart smells any sweeter than McCain’s…
Cyros..think alot of yourself don’t ya. Look…it’s been 29 min. two more and you won’t have to pay for the Domino pizza. They all do it…blah blah blay…they are all guilty….pay no attention to what is obviously left out, not said, or passed over. You pay more attention to definition than application and generalize all points to substantiate ‘A’ point. Like mental masturbation. You foregot this:
“…The “old boy network” of socializing, talking shop, and tapping each other for favors outside the halls of government made it inevitable that the CIA and Corporate America would become allies, thus the systematic infiltration and takeover of the media. (snip)
“…Starting in the early days of the Cold War (late 40’s), the CIA began a secret project called Operation Mockingbird, with the intent of buying influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and putting reporters on the CIA payroll, which has proven to be a stunning ongoing success. The CIA effort to recruit American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda, was headed up by Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, and Philip Graham (publisher of The Washington Post). Wisner had taken Graham under his wing to direct the program code-named Operation Mockingbird and both have presumably committed suicide.
Media assets will eventually include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International (UPI), Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service, etc. and 400 journalists, who have secretly carried out assignments according to documents on file at CIA headquarters, from intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens. The CIA had infiltrated the nation’s businesses, media, and universities with tens of thousands of on-call operatives by the 1950’s. CIA Director Dulles had staffed the CIA almost exclusively with Ivy League graduates, especially from Yale with figures like George Herbert Walker Bush from the “Skull and Crossbones” Society. (snip)…
Major networks are primarily controlled by giant corporations that are obligated by law, to put the profits of their investors ahead of all other considerations which are often in conflict with the practice of responsible journalism…Mockingbird was an immense financial undertaking with funds flowing from the CIA largely through the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) founded by Tom Braden with Pat Buchanon of CNN’s Crossfire….(snip)
Many Americans still insist or persist in believing that we have a free press, while getting most of their news from state-controlled television, under the misconception that reporters are meant to serve the public. Reporters are paid employees and serve the media owners, who usually cower when challenged by advertisers or major government figures….”
Schools of Journalism may throw out definitions of what journalism is and how it should be done…but this is the reality of it’s applications..unified and directed. The fodder of Obama does it too etc…one only has to look at what is mentioned and what is the motivation. McCain has a vileness of character and lacks integrity which glows from his stunning personality which even the media’s omissions cannot hide. Even with the sound down…McCain is wrong on everything. The only way to not know is to not want to know.
Lol Joey I think highly of myself? I merely provide information that I think helps people make up their own mind and state my opinion. However you with your big tin foil hat and biased, our of left field opinions tell us how dumb we are. Classic modern liberal.
biased, out* of left field opinions
Lmao Joey. Wow you can plagarize and copy and paste off other sites; wow you are right dumb people like me are just so uninformed. Better thicken that tin foil hat.
http://community.freespeech.org/cia_media_project_operation_mockingbird_is_government_propaganda
Actually, you haven’t provided any actual “information” (e.g. a link or attribution to information) — all you’ve done is offer your opinion. Which is perfectly fine — that’s kinda what this place is for, after all.
So don’t sit there and act like you’re just passing along info in some attempt to educate anyone or provide facts for discussion. All you’ve done is offer your opinion (again, perfectly fine) and acted as if it’s iron-clad proof. It’s not.
Well Mark D if you don’t see my post as having any information you haven’t taken a college writing course (or listened in high school since these are basic components of writing) so what is the point in trying to prove anything.
I provided a couple of criteria that are basic to any business writing but apparently that is too complicated for people on this thread. Sad. We wonder why the US is falling behind in academics lol.
So I guess providing numbered points that are largely information and relating them to bias isn’t good enough for modern liberals.
I guess I have to go OMG Obama is so great great vote for him not old McBush.
Oh well I’m sure some sane minded people have read this thread and recognize some of the basic principles of business writing and journalism. Any die hard idealist won’t change their opinion regardless of fact (this applies to the left and right) so it doesnt really matter what they think or state.
Nope. Never took one. Just earned those pair of English degree by osmosis.
No, what you provided was a seventh grade English lesson that everyone else here (even blah, perhaps) finished years ago. You then tried to act as if that magically disproves the study to which I linked—the one done by a Republican who I’m guessing has also finished the aforementioned lesson. So to think he didn’t take that into account is ludicrous. (I will note that the sample size is definitely a point of contention, but not so much the methodology.)
What you sound like is some college kid who just took “Writing for Business” at some junior college and now wants to act smart. And since this is an open forum, you’re free to do so if you think it helps makes your case.
It doesn’t, but whatever.
If you do want to help your case, then go through the study and show where the info is wrong. If you don’t like the links, explain why and then offer your own. If you think the media just loves them some Obama, yet hates them some McCain, show us why.
You have to remember the onus is on you, not us. Otherwise, it’s either your opinion, or so basic as to be irrelevant.
Oh, and as a professional writer for more than a decade (and who has been featured in more publications than you’ve had girlfriends), I can tell you that proof reading is essential … especially when trying to insult others for their lack of linguistic command. Having typos when doing so just makes you look like a flaming fucktard.
Lmao MarK. This is a blog get a life. I don’t care about typos in a blog as I have better things to do although I’m sure you impressed yourself. I’m pointing out some basics things for the retard modern liberals like you who base your views off of idealist eutopia and MSM and not at all on common sense. Here is the extent to which the study says it evaluates statements.
“The center reviews and “codes” statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama “has problems” with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative.
The positive and negative remarks about each candidate are then totaled to calculate the percentages that cut for and against them.”
Wow that is really illuminating. That link doesn’t list anything more than that for evaluating the criteria. That doesn’t give too much of a basis to contradict it. And this is ONE study but I guess one study showing “facts” supporting your empty suit is enough for a modern liberal.
“Oh, and as a professional writer for more than a decade (and who has been featured in more publications than you’ve had girlfriends), ”
I seriously doubt this and if so it shows that any moron can be published. With your great abilities and talent why don’t you link to some of your “publications” or say who you really are? That’s ok you can be the cool anonymous guy on a blog unfortunately for you that’s the only place you are. Your “flaming fucktard” comment shows you are in college or high school yourself or you need to grow up and stop stalking high school girls. Fortunately the blind eutopians like you are still in the minority and you won’t convince enough intelligent people to vote for your pathetic empty suit.
Btw Mark you’re the one who said iron-clad proof by the way. I never tried to act like I was offering any proof. My take is let people make their own decisions not be a liberal nazi like you to try to tell everyone what to think, speak and do because you have some warped sense of reality on “how the world should be.” You’re the one lecturing above about how journalism should be about truth but judging by your behavior on this blog I bet if you are really a journalist/writer your work is just as biased as the worst coming out of Fox or MSNBC. That’s ok. All the idealist eutopians like you will be crying on November 5th.
Oh one more quick note. I’m 10 years out of college so sorry to burst your bubble about people you don’t like living in their mom’s basements. It’s also pretty amusing if you are a writer/journalist that the replies on this blog are the best you can come up with when this is your field. You must be really talented and in high demand 😉
Congratulations on Goodwining yourself! You have successfully proven my point.
Too bad you lack the self awareness to realize it.
Oh how trendy to use goodwining; how clever. I bet your fellow out of work journalists will love it. I bet you’re glad for the 13 week unemployment extension. It’s amusing watching the academic english majors and professors who think they’re smarter than everyone adopt a faith based religion like idealist eutopia and blind themselves from logic, reason and truth.
“At this point, I’m convinced that if Obama actually wins in November, it will be a freakin’ miracle. The media’s burying of McCain’s stupidity and cluelessness … the rightwing screechers blasting out countless emails … and the closet racists we all know are out there … all are some damn tough hurdles to clear over and over again.”
Lol already making excuses why your empty suit will lose. I suppose it will be because of the big republican smear machine again even though the democrats spend more money almost every election cycle 🙂
The media is Republican? What an idiotic statement – the media is clearly liberal and slanted. If and when the facts surface on both candidates – McCain wins. The Dems will have to give a lot of free cookies away to voters to get them to vote for an amateur – not a bad guy, just not nearly experienced enough.